Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

Challenges With the Implementation of Machine Perfusion in Clinical Liver Transplantation

Dynamic organ preservation is a relatively old technique which has regained significant interest in the last decade. Machine perfusion (MP) techniques are applied in various fields of solid organ transplantation today. The first clinical series of ex situ MP in liver transplantation was presented in 2010. Since then, the number of research and clinical applications has substantially increased. Despite the notable beneficial effect on organ quality and recipient outcome, MP is still not routinely used in liver transplantation. Based on the enormous need to better preserve organs and the subsequent demand to continuously innovate and develop perfusion equipment further, this technology is also beneficial to test and deliver future therapeutic strategies to livers before implantation. This article summarizes the various challenges observed during the current shift from static to dynamic liver preservation in the clinical setting. The different organ perfusion strategies are discussed first, together with ongoing clinical trials and future study design. The current status of research and the impact of costs and regulations is highlighted next. Factors contributing to costs and other required resources for a worldwide successful implementation and reimbursement are presented third. The impact of research on cost-utility and effectivity to guide the tailored decision-making regarding the optimal perfusion strategy is discussed next. Finally, this article provides potential solutions to the challenging field of innovation in healthcare considering the various social and economic factors and the role of clinical, regulatory, and financial stakeholders worldwide.

Benchmark Outcomes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter Analysis of 80 996 Transplants From 126 Centers

Background

We defined clinically relevant benchmark values in deceased donor kidney transplantation (KT), to assess the best achievable results in low-risk patient cohorts from experienced centers.

Methods

We identified the "ideal" cases from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from centers performing ≥50 KT per year between 2010 and 2018. Cases have been selected based on the kidney donor profile index values (<35%), a cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤18 h, a HLA mismatch ≤4, and excluding blood group (ABO) incompatible, dual and combined transplants. The outcomes of the benchmark cohort have been compared with a group of patients excluded from the benchmark cohort because but not meeting 1 or more of the abovementioned criteria.

Results

The 171 424 KT patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files were screened and 8694 benchmark cases of a total of 80 996 KT (10.7%) from 126 centers meeting the selection criteria were identified. The benchmarks for 1-, 3-, and 5-y patient survival are ≥97%, ≥92.5%, and ≥86.7%, and ≥95.4%, ≥87.8%, and ≥79.6% for graft survival. Benchmark cutoff for hospital length of stay is ≤5 d, ≤23.6% for delayed graft function, and ≤7.5% and ≤9.1% for 6-mo and 1-y incidence of acute rejection. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y actuarial graft survivals were 96.6%, 91.1%, and 84.2% versus 93.5%, 85.4%, and 75.5% in the benchmark and comparison groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y actuarial patient survivals were 98.1%, 94.8%, and 90.0% versus 96.6%, 91.1%, and 83.0% in the benchmark and comparison groups, respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

For the first time, we quantified the best achievable postoperative results in an ideal scenario in deceased donor KT, aimed at improving the clinical practice guided by the comparison of center performances with the ideal outcomes defined.

How best to combine liver transplantation and bariatric surgery?-Results from a global, web-based survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Obesity is a growing healthcare challenge worldwide and a significant risk factor for liver failure as seen with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Combining metabolic-bariatric surgery (MBS) with liver transplantation (LT) appears as attractive strategy to treat both, the underlying liver disease and obesity. However, there is an ongoing debate on best timing and patient selection. This survey was designed to explore the current treatment practice for patients with NASH and obesity worldwide.

METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted in 2022 among bariatric and LT surgeons, and hepatologists from Europe, North and South America and Asia.

RESULTS

The survey completion rate was 74% (145/196). The average respondents were 41-50 years (38%), male (82.1%) and had >20 years of clinical experience (42.1%). Centres with a high LT-caseload for NASH were mainly located in the USA and United Kingdom. Almost 30% have already performed a combination of LT with MBS and 49% plan to do it. A majority of bariatric surgeons prefer MBS before LT (77.2%), whereas most of LT surgeons (52%) would perform MBS during LT. Most respondents (n = 114; 80%) favour sleeve gastrectomy over other bariatric techniques. One third (n = 42; 29.4%) has an established protocol regarding MBS for LT candidates.

CONCLUSION

The most experienced centres doing LT for NASH are in the USA and United Kingdom with growing awareness worldwide. Overall, a combination of MBS and LT has already been performed by a third of respondents. Sleeve gastrectomy is the bariatric technique of choice-preferably performed either before or during LT.

The BAR Score Predicts and Stratifies Outcomes Following Liver Retransplantation: Insights From a Retrospective Cohort Study

Liver retransplantation (reLT) yields poorer outcomes than primary liver transplantation, necessitating careful patient selection to avoid futile reLT. We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess reLT outcomes and identify associated risk factors. All adult patients who underwent a first reLT at the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2021 (N = 111) were included. Graft- and patient survival were assessed via Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of graft loss. Five-year graft- and patient survival rates were 64.9% and 67.6%, respectively. The balance of risk (BAR) score was found to correlate with and be predictive of graft loss and patient death. The BAR score also predicted sepsis (AUC 0.676) and major complications (AUC 0.720). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified sepsis [HR 5.179 (95% CI 2.575-10.417), p < 0.001] as the most significant independent risk factor for graft loss. At a cutoff of 18 points, the 5 year graft survival rate fell below 50%. The BAR score, a simple and easy to use score available at the time of organ acceptance, predicts and stratifies clinically relevant outcomes following reLT and may aid in clinical decision-making.

Has the risk of liver re-transplantation improved over the two decades?

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in liver transplantation (LT) over the past two decades, liver re-transplantation (re-LT) presents challenges. This study aimed to assess improvements in re-LT outcomes and contributing factors.

METHODS

Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2021) were analyzed, with recipients categorized into four-year intervals. Trends in re-LT characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128,462 LT patients, 7254 received re-LT. Graft survival (GS) for re-LT improved (91.3%, 82.1%, and 70.8% at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years post-LT from 2018 to 2021). However, hazard ratios (HRs) for GS remained elevated compared to marginal donors including donors after circulatory death (DCD), although the difference in HRs decreased in long-term GS. Changes in re-LT causes included a reduction in hepatitis C recurrence and an increase in graft failure post-primary LT involving DCD. Trends identified included recent decreased cold ischemic time (CIT) and increased distance from donor hospital in re-LT group. Meanwhile, DCD cohort exhibited less significant increase in distance and more marked decrease in CIT. The shortest CIT was recorded in urgent re-LT group. The highest Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was observed in urgent re-LT group, while the lowest was recorded in DCD group. Analysis revealed shorter time interval between previous LT and re-listing, leading to worse outcomes, and varying primary graft failure causes influencing overall survival post-re-LT.

DISCUSSION

While short-term re-LT outcomes improved, challenges persist compared to DCD. Further enhancements are required, with ongoing research focusing on optimizing risk stratification models and allocation systems for better LT outcomes.

Novel Benchmark Values for Open Major Anatomic Liver Resection in Non-cirrhotic Patients: A Multicentric Study of 44 International Expert Centers

OBJECTIVE

This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016-2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient.

RESULTS

Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months.

CONCLUSION

These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences

OBJECTIVE

To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

BACKGROUND

LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians.

RESULTS

Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery

ABSTRACT

This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.

Unlocking the Power of Benchmarking: Real-World-Time Data Analysis for Enhanced Sarcoma Patient Outcomes

Benchmarking is crucial for healthcare providers to enhance quality and efficiency, notably for complex conditions like sarcomas. Multidisciplinary teams/sarcoma boards (MDT/SBs) are vital in sarcoma management, but differences in their processes can affect patient outcomes and treatment costs, despite adherence to international guidelines. To address this issue, this study aimed to compare two MDT/SBs and establish an interoperable digital platform, Sarconnector®, for real-time-world data assessment and automated analysis. The study included 983 patients, 46.0% of whom female, with a median age of 58 years, and 4.5% of patients presented with metastasis at diagnosis. Differences were observed in the number of first-time presentations, follow-up presentations, primary sarcomas, biopsies and chemotherapy indications between the two MDT/SB. The results highlight the importance of benchmarking and utilizing a harmonized data approach, such as the RWT approach provided by the Sarconnector®, to standardize and evaluate quality and cost metrics. By identifying areas of improvement and making data-driven decisions on the meta-level, healthcare providers can optimize resources and improve patient outcomes. In conclusion, benchmarking with the RWT harmonized data approach provided by the Sarconnector® can help healthcare providers improve the overall effectiveness of the healthcare system and achieve better outcomes for their patients in terms of both outcomes and costs.

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.

Classification of Adverse Events in Adult Surgery

Successful surgery combines quality (achievement of a positive outcome) with safety (avoidance of a negative outcome). Outcome assessment serves the purpose of quality improvement in health care by establishing performance indicators and allowing the identification of performance gaps. Novel surgical quality metric tools (benchmark cutoffs and textbook outcomes) provide procedure-specific ideal surgical outcomes in a subgroup of well-defined low-risk patients, with the aim of setting realistic and best achievable goals for surgeons and centers, as well as supporting unbiased comparison of surgical quality between centers and periods of time. Validated classification systems have been deployed to grade adverse events during the surgical journey: (1) the ClassIntra classification for the intraoperative period; (2) the Clavien-Dindo classification for the gravity of single adverse events; and the (3) Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) for the sum of adverse events over a defined postoperative period. The failure to rescue rate refers to the death of a patient following one or more potentially treatable postoperative adverse event(s) and is a reliable proxy of the institutional safety culture and infrastructure. Complication assessment is undergoing digital transformation to decrease resource-intensity and provide surgeons with real-time pre- or intraoperative decision support. Standardized reporting of complications informs patients on their chances to realize favorable postoperative outcomes and assists surgical centers in the prioritization of quality improvement initiatives, multidisciplinary teamwork, surgical education, and ultimately, in the enhancement of clinical standards.

Consensus recommendations on how to assess the quality of surgical interventions

Postoperative complications represent a major public health burden worldwide. Without standardized, clinically relevant and universally applied endpoints, the evaluation of surgical interventions remains ill-defined and inconsistent, opening the door for biased interpretations and hampering patient-centered health care delivery. We conducted a Jury-based consensus conference incorporating the perspectives of different stakeholders, who based their recommendations on the work of nine panels of experts. The recommendations cover the selection of postoperative outcomes from the perspective of patients and other stakeholders, comparison and interpretation of outcomes, consideration of cultural and demographic factors, and strategies to deal with unwarranted outcomes. With the recommendations developed exclusively by the Jury, we provide a framework for surgical outcome assessment and quality improvement after medical interventions, that integrates the main stakeholders' perspectives.

Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery

INTRODUCTION

Benchmarking, a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons, is a recent concept in surgery. The objectives of this review are to examine the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking and its application in surgery.

METHODS

The literature about benchmarking was reviewed through an ever-narrowing search strategy, commencing from the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking to the application of benchmarking and experiences of benchmarking in surgery. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched until 20 September 2022, in the English language according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

In the first phase of the literature search, the development of benchmarking was identified. The definitions of benchmarking evolved from a surveying term to a novel quality-improvement tool to assess the best achievable results in surgery. In the second phase, a total of 23 studies were identified about benchmarking in surgery, including esophagectomy, hepatic surgery, pancreatic surgery, rectum resection, and bariatric surgery. All studies were multicenter analyses from national, international, or global expert centers. Most studies (87.0%) adopted the definition that benchmark was the 75th percentile of the median values of centers. Performance metrics to define benchmarks were clinically relevant intraoperative and postoperative outcome indicators.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking in surgery is a novel quality-improvement tool to define and measure the best achievable results, establishing a meaningful reference to evaluate surgical performance.