Extended right split liver graft for primary transplantation in children and adults

Improving outcomes of in situ split liver transplantation in Italy over the last 25 years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure that is by no means widely accepted. We aimed to present data on 25-year trends in SLT in Italy, and to investigate if, and to what extent, outcomes have improved nationwide during this time.

METHODS

The study included all consecutive SLTs performed from May 1993 to December 2019, divided into three consecutive periods: 1993-2005, 2006-2014, and 2015-2019, which match changes in national allocation policies. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and the relative impact of each study period.

RESULTS

SLT accounted for 8.9% of all liver transplants performed in Italy. A total of 1,715 in situ split liver grafts were included in the analysis: 868 left lateral segments (LLSs) and 847 extended right grafts (ERGs). A significant improvement in patient and graft survival (p <0.001) was observed with ERGs over the three periods. Predictors of graft survival were cold ischaemia time (CIT) <6 h (p = 0.009), UNOS status 2b (p <0.001), UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009), and transplant centre volumes: 25-50 cases vs. <25 cases (p = 0.003). Patient survival was significantly higher with LLS grafts in period 2 vs. period 1 (p = 0.008). No significant improvement in graft survival was seen over the three periods, where predictors of graft survival were CIT <6 h (p = 0.007), CIT <6 h vs. ≥10 h (p = 0.019), UNOS status 2b (p = 0.038), and UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009). Retransplantation was a risk factor in split liver graft recipients, with significantly worse graft and patient survival for both types of graft (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed Italian SLT outcomes to have improved over the last 25 years. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure and is by no means widely accepted. This study included all consecutive in situ SLTs performed in Italy from May 1993 to December 2019. With more than 1,700 cases, it is one of the largest series, examining long-term national trends in in situ SLT since its introduction. The data presented indicate that the outcomes of SLT improved during this 25-year period. Improvements are probably due to better recipient selection, refinements in surgical technique, conservative graft-to-recipient matching, and the continuous, yet carefully managed, expansion of donor selection criteria under a strict mandatory split liver allocation policy. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure.

Are split liver grafts a suitable option in high-risk liver transplant recipients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the outcomes of split liver transplantation (SLT) in adults and children and evaluate its role in high-risk recipients with a high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, an urgent indication or requiring retransplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Split liver grafts in general have equivalent long-term survival outcomes to whole grafts despite an increase in biliary complications. Recent success and technical advances have encouraged use of these grafts in high-risk recipients. Split liver grafts can be used successfully in recipients with a high MELD score if there is adequate weight-matching. There are mixed results in urgent indication recipients and for retransplantation such that use in this group of patients remains controversial.

SUMMARY

SLT addresses donor shortages by facilitating the transplant of two recipients from the same donor liver. By using careful donor and recipient selection criteria, SLT can achieve equivalent long-term outcomes to whole grafts. These grafts have been used successfully in recipients with a high MELD score, but should be used selectively in urgent indication recipients and for retransplantation.

Liberal Use of Interposition Grafts for Arterial Reconstruction Is Safe and Effective in Adult Split Liver Transplantation

Background.

Split liver transplantation (SLT) addresses donor shortages by providing 2 partial grafts from a single donor liver. Arterial reconstruction using an interposition graft facilitates the use of split grafts with difficult recipient anatomy. Its use, however, remains controversial because of a reported increased risk of complications.

Methods.

A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit database was performed. Donor, recipient, operative, and complications data for adults receiving an SLT between July 2002 and November 2019 were extracted.

Results.

Arterial reconstruction required an interposition graft in 46 of 155 patients. Overall graft and patient survival were not significantly different between the groups with 1-, 3-, and 5-y graft survivals of 82%, 77%, and 69% for those with interposition grafts and 86%, 79%, and 77% for those without interposition grafts, respectively (P = 0.499). There were more cut liver bile leaks in the interposition graft group (26% versus 9%, P = 0.004), but otherwise, no significant differences in the rate of biliary complications (39% versus 29% P = 0.200), hepatic artery thrombosis (7% versus 10%, P = 0.545), or hepatic artery stenosis (13% versus 10%, P = 0.518).

Conclusions.

Liberal use of interposition grafts for arterial reconstruction in SLT is safe and does not result in increased complications.

Addressing the challenges of split liver transplantation through technical advances. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Split liver transplantation addresses donor shortages by facilitating the transplant of two recipients using one donor liver. Some still consider these grafts inferior due to prolonged cold ischaemia time and at times difficult vascular reconstruction. Techniques such as in-situ splitting, machine perfusion and interposition grafts may address these challenges and thereby address these concerns. The aim of this review is to assess these technical advances in split liver transplantation, their utility and outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Keywords included 'split liver transplantation', 'arterial reconstruction', and 'machine perfusion'. Data found was synthesised into sections including: methods of splitting, full-left full-right splitting, donor cholangiography, machine perfusion and arterial reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 78 articles met inclusion criteria after screening of 151 eligible articles. These were subdivided into the following categories: in-situ (25), ex-vivo (25), full-left full-right splitting (15), donor cholangiography (2), machine perfusion (6), and arterial reconstruction (5). The in-situ splitting technique reduces the cold ischaemia time compared to the ex-vivo technique which may improve graft quality and liver splitting during normothermic machine perfusion is a novel technique with the potential to incorporate the best aspects of both techniques. Interposition grafts are often required during split liver transplantation but have an increased risk of hepatic artery thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Advancements in technique have allowed many of the unique challenges of split liver transplantation to be overcome. Overall, this supports the use of split liver transplantation in broader and riskier settings and we advocate for liver transplant surgeons to not hesitate in using these grafts liberally and expanding their recipient selection criteria.

Considering extended right lobe grafts as major extended donor criteria in liver transplantation is justified

The outcomes of split-liver transplantation are controversial. This study compared outcomes and morbidity after extended right lobe liver transplantation (ERLT) and whole liver transplantation (WLT) in adults. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly for studies on ERLT and its impact on graft and patient survival, and postoperative complications. Graft loss and patient mortality odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Vascular and biliary complications, primary nonfunction, 3-month, 1-, and 3-year graft and patient survival, and retransplantation after ERLT and WLT were analyzed. The literature search yielded 10 594 articles. After exclusion, 22 studies (n = 75 799 adult transplant patients) were included in the analysis. ERLT was associated with lower 3-month (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.09-1.89, P = 0.01), 1-year (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.08-1.97, P = 0.01), and 3-year (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.01-1.84, P = 0.04) graft survival. WL grafts were less associated with retransplantation (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.41-0.80; P < 0.01), vascular complications (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38-0.74, P < 0.01) and biliary complications (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; P = 0.03). Considering ERLT as major Extended Donor Criteria is justified because ERL grafts are associated with vasculobiliary complications and the need for retransplantation, and have a negative influence on graft survival.

A national mandatory-split liver policy: A report from the Italian experience

To implement split liver transplantation (SLT) a mandatory-split policy has been adopted in Italy since August 2015: donors aged 18-50 years at standard risk are offered for SLT, resulting in a left-lateral segment (LLS) graft for children and an extended-right graft (ERG) for adults. We aim to analyze the impact of the new mandatory-split policy on liver transplantation (LT)-waiting list and SLT outcomes, compared to old allocation policy. Between August 2015 and December 2016 out of 413 potentially "splittable" donors, 252 (61%) were proposed for SLT, of whom 53 (21%) donors were accepted for SLT whereas 101 (40.1%) were excluded because of donor characteristics and 98 (38.9%) for absence of suitable pediatric recipients. The SLT rate augmented from 6% to 8.4%. Children undergoing SLT increased from 49.3% to 65.8% (P = .009) and the pediatric LT-waiting list time dropped (229 [10-2121] vs 80 [12-2503] days [P = .045]). The pediatric (4.5% vs 2.5% [P = .398]) and adult (9.7% to 5.2% [P < .001]) LT-waiting list mortality reduced; SLT outcomes remained stable. Retransplantation (HR = 2.641, P = .035) and recipient weight >20 kg (HR = 5.113, P = .048) in LLS, and ischemic time >8 hours (HR = 2.475, P = .048) in ERG were identified as predictors of graft failure. A national mandatory-split policy maximizes the SLT donor resources, whose selection criteria can be safely expanded, providing favorable impact on the pediatric LT-waiting list and priority for adult sick LT candidates.

Right lobe split liver graft versus whole liver transplantation: A systematic review by updated traditional and cumulative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Advancements in surgical techniques and experience of donor-recipient pairing has led to a wider use of right split liver grafts in adults. An update meta-analysis was conducted to compare right split liver graft (RSLG) and whole liver transplantation (WLT) using traditional and cumulative approaches.

METHODS

Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar). Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed and random effects models. Patient and graft survival were obtained using the inverse variance hazard ratio method.

RESULTS

Donors were significantly younger in the RSLG group than in the WLT group (MD = -12.06 [-16.29 to -7.83]; P < .001). In addition, the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was significantly lower in the RSLG group than in the WLT group (MD = -2.45 [-4.61 to -.28]; P = .03). However, cold ischaemia time was significantly longer by 1 h in the RSLG group than in the WLT group (MD = 57 [20.63-92.73]; P = .002). Overall biliary, vascular, and outflow tract complications and hepatic artery thrombosis were significantly lower in the WLT group than in the RSLG group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.75 [1.35-2.27], P < .001; OR = 1.91 [1.37-2.65], P = .006; Peto OR = 1.83 [1.19-2.82], P = .006; and Peto OR = 2.07 [1.39-3.10], P = .004, respectively). However, no difference in patient and graft survival was noted between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the RSLG group had a higher postoperative complication rate than the WLT group, equal patient and graft survival benefits were observed.

Split liver transplantation in adults

Split liver transplantation (SLT), while widely accepted in pediatrics, remains underutilized in adults. Advancements in surgical techniques and donor-recipient matching, however, have allowed expansion of SLT from utilization of the right trisegment graft to now include use of the hemiliver graft as well. Despite less favorable outcomes in the early experience, better outcomes have been reported by experienced centers and have further validated the feasibility of SLT. Importantly, more than two decades of experience have identified key requirements for successful SLT in adults. When these requirements are met, SLT can achieve outcomes equivalent to those achieved with other types of liver transplantation for adults. However, substantial challenges, such as surgical techniques, logistics, and ethics, persist as ongoing barriers to further expansion of this highly complex procedure. This review outlines the current state of SLT in adults, focusing on donor and recipient selection based on physiology, surgical techniques, surgical outcomes, and ethical issues.

Current status and perspectives in split liver transplantation

Growing experience with the liver splitting technique and favorable results equivalent to those of whole liver transplant have led to wider application of split liver transplantation (SLT) for adult and pediatric recipients in the last decade. Conversely, SLT for two adult recipients remains a challenging surgical procedure and outcomes have yet to improve. Differences in organ shortages together with religious and ethical issues related to cadaveric organ donation have had an impact on the worldwide distribution of SLT. Despite technical refinements and a better understanding of the complex liver anatomy, SLT remains a technically and logistically demanding surgical procedure. This article reviews the surgical and clinical advances in this field of liver transplantation focusing on the role of SLT and the issues that may lead a further expansion of this complex surgical procedure.

Long-term results after adult ex situ split liver transplantation since its introduction in 1987

BACKGROUND

Split liver transplantation is still discussed controversially. Utilization of split liver grafts has been declining since a change of allocation rules for the second graft abolished incentives for German centres to perform ex situ splits. We therefore analysed our long-term experiences with the first ex situ split liver transplant series worldwide.

METHODS

A total of 131 consecutive adult ex situ split liver transplants (01.12.1987-31.12.2010) were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality rates and 1- and 3-year patient survival rates were 13, 76.3, and 66.4 %, respectively. One- and three-year graft survival rates were 63.4 and 54.2 %, respectively. The observed 10-year survival rate was 40.6 %. Continuous improvement of survival from era 1 to 3 was observed (each era: 8 years), indicating a learning curve over 24 years of experience. Patient and graft survival were not influenced by different combinations of transplanted segments or types of biliary reconstruction (p > 0.05; Cox regression). Patients transplanted for primary sclerosing cholangitis had better survival (p = 0.021; log-rank), whereas all other indications including acute liver failure (13.6 %), acute and chronic graft failure (9.1 %) had no significant influence on survival (p > 0.05; log-rank). Biliary complications (27.4 %) had no significant influence on patient or graft survival (p > 0.05; log-rank). Hepatic artery thrombosis (13.2 %) had a significant influence on graft survival but not on patient survival (p = 0.002, >0.05, respectively; log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

Split liver transplantation can be used safely and appears to be an underutilized resource that may benefit from liberal allocation of the second graft.

Right lobe split liver transplantation versus whole liver transplantation in adult recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Split liver transplantation (SLT) has proven to be an effective technique to reduce the mortality of children on the waiting list, but whether creating 2 split grafts from 1 standard-criteria whole liver would compromise outcomes of adult recipients remains uncertain. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare outcomes of right lobe SLT and whole liver transplantation (WLT) in adult patients. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles published before December 2014. Outcomes assessed were patient survival (PS), graft survival (GS), and major surgical complications after transplantation. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to synthesize the results. Seventeen studies with a total of 48,457 patients met the full inclusion criteria. PS and GS rates were all found to be equivalent between SLT and WLT recipients. However, SLT was associated with higher rates of overall biliary complications (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.29-2.15; P < 0.001), bile leaks (OR = 4.30; 95% CI = 2.97-6.23; P < 0.001), overall vascular complications (OR = 1.81; 95% CI = 1.29-2.53; P < 0.001), hepatic artery thromboses (OR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.17-2.50; P = 0.005), and outflow tract obstructions (OR = 4.17; 95% CI = 1.75-9.94; P = 0.001). No significant difference was observed in incidences of biliary stricture, portal vein complications, postoperative bleeding requiring surgical treatments, primary nonfunction, and retransplantations. In subgroup analyses, biliary and vascular complications only increased after ex vivo SLT rather than in situ SLT, and SLT recipients had more retransplantations if they matched with WLT recipients in terms of urgent status. In conclusion, adult right lobe SLT was associated with increased biliary and vascular complications compared with WLT, but it did not show significant inferiority in PSs and GSs.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups. MORTALITY There were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47). RETRANSPLANTATION There were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).There was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.No trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

A non-interventional study of the genetic polymorphisms of NOD2 associated with increased mortality in non-alcoholic liver transplant patients

Background

Infections after liver transplantation are the main cause of death in the first year. Recent reports indicate that NOD2 gene mutations increase the risk for inflammatory bowl disease and the severity of graft-versus-host disease in bone marrow transplant patients. Data on polymorphisms in liver transplant patients are sparse. We analyzed 13 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of 13 different gene variants including the SNPs of NOD2 genes from liver recipients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the SNPs on dialysis-dependent kidney failure, the incidence of infections and patient survival.

Methods

During a period of 20-months, 231 patients were recruited in this non-interventional, prospective study. Thirteen different SNPs and their impact on the patients’ survival, infection rate, and use of dialysis were assessed.

Results

NOD 2 wildtype genes were protective with respect to the survival of non-alcoholic, cirrhotic transplant patients (3 year survival: 66.8% wildtype vs. 42.6% gene mutation, p = 0.026). This effect was not observed in alcoholic transplant recipients.

The incidence of dialysis-dependent kidney failure and infection in the liver transplant patients was not influenced by NOD 2 gene polymorphisms. No effect was noted in the remaining 12 SNPs.

Patients with early allograft dysfunction experienced significantly more infections, required dialysis and had significantly worse survival.

In contrast, the donor-risk-index had no impact on the infection rate, use of dialysis or survival.

Conclusion

NOD2 gene variants seem to play a key role in non-alcoholic, liver transplant recipients. However these data should be validated in a larger cohort.

Antiviral interventions for liver transplant patients with recurrent graft infection due to hepatitis C virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the therapeutic benefits and harms of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis. In the presence of only trials for a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 17 trials with 736 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. All trials had high risk of bias. Five hundred and one patients randomised in 11 trials provided information for various comparisons in this systematic review after excluding post-randomisation drop-outs and patients from trials that did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The comparisons for which outcomes were available included pegylated (peg) interferon versus control; peg interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin plus peg interferon versus peg interferon; peg interferon (1.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin versus peg interferon (0.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin; amantadine plus peg interferon plus ribavirin versus peg interferon plus ribavirin; interferon versus control; interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin versus interferon; and ribavirin versus placebo. Long-term follow-up was not available in these trials. There were no significant differences in mortality, retransplantation, graft rejections requiring retransplantation or medical treatment, or fibrosis worsening between the groups in any of the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported. Quality of life and liver decompensation were not reported in any of the trials. There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events in the ribavirin plus peg interferon combination therapy group than in the peg interferon monotherapy group (1 trial; 56 participants; 17/28 (60.7%) in the intervention group versus 5/28 (17.9%) in the control group; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.94). There was no significant difference in proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events or in the number of serious adverse events between the intervention and control groups in the other comparisons that reported serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the lack of clinical benefit, there is currently no evidence to recommend or refute antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors with adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of chronic hepatitis C virus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether prophylactic antiviral therapy is indicated to improve patient and graft survival in patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic decompensated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antiviral therapies for patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status and comparing various prophylactic antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the prophylactic treatment of patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 501 liver transplant recipients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection were randomised in 12 trials to various experimental interventions and control interventions. The proportion of genotype I varied between 49% and 100% in the seven trials that reported the genotype. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. All the trials were of high risk of bias. Ten trials including 441 liver transplant recipients provided data for this review.There were no significant differences in the 90-day mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; 5/35 (adjusted proportion: 14.2%) in interferon group versus 5/46 (10.9%) in control group; RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.41 to 4.19); mortality at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 7/47 (adjusted proportion: 14.8%) in interferon group versus 10/58 (17.2%) in control group; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.08); long-term mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.56); mortality at maximal follow-up (1 trial; 54 participants; 1/26 (3.9%) in pegylated interferon group versus 2/28 (7.1%) in control group; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.59); 90-day mortality (1 trial; 115 participants; 5/55 (9.1%) in pegylated interferon plus ribavirin group versus 3/60 (5.0%) in control group; RR 1.82; 95% 0.46 to 7.25); 90-day mortality (3 trials; 53 participants; 3/37 (adjusted proportion: 4.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 1/16 (6.3%) in placebo group; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.15 to 3.11); or 90-day mortality (2 trials; 31 participants; 2/14 (adjusted proportion: 16.2%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 1/17 (5.9%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 2.75; 95% CI; 0.30 to 25.35). There were no significant differences in the retransplantation at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 2/47 (adjusted proportion: 4.0%) in interferon group versus 2/58 (3.4%) in control group; RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.22 to 6.2); 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 18 participants; 1/12 (8.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 0/6 (0%) in control group; RR 1.71; 95% CI 0.09 to 32.93); or 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 12 participants; 1/6 (17.7%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 0/6 (0%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74). There were no significant differences in serious adverse events, graft rejection, worsening of fibrosis, or HCV recurrence between intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life, liver decompensation, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay. Life-threatening adverse events were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to recommend prophylactic antiviral treatment to prevent recurrence of HCV infection either in primary liver transplantation or retransplantation. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Techniques of flushing and reperfusion for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Various techniques of flushing and reperfusion have been advocated to improve outcomes after liver transplantation. There is considerable uncertainty as to which method is superior.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different methods of flushing and reperfusion during liver implantation in the transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare different techniques of flushing and reperfusion during liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials involving 418 patients for this review. The sample size in the trials varied from 30 to 131 patients. Only one trial involving 131 patients was of low risk of bias for mortality. This trial was at high risk of bias for other outcomes. Four trials excluded patients who underwent liver transplantation for acute liver failure. All the trials included livers obtained from cadaveric donors. The remaining five trials were of high risk of bias for all outcomes. Liver transplantation was performed by the conventional method (caval replacement) in two trials and piggy-back method (caval preservation) in one trial. The method of liver transplantation was not available in the remaining three trials. The comparisons performed included an initial hepatic artery flush versus initial portal vein flush; blood venting via inferior vena cava in addition to venting of storage fluid versus no blood venting; initial hepatic artery reperfusion versus initial portal vein reperfusion; simultaneous hepatic artery and portal vein reperfusion versus initial portal vein reperfusion; and retrograde inferior vena cava reperfusion versus simultaneous hepatic artery and portal vein reperfusion. Only one or two trials could be included under each comparison. There was no significant difference in mortality, graft survival, or severe morbidity rates in any of the comparisons. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of any specific technique of flushing or reperfusion during liver transplantation. Due to the paucity of data, absence of evidence should not be confused with evidence of absence of any differences. Further well designed trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors are necessary.

Methods to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Excessive blood loss and increased blood transfusion requirements may have significant impact on the short-term and long-term outcomes after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the potential benefits and harms of different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and metaRegister of Controlled Trials until September 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare various methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available data analysis. We also conducted network meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials involving 1913 patients. The sample size in the trials varied from 8 to 209 participants. The interventions included pharmacological interventions (aprotinin, tranexamic acid, epsilon amino caproic acid, antithrombin 3, recombinant factor (rFvIIa), oestrogen, prostaglandin, epinephrine), blood substitutes (blood components rather than whole blood, hydroxy-ethyl starch, thromboelastography), and cardiovascular interventions (low central venous pressure). All the trials were of high risk of bias. Primary outcomes were reported in at least two trials for the following comparisons: aprotinin versus control, tranexamic acid versus control, recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control, and tranexamic acid versus aprotinin. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 6/161 (3.7%) in the aprotinin group versus 8/119 (6.7%) in the control group; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.45), primary graft non-function (2 trials; 0/128 (0.0%) in the aprotinin group versus 4/89 (4.5%) in the control group; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.25), retransplantation (3 trials; 2/256 (0.8%) in the aprotinin group versus 12/178 (6.7%) in the control group; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79), or thromboembolic episodes (3 trials; 4/161 (2.5%) in the aprotinin group versus 5/119 (4.2%) in the control group; RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84) between the aprotinin and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 4/83 (4.8%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 5/56 (8.9%) in the control group; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.76), retransplantation (2 trials; 3/41 (7.3%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 3/36 (8.3%) in the control group; RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.48), or thromboembolic episodes (5 trials; 5/103 (4.9%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 1/76 (1.3%) in the control group; RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.38 to 12.64) between the tranexamic acid and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 8/195 (4.1%) in the recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) group versus 2/91 (2.2%) in the control group; RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.33 to 6.95), thromboembolic episodes (2 trials; 24/185 (13.0%) in the rFVIIa group versus 8/81 (9.9%) in the control group; RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.91), or serious adverse events (2 trials; 90/185 (48.6%) in the rFVIIa group versus 30/81 (37.0%) in the control group; RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78) between the rFVIIa and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (2 trials; 6/91 (6.6%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 1/87 (1.1%) in the aprotinin group; RR 4.12; 95% CI 0.71 to 23.76) or thromboembolic episodes (2 trials; 4/91 (4.4%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 2/87 (2.3%) in the aprotinin group; RR 1.97; 95% CI 0.37 to 10.37) between the tranexamic acid and aprotinin groups. The remaining outcomes in the above comparisons and the remaining comparisons included only only trial under the primary outcome or the outcome was not reported at all in the trials. There were no significant differences in the mortality, primary graft non-function, graft failure, retransplantation, thromboembolic episodes, or serious adverse events in any of these comparisons. However, the confidence intervals were wide, and it is not possible to reach any conclusion on the safety of the interventions. None of the trials reported the quality of life in patients.Secondary outcomes were reported in at least two trials for the following comparisons - aprotinin versus control, tranexamic acid versus control, rFVIIa versus control, thromboelastography versus control, and tranexamic acid versus aprotinin. There was significantly lower allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in the aprotinin group than the control group (8 trials; 185 patients in aprotinin group and 190 patients in control group; SMD -0.61; 95% CI -0.82 to -0.40). There were no significant differences in the allogeneic blood transfusion requirements between the tranexamic acid and control groups (4 trials; 93 patients in tranexamic acid group and 66 patients in control group; SMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.06); rFVIIa and control groups (2 trials; 141 patients in rFVIIa group and 80 patients in control group; SMD -0.05; 95% CI -0.32 to 0.23); thromboelastography and control groups (2 trials; 31 patients in thromboelastography group and 31 patients in control group; SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.69 to 0.24); or between the tranexamic acid and aprotinin groups (3 trials; 101 patients in tranexamic acid group and 97 patients in aprotinin group; SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.19). The remaining outcomes in the above comparisons and the remaining comparisons included only only trial under the primary outcome or the outcome was not reported at all in the trials. There were no significant differences in the blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, or intensive care unit stay in most of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aprotinin, recombinant factor VIIa, and thromboelastography groups may potentially reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements. However, risks of systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance) hamper the confidence in this conclusion. We need further well-designed randomised trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors before these interventions can be supported or refuted.

Routine drainage for orthotopic liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Routine use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing liver transplantation is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after orthotopic liver transplantation versus no drainage and to address different drain types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the MetaRegister of Controlled Trials until March 2011 to identify the randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors identified the trials for inclusion independently. Two authors planned to collect the data independently. We planned to analyse the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised clinical trials addressing this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to conclude whether routine abdominal drainage is useful or harmful in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. Evidence from non-randomised studies of high risk of bias showed conflicting results on the impact of routine drainage in orthotopic liver transplantation on serious adverse events, showing that this question is an important clinical research question. Well-designed randomised clinical trials with adequate sample size to decrease systematic errors and to decrease random errors are necessary.

Veno-venous bypass versus none for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous bypass is used to overcome the effects of clamping of the inferior vena cava and portal vein during liver transplanation. The routine use of veno-venous bypass is, however, controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of veno-venous bypass (irrespective of open or percutaneous technique; heparin-coated or no heparin-coating) versus no veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation. To compare the benefits and harms of the different techniques of veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until December 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat or available case analysis. For binary outcomes, we used the Fisher's exact test since none of the comparisons of binary outcomes included more than one trial.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials with high risk of bias which compared veno-venous bypass (n = 65) versus no veno-venous bypass (n = 66). None of the trials reported patient or graft survival. There were no significant differences regarding renal failure or blood transfusion requirements between the two groups. None of the trials reported on the morbidity related to veno-venous bypass or the requirement of veno-venous bypass in the control group.We identified one trial with high risk of bias which compared percutaneous (n = 20) versus open technique (n =19) of veno-venous bypass. The patient or graft survival was not reported. There was no difference in veno-venous bypass related morbidity between the two groups. The operating time was significantly shorter in the percutaneous technique group (MD -59 minutes; 95% CI -102 to -16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of veno-venous bypass in liver transplantation. There is no evidence to prefer any particular technique of veno-venous bypass in liver transplantation.

Strategies for widening liver donor pool

Liver transplantation is a life-saving treatment modality, but is hindered by the scarcity of deceased-donor liver grafts. To acquire more liver grafts and thus save more lives, various techniques have been devised and policies adopted, including living-donor, split-graft and sequential liver transplantation; extended donor criteria; and donation after cardiac death. However, with these techniques and policies come a range of entailed medical concerns and concomitant ethical dilemmas, mainly bearing on the welfare of donors and potential donors. In this article, we provide an overview of how the transplant community works towards the end of extending the liver donor pool, with the aim of ensuring that more liver transplant candidates receive their transplant as early as possible. The current strategies in Hong Kong in this regard are also reviewed.

Piggy-back graft for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Piggy-back method of transplantation, which involves preservation of the recipient retrohepatic inferior vena cava, has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional method of liver transplantation, where the recipient retrohepatic inferior vena cava is resected.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of piggy-back technique versus conventional liver transplantation as well as of the different modifications of piggy-back technique during liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until June 2010 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (KSG and VP) independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis for continuous outcomes. For binary outcomes, we used the Fisher's exact test since none of the comparisons of binary outcomes included more than one trial.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials randomised in total 106 patients to piggy-back method (n = 53) versus conventional method with veno-venous bypass (n = 53). Both trials were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in post-operative mortality, primary graft non-function, vascular complications, renal failure, transfusion requirements, intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay, or hospital stay between the two groups. The warm ischaemic time was significantly shorter in the piggy-back method than the conventional method (MD -11.50 minutes; 95% CI -19.35 to -3.65; P < 0.01). The proportion of patients who developed chest complications were significantly higher in the the piggy-back method than the conventional method (75.8% versus 44.1%; P = 0.01).One trial randomised 80 patients to piggy-back with porto-caval bypass (n = 40) versus piggy-back without porto-caval bypass (n = 40). This trial was at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in post-operative mortality, re-transplantation due to primary graft non-function, vascular complications, renal failure, or hospital stay between the two groups. Fewer patients required blood transfusion in the piggy-back with porto-caval bypass group (55%) than the piggy-back without porto-caval bypass group (75%) (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the mean amount of blood transfused between the groups (MD -1.00 unit; 95% CI -2.19 to 0.19; P = 0.10). The ITU stay was significantly shorter in the piggy-back with porto-caval bypass group (2.9 days) than the piggy-back without porto-caval bypass group (4.9 days; MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.82 to -0.18; P = 0.03).There were no trials comparing piggy-back method with conventional method without veno-venous bypass or different techniques of piggy-back method.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to recommend or refute the use of piggy-back method of liver transplantation.

Antiviral prophylactic intervention for chronic hepatitis C virus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether prophylactic antiviral therapy is indicated in patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic decompensated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic anti-viral therapies for patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status and comparing various prophylactic antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the prophylactic treatment of patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 477 liver transplant recipients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection were randomised in eleven trials to various interventions and controls. The proportion of genotype I varied between 49% to 88% in the five trials that reported the genotype. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. All the trials were of high risk of bias. There was no significant differences in the patient survival, graft rejection, re-transplantation, or HCV recurrence between intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported liver decompensation, primary graft non-function, intensive therapy unit stay, hospital stay, or quality of life. Life-threatening adverse events were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons. Up to 91% of patients required reduction in dose and up to 36% of patients required cessation of treatment in the various comparisons because of adverse events or because of patient's choice to stop treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to recommend prophylactic antiviral treatment to prevent recurrence of HCV infection either in primary liver transplantation or re-transplantation. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Antiviral therapy for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral therapy to treat recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the therapeutic benefits and harms of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis. In the presence of only trial for a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 425 liver transplant recipients with proven hepatitis C recurrence were randomised in twelve trials to various interventions and controls. The mean proportion of genotype I was 79.9% in the nine trials that reported the genotype. All the trials were of high risk of bias. One to two trials were included under each comparison including single drug or multidrug regimens of interferon, ribavirin, and amantadine. There was no significant difference in the mortality, graft rejection, or in re-transplantation between intervention and control in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported liver decompensation or quality of life. Life-threatening adverse effects were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons. Up to 87.5% of patients required reduction in dose and up to 42.9% of patients required cessation of treatment in the various comparisons because of adverse effects or because of patient's choice to stop treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the lack of clinical benefit and the frequent adverse effects, there is currently no evidence to recommend antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with HCV. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Conventional split liver transplantation for two adult recipients: a recent experience in a single European center

BACKGROUND

Split liver transplantation (SLT) for two adult recipients is still considered a challenging procedure, especially when subjected to model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based allocation criteria.

METHODS

Twenty-two SLTs were performed in adult recipients in a European center operating within a MELD-oriented system. Thirteen right-sided grafts and nine left-sided grafts were used. Right-sided grafts included 11 extended right grafts and two full right grafts. Left-sided grafts included six left lateral segment grafts and three full left grafts. Ninety-three percent of donors were allocated based on MELD score. Median graft-to-recipient body weight ratio was 1.53 (range 1.07-2.11) with right-sided grafts and 0.81 (range 0.67-1.11) with left-sided grafts. Liver cirrhosis (46%) and metabolic/genetic disorders (56%) were the main indications for transplant in recipients of right and left grafts, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall patient and graft survival were 90% and 86%. Patient survival was 84% in recipients of right grafts and 100% in recipients of left grafts. Graft survival was 84% and 89%, respectively. Vascular and biliary complications occurred in 14% and 4% of cases. Postoperative serum levels of total bilirubin were significantly higher in recipients of left-sided grafts versus right-sided grafts on postoperative days 7 and 14. Prothrombin activity was significantly lower in recipients of left-sided grafts versus right-sided grafts on postoperative days 3 and 7.

CONCLUSIONS

SLT for two adult recipients can be successfully performed even using left lateral segments by assigning one graft according to MELD score, and with a more liberal allocation of the second graft.

Donor and recipient selection leads to good patient and graft outcomes for right lobe split transplantation versus whole graft liver transplantation in adult recipients

The outcomes of right lobe split (RLS) liver transplantation are variable in adult recipients. This report is an analysis of outcomes of our initial 5-year experience with the right lobe trisegment split graft. A retrospective analysis was performed of the recipient and graft outcomes from July 2002 to March 2007 of all adult recipients of RLS grafts versus recipients of whole grafts (WGs). All data were analyzed with Stata version 8 (Stata Corp., Texas). There were 43 (19.1%) RLS recipients and 182 (80.9%) WG recipients. The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 13 (7-23) in the RLS group and 18 (6-50) in the WG group (P < 0.001). Hepatocellular carcinoma and primary sclerosing cholangitis were more common in the RLS group (P < 0.05), whereas alcoholic cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis C were more common in the WG group. The median donor age was lower in the RLS group at 39 (13-61) years versus the WG group at 47 (12-79) years (P < 0.001). Primary nonfunction occurred in 1.6% of the WG patients only. Biliary complications occurred in 28% of the RLS patients versus 28% of the WG patients. Vascular complications occurred in 18% of the RLS patients versus 14% of the WG patients. The retransplantation rate was similar at 2.3% in the RLS group versus 4.9% in the WG group (P = not significant). Overall 3-year recipient survival was 92.7% in the RLS group versus 82.7% in the WG group (P = 0.284). Graft survival was 88.4% in the RLS group at 3 years versus 78.5% in the WG group (P = 0.304). In conclusion, good outcomes can be achieved with RLS liver transplantation in adult recipients without a detrimental effect on recipient or graft survival.

Extended right liver grafts obtained by an ex situ split can be used safely for primary and secondary transplantation with acceptable biliary morbidity

Split liver transplantation (SLT) is clearly beneficial for pediatric recipients. However, the increased risk of biliary complications in adult recipients of SLT in comparison with whole liver transplantation (WLT) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical outcome of biliary complications in an SLT group using split extended right grafts (ERGs) after ex situ splitting in comparison with WLT in adults. The retrospectively collected data for 80 consecutive liver transplants using ERGs after ex situ splitting between 1998 and 2007 were compared with the data for 80 liver transplants using whole liver grafts in a matched-pair analysis paired by the donor age, recipient age, indications, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and high-urgency status. The cold ischemic time was significantly longer in the SLT group (P = 0.006). As expected, bile leakage from the transected surface occurred only in the SLT group (15%) without any mortality or graft loss. The incidence of all other early or late biliary complications (eg, anastomotic leakage and stenosis) was not different between SLT and WLT. The 1- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates showed no statistical difference between SLT and WLT [83.2% and 82.0% versus 88.5% and 79.8% (P = 0.92) and 70.8% and 67.5% versus 83.6% and 70.0% (P = 0.16), respectively]. In conclusion, ERGs can be used safely without any increased mortality and with acceptable morbidity, and they should also be considered for retransplantation. The significantly longer cold ischemic time in the SLT group indicates the potential for improved results and should thus be considered in the design of allocation policies.

Antiviral therapy for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral therapy to treat recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the therapeutic efficacy and side effects of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 389 liver transplant recipients with proven hepatitis C recurrence were randomised in eleven trials to various interventions and controls. The mean proportion of genotype I was 77.8% in the seven trials that reported the genotype. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. All the trials were of high risk of bias. There was no difference in the mortality, graft rejection, or in re-transplantation between intervention and control in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported liver decompensation or quality of life. Life-threatening adverse effects were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons. Up to 87.5% of patients required reduction in dose and up to 42.9% of patients required cessation of treatment in the various comparisons because of adverse effects or because of patient's choice to stop treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. Considering the lack of clinical benefit and the frequent adverse effects, there is currently no evidence to recommend antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with HCV. 2. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, and overall transplant costs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on infections, adverse effects of intervention, ITU (intensive therapy unit) stay, and hospital stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis and risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven trials for inclusion including 614 patients. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, patients were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In another trial, different doses of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and placebo were compared. The remaining two trials compared lactobacillus with fibres versus fibres alone and early enteral feeding versus no intervention. Only one trial was of low bias-risk. There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the selective bowel decontamination and the control groups. Selective bowel decontamination increased incidence of cholangitis (RR 4.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 20.35), incidence of bacterial infection (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74), and hospital stay (WMD 4.00, 95% CI 3.14 to 4.86) than the participants in the combined pre- and probiotic group. Hospital stay was prolonged in the selective bowel decontamination group compared to the prebiotic group. There was a statistically significant lower occurrence of urinary infection in the pre- and probiotic group than in the prebiotic group. The number of people experiencing gram-negative bacterial infection was not significantly lower in the probiotic group (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17). The ITU stay was lower in the probiotic group (WMD -1.41 days, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.73). There were no differences in any outcomes in the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination increases the risk of infection and hospital stay compared to prebiotics and probiotics. The use of prebiotics and probiotics offers promise. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary.

Split-liver transplantation: an underused resource in liver transplantation

Split-liver transplantation is an efficient tool to increase the number of liver grafts available for transplantation. More than 15 years after its introduction only the classical splitting technique has reached broad application. Consequently children are benefiting most from this possibility. Full-right full-left splitting for two adult recipients has been shown to work but is hampered mainly by the dangers of small-for-size transplantation. A solution to this last problem would completely change the scope of split-liver transplantation. Organ allocation systems and collaboration between centers play a crucial role in the chances to let suitable patients profit from this valuable source of extra grafts.

Ischaemic preconditioning for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic preconditioning is a mechanism for reducing organ ischaemia reperfusion injury by a brief period of organ ischaemia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of ischaemic preconditioning during donor hepatectomy for liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials comparing ischaemic preconditioning versus no ischaemic preconditioning during donor liver retrievals performed in humans in this review (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, initial poor function, primary graft non-function, re-transplantation, liver function tests, markers of neutrophil activation, apoptosis, and intensive therapy unit stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each binary outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

In three trials, 162 cadaveric liver donor retrievals were randomised; 78 to ischaemic preconditioning and 84 to no ischaemic preconditioning. In one trial, 15 living donor liver retrievals were randomised; 10 to ischaemic preconditioning and 5 to no ischaemic preconditioning. Three of the four trials were of low-risk bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, initial poor function, primary graft non-function, or re-transplant. There was no statistically significant difference in the transaminase activity, bilirubin level, prothrombin activity, median myeloperoxidase activity, median cluster of differentiation eight (CD8) expression, median inducible nitrogen oxide synthetase, or apoptosis. There was also no significant difference in the median intensive therapy unit stay of the recipients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of ischaemic preconditioning in donor liver retrievals. Further studies are necessary to identify the optimal ischaemic preconditioning stimulus. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the role of ischaemic preconditioning in donor liver retrievals involving a period of warm reperfusion, following ischaemic preconditioning during donor liver retrieval.

Combined double lung-liver transplantation for cystic fibrosis without cardio-pulmonary by-pass

Sequential bilateral single lung-liver transplantation (SBSL-LTx) is a therapeutic option for patients with end stage lung and liver disease (ESLLD) due to cystic fibrosis (CF). A few cases have been reported, all of them were performed with the use of cardio-pulmonary by-pass (CPB). We performed SBSL-LTx in three young men affected by CF. All the recipients had respiratory failure and portal hypertension with hypersplenism. Along with lung transplants, two patients received a whole liver graft and one an extended right graft from an in situ split liver. During transplantation neither CPB nor veno-venous by-pass (VVB) were employed. Immunosuppression was based on basiliximab, tacrolimus, steroids and azathioprine. The three recipients are alive with a median follow-up of 670 days (range 244-1,533). Combined SBSL-LTx is a complex but effective procedure for the treatment of ESLLD due to CF, not necessarily requiring the use of CPB or VVB.