A simple model to estimate survival after retransplantation of the liver

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Insights from the latest UNOS database

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

The Evolution of Redo Liver Transplantation Over 35 Years: Analysis of 654 Consecutive Adult Liver Retransplants at a Single Center

OBJECTIVE

To examine liver retransplantation (ReLT) over 35 years at a single center.

BACKGROUND

Despite the durability of liver transplantation (LT), graft failure affects up to 40% of LT recipients.

METHODS

All adult ReLTs from 1984 to 2021 were analyzed. Comparisons were made between ReLTs in the pre versus post-model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) eras and between ReLTs and primary-LTs in the modern era. Multivariate analysis was used for prognostic modeling.

RESULTS

Six hundred fifty-four ReLTs were performed in 590 recipients. There were 372 pre-MELD ReLTs and 282 post-MELD ReLTs. Of the ReLT recipients, 89% had one previous LT, whereas 11% had ≥2. Primary nonfunction was the most common indication in the pre-MELD era (33%) versus recurrent disease (24%) in the post-MELD era. Post-MELD ReLT recipients were older (53 vs 48, P = 0.001), had higher MELD scores (35 vs 31, P = 0.01), and had more comorbidities. However, post-MELD ReLT patients had superior 1, 5, and 10-year survival compared with pre-MELD ReLT (75%, 60%, and 43% vs 53%, 43%, and 35%, respectively, P < 0.001) and lower in-hospital mortality and rejection rates. Notably, in the post-MELD era, the MELD score did not affect survival. We identified the following risk factors for early mortality (≤12 months after ReLT): coronary artery disease, obesity, ventilatory support, older recipient age, and longer pre-ReLT hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This represents the largest single-center ReLT report to date. Despite the increased acuity and complexity of ReLT patients, post-MELD era outcomes have improved. With careful patient selection, these results support the efficacy and survival benefit of ReLT in an acuity-based allocation environment.

Modern Outcomes After Liver Retransplantation: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor.

METHODS

To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BACKGROUND

Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.

METHOD

We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.

RESULTS

A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Deceased Donor Predictors for Pediatric Liver Allograft Utilization

BACKGROUND

The number of pediatric deceased organ donors has recently declined, and the nonutilization of pediatric liver allografts has limited the development of liver transplantation. We determined the utilization rate of pediatric livers and identified risk factors for graft discard.

METHODS

We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2012. The trends of pediatric liver donors and utilization rates were analyzed. Donor risk factors that impacted the graft use of pediatric livers were measured. Logistic regression modelling was performed to evaluate graft utilization and risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 11,934 eligible pediatric liver donors were identified during this period. A total of 1191 authorized liver grafts did not recover or recovered without transplantation. Factors including pediatric donors >1 year of age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.956, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.494-3.503, P < .001), nonhead trauma (OR = 2.243, 95% CI 1.903-2.642, P < .001), lack of heartbeat (OR = 7.534, 95% CI 5.899-9.623, P < .001), hepatitis B surface antigen positivity (OR = 4.588, 95% CI 1.021-20.625, P = .047), anti-hepatitis C virus positivity (OR = 4.691, 95% CI 1.352-16.280, P = .015), total bilirubin >1 mg/dL (OR = 1.743, 95% CI 1.469-2.068, P < .001), and blood urea nitrogen >21 mg/dL (OR = 1.941, 95% CI 1.546-2.436, P < .001) were significantly related to graft nonutilization. Steroids or diuretics administered prerecovery were significantly related to graft utilization (OR = 0.684, 95% CI 0.581-0.806, P < .001; OR = 0.744, 95% CI 0.634-0.874, P < .001; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The pediatric liver allograft utilization rate and risk factors for nonutilization of grafts were determined.

Outcomes of liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

Liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has not been well studied. The aims of this study were to characterize patients with PSC listed for and undergoing retransplantation and to describe the outcomes in these patients. The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was used to identify all primary liver transplantations and subsequent relistings and first retransplantations in adults with PSC between 1987 and 2015. A total of 5080 adults underwent primary transplantation for PSC during this period, and of the 1803 who experienced graft failure (GF), 762 were relisted, and 636 underwent retransplantation. Younger patients and patients with GF due to vascular thrombosis or biliary complications were more likely to be relisted, whereas those with Medicaid insurance or GF due to infection were less likely. Both 5-year graft and patient survival after retransplantation were inferior to primary transplantation (P < 0.001). Five-year survival after retransplantation for disease recurrence (REC), however, was similar to primary transplantation (graft survival, P = 0.45; patient survival, P = 0.09) and superior to other indications for retransplantation (graft and patient survival, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, mechanical ventilation, creatinine, bilirubin, albumin, advanced donor age, and a living donor were associated with poorer outcomes after retransplantation. In conclusion, although survival after liver retransplantation in patients with PSC was overall inferior to primary transplantation, outcomes after retransplantation for PSC REC were similar to primary transplantation at 5 years. Retransplantation may therefore represent a treatment option with the potential for excellent outcomes in patients with REC of PSC in the appropriate clinical circumstances. Liver Transplantation 23 769-780 2017 AASLD.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

Optimizing repeat liver transplant graft utility through strategic matching of donor and recipient characteristics

Repeat liver transplantation (LT) is controversial because of inferior outcomes versus primary LT. A minimum 1-year expected post-re-LT survival of 50% has been proposed. We aimed to identify combinations of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), donor risk index (DRI), and recipient characteristics achieving this graft survival threshold. We identified re-LT recipients listed in the United States from March 2002 to January 2010 with > 90 days between primary LT and listing for re-LT. Using Cox regression, we estimated the expected probability of 1-year graft survival and identified combinations of MELD, DRI, and recipient characteristics attaining >50% expected 1-year graft survival. Re-LT recipients (n = 1418) had a median MELD of 26 and median age of 52 years. Expected 1-year graft survival exceeded 50% regardless of MELD or DRI in Caucasian recipients who were not infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) of all ages and Caucasian HCV-infected recipients <50 years old. As age increased in HCV-infected Caucasian and non-HCV-infected African American recipients, lower MELD scores or lower DRI grafts were needed to attain the graft survival threshold. As MELD scores increased in HCV-infected African American recipients, lower-DRI livers were required to achieve the graft survival threshold. Use of high-DRI livers (>1.44) in HCV-infected recipients with a MELD score > 26 at re-LT failed to achieve the graft survival threshold with recipient age ≥ 60 years (any race), as well as at age ≥ 50 years for Caucasians and at age < 50 years for African Americans. Strategic donor selection can achieve >50% expected 1-year graft survival even in high-risk re-LT recipients (HCV infected, older age, African American race, high MELD scores). Low-risk transplant recipients (age < 50 years, non-HCV-infected) can achieve the survival threshold with varying DRI and MELD scores.

Management of recurrent hepatitis C virus after liver transplantation

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the leading cause of death from liver disease and the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States and Western Europe. LT represents the best therapeutic alternative for patients with advanced chronic liver disease caused by HCV or those who develop hepatocarcinoma. Reinfection by HCV of the graft is universal and occurs in 95% of transplant patients. This reinfection can compromise graft function and patient survival. In a few cases, the histological recurrence is minimal and non-progressive; however, in most patients it follows a more rapid course than in immunocompetent persons, and frequently evolves into cirrhosis with graft loss. In fact, the five-year and ten-year survival of patients transplanted because of HCV are 75% and 68%, respectively, compared with 85% and 78% in patients transplanted for other reasons. There is also a pattern of recurrence that is very severe, but rare (< 10%), called fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis, which often involves rapid graft loss. Patients who present a negative HCV viremia after antiviral treatment have better survival. Many studies published over recent years have shown that antiviral treatment of post-transplant HCV hepatitis carried out during the late phase is the best option for improving the prognosis of these patients. Until 2011, PEGylated interferon plus ribavirin was the standard of care, resulting in a sustained virological response in around 30% of recipients. The addition of protease inhibitors, such as boceprevir or telaprevir, to the standard of care, or the use of other direct-acting antiviral drugs may involve therapeutic changes in the context of HCV recurrence. This may result a better prognosis for these patients, particularly those with severe recurrence or factors predicting rapid progression of fibrosis. However, the use of these agents in LT still requires clarification in terms of safety and efficacy.

Outcomes of adult liver re-transplant patients in the model for end-stage liver disease era: is it time to reconsider its indications?

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the outcomes and utility of liver re-transplantation in non-hepatitis C patients, we sought to identify predictors that impact post-transplant patient and graft survival comparing primary liver transplant patients to those receiving subsequent allografts.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from February 2002 through December 2012, including non-hepatitis C infected adults (18 yr and older) who underwent primary and repeat liver transplantation. Patient and graft survival were compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate variables associated with both patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

We identified 33 176 primary transplant recipients and 2710 re-transplants. Re-transplantation patients were more likely to be on dialysis prior to transplant (18% vs. 10%), hospitalized (26% vs. 16%), in the intensive care unit (ICU) (34% vs. 13%), on a ventilator (17% vs. 3%), and had higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (27 vs. 21). Re-transplants also received livers with a lower donor risk index (DRI) (1.57 vs. 1.64). We estimated an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 for patient survival (95% CI: 1.56-1.84) and 1.61 (95% CI: 1.5-1.73) for graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver re-transplantation in non-hepatitis C patients, although life saving, has significantly inferior patient and graft survival compared to primary liver transplantation. Higher quality grafts are used inefficiently in a sicker patient population, suggesting that a more optimal strategy may include restricting their use to patients who obtain a longer term benefit.

Hepatic retransplant: what have we learned?

Hepatic retransplant accounts for 5% to 15% of liver transplants in most series and is associated with significantly increased hospital costs and inferior patient survival when compared with primary liver transplant. Early retransplants are usually due to primary graft nonfunction or vascular thrombosis, whereas later retransplants are most commonly necessitated by chronic rejection or recurrent primary liver disease. Hepatic retransplant remains the sole option for survival in many patients facing allograft failure after liver transplant. With improved techniques to match retransplant candidates with appropriate donor grafts, it is hoped that the outcomes of retransplant will continue to improve in future.

Retransplantation of the liver: review of current literature for decision making and technical considerations

Liver transplantation (LTx) is an established treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, and patients with acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary LTx, retransplantation of the liver (reLTx) is the only potential cure. ReLTx accounts for 7%-10% of all LTx in the United States. Early causes of graft failure for which reLTx may be indicated include primary graft nonfunction and vascular inflow thrombosis. ReLTx in such cases in the early postoperative period is usually straightforward as long as an appropriate secondary allograft is secured in a timely fashion. Late indications may include ischemic cholangiopathy, chronic rejection, and recurrence of the primary liver disease. ReLTx performed in the late period is often more complex and selection criteria are more stringent due to the persistent shortage of organs. The question of whether to retransplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C remains controversial, but these practices are likely to change as the epidemic progresses and new treatments evolve. We also present recent results with reLTx from Yale-New Haven Transplant Center and early results with the use of living donors for reLTx.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after early versus late liver retransplantation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

As the survival of patients after liver transplantation (LT) improves, the requirement of liver retransplantation (reLT) for late graft failure has grown. Although some have reported that the short-term outcome of late reLT was comparable with that of early reLT, it remains unknown whether long-term survival of late reLT is inferior to that of early reLT patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed early (<6 mo after primary LT) and late (≥6 mo after primary LT) reLT cases performed between January 2000 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Sixteen early and 32 late reLT cases were analyzed. There was no significant difference regarding the number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplantation between the groups, whereas operative time was significantly longer in the late reLT cases. Graft loss within 3 mo after early and late reLT was 18.6% and 15.6%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates after 1, 3, 5, and 10 y in the late reLT group were 80.6%, 73.3%, 73.3%, and 67.7% and 80.7%, 69.1%, 63.3%, and 54.3%, respectively, whereas those in the early reLT group were 75.0%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 64.3% and 81.3%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival rates between the groups (P = 0.91 and 0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptable short- and long-term survival were provided in early and late reLT. The time between the primary LT and reLT does not seem to play significant role in the prognosis of reLT in the long term.

Short- and long-term outcomes of third liver transplantation at single centre

PURPOSE

Although three or more liver transplantation (LT)s in the same patient arouse not only medical but also ethical issues in the context of organ shortage, it is a fact that additional liver retransplantation (reLT) is the only lifesaving treatment option for those with graft failure after a second LT. However, little is known regarding the risks and benefits associated with a third LT.

METHODS

We analyzed fifteen cases of third LT and 48 of second LT performed between January 2000 and December 2010. Clinical outcomes were compared with those of second LT cases performed during the same period.

RESULTS

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores at transplant was similar between the two groups. As for surgical aspects, there was no significant difference in operative time or number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplant procedures between the groups. Patient and graft survival after the third LT at 1, 3, and 10 years were 66.7, 51.9, and 44.4 %, and 66.7, 51.9, and 29.6 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival between the groups. However, graft loss within 3 months after the third LT was significantly higher than that of second LT patients.

CONCLUSION

Third LT cases showed acceptable short- and long-term outcomes that were not significantly inferior to those of a second LT. Careful patient care especially in the early phase after a third LT may be essential to improve the outcome.

Have we changed the liver retransplantation survival?

INTRODUCTION

Orthotropic liver retransplantation (RT) is the therapeutic option for the failure of an allograft. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to primary liver transplantation (OLT). Because of the limited number of donors, it is essential that we optimize their use. We reviewed 68 consecutive retransplantations to evaluate their results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult RT between 1991 and 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups (urgent vs elective RT) to compare the utility of RT. We also analyzed data collected at the time of RT, including age, gender, indications for primary OLT and RT (hepatitis C virus [HCV]+ and HCV-). At various stages (1991-2000, 2001-2006, and 2007-2010), we calculated probability survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method with comparisons using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Among 771 adult liver transplantations, 68 (8.8%) underwent late secondary OLT. 21 (31%) cases were urgent and 47 elective RT (69%). Vascular complications was the most common cause for urgent RT, and chronic rejection, for elective RT. Differences were also detected in the overall survival of RT patients; mortality was significantly lower among the urgent procedures (15% vs 47.8%). Significantly differences were also detected in overall survival for RT patients between 2007 and 2010 (81.7% with urgent RT and 76.5% with elective situations).

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of RT in elective and emergency situations. Overall survival of elective RT patients has improved in recent years. Liver RT requires a multidisciplinary team to decide the inclusion and prioritization of elective RT cases on the OLT waiting list.

What is the prognosis after retransplantation of the liver?

In patients with failing liver grafts, hepatic retransplantation cannot be abandoned for the ethical and practical reasons that have been detailed previously. The current recommendations involve a strategy for risk stratification of retransplant candidates. The long-term patient and graft survival outcomes after ReLT are excellent and acceptable for the low and intermediate groups, respectively. However, pursuing ReLT in transplant candidates in the high-risk category cannot be recommended. Furthermore, ReLT should be reserved for centers equipped to manage the difficulties of the endeavor because it is a technically demanding operation that requires surgical expertise and excellent anesthesiology and critical care support both before and after transplantation.

A score predicting survival after liver retransplantation for hepatitis C virus cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Approximately one fourth of patients transplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-induced liver failure progress to cirrhosis within 5 years, potentially requiring retransplantation. Although the relisting decision can be difficult in these patients, a score could help in selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 1422 HCV-positive patients having undergone a retransplantation were included in this registry-based study. A multivariate Cox regression was performed, and an Akaike procedure was applied to design a score predicting survival after retransplantation and to allow an internal validation. Retained variables were donor age (DnAge), serum creatinine (Creat), International Normalized Ratio (INR), and serum albumin (Alb) at the second transplantation, recipient age (RecAge) at the first transplantation, and the interval between both transplantations (Int).

RESULTS

The score was designed as 0.23×DnAge+4.86×log Creat-2.45×log Int+2.69×INR+0.10×RecAge-3.27× Alb+40. The receiver operating characteristic area under curve was 0.643 at 3 years, and survivals were 71%, 56%, and 37% for scores <30, 30 to 40, and >40, respectively (log rank <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the proposed score is specifically designed for HCV-positive patients, accurately predicts survival after a liver retransplantation, and is helpful in the selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

Spanish society of liver transplantation (SETH) consensus recommendations on hepatitis C virus and liver transplantation

In November 2010, the Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation (Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático, SETH) held a consensus conference. One of the topics of debate was liver transplantation in patients with hepatitis C. This document reviews (i) the natural history of post-transplant hepatitis C, (ii) factors associated with post-transplant prognosis in patients with hepatitis C, (iii) the role of immunosuppression in the evolution of recurrent hepatitis C and response to antiviral therapy, (iv) antiviral therapy, both before and after transplantation, (v) follow-up of patients with recurrent hepatitis C and (vi) the role of retransplantation.

Pediatric liver retransplantation from living donors can be considered as a therapeutic option for patients with irreversible living donor graft failure

Liver retransplantation (re-LT) is required in patients with irreversible graft failure, but it is a significant issue that remains medically, ethically, and economically controversial, especially in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome, morbidity, mortality, safety and prognostic factors to improve the outcome of pediatric living donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT). Six of 172 children that underwent LDLT between January 2001 and March 2010 received a re-LDLT and one received a second re-LDLT. The overall re-LDLT rate was 3.5%. All candidates had re-LDLT after the initial LDLT. The overall actuarial survival of these patients was 83.3% and 83.3% at one and five yr, respectively. These rates are significantly worse than the rates of pediatric first LDLT. Vascular complications occurred in four patients and were successfully treated by interventional radiologic therapy. There were no post-operative biliary complications. One case expired because of hemophagocytic syndrome after re-LDLT. Although pediatric re-LDLT is medically, ethically, and economically controversial, it is a feasible option and should be offered to children with irreversible graft failure. Further investigations, including multicenter studies, are therefore essential to identify any prognostic factors that may improve the present poor outcome after re-LDLT.

Predictive index for long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver in adult recipients: analysis of a 26-year experience in a single center

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prognostic scoring system for risk stratification of patients with hepatic graft failure (GF) undergoing retransplants of the liver (ReLT) and improve patient selection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Retransplantation of the liver remains controversial because of inferior outcomes compared with the primary orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and raises concerns of inappropriate utilization of a scarce donor organ resource. Data on risk stratification of ReLT patients for long-term survival outcomes are limited.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis from our prospective database of 466 adults' ReLT between February 1984 and September 2010. Mean follow-up was 3 years. Each independent predictor for allograft failure was assigned risk score (RS) points of 1 or 2, proportional to the corresponding parameter estimate under the Cox model: Predictive index category (PIC) 1, RS = 0; PIC II, RS = 1 to 2; PIC III, RS = 3 to 4; and PIC IV, RS = 5 to 12.

RESULTS

Eight risk factors predictive for GF after ReLT included recipient age greater than 55 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score greater than 27, history of prior OLT greater than 1, pre-ReLT requirement for mechanical ventilation, serum albumin less than 2.5 g/dL, donor age greater than 45 years, intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cell transfusion greater than 30 units, and performance of ReLT between 15 and 180 days from the prior OLT. Five-year GF-free survival was significantly higher in PIC I (65%) than in PIC II (53%), PIC III (43%), and PIC IV (20%) groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This risk-stratification model was highly predictive of long-term outcome after liver retransplantation in adult recipients. This formula provides a practical guide for selection of candidates for retransplantation of the liver that can lead to improved patient outcomes and optimal utilization of a scarce resource.

Major challenges limiting liver transplantation in the United States

Liver transplantation is the gold standard of care in patients with end-stage liver disease and those with tumors of hepatic origin in the setting of liver dysfunction. From 1988 to 2009, liver transplantation in the United States grew 3.7-fold from 1713 to 6320 transplants annually. The expansion of liver transplantation is chiefly driven by scientific breakthroughs that have extended patient and graft survival well beyond those expected 50 years ago. The success of liver transplantation is now its primary obstacle, as the pool of donor livers fails to keep pace with the growing number of patients added to the national liver transplant waiting list. This review focuses on three major challenges facing liver transplantation in the United States and discusses new areas of investigation that address each issue: (1) the need for an expanded number of useable donor organs, (2) the need for improved therapies to treat recurrent hepatitis C after transplantation and (3) the need for improved detection, risk stratification based upon tumor biology and molecular inhibitors to combat hepatocellular carcinoma.

Early detection of the graft failure after pediatric liver transplantation: a Bergamo experience

BACKGROUND

Effective indicators of the early graft failure after pediatric liver transplantation are currently a crucial question. The aim of this study was to analyze retrospectively laboratory parameters that may help anticipate an early graft loss (GL).

METHODS

The 131 pediatric liver transplantations, performed in our hospital from January 2002 to December 2005, were reviewed. Post-operative laboratory parameters, collected in the first 36 h of the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) stay, were analyzed for children with both graft survival and GL. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was used to identify the optimal cut-off for the laboratory parameters. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted risk of GL for the prognostic parameters identified.

RESULTS

The mean age at transplant was 1.1 years. The two groups were comparable for all recipient and donor variables considered. Children with GL showed significantly higher levels of ammonia and transaminase at the admission to the PICU and higher levels of prothrombin time, creatinine, lactate and a lower level of platelets at the 36 h of PICU. The laboratory parameters over the cut-off value by the multivariate logistic regression identified all early thromboses earlier than Doppler ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that routine blood tests may help to anticipate an early loss of liver grafts in children after transplantation and may improve our diagnostic investigation in the case of thrombosis suspicion. Further validation by a prospective study is needed to carefully assess the sensitivity and specificity of the identified criteria.

Identifying the futile pediatric liver re-transplant in the PELD era

Survival following pediatric re-transplant is inferior to that following primary transplant. We analyzed UNOS data (1987-2007) to identify factors associated with poor outcomes following re-transplant in both the pre-PELD and PELD eras. There may be a combination of factors associated with a futile pediatric liver re-transplant. Identification of these factors may improve allograft allocation and survival following re-transplantation. Abstract:  Survival following pediatric liver re-transplant is distinctly inferior to that following primary transplant. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with futile pediatric liver re-transplants before and after introduction of the PELD criteria in February 2002. We analyzed the UNOS database (1987-2008) and identified pediatric patients requiring liver re-transplants before and after PELD criteria. Descriptive characteristics were evaluated and survival analyzed with Cox proportional hazards method. Analysis of 1248 children identified re-transplant survival in the PELD era was significantly better than the pre-PELD era. Multivariable analysis in the pre-PELD era identified number of re-transplants, African American race, ICU pretransplant, recipient weight, creatinine and bilirubin levels, donor age, and cold ischemia time to be significantly associated with poor survival. In the PELD era, ICU hospitalization, weight, and very high bilirubin levels were associated with poor survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis by risk groups demonstrated a significant difference in survival, with the highest risk group experiencing 40-50% one-yr survival. Survival following pediatric liver re-transplantation varies significantly by era and associated risk factors. There may be a combination of factors that predict a futile re-transplant. Pre-operative identification of these factors may improve allograft allocation and recipient survival following re-transplantation.

Retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection recurs universally after liver transplantation (LT) and fibrosis progression is accelerated in the graft. Retransplantation (RT) is the only therapeutic option to achieve long-term survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after LT. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to those after primary LT. It is generally accepted that severe hepatitis C recurrence (cholestatic hepatitis) and forms with rapid fibrosis progression have a poor survival after RT. However, it is not clear whether rapid fibrosis progression in the first graft will be followed by the same rate of fibrosis progression in the second graft. The use of prognostic scores as screening tools has shown an improvement in survival in HCV-infected patients after RT, reaching similar survival rates as those obtained in non HCV-infected patients. Moreover, these scores can identify candidates with a high risk of mortality in whom the use of a new organ would be unreasonable. Prevention of severe hepatitis C recurrence could be the first step to avoid RT. Thus, antiviral treatment on the waiting list (if possible) and early identification and treatment of patients with severe hepatitis C recurrence may be a good strategy to avoid RT. In addition, active management of factors which can accelerate fibrosis progression (donor age, post-transplant diabetes, high dose of corticosteroids) might reduce the incidence of severe forms of hepatitis C recurrence.

Indications for and survival after liver retransplantation

INTRODUCTION

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (re-OLT) is the therapeutic option for hepatic graft failures. Survival after re-OLT is poorer than after primary OLT. Given that there is an organ shortage, it is essential that we optimize our use of this scarce resource. We evaluated the results of re-OLT among 58 consecutive Re-OLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult urgent versus elective re-OLT between 1991 and 2008. We recorded the indications for the initial OLT, and the intervals from OLT to re-OLT as well as age and gender. Using the Rosen model to stratify patients into low-intermediate-, and high-risk groups we calculated survivals.

RESULTS

Among 661 adult liver transplantations, 56 patients (8.4%) underwent late re-OLT at a median of 654.4 days post-OLT. There were 17 (29%) urgent re-OLT and 41 elective cases (71%). Vascular complications were the most common cause of urgent re-OLT (64%); elective re-OLT was primarily due to chronic rejection (56.1%). Overall survival for retransplanted patients was significantly lower among urgent procedures (82.4% vs 48.8%), as well as for overall survival after re-OLT for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) versus other etiologies.

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of retransplantation in elective and emergency situations. Liver re-transplantation has a high morbidity and mortality. It requires multidisciplinary experience to decide inclusion and prioritization criteria for re-OLT, especially among patients with HCV.

Advanced recipient age (>60 years) alone should not be a contraindication to liver retransplantation

Advanced age has been shown to be a risk factor for survival in primary liver transplantation. We sought to determine the independent influence of recipient age on retransplantation survival. The UNOS dataset was analyzed for adult, nonstatus 1, liver retransplantations since February 27, 2002. The univariate effect of age on 90-day and 1-year survival was analyzed. Multivariate survival models were used to determine 90-day, 1-year, and overall survival. Recipient age, donor age, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and hepatitis C status were used to construct multivariable survival models. Some 2141 liver retransplantations were analyzed. Overall, increasing recipient age was independently predictive of increasing mortality after liver retransplantation. In recipients between 18 and 60, there remained a direct relationship between age and mortality. However, in recipients aged over 60, increasing age was not independently associated with 90-day mortality (P = 0.88) and 1-year mortality (P = 0.74), despite adjusting for donor age, MELD score, and viral hepatitis status, suggesting that their original liver condition, their co-morbidities or perioperative condition plays an important role in retransplantation survival. Increasing recipient age up to 60, adversely affects liver retransplantation survival. After 60, there are no additional risks. Advanced age alone should not be an exclusionary factor when considering liver retransplantation; only the overall ability of the patient to tolerate a major surgery should be the determining factor.

Transplant center volume and outcomes after liver retransplantation

Liver retransplantation surgery has a high rate of allograft failure due to patient comorbidities and technical demands of the procedure. Success of liver retransplantation could depend on surgeon experience and processes of care that relate to center volume. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult liver retransplantation procedures performed from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2005 using registry data from the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network. The primary outcome was 1-year allograft failure. Liver transplant centers were categorized as small, intermediate or high volume by dividing overall liver transplants into three tertiles of approximately equal size. Mean annual volume of overall liver transplants was <50 for low-volume centers, 50-88 for intermediate-volume centers and >88 for high-volume centers. The primary analysis consisted of 3977 liver retransplantation patients. The unadjusted risk of 1-year allograft failure was 37.8%. In multivariable logistic regression, the risk of 1-year allograft failure was not significantly different between low- (reference), intermediate- (OR 0.86, CI 0.72-1.03, p = 0.11) and high-volume centers (OR 0.88, CI 0.74-1.04, p = 0.14). Results were similar when the analysis was limited to retransplantation performed >160 days after initial transplantation. Center volume is an imprecise surrogate measure for 1-year outcomes after liver retransplantation.

Retransplantation for end-stage liver disease: a single-center Asian experience

Liver retransplantation carries a significantly higher morbidity and mortality compared with patients after single transplantations. The aim of this study was to review our outcomes in liver retransplantations. From February 1984 to February 2007, 409 liver transplantations were performed on 396 patients, including 13 retransplantations (3.2%) in 12 patients. The mean follow-up was 1.6 +/- 0.4 years (range, 0.1-5.2). The mean duration between the first and the second transplantation was 2.8 +/- 1.0 years (range, 15 days-11.6 years). The indications for the first liver transplantation included biliary atresia (n = 3), hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhosis with hepatoma (n = 3), fulminant hepatic failure (n = 2), HBV-related end-stage liver disease (n = 1), hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related end-stage liver disease (n = 1), neonatal hepatitis (n = 1), and glycogen storage disease (n = 1). The indications for retransplantations were secondary biliary cirrhosis (n = 3), veno-occlusive disease-related liver failure (n = 2), hepatic arterial occlusion and graft failure (n = 2), chronic rejection with hepatic graft failure (n = 2), recurrent HBV (n = 1) and de novo HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis (n = 1), and idiopathic graft failure (n = 1). There were 4 living donor and 9 deceased donor liver retransplantations. The cumulative survival rate was 71.4 +/- 14.4%, with an estimated mean survival time of 3.9 +/- 0.7 years. Our results showed that minimizing the rate of retransplantation was critical to enhance overall patient survival. Moreover, living donor liver retransplantation is another option within the short, yet critical, waiting period, after failure of the first graft. Provided that a suitable living donor is available, we recommend early retransplantation to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality.

Hepatitis C and liver transplantation: enhancing outcomes and should patients be retransplanted

Hepatitis C (HCV)-related end-stage liver disease is the most common indication for liver transplantation. Safe expansion of the donor pool with improved rates of deceased donation and more widespread use of living and extended criteria donation are likely to decrease wait list mortality. In addition, improved antiviral treatments and a better understanding of the delicate balance between under- and over-immunosuppression in this population are needed. Finally, when recurrent advanced fibrosis occurs, the criteria for patient selection for retransplantation remain widely debated. This article reviews the literature on these topics and the work being done in each area to maximize outcomes in patients receiving transplants for HCV-related cirrhosis.

Removing patients from the liver transplant wait list: A survey of US liver transplant programs

Guidelines are in place regarding who is a candidate for liver transplantation. Once a potential candidate is listed, there are no uniform guidelines indicating when he should be removed from the list because of a change in clinical status. A survey with 14 scenarios was sent to the medical and surgical directors of all liver transplant programs in the United States. In each scenario, clinical information was provided about a patient active on the transplant wait list. Data regarding a clinical change were provided, and responders were questioned whether they would remove the patient from the wait list. The scenarios were designed to address the issues of age, etiology of liver disease, renal dysfunction, respiratory failure, infection, failure to thrive, and social support. Two hundred four questionnaires were mailed with 47 responses (23%): 8 return to sender, 24 surgeons, and 15 hepatologists. All 11 United Network for Organ Sharing regions were represented. The responders were well distributed among university programs (n = 28), private practice programs (n = 10), and health maintenance organization programs (n = 1). Nine responses were from small-volume programs (< or =25 transplants), 12 were from medium-volume programs (26-50 transplants), and 18 were from large-volume programs (> or =51 transplants). There was wide variability between responders regarding which patients should be removed from the transplant wait list. Patient age and etiology of liver disease led to the greatest discordance among responders. In conclusion, there is a lack of agreement and standardization among US liver transplant programs regarding who should be removed from the wait list for a change in clinical status.

Retransplantation for hepatitis C: results of a U.S. multicenter retransplant study

It is widely perceived that outcomes are relatively poor following retransplantation (reTX) for recurrent of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Transplant centers debate the utility of offering another liver to these patients. A U.S. study group was formed to retrospectively compare survival after reTX in patients with recurrent HCV (histologically proven) and those transplanted for other indications greater than 90 days after first transplantation, from 1996 to 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups; group 1: HCV reTX (n = 43), group 2: non-HCV reTX (n = 73), and group 3: recurrent HCV but no reTX (n = 156). They were predominantly male, Caucasian, with mean age of 47.2 yr. The commonest indications for non-HCV reTX were chronic rejection (36%), hepatic artery thrombosis (31%) and recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis (17%). Duration of hospitalization, number of intensive care unit (ICU) days, and time interval from listing to transplantation or reTX were similar between reTX groups. The 1-yr and 3-yr survival rates after reTX were also similar for HCV reTX and non-HCV reTX groups (1 yr, 69% vs. 73%; 3 yr, 49% vs. 55%). Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were not predictive of survival from reTX. However, with a MELD score of >30 in the non HCV group, survival was <50%. In the recurrent HCV not undergoing reTX group, 30% were reevaluated for reTX but only 15% were listed for reTX and the 3-yr survival was 47%. The most common reasons for not listing for reTX were recurrent HCV within 6 months (22%), fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (19%), and renal dysfunction (9%). In conclusion, patients retransplanted for recurrent HCV had similar 1-yr and 3-yr survival when compared to patients undergoing reTX for other indications. MELD scores were not predictive of post-reTX survival. Survival was <50% in the non-HCV reTx group with MELD score of >30. Many patients with recurrent HCV are not considered for reTX and die from recurrent disease.

Donor factors predicting recipient survival after liver retransplantation: the retransplant donor risk index

The use of extended criteria liver donors (ECD) is controversial, especially in the setting of retransplantation. The aims of this study are to investigate the effects of ECD grafts on retransplantation and to develop a predictive mortality index in liver retransplantation based on the previously established donor risk index. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) liver transplant dataset was analyzed for all adult, non-status 1, liver retransplantations occurring in the United States since February 2002. All donors were categorized for multiple characteristics of ECD, and using multivariate survival models a retransplant donor risk index (ReTxDRI) was developed. A total of 1327 retransplants were analyzed. There were 611 (46%) recipients who received livers with at least one ECD criterion. The use of ECD grafts in recipients with HCV did not incur worse survival than the non-ECD grafts. The addition of the cause of recipient graft failure to the donor risk index formed the ReTxDRI. After adjusting for multiple recipient factors, the ReTxDRI was predictive of overall recipient survival and was a strongly independent predictor of death after retransplantation (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.89-3.27, p < 0.0001). The use of the ReTxDRI can improve recipient and donor matching and help to optimize posttransplant survival in liver retransplantation.

Retransplantation of the liver

Retransplantation (re-TX) is the only available therapy for irreversible liver graft dysfunction. The outcome of a second procedure depends upon several factors, some of which are not defined at the time of the decision to retransplant. This study is an analysis of all re-TX of the liver performed at our unit between January 1995 and January 2004. Among the 474 liver TX were 55 (11.6%) re-TX in 47 patients. We studied (1) diagnosis at first TX; (2) indication for re-TX and time lapse; (3) donor age and cold ischemia time (CIT); (4) duration of operation, peroperative bleeding, and complications; (5) ICU and ward periods; and (6) patient and graft survivals. Patients who underwent re-TX did not differ from those transplanted once with regard to age, gender, or diagnosis. The indications for re-TX were roughly one-third biliary tract complications/chronic rejection, one-third hepatic artery thrombosis, and one-third others, including primary nonfunction, acute rejection, portal vein thrombosis, sepsis, and B/C hepatitis. The re-TX were "urgent" in 29 and "elective" in 26 cases. Complications were common; about half of the patients were reoperated due to bleeding or biliary problems. To date (May 2004), 15 patients have died (12 "urgent" and 3 "elective"), of whom 5 had well functioning grafts. In summary, liver re-TX is a complicated procedure associated with significant mortality and morbidity, but considering that the actual patient group has a poor prognosis without re-TX, the results are nevertheless encouraging.

An outcome comparison between primary liver transplantation and retransplantation based on the pretransplant MELD score

Survival after liver retransplantation (RLTX) is worse than after primary liver transplantation (LTX). We studied retrospectively the 2-year outcome in 44 patients who received RLTX more than 30 days after the primary transplant and in 669 after LTX performed between December 1993 and October 1999, focusing on the relation between the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score immediately pretransplant and post-transplant survival. A 2-year survival for RLTX was inferior to LTX (65.9% vs. 82.9%, P < or = 0.01). This difference was greatest with MELD scores < 25; survival within 2 years remained 11.3-18.2% less for RLTX than for LTX (6 months, P = 0.002; 12 months, P = 0.029, 24 months, P = 0.123). Mortality was mainly related to early vascular complications and sepsis. Two-year survival after RLTX was 81.8% if RLTX occurred < 2 years after LTX and 50% if the interval between LTX and RLTX was > 2 years (P < 0.05). MELD scores were similar in 2-year survivors and nonsurvivors after late RLTX (P = 0.82). Late RLTX is marked by poor survival regardless of the pretransplant MELD score. The MELD-based allocation system may not benefit patients who undergo retransplantation.

When shouldn't we retransplant?

1. In the setting of early graft failure after primary transplantation, orthotopic liver retransplantation (re-OLT) should be undertaken within the first 7 days, but it should be discouraged within 8-30 days, since re-OLT within this intermediate frame is associated with the worst results. 2. Late retransplantation should be cautioned in severely ill patients who exhibit Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores >25, require mechanical ventilation, have advanced renal insufficiency, and in advanced-age recipients. 3. Re-OLT should not be undertaken with extended and older donors particularly when retransplantation for recurrent disease is considered. 4. Prognostic models that take into account the severity of disease and the effect of the organ to be transplanted should be developed to better predict outcomes after re-OLT. 5. Accurate definitions of acceptable outcomes after retransplantation and "futile re-OLT" are desperately needed.

Mortality predictors in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Recipients of orthotopic liver transplant for hepatitis C (HCV) invariably develop recurrent disease. The risk factors for death and retransplantation following the development of cirrhosis from HCV are unclear. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of survival in liver transplant recipients who develop cirrhosis from recurrent HCV.

METHODS

We reviewed records of patients who underwent liver transplantation for cirrhosis due to HCV between January 1990 and December 2001. Prognostic factors of patient survival following the development of recurrent cirrhosis were identified through multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 511 patients underwent transplantation for HCV cirrhosis. Of these, 65 patients (13%) developed biopsy proven recurrent cirrhosis from HCV; 43 (8%) were relisted for transplantation, and 24 (5%) underwent retransplantation. The overall Kaplan-Meier patient survival rates after the histologic diagnosis of cirrhosis at 1 and 5 years were 66% and 30%, respectively. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed patients with higher last (i.e. at follow-up or prior to retransplantation) International normalized ratio (INR) values (hazard ratios (HR)=2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.26, 3.24, P<0.01) to have an increased risk of death.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested survival was decreased after the diagnosis of cirrhosis from recurrent HCV. Higher INR was associated with an increased risk of death following the development of cirrhosis.

Using root cause analysis to improve survival in a liver transplant program

BACKGROUND

With the advent of programs such as the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, surgical services will be compared with their peers across the United States. At times, many programs will experience lower-than-expected outcomes. During July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000 our 1-year graft (76.86%, P = 0.23) and patient (80.61%, P = 0.016) survivals after liver transplantation were lower than our expected rates (graft 81.89% and patient 88.3%), according to the U.S. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR).

METHODS

We used aggregate root cause analysis to determine underlying reasons for our patient deaths. Two of our surgeons performed a systematic review of all our center's liver transplant patient deaths from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2000. Each phase of the transplant process was reviewed.

RESULTS

Of 355 patients receiving their first transplant, there were 90 deaths, with 188 root causes identified. The apportionment according to phase of the transplant process was patient selection, 50%; transplant procedure, 17%; donor selection, 15%; post-transplant care, 8%, and psychosocial issues, 10%. Risk reduction action plans were developed, and several important changes made in our care protocol. In April 2004, SRTR data revealed that for patients transplanted between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003, our 1-year liver graft survival of 90.73% (P = 0.018) was significantly higher than the national expected rate of 84.48%. Our 1-year patient survival rate of 92.66% (P = 0.285) was higher than the expected rate of 89.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower-than-expected outcomes can provide an impetus for improving patient care and raising the quality of a surgical service. Aggregate root cause analysis of adverse events is a valuable method for program improvement.

Liver retransplantation for hepatitis C virus recurrence: a survey of liver transplant programs in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver failure is the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT). The number requiring re-LT is expected to grow as patients live long enough to develop graft failure and recurrent disease. Numerous factors have been identified as influencing survival after re-LT. To gain insight into how transplant centers are dealing with this issue and whether published prognostic factors are being used, we conducted a survey of liver transplant centers across the US in late 2003.

METHODS

Surveys consisting of 6 multiple-choice questions were sent to all 96 adult transplant medical directors in the U.S.

RESULTS

Fifty-five (57%) surveys were returned. Of these respondents, 95% would offer re-LT for allograft failure caused by recurrent HCV. A little more than half believed age >60 years and development of allograft cirrhosis after <2 years should exclude a patient from re-LT. However, less than half thought international normalized ratio (INR), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and bilirubin were important factors. After initial LT, 40% of the respondents do not have a protocol for managing HCV recurrence, and 33% responded that they treat only those who develop severe recurrence. In contrast, for re-LT, 67% preemptively treat HCV recurrence. Compared to 5 years ago, 75% believe practice patterns have changed in respect to retransplanting patients with HCV: Most were less likely to offer re-LT because of associated poor long-term survival in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As of late 2003, nearly all surveyed transplant medical directors in the U.S. would offer re-LT to recurrent HCV. Perceived practice patterns for re-LT are at variance with published outcome data.

Analysis of long-term outcomes of 3200 liver transplantations over two decades: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This work analyzes the experience of nearly 2 decades by the same team in a single center. Outcomes of OLT and factors affecting survival were analyzed.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3200 consecutive OLTs that were performed at our institution, between February 1984 and December 31, 2001.

RESULTS

Of 2662 recipients, 578 (21.7%) and 659 (24.7%) were pediatric and urgent patients, respectively. Overall 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year patient and graft survival estimates were 81%, 72%, 68%, 64% and 73%, 64%, 59%, 55%, respectively. Patient survival significantly improved in the second (1992-2001) versus the era I (1984-1991) of transplantation (P < 0.001). Similarly, graft survival was better in the era II of transplantation (P < 0.02). However, biliary and infectious complications increased in era II. When OLT indications were considered, best recipient survival was obtained in children with biliary atresia (82%, 79%, and 78% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively), while malignant disease in adult patients resulted in the worst outcomes of 68% and 43% at 1 and 5 years, post-OLT. Further, patients <18 years and nonurgent recipients exhibited superior survival when compared with recipients >18 years (P < 0.001) or urgent patients (P < 0.001). Of 13 donor and recipient variables, era of OLT, recipient age, urgent status, donor age, donor length of hospital stay, etiology of liver disease, retransplantation, warm and cold ischemia, but not graft type (whole, split, living-donor), significantly impacted patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term benefits of OLT are greatest in pediatric and nonurgent patients. Multiple factors involving the recipient, etiology of liver disease, donor characteristics, operative variables, and surgical experience influence long-term survival outcomes. By balancing and matching these factors with a given recipient, optimum results can be achieved.

Self-Organizing Maps Can Determine Outcome and Match Recipients and Donors at Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is a relative lack of donor organs for liver transplantation. Ideally, to maximize the utility of those livers that are offered, donor and recipient characteristics should be matched to ensure the best possible posttransplant survival of the recipient.

METHODS

With prospectively collected data on 827 patients receiving a primary liver graft for chronic liver disease, we used a self-organizing map (SOM) (one form of a neural network) to predict outcome after transplantation using both donor and recipient factors. The SOM was then validated using a data set of 2622 patients undergoing transplantation in the United Kingdom at other centers.

RESULTS

SOM analysis using 72 inputs and two survival intervals (3 and 12 months) yielded three neurons with either higher or lower probabilities of survival. The model was validated using the independent data set. With 20 patients on the waiting list and 10 sequential donor livers, it was possible to demonstrate that the model could be used to identify which potential recipients were likely to benefit most from each liver offered.

CONCLUSIONS

With this approach to matching donor livers and recipients, it is possible to inform transplant clinicians about the optimum use of donor livers and thereby effectively make the best use of a scarce resource.

Surgical advances in liver and bowel transplantation

Liver and intestinal transplantation are currently the treatments of choice for life-threatening hepatic and gastrointestinal failure. These technologies have evolved through contributions from the fields of immunology, anatomy, physiology, surgery, anesthesiology, critical care, ethics, epidemiology, and public health. Transplantation now accounts for the treatment of over 5,000 recipients per year who are in a state of organ failure. The available donor population, however, is not increasing to meet the demands of the faster growing recipient population. This discrepancy has led to the rapid development of novel strategies that require critical evaluation to build on the success rates in recent years. This article presents the most salient advances in liver and intestinal transplantation in the last 15 years.

A comparison of liver transplantation outcomes in the pre- vs. post-MELD eras

BACKGROUND

The model for end stage liver disease (MELD)-based organ allocation system is designed to prioritize orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for patients with the most severe liver disease. However, there are no published data to confirm whether this goal has been achieved or whether the policy has affected long-term post-OLT survival.

AIM

To compare pre-OLT liver disease severity and long-term (1 year) post-OLT survival between the pre- and post-MELD eras.

METHODS

Using the United Network of Organ Sharing database, we compared two cohorts of adult patients undergoing cadaveric liver transplant in the pre-MELD (n = 3857) and post-MELD (n = 4245) eras. We created multivariable models to determine differences in: (i) pre-OLT liver disease severity as measured by MELD; and (ii) 1-year post-OLT outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing OLT in the post-MELD era had more severe liver disease at the time of transplantation (mean MELD = 20.5) vs. those in the pre-MELD era (mean MELD = 17.0). There were no differences in the unadjusted patient or graft survival at 1 year post-OLT. This difference remained insignificant after adjusting for a range of prespecified recipient, donor, and transplant centre-related factors in multivariable survival analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although liver disease severity is higher in the post- vs. pre-MELD era, there has been no change in long-term post-OLT patient or graft survival. These results indicate that the MELD era has achieved its primary goals by allocating cadaveric livers to the sickest patients without compromising post-OLT survival.