Clinical analysis of living donor liver transplantation in patients with portal vein thrombosis

Guidelines for the management of coagulation disorders in patients with cirrhosis

Coagulation management in the patient with cirrhosis has undergone a significant transformation since the beginning of this century, with the concept of a rebalancing between procoagulant and anticoagulant factors. The paradigm that patients with cirrhosis have a greater bleeding tendency has changed, as a result of this rebalancing. In addition, it has brought to light the presence of complications related to thrombotic events in this group of patients. These guidelines detail aspects related to pathophysiologic mechanisms that intervene in the maintenance of hemostasis in the patient with cirrhosis, the relevance of portal hypertension, mechanical factors for the development of bleeding, modifications in the hepatic synthesis of coagulation factors, and the changes in the reticuloendothelial system in acute hepatic decompensation and acute-on-chronic liver failure. They address new aspects related to the hemorrhagic complications in patients with cirrhosis, considering the risk for bleeding during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, as well as the usefulness of different tools for diagnosing coagulation and recommendations on the pharmacologic treatment and blood-product transfusion in the context of hemorrhage. These guidelines also update the knowledge regarding hypercoagulability in the patient with cirrhosis, as well as the efficacy and safety of treatment with the different anticoagulation regimens. Lastly, they provide recommendations on coagulation management in the context of acute-on-chronic liver failure, acute liver decompensation, and specific aspects related to the patient undergoing liver transplantation.

Surgical strategies to treat portal vein thrombosis during adult liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The incidence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of liver transplantation (LT) may be variable and underestimated. Therefore, preoperative diagnosis and stratification of its extension is so relevant for adequate surgical planning. Revascularization of the portal vein graft becomes essential for graft and patient survival after LT. Early stages of PVT may be managed with eversion thrombectomy and end-to-end anastomoses. However, severe PVT (grades 3 and 4) poses significant challenges for patients requiring LT, resulting in more complex surgeries and higher complication rates. To address these complexities, various surgical techniques have been developed, including collateral alternative vessel utilization, renoportal anastomoses, mesoportal jump graft placement, cavoportal hemitranspositions, portal vein arterialization, or even multivisceral transplantation.

PURPOSE

We herein describe the preoperative surgical planning as well as the different surgical strategies possible to treat portal vein thrombosis during LT.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive preoperative evaluation of PVT is crucial for accurately assessing its extent and severity. This information is vital for proper surgical planning, which ultimately prepares both the surgeon and the patient for potentially complex procedures during LT. The surgical alternatives presented in this technical report offer promising solutions for treating PVT during LT, making it a viable option for selected patients.

Outcome of living donor liver transplantation in patients with preoperative portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is no longer an absolute contraindication for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes of LDLT and compare the 1-year survival rates between patients with and without preoperative PVT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This combined prospective and retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent LDLT at Ain Shams Centre for Organ Transplantation (ASCOT) between 2008 and 2020. The study included 60 patients with PVT and 60 patients without PVT. The two groups were compared in terms of preoperative data, operative details, postoperative complications, and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

Most patients with PVT were Child C (65%) and had higher model for end stage liver disease scores (16.23 ± 4.03) compared to the non-PVT group (13.9 ± 4.5). The PVT group showed longer cold ischemic time (CIT), hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay and significantly shorter 1-year survival rate (63.3%) compared to the non-PVT group (86.7%) (P = 0.003). Those with PVT grades I, II, and III had 1-year survival rates of 72.5%, 50%, and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative PVT reduces the 1-year survival after transplantation, with patients with higher PVT grades exhibiting lower 1-year survival. LDLT for PVT still remains challenging and requires further studies.

Meta-analysis and systematic review: Prevalence, graft failure, mortality, and post-operative thrombosis in liver transplant recipients with pre-operative portal vein thrombosis

AIMS

This study seeks to evaluate the association between pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and overall survival, graft failure, waitlist mortality, and post-operative PVT after liver transplantation.

METHODS

A conventional pairwise meta-analysis between patients with and without pre-transplant PVT was conducted using hazard ratios or odds ratios where appropriate.

RESULTS

Prevalence of preoperative PVT was 11.6% (CI 9.70-13.7%). Pre-operative PVT was associated with increased overall mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27-1.65) and graft loss (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34-1.85). In particular, grade 3 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.51) and 4 (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.45-3.45) PVT significantly increased mortality, but not grade 1 or 2 PVT. Patients with PVT receiving living donor (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.24-1.91) and deceased donor (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.92) liver transplantation had increased mortality, with no significant difference between transplant types (P = .13). Furthermore, pre-transplant PVT was associated with higher occurrence of post-transplant PVT (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.89-6.57). Waitlist mortality was not significantly increased in patients with pre-transplant PVT.

CONCLUSION

Graft failure, mortality, and post-operative PVT are more common in pre-transplant PVT patients, especially in grade 3 or 4 PVT. Prophylactic anticoagulation can be considered to reduce re-thrombosis and improve survival.

Management of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients enlisted for liver transplantation: From diagnosis to treatment (Review)

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) commonly occurs in patients with cirrhosis. Several classification systems of PVT have been proposed over the years reflecting the challenge in establishing a widely accepted system. To date, PVT has been considered an absolute contraindication for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) since it is associated with decreased graft survival and increased patient mortality. Nevertheless, the development of modern surgical techniques has enabled the inclusion of these candidates in OLT waiting lists, since their postoperative results are shown to be comparable to those of patients without PVT. The aim of the present review was to critically appraise the available treatment options for cirrhotic patients enlisted for liver transplantation in the setting of PVT.

Portal vein surgical treatment on non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis in liver transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is associated with higher morbidity and mortality in liver transplantation (LT). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of PVT in LT outcomes and analyze the types of surgical techniques used for dealing with PVT during LT. A systematic review was conducted in Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases, selecting articles from January 1990 to December 2019. The MESH-terms used were ("Portal Vein"[Mesh] AND "Thrombosis"[Mesh] NOT "Neoplasms"[Mesh]) AND ("Liver Transplantation"[Mesh]). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendation was used, and meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager Version 5.3 software. A total of 1,638 articles were initially found: 488 in PubMed, 289 in Cochrane Library, and 861 in EMBASE, from which 27 were eventually selected for the meta-analysis. Surgery time of LT in patients with PVT was longer than in patients without LT (p<0.0001). Intraoperative red blood cell (p<0.00001), fresh frozen plasma (p=0.01), and platelets (p=0.03) transfusions during LT were higher in patients with PVT. One-year (odds ratio [OR] 1.17; p=0.002) and 5-year (OR 1.12; p=0.01) patient survival after LT was worse in the PVT group. Total occlusive PVT presented higher mortality (OR 3.70; p=0.00009) and rethrombosis rates (OR 3.47 [1.18-10.21]; p=0.02). PVT Yerdel III/IV classification exhibited worse 1-year [2.04 (1.21-3.42); p=0.007] and 5-year [0.98 (0.59-1.62); p=0.93] patient survival. Thrombectomy with primary anastomosis was associated with better outcomes. LT in patients with non-tumoral PVT demands more surgical time, needs more intraoperative transfusion, and presents worse 1- and 5-year patient survival. Total occlusive PVT and Yerdel III/IV PVT classification were associated with higher mortality. (PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020132915).

Liver transplantation in patients with portal vein thrombosis: A strategic road map throughout management

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation in the setting of portal vein thrombosis is an intricate issue that occasionally necessitates extraordinary procedures for portal flow restoration. However, to date, there is no consensus on a persistent management strategy, particularly with extensive forms. This work aims to introduce our experience-based surgical management algorithm for portal vein thrombosis during liver transplantation and to clarify some of the debatable circumstances associated with this problematic issue.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2019, 494 adults underwent liver transplantation at our institute. Ninety patients had preoperative portal vein thrombosis, and 79 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation. Our algorithm trichotomized the management plan into 3 pathways based on portal vein thrombosis grade. The surgical procedures implemented included thrombectomy, interposition vein grafts, jump grafts from the superior mesenteric vein, jump grafts from a collateral and renoportal anastomosis in 56, 13, 11, 4, and 2 patients, respectively. Four patients with mural thrombi did not require any special intervention.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients experienced posttransplant portal vein complications. They all proved to have a patent portal vein by the end of follow-up regardless of the management modality. No significant survival difference was observed between cohorts with versus without portal vein thrombosis. The early graft loss rate was significantly higher with advanced grades (P = .048) as well as technically demanding procedures (P = .032).

CONCLUSION

A stepwise broad-minded strategy should always be adopted when approaching advanced portal vein thrombosis during liver transplantation. An industrious preoperative evaluation should always be carried out to locate the ideal reliable source for portal flow restoration.

Liver Transplant in Patients With Portal Vein Thrombosis: The Experience of 55 Patients

OBJECTIVES

Portal vein thrombosis is no longer a contraindication for liver transplantation. However, varied outcomes are still reported with regard to patients with complete portal vein thrombosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data of 505 patients who underwent liver transplant between January 2014 and June 2017. Of 505 patients, 55 (10.9%) had portal vein thrombosis, which included 37 patients (67%) who had living-donor and 18 patients (33%) who had deceased-donor liver transplant. According to Yerdel classification, 5 (9%), 28 (51%), 12 (22%), and 10 patients (18%) had grade I, II, III, and IV portal vein thrombosis, respectively.

RESULTS

Thrombectomy was successful in 46 patients (84%). Forty-three patients had patent portal inflow (93.5%), but 3 patients (6.5%) required a second thrombectomy on day 1 posttransplant. Of 10 patients with grade IV portal vein thrombosis, 9 (16%) underwent extra-anatomic portal vein anastomosis. Of these 9 patients, 7 (77.7%) showed patent portal inflow during the early postoperative period. Median follow-up time was 15.5 ± 13.1 months. During this time, portal vein stenosis was detected in 5 patients. Risk of repeat thrombosis was not significantly different between patients with deceased-donor and patients with living-donor liver transplant. Overall patient survival rates for patients with and without portal vein thrombosis were 73% (40/55) and 84% (376/450), respectively, which showed significant difference (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to early-grade portal vein thrombosis, complete portal vein thrombosis still provides a treatment challenge with high risk of morbidity and poor early outcomes in liver transplant recipients.

Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients with Preoperative Portal Vein Problems

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common complication for patients with end-stage liver disease. The presence of PVT used to be a contraindication to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of preoperative PVT on perioperative and long-term outcomes of the recipients after LDLT.

METHODS

We reviewed the data of patients who underwent LDLT during the period between 2004 till 2017.

RESULTS

During the study period, 500 cases underwent LDLT. Patients were divided into three groups. Group I included non-PVT, 446 patients (89.2%); group II included attenuated PV, 26 patients (5.2%); and group III included PVT, 28 patients (5.6%). Higher incidence of hematemesis and encephalopathy was detected in PVT (p = 0.001). Longer anhepatic phase was found in PVT (p = 0.013). There were no significant differences between regarding operation time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, ICU, and hospital stay. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of non-PVT were 80.5%, 77.7%, and 75%, and for attenuated PV were 84.6%, 79.6%, and 73.5%, and for PVT were 88.3%, 64.4%, and 64.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding OS rates (logrank 0.793).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative PVT increases the complexity of LDLT operation, but it does not reduce the OS rates of such patients.

Unusual spontaneous porto-systemic shunt: The importance of diagnosing non-anatomical porto-systemic shunts to improve portal flow in pediatric living-related liver transplantation. Case report

Collateral circulation secondary to liver cirrhosis may cause the development of large PSSs that may steal flow from the main portal circulation. It is important to identify these shunts prior to, or during the transplant surgery because they might cause an insufficient portal flow to the implanted graft. There are few reports of "steal flow syndrome" cases in pediatrics, even in biliary atresia patients that may have portal hypoplasia as an associated malformation. We present a 12-month-old female who received an uneventful LDLT from her mother, and the GRWR was 4.8. During the early post-operative period, she became hemodynamically unstable, developed ascites, and altered LFT. The post-operative ultrasound identified reversed portal flow, finding a non-anatomical PSS. A 3D CT scan confirmed the presence of a mesocaval shunt through the territory of the right gonadal vein, draining into the right iliac vein, with no portal inflow into the liver. The patient was re-operated, and the shunt was ligated. An intraoperative Doppler ultrasound showed adequate portal inflow after the procedure; the patient evolved satisfactorily and was discharged home on day number 49. The aim was to report a case of post-operative steal syndrome in a pediatric recipient due to a mesocaval shunt not diagnosed during the pretransplant evaluation.

Portal vein reconstruction in adult living donor liver transplantation for patients with portal vein thrombosis in single center experience

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) used to be contraindicated in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). In comparison to deceased donor LT, living donor LT (LDLT) still presents additional difficulties in determining appropriate vein grafts and overcoming small-for-size syndrome. Here, we introduce our LDLT strategies and assess their outcomes in adult patients with pre-existing PVT.

METHODS

We performed 282 consecutive adult LDLTs between April 2006 and December 2011. Forty-eight patients (17%) had pre-existing PVT (grade I; 15, II; 20, III; 12, IV; 1).

RESULTS

Our preferred treatments for PVT were thrombectomies/thromboendovenectomies in 30 patients, replaced grafts in seven, jump grafts in seven, renoportal anastomosis in one and no surgical intervention owing to minimal thrombosis in three. Post-transplant portal vein complications occurred in eight of 48 (17%) cases, which were treated by surgery, anticoagulation therapy, and/or interventional radiology. Post-transplant survival rates of patients with preexisting PVT at 1 year and 5 years were comparable to a PVT-free cohort (1 year; 81% vs. 77%, 5 years; 81% vs. 73%).

CONCLUSIONS

The excellent survival rates in patients with PVT who underwent LDLT could be attributed to our strategies, which included surgical techniques and timely treatment of postoperative complications.

Usefulness of artificial jump graft to portal vein thrombosis in deceased donor liver transplantation

Severe portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is often considered a relative contraindication for living donor liver transplantation due to high associated risks and morbidity. Meanwhile, improvement in operative techniques, resulting in higher success rates has removed PVT from the list of contraindications in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). In this report, we describe a surgical technique for DDLT using polytetrafluoroethylene graft from the inferior mesenteric vein for portal inflow in patient with portomesenteric thrombosis.

From portal to splanchnic venous thrombosis: What surgeons should bear in mind

The present study aims to review the evolution of surgical management of portal (PVT) and splanchnic venous thrombosis (SVT) in the context of liver transplantation over the last 5 decades. PVT is more commonly managed by endovenous thrombectomy, while SVT requires more complex technical expedients. Several surgical techniques have been proposed, such as extensive eversion thrombectomy, anastomosis to collateral veins, reno-portal anastomosis, cavo-portal hemi-transposition, portal arterialization and combined liver-intestinal transplantation. In order to achieve satisfactory outcomes, careful planning of the surgical strategy is mandatory. The excellent results that are obtained nowadays confirm that, even extended, splanchnic thrombosis is no longer an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation. Patients with advanced portal thrombosis may preferentially be referred to specialized centres, in which complex vascular approaches and even multivisceral transplantation are performed.

A new technique for complete portal vein and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis in a liver transplant recipient

We describe a deceased-donor liver transplant recipient with grade 3 complete portal vein and superior mesenteric vein thromboses, which was successfully managed with an extensive thrombectomy through the venotomy site of superior mesenteric vein. In this case report, we suggest our method as an option for grade 3 portal vein thromboses, and discuss other options available for recipients with portal vein thromboses.

Living donor liver transplantation with alternative porto-left gastric vein anastomosis in patients with post-Kasai extrahepatic portal vein obstruction

EPVO is a common cause of prehepatic portal hypertension in pediatric patients and sometimes results in cavernous transformation of the PV. We herein present the cases of two patients who underwent LDLT for EPVO with post-Kasai biliary atresia. PV reconstruction was performed with a porto-left gastric vein anastomosis. The patient who underwent PV reconstruction using an interposition vein graft is doing well without surgical complications, whereas PV anastomotic stenosis was detected three months after LDLT in the patient who did not receive an interposition vein graft. The availability of vein grafts is limited in the LDLT setting. In such cases, performing PV reconstruction with varicose veins using interposition vein grafts is a feasible and valuable alternative option for obtaining a sufficient portal blood flow. Our experiences suggest that using interposition vein grafts may be appropriate for preventing the anastomotic stenosis caused by the fragility of varicose veins.

Living donor liver transplantation for the patients with portal vein thrombosis: use of an interpositional venous graft passed posteriorly to the pancreatic parenchyma without using jump graft

BACKGROUND

It is difficult to reconstruct the portal vein (PV) using a long interpositional venous graft in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT), which involves the confluence of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) and splenic vein (SV). We successfully performed LDLT for three patients with PVT using an interpositional vascular conduit passing posterior to the pancreas without a jump graft.

METHODS

Three of 130 patients who underwent LDLT in our hospital between March 2002 and June 2011 required this technique. After indentifying the location of the SMV, SV and gastrocolic trunk, we ligated and cut the posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein and other short branches from the PV. The PV was drawn inferiorly to the pancreas and transected at the confluence of SMV and SV. The external iliac vein or internal jugular vein was sacrificed as a graft for anastomosis to the cut end of the SMV using 6-0 polypropylene running sutures. Then the venous graft was drawn superiorly to the pancreas by passing it posterior to the pancreas parenchyma for anastomosis to the liver graft PV. The interpositional vein was placed posterior to the pancreas where the PV used to be.

RESULTS

All three patients displayed favorable postoperative courses with the Doppler ultrasound demonstrating good portal flow perioperatively. The postoperative portogram demonstrated patency of the vascular graft.

CONCLUSION

This method is easy and helpful to treat portal vein thrombosis, by providing the shortest route between the PV of the donor and the SMV of the recipient.

Outcome of modified portal vein anastomosis for recipients with portal vein thrombosis or stenosis before living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) or stenosis (PVS) often requires challenging techniques for reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 57 LDLTs were performed between October 1996 and December 2010. There were 16 cases (28%) with PVT/PVS that underwent modified portal vein anastomosis (m-PVa). The m-PVa techniques were classified into 3 groups: patch graft (Type-1), interposition graft (Type-2), and using huge shunt vessels (Type-3). The reconstruction patterns were evaluated with regard to age, graft vessels, PV flow, and complication rate.

RESULTS

The m-PVas were Type-1 in 10 cases, Type-2 in 3 cases, and Type-3 in 3 cases. The vessel graft in Type-1 was the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) in 8 and the jugular vein in 2 cases, whereas the vessel graft in Type-2 was IMV in 2 and the saphenous vein in 1 case; in Type-3, the vessel grafts were renoportal, gonadal-portal, and coronary-portal anastomoses, respectively. The postoperative PV flow was sufficient in all types and slightly higher in Type-3. The postoperative complications occurred in 20% of the patients who underwent Type-1, in 33% who underwent Type-2, and in 0% who underwent Type-3.

CONCLUSION

The m-PVa was effective to overcome the surgical difficulty during transplantation. Pretransplant planning for the selection of the type of reconstruction is important for recipients with PVT/PVS.

Liver Transplantation in Liver Cirrhosis Patients Accompanied by Portal Vein Thrombosis

Benign portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a challenging complication of an otherwise successful liver transplantation. PVT is caused by various conditions and results in pathologic hemodynamics of hepatofugal diversion of porto-mesenteric blood flow. Thus, adequate restoration of portal blood flow to the liver graft is a major concern when trying to achieve successful liver transplantation in patients with PVT. This letter describes the surgical view point of PVT in liver transplantation.