(D+10) MELD as a novel predictor of patient and graft survival after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation

Risk factors of massive blood transfusion in liver transplantation: consequences and a new index for prediction including the donor

BACKGROUND

Massive blood transfusion (MBT) is a common occurrence in liver transplant (LT) patients. Recipient-related risk factors include cirrhosis, history of multiple surgeries and suboptimal donors. Despite advances in surgical techniques, anesthetic management and graft preservation have decreased the need for transfusions, this complication has not been completely eliminated.

METHODS

One thousand four hundred and sixty-nine LT were performed at our institution between May 2003 and December 2020, and data was available regarding transfusion for 1198 of them. We divided the patients into two groups, with regards to transfusion of 6 or more units of packed red blood cells in the first 24 h posttransplant, and we analyzed the differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Out of the 1198 patients, 607 (50.7%) met criteria for MBT. Survival was statistically lower at 1, 3, and 5 years when comparing the groups that had MBT to those that did not (92.6%, 85.2% and 79.7%, respectively, in the non MBT group, vs. 78.1%, 71.6% y 66.8%, respectively, in the MBT group). MBT was associated with a 1.5 mortality risk as opposed to non-MBT patients. Logistical regression analysis of our variables yielded the following results for a new model, including serum creatinine (OR 1.97), sodium (OR 1.73), hemoglobin (OR 1.99), platelets (OR 1.37), INR (OR 1.4), uDCD (OR 2.13) and split liver donation.

CONCLUSION

Massive blood transfusion impacts patient survival in a statistically significant way. The most significant risk factors are preoperative hemoglobin, INR and serum creatinine.

Impact of County Health Rankings on Nationwide Liver Transplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited information concerning whether social determinants of health affect postliver transplant (LT) outcomes. This study aims to understand to what extent the health of LT recipients' counties of residence influence long-term LT outcomes.

METHODS

We used the United Network for Organ Sharing data to identify adult LT recipients transplanted between January 2010 and June 2018. Patient-level data were matched to county-level County Health Ranking (CHR) data using transplant recipient zip code, and nationwide CHRs were created. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations between CHRs and graft and patient survival post-LT.

RESULTS

Health outcomes rank was significantly associated with posttransplant graft and patient survival, with worst tertile counties showing a 13% increased hazard of both graft failure and patient mortality compared to the best tertile counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Although county health is associated with LT outcomes, it also appears that LT recipient selection is effective at mitigating major disparities based on county of residence and helps yield equitable outcomes in this respect.

Poor Performance Status Predicts Mortality After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Performance status may adversely affect living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes. We present our data regarding performance status and posttransplantation survival in a large LDLT cohort.

METHODS

Patients with ABO incompatibility, of pediatric age, with acute liver failure, with hepatocellular carcinoma, and/or who had incomplete data were excluded. Two hundred sixty adults who had decompensated cirrhosis and underwent LDLT from January 2016 to March 2018 were included. Performance status was assessed by Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS). The data are depicted as number, mean (SD), or median (25-75 interquartile range [IQR]).

RESULTS

The cohort included 232 males and 28 females, aged 48.3 ± 9.8 years. Etiology of liver disease was hepatitis B in 33, hepatitis C in 19, alcohol related in 120, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis/cryptogenic in 68, and other etiologies in 20 patients. The mean Child's score was 9.6 ± 1.7, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 18.0 ± 5.8, and donor age was 33.4 ± 9.9 years. Forty-one recipients died at median follow-up of 11 months. The KPS was 100 in 6 (no deaths), 90 in 53 (2 deaths), 80 in 93 (12 deaths), 70 in 69 (14 deaths), 60 in 26 (8 deaths), and 50 in 13 (5 deaths) (P = 0.003). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of KPS to predict mortality was 0.698 (P = 0.000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.616-0.780), and the best sensitivity (63%) and specificity (67%) were achieved at KPS ≤70. The survivors and nonsurvivors had a significant difference with respect to KPS (77.6 ± 10.9 versus 69.5 ± 10.9, P 0.000), age of the patient (47.8 ± 9.4 versus 51.1 ± 11.7; P = 0.047), postoperative infections (53.8% versus 85.3%, P = 0.001), and need of packed red cells transfusion. Multivariate analysis (Cox proportional-hazard) showed KPS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-0.99, P = 0.007), postoperative infections (HR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.04-5.1, P = 0.038), and recipient age (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.002-1.07, P = 0.039) as predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Pretransplant performance status is one of the predictors of mortality after LDLT.

Survival Outcomes in Split Compared With Whole Liver Transplantation

Split-liver transplantation (SLT) should be cautiously considered because the right trisection (RTS) graft can be a marginal graft in adult recipients. Herein, we analyzed the outcomes of RTS-SLT in Korea, where >75% of adult liver transplantations are performed with living donor liver transplantation. Among 2462 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantations (DDLTs) from 2005 to 2014, we retrospectively reviewed 86 (3.5%) adult patients who received a RTS graft (RTS-SLT group). The outcomes of the RTS-SLT group were compared with those of 303 recipients of whole liver (WL; WL-DDLT group). Recipient age, laboratory Model for End-Stage-Liver Disease (L-MELD) score, ischemia time, and donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR) were not different between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). However, malignancy was uncommon (4.7% versus 36.3%), and the donor was younger (25.2 versus 42.7 years) in the RST-SLT group than in the WL-DDLT group (P < 0.05). The technical complication rates and the 5-year graft survival rates (89.0% versus 92.8%) were not different between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (63.1%) and graft-failure-free survival rate (63.1%) of the RTS-SLT group were worse than that of the WL-DDLT group (79.3% and 79.3%; P < 0.05). The factors affecting graft survival rates were not definite. However, the factors affecting OS in the RTS-SLT group were L-MELD score >30 and DRWR ≤1.0. In the subgroup analysis, OS was not different between the 2 groups if the DRWR was >1.0, regardless of the L-MELD score (P > 0.05). In conclusion, a sufficient volume of the graft estimated from DRWR-matching could lead to better outcomes of adult SLTs with a RTS graft, even in patients with high L-MELD scores.