Liver retransplantation in adults: a single-centre, 25-year experience

The impact of macro- and micro-steatosis on the outcomes of patients who undergo liver transplant: Analysis of the UNOS-STAR database

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The presence of steatosis in a donor liver and its relation to post-transplantation outcomes are not well defined. This study evaluates the effect of the presence and severity of micro- and macro-steatosis of a donor graft on post-transplantation outcomes.

METHODS

The UNOS-STAR registry (2005-2019) was used to select patients who received a liver transplant graft with hepatic steatosis. The study cohort was stratified by the presence of macro- or micro-vesicular steatosis, and further stratified by histologic grade of steatosis. The primary endpoints of all-cause mortality and graft failure were compared using sequential Cox regression analysis. Analysis of specific causes of mortality was further performed.

RESULTS

There were 9184 with no macro-steatosis (control), 150 with grade 3 macro-steatosis, 822 with grade 2 macro-steatosis and 12 585 with grade 1 macro-steatosis. There were 10 320 without micro-steatosis (control), 478 with grade 3 micro-steatosis, 1539 with grade 2 micro-steatosis and 10 404 with grade 1 micro-steatosis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor organ with any evidence of macro- or micro-steatosis, compared to those receiving non-steatotic grafts. There was increased mortality due to cardiac arrest among recipients of a grade 2 macro-steatosis donor organ.

CONCLUSION

This study shows no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor liver with any degree of micro- or macro-steatosis. Further analysis identified increased mortality due to specific aetiologies among recipients receiving donor organs with varying grades of macro- and micro-steatosis.

Incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute allograft rejection following liver transplantation in Australia

Acute allograft rejection is a well-known complication of liver transplantation (LT). The incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute rejection have not been well described in Australia. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT at a single center between 2010 and 2020. Donor and recipient data at the time of LT and recipient outcomes were collected from a prospective LT database. Liver biopsy reports were reviewed, and only a graft's first instance of biopsy-proven acute rejection was analyzed. During the study period, 796 liver transplants were performed in 770 patients. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 34.9% of transplants. There were no significant changes in the incidence of rejection over time (linear trend p =0.11). The median time to the first episode of rejection was 71 days after LT: 2.2% hyperacute, 50.4% early (≤90 d), and 47.5% late rejection (>90 d). Independent risk factors for rejection were younger recipient age at transplant (aHR 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00, p =0.01), and ABO-incompatible grafts (aHR 2.55 vs. ABO-compatible, 95% CI: 1.27-5.09, p <0.01) while simultaneous multiorgan transplants were protective (aHR 0.21 vs. LT only, 95% CI: 0.08-0.58, p <0.01). Development of acute rejection (both early and late) was independently associated with significantly reduced graft (aHR 3.13, 95% CI: 2.21-4.42, p <0.001) and patient survival (aHR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.35-4.98, p <0.001). In this 11-year Australian study, acute LT rejection occurred in 35%, with independent risk factors of younger recipient age and ABO-incompatible transplant, while having a simultaneous multiorgan transplant was protective. Acute rejection was independently associated with reduced graft and patient survival after adjustment for other factors.

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

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

Trajectories of patients relisted for liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recurrent cirrhosis complicates 10-30% of Liver transplants (LT) and can lead to consideration for re-transplantation. We evaluated the trajectories of relisted versus primary listed patients on the waitlist using a competing risk framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 1,912 patients listed for LT at our centre between from 2012 to 2020. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess overall survival (OS) by listing type and competing risk analysis Fine-Gray models were used to assess cumulative incidence of transplant by listing type.

RESULTS

1,731 patients were included (104 relisted). 44.2% of relisted patients received exception points vs. 19.8% of primary listed patients (p<0.001). Patients relisted without exceptions, representing those with graft cirrhosis, had the worst OS (HR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.63 - 6.67, p=<0.0001) and lowest instantaneous rate of transplant (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.38 - 0.83, p=0.006) than primary listed with exception points. On multivariate analysis listing type, height, bilirubin and INR were associated with cumulative incidence of transplant, while listing type, bilirubin, INR, sodium, creatinine were associated with OS. Within relisted patients, there was a trend towards higher mortality (HR: 1.79, 95%CI 0.91 - 3.52, p=0.08) and low transplant incidence (HR: 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 - 1.15, p=0.07) for graft cirrhosis vs other relisting indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients relisted for LT are carefully curated and comprise a minority of the waitlist population. Despite their younger age, they have worse liver/kidney function, poor waitlist survival, and decreased transplant incidence suggesting the need for early relisting, while considering standardized exception points.

The Yield of Routine Post-Operative Doppler Ultrasound to Detect Early Post-Liver Transplantation Vascular Complications

Early detection of liver transplantation (LT) vascular complications enables timely management. Our aim was to assess if routine Doppler ultrasound (rDUS) improves the detection of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and hepatic venous outflow obstruction (HVOO). We retrospectively analysed timing and outcomes, number needed to diagnose one complication (NND) and positive predictive value (PPV) of rDUS on post-operative day (POD) 0,1 and 7 in 708 adult patients who underwent primary LT between 2010-2022. We showed that HAT developed in 7.1%, PVT in 8.2% and HVOO in 3.1% of patients. Most early complications were diagnosed on POD 0 (26.9%), 1 (17.3%) and 5 (17.3%). rDUS correctly detected 21 out of 26 vascular events during the protocol days. PPV of rDUS was 53.8%, detection rate 1.1% and NND was 90.5. Median time to diagnosis was 4 days for HAT and 47 days for PVT and 21 days for HVOO. After intervention, liver grafts were preserved in 57.1%. In conclusion, rDUS protocol helps to detect first week's vascular events, but with low PPV and a high number of ultrasounds needed.

Mortality and Morbidity Among Adult Liver Retransplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver failure with up to 20% of patients suffering graft failure following primary transplantation. Retransplantation (ReLT) remains the only definitive treatment for irreversible graft failure.

AIMS

We aimed to explore the postoperative outcomes following liver ReLT.

METHODS

Patients who had received a liver transplant between 2003 and 2016 were retrospectively identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTRs). Patients were stratified based on previous liver transplant history. The primary outcomes of this study were 5-year postoperative mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay following LT.

RESULTS

60,554 (96%) recipients were first LT recipients and 2524 (4%) were ReLT recipients. Compared with first LT, ReLT recipients had significantly higher rates of mortality (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.76-2.12), overall morbidity (OR 1.80, 95%CI 1.65-1.96), and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.52-1.81) on multivariate analysis. Morbidity including cardiovascular (CVD) complications (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.08-1.60), graft failure (OR 2.18, 95%CI 1.84-2.57), infection (OR 2.13, 95%CI 1.82-2.50), and hemorrhage (OR 2.67, 95%CI 2.00-3.61) were significantly greater in ReLT recipients. Compared to first LT, ReLT patients had a significant increase in overall 5-year mortality (p < 0.001), 5-year mortality due to CVD complications (p < 0.001), infection (p = 0.009), but not graft failure (p = 0.3543).

CONCLUSION

ReLT is associated with higher rates of 5-year mortality, overall morbidity, CVD morbidity, infection, and graft failure. Higher 5-year mortality in ReLT is due to CVD and infections. These results could be used in preoperative patient assessment and prognostic counseling for ReLT.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Graft-recipient-weight ratio and lowered immunosuppression is important for the success of adult liver retransplantation

This study analyzed the risk of liver retransplantation and factors related to better outcome. Adult liver transplantations performed during 1996-2021 were included. Comparison between first transplantation and retransplantation were performed. Among retransplantation cases, comparison between whole liver and partial liver graft was performed. Multivariable Cox analyses for analyzing risk factors for primary graft and overall patient survival were performed for the entire cohort as well as the subgroup of patients with retransplantation. A total 2237 transplantations from 2135 adults were included and 103 cases were retransplantation. A total of 44 cases (42.7%) were related to acute graft dysfunction while 59 cases (57.3%) were related to subacute or chronic graft dysfunction. Retransplantation was related poor primary graft (HR 3.439, CI 2.230-5.304, P < 0.001) and overall patient survival. (HR 2.905, CI 2.089-4.040, P < 0.001) Among retransplantations, mean serum FK506 trough level ≥ 9 ng/mL was related to poor primary graft (HR 3.692, CI 1.288-10.587, P = 0.015) and overall patient survival. (HR 2.935, CI 1.195-7.211, P = 0.019) Graft-recipient-weight ratio under 1.0% was related to poor overall patient survival in retransplantations. (HR 3.668, CI 1.150-11.698, P = 0.028). Retransplantation can be complicated with poor graft and patient survival compared to first transplantation, especially when the graft size is relatively small. Lowering the FK506 trough level during the first month can be beneficial for outcome.

Post-Transplant Immunosuppression in Autoimmune Liver Disease

Autoimmune liver diseases (AILDs) are a group of conditions where immune-mediated liver damage can lead to the need for transplantation. Collectively, they account for almost a quarter of all liver transplants. Outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival for all liver transplants have improved markedly over decades with improvements in patient selection, surgical techniques and longer-term care and this is also seen in patients with AILDs. The current five- and ten-year survival rates post-transplant in autoimmune disease are excellent, at 88% and 78%, respectively. A key factor in maintaining good outcomes post liver transplant for these autoimmune conditions is the immunosuppression strategy. These patients have increased the rates of rejection, and autoimmune conditions can all recur in the graft ranging from 12 to 60% depending on the population studied. Immunosuppressive regimens are centred on calcineurin inhibitors, often combined with low dose corticosteroids, with or without the addition of antimetabolite therapy. There is no clear evidence-based immunosuppressive regimen for these conditions, and a tailored approach balancing the individuals' immunological profile against the risks of immunosuppression is often used. There are disease-specific considerations to optimised graft function including the role of ursodeoxycholic acid in both primary biliary cholangitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis and the role and timing of colectomy in primary sclerosing cholangitis in inflammatory bowel disease patients. However, unmet needs still exist in the management of AILDs post liver transplantation particularly in building the evidence base for optimal immunosuppression as well as mitigating the risk of recurrent disease.

The Effect of Early Retransplantation on Early and Late Survival After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Early liver retransplantation after liver transplantation (LT) is the ultimate salvage procedure for irreversible graft failure. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of early retransplantation on 90-day and 5-year patient survival.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 2185 patients after LT in the period between 1997 and 2019. First, the patients undergoing first retransplantation within 6 months after initial LT were compared with naïve LT patients for early mortality (within 90 days). Second, to assess late survival, the patients who had retransplantation and survived at least 90 days post LT were compared with naïve LT patients for 5-year overall survival. The patients undergoing late retransplantation (>6 months) were excluded from analyses. Fisher's exact test was used to compare groups for early survival and log-rank test for late survival.

RESULTS

The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 87.0%, 79.9%, 75.0%, respectively, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The patients undergoing early retransplantation had lower 90-day survival rate of 89.2% as compared to 95.7% for naïve LT patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The early liver retransplantation has profound impact on post-LT 90-day survival; however, patients who survive that period can achieve long overall survival comparable with naïve LT patients.

Outcomes of Adult Liver Retransplantation: A Canadian National Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation remains as the only treatment for graft failure. This investigation aims to assess the incidence, post-transplant outcomes, and risk factors in liver retransplantation recipients in Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Canadian Organ Replacement Register was used to obtain and analyse data on all adult liver retransplant recipients, matched donors, transplant-specific variables, and post-transplant outcomes from January 2000 to December 2018.

RESULTS

377 (6.5%) patients underwent liver retransplantation. Autoimmune liver disease and hepatitis C virus (HCV) were the most common underlying diagnoses. Graft failure was 7.9% and 12.5%, and overall survival was 77.1% and 65.6% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. In contrast to recipients receiving their first graft transplant, the retransplantation group had a significantly higher incidence of graft failure (p < 0.001) and lower overall survival (p < 0.001). The graft failure and patient survival rates were comparable between second transplant and repeat retransplant recipients. Furthermore, there were no differences in graft failure and patient survival when stratified according to time to retransplantation. Recipient and donor age (HR = 1.12, p=0.011; HR = 1.09, p=0.008), recipient HCV status (HR = 1.81, p=0.014), and donor cytomegalovirus status (HR = 4.10, p=0.006) were predictors of patient mortality.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of liver retransplantation demonstrates that this is a safe treatment for early and late graft failure. Furthermore, even in patients requiring more than two grafts, similar outcomes to initial retransplantation can be achieved with careful selection.

Liver Re-transplantation in Adults: Indications and Outcomes Analysis of a 23-year Experience in a Single Center in Argentina

Background

Liver re-transplantation (re-LT) represents the only treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure.

Objective

The aim of the current study was to describe the outcomes of both, patient and graft, after re- LT, at a high-volume referral center.

Methods

Our population consisted of patients, with liver disease, who underwent re-LT in our institution between January 1996 and December 2019.

Results

49 patients met the inclusion criteria. The patient's overall survival (OS) for the first year was 85% (Confidence Intervals (CI) 71-92) and 70% at five years (CI 53-82). In our population, three (6.12%) patients presented loss of graft and were included again in the transplant list; of these, one agreed to a new transplant while the remaining two died. This gave us graft survival results similar to those obtained for the re-LT patient; 85% at one year (CI 71-92) and 70% at 5 years (CI 53-82).

Conclusion

Our study shows that re-LT is a valid and safe treatment for both early graft dysfunction and for transplanted patients who again present end-stage liver disease, showing a satisfactory long-term evolution, with parameters comparable to primary transplantation.

Applicability of the UK DCD Risk Score in the modern era of liver transplantation: a U.S. update

Careful graft and recipient selection have resulted in improved outcomes in liver transplantation (LT) using donation after cardiac death (DCD) organs. The UK DCD Risk Score was established as a risk stratification tool to guide selection. We evaluated the applicability of the UK DCD Risk Score in a contemporary US cohort of adult DCD LT recipients using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry (2011-2020). 3,899 DCD LTs were included in our study (UK DCD Risk Score 0-5 points: 1,438 [36.9%], 6-9 points: 1,920 [49.2%]; 10-20 points: 541 [13.9%]). Compared to a score of 6-9 points, a score of 0-5 points was associated with decreased risk of graft loss (HR = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.68-0.94, P = 0.006), while a score of 10-20 points was associated with increased risk of graft loss (HR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.01-1.51, P = 0.04). The 5-year graft survival for patients with risk scores of 0-5, 6-9, and 10-20 were 75.9%, 71.7%, and 67.9%, respectively. The C-statistic for the UK DCD Risk Score in our contemporary cohort was 0.611. The UK DCD Risk Score demonstrates a more limited ability to differentiate recipient outcomes in the modern era of DCD LT in the US. Acceptable long-term outcomes are achievable for patients stratified to the highest-risk group. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Differences Between Infectious Disease Events in First Liver Transplant Versus Retransplantation in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study

Retransplantation after graft failure is increasingly performed, and inferior graft survival, patient survival, and quality of life has been reported. The role of infectious disease (ID) events in this less favorable outcome is unknown. We analyzed ID events after first liver transplantation (FLTpx) and retransplantation (reLTpx) in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Clinical factors were compared after FLTpx and reLTpx, and survival analysis was applied to compare the time to ID events after FLTpx and after reLTpx, adjusted for age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor type, liver transplant type (whole versus split liver), and duration of transplant surgery. In total, 60 patients were included (65.0% male, median age of 56 years). Overall, 343 ID events were observed: 204 (59.5%) after the FLTpx and 139 (40.5%) after reLTpx. Bacterial infections were most frequent (193/343, 56.3%), followed by viral (43/343, 12.5%) and fungal (28/343, 8.2%) infections, with less infections by Candida spp. but more by Aspergillus spp. after reLTpx (P = 0.01). The most frequent infection site was bloodstream infection (86, 21.3%), followed by liver and biliary tract (83, 20.5%) and intraabdominal (63, 15.6%) infections. After reLTpx, more respiratory tract and surgical site infections were observed (P < 0.001). The time to first infection was shorter after FLTpx (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.0; P = 0.04). Reduced hazards for ID events after reLTpx were also observed when modelling recurrent events (adjusted HR, 0.5; CI, 0.3-0.8; P = 0.003). The number of infections was comparable after FLTpx and reLTpx; however, differences regarding infection sites and fungal species were observed. Hazards were reduced for infection after reLTpx.

Differences in Early Immunosuppressive Therapy Among Liver Retransplantation Recipients in a National Cohort

BACKGROUND

There is no unified consensus as to the preferred immunosuppression (IS) strategy following liver retransplantation (reLT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Recipient, donor, and center characteristics associated with induction use and early maintenance IS regimen were described. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis evaluated induction receipt as a predictor of post-reLT survival.

RESULTS

There were 3483 adult reLT recipients from 2002 to 2018 at 116 centers with 95.6% being performed at the same center as the initial liver transplant. Timing of reLT was associated with induction IS use and the discharge regimen (P < 0.001 for both) but not with regimens at 6- and 12-month post-reLT (P = 0.1 for both). Among late reLTs (>365 d), initial liver disease cause was a more important determinant of maintenance regimen than graft failure cause. Low-reLT volume centers used induction more often for late reLTs (41.1% versus 22.6% high volume; P = 0.002) yet were less likely to wean to calcineurin inhibitors alone in the first year (19.1% versus 38.7% high volume; P = 0.002). Accounting for recipient and donor factors, depleting induction marginally improved post-reLT mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = 0.08), whereas nondepleting induction had no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several recipient attributes inform early IS decision-making, this does not occur in a uniform manner and center factors also play a role. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of early IS on post-reLT outcomes.

Management of Autoimmune Liver Diseases after Liver Transplantation

Autoimmune liver diseases are characterized by immune-mediated inflammation and eventual destruction of the hepatocytes and the biliary epithelial cells. They can progress to irreversible liver damage requiring liver transplantation. The post-liver transplant goals of treatment include improving the recipient’s survival, preventing liver graft-failure, and decreasing the recurrence of the disease. The keystone in post-liver transplant management for autoimmune liver diseases relies on identifying which would be the most appropriate immunosuppressive maintenance therapy. The combination of a steroid and a calcineurin inhibitor is the current immunosuppressive regimen of choice for autoimmune hepatitis. A gradual withdrawal of glucocorticoids is also recommended. On the other hand, ursodeoxycholic acid should be initiated soon after liver transplant to prevent recurrence and improve graft and patient survival in primary biliary cholangitis recipients. Unlike the previously mentioned autoimmune diseases, there are not immunosuppressive or disease-modifying agents available for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. However, colectomy and annual colonoscopy are key components during the post-liver transplant period.

Initial piggyback technique facilitates late liver retransplantation - a retrospective monocentric study

Optimal management of inferior vena cava (IVC) is crucial to ensure safety in late liver retransplantation (ReLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate different surgical strategies with regard to IVC in late ReLT. All consecutive late ReLT (≥90 days from the previous transplant) from 2013 to 2018 in a single center was reviewed (n = 66). Of them, 46 (69.7%) were performed without venovenous bypass (VVB) including 29 with caval preservation (CP) and 17 with caval replacement (CR). The remaining 20 cases (30.3%) required the use of VVB. Among ReLT without VVB, CP was associated with a lower number of packed red blood cells (median 4 vs. 7; P = 0.016) and a lower incidence of post-transplant acute kidney injury (6.9% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.003). The feasibility of CP was 95% (14/15) in patients with previous 3-vein piggyback caval anastomosis versus 48.3% (15/31) after other techniques (P = 0.003). Indirect signs of portal hypertension (PHT) before retransplantation were predictive of VVB requirement. Early and long-term outcomes were similar across the three groups (CP without VVB, CR without VVB, and VVB). Preserving the IVC in late ReLT is associated with better postoperative renal function and is facilitated by a previous 3-vein piggyback. Routine CR is not justified in late ReLT.

RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH HEPATIC ARTERY THROMBOSIS: ANALYSIS OF 1050 LIVER TRANSPLANTS

Background:

Hepatic artery thrombosis is an important cause of graft loss and ischemic biliary complications. The risk factors have been related to technical aspects of arterial anastomosis and non-surgical ones.

Aim:

To evaluate the risk factors for the development of hepatic artery thrombosis.

Methods:

The sample consisted of 1050 cases of liver transplant. A retrospective and cross-sectional study was carried out, and the variables studied in both donor and recipient.

Results:

Univariate analysis indicated that the variables related to hepatic artery thrombosis are: MELD (p=0.04) and warm time ischemia (p=0.005). In the multivariate analysis MELD=14.5 and warm ischemia time =35 min were independent risk factors for hepatic artery thrombosis. In the prevalence ratio test for analysis of the anastomosis as a variable, it was observed that patients with continuous suture had an increase in thrombosis when compared to interrupted suture.

Conclusions:

Prolonged warm ischemia time, calculated MELD and recipient age were independent risk factors for hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation in adults. Transplanted patients with continuous suture had an increase in thrombosis when compared to interrupted suture. Re-transplantation due to hepatic artery thrombosis was associated with higher recipient mortality.

Impact of sarcopenia on mortality in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, which is a loss of skeletal muscle mass, has been reported to increase post-transplant mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing the first liver transplant. Cross-sectional imaging modalities typically determine sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis by measuring core abdominal musculatures. However, there is limited evidence for sarcopenia related outcomes in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation (re-OLT).

AIM

To evaluate the risk of mortality in patients with pre-existing sarcopenia following liver re-OLT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all adult patients who had undergone a liver re-OLT at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2017. We divided patients into sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. “TeraRecon AquariusNet 4.4.12.194” software was used to evaluate computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patients done within one year prior to their re-OLT, to calculate the Psoas muscle area at L3-L4 intervertebral disc. We defined cutoffs for sarcopenia as < 1561 mm² for males and < 1464 mm² for females. The primary outcome was to compare 90 d, one, and 5-year survival rates. We also compared complications after re-OLT, length of stay, and re-admission within 30 d. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Continuous variables were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were evaluated with Fisher’s exact tests.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were included, 32 males: 25 females, median age 50 years. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete information. Overall, 47% (26) of patients who underwent re-OLT had sarcopenia. Females were found to have significantly more sarcopenia than males (73% vs 17%, P < 0.001). Median model for end stage liver disease at re-OLT was 28 in both sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. Patients in the no sarcopenia group had a trend of longer median time between the first and second transplant (36.5 mo vs 16.7 mo). Biological markers, outcome parameters, and survival at 90 d, 1 and 5 years, were similar between the two groups. Sarcopenia in re-OLT at our center was noted to be twice as common (47%) as historically reported in patients undergoing primary liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and outcome parameters were no different in those with and without the evidence of sarcopenia after re-OLT.

A Multicenter Japanese Survey Assessing the Long-term Outcomes of Liver Retransplantation Using Living Donor Grafts

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the most suitable treatment option available for end-stage liver disease. However, some patients require retransplantation, despite medical advances that have led to improved survival. We aimed to compile a definitive, nationwide resource of liver retransplantation data in Japan, seeking to identify the predictors of patient survival posttransplantation.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 32 institutions that had conducted 281 retransplantations before 2015.

RESULTS

Among the 265 patients included in this study (142 pediatric cases), the average age at primary transplantation was 23 years, and retransplantation was performed after an average of 1468 days. The main indication for retransplantation was graft rejection (95 patients). Living-donor liver transplantation accounted for 94.7% of primary transplantations and 73.2% of retransplantations. Patient survival at 1, 3, or 5 years did not differ by type of transplantation but was better for pediatric (70.8%, 68.3%, and 60.1%, respectively) than for adult (57.2%, 50.4%, and 45.2%, respectively) recipients (P = 0.0003). Small-for-size syndrome, retransplantation within 365 days, and inpatient status at retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in pediatric cases. Retransplantation within 365 days and conditions warranting retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, where >70% of retransplantations are performed using living donors, the indications and timing are different from those in previous reports from other countries, while maintaining comparable survival rates. Considering technical challenges, graft failure within 365 days should be thoroughly restricted to justify the use of living donor.

Adults transplanted as children as retransplant candidates: Analysis of outcomes support optimism in a population mislabeled as high risk

Adult liver transplant programs have heretofore been hesitant to perform liver retransplantation in adult patients who underwent primary liver transplantation as a child (P_A). Areas of concern include: (a) potential disruption in care when transferring from a pediatric to an adult transplant center; (b) generally inferior outcomes of retransplantation; (c) reputation of young adults for non-adherence to post-transplant regimen; and (d) potential higher work effort for equivalent outcomes. To examine these concerns, we reviewed data on all US liver adult retransplants from 10/01/1987 to 9/30/2017. We propensity matched the P_A patients to patients who received both primary and retransplantation as adults (A_A), with ≥550 days between transplants. A mixed Cox proportional hazards model with program size and time period of transplantation as random variables revealed that retransplantation of P_A patients produced no significantly different graft survival or patient survival rates than retransplantation of the matched A_A patients. Therefore, inferior rates of liver retransplantation in these patients and concerns about continuity of care in changing transplant programs are not as believed in the wider liver transplant community. In conclusion, liver transplant centers should be optimistic about retransplanting adults who received their primary transplants as children.

Adult liver transplantation: UK clinical guideline - part 2: surgery and post-operation

Survival rates for patients following liver transplantation exceed 90% at 12 months and approach 70% at 10 years. Part 1 of this guideline has dealt with all aspects of liver transplantation up to the point of placement on the waiting list. Part 2 explains the organ allocation process, organ donation and organ type and how this influences the choice of recipient. After organ allocation, the transplant surgery and the critical early post-operative period are, of necessity, confined to the liver transplant unit. However, patients will eventually return to their referring secondary care centre with a requirement for ongoing supervision. Part 2 of this guideline concerns three key areas of post liver transplantation care for the non-transplant specialist: (1) overseeing immunosuppression, including interactions and adherence; (2) the transplanted organ and how to initiate investigation of organ dysfunction; and (3) careful oversight of other organ systems, including optimising renal function, cardiovascular health and the psychosocial impact. The crucial significance of this holistic approach becomes more obvious as time passes from the transplant, when patients should expect the responsibility for managing the increasing number of non-liver consequences to lie with primary and secondary care.

Liver Retransplantation: The Changing Scenario in a Tertiary Medical Center

AIM

To analyze the causes of liver retransplantation (LRT), which mostly depend on recipient factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive, observational, and unicentric study including patients who underwent an LRT in a tertiary medical center between April 2002 and December 2018. Recipient, donor, and liver transplant data were collected.

RESULTS

During the period under review a total of 468 transplants were made; among them, 32 (6.8%) were LRT. The most common indication (25%) was hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) developing ischemic cholangiopathy followed by chronic rejection (21.8%). Late LRT was performed in 71.8%. A total of 96.8% of donations were after brain death with a donor median age of 65 years. Six patients (18.7%) had HAT as a postoperative complication. The recipients' 3-, 6-, and 12-month overall survival was 72.7%, 54.6%, and 51.5%, respectively, and the 5-year was 46.8%. Leading cause of death was septic shock (42.1%).

CONCLUSION

In our patients, the most common cause of LRT is HAT. We had an LRT rate of 6.8%, which is consistent with national and international registers.

Is It Justified to Use Liver Grafts From Living Donors for Retransplant? A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

Liver retransplant is considered the only hope for patients with irreversible graft failure after primary transplant. In most Western centers, retransplantis done mainly from deceased donors; so far, only few published studies have reported on outcomes of liver retransplant with living donors. In this study, our aim was to analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent liver retransplant between February 2011 and February 2019 were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Results from 2 patient groups were compared: liver retransplant with living donors and liver retransplant with deceased donors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent liver retransplant (21 adult and 11 pediatric patients). The most common indications for liver retransplant were hepatic artery thrombosis (28.5%) and primary graft nonfunction (23.8%) in adults and hepatic artery thrombosis (45.5%) and chronic rejection (36.4%) in pediatric patients. Seventeen retransplant patients (53.1%) required early retransplant (within 1 mo), mainly due to hepatic artery thrombosis (52.9%) and primary graft nonfunction (35.3%). Late retransplant was mainly due to chronic rejection (40%) and recurrence of primary disease (26.7%). Seventeen patients (53.1%) underwent living-donor retransplant, and 5 donors underwent robotic right hepatectomy. Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81.3% for living-donor and 51.4% for deceased-donor liver retransplant recipients (P = .08). On multivariate analyses, we observed significant differences between both groups in pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = .05), preoperative international normalized ratio (P = .012), and cold ischemia time (P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of living donors for liver retransplant, despite its technical demand, was shown to be a safe and feasible option, especially when there is scarcity of deceased donors.

Liver retransplantation in adult recipients: analysis of a 38-year experience in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation (re-LT) accounts for up to 22% after primary liver transplantation (LT), and using donor livers for retransplantation can only be justified by successful outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 2,387 adult recipients with 2,778 LT, between 1979 and 2017, were analyzed to determine risk factors and outcome of re-LT in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Of 2,778 LT, 336 (12.1%) were first, 43 (1.5%) were second, and 12 (0.5%) were third or fourth re-LT. The 5-year patient survival for primary LT, and first, second, and third or fourth re-LT were 74.0%, 70.8%, 63.3%, and 57.1%, respectively (P = 0.10). Recipient age (≤60 years) (OR 1.96, P < 0.001), era (1979-2006) (OR 1.56, P = 0.003), donor after circulatory death (DCD) (OR 1.96, P < 0.001), and cold ischemia time (CIT) (>9 h) (OR 1.42, P = 0.007) were significant risk factors for retransplantation after primary LT.

CONCLUSIONS

Recipient age, era, DCD, and prolonged CIT were identified as parameters for retransplantation. The outcome after the first re-LT was good, and comparable to those of primary transplants. Survival after multiple re-LT was not significantly different from the first retransplant group, legitimizing third and fourth re-LT to well-selected patients.

Recurrent Idiopathic Liver Allograft Failure

OBJECTIVES

Many transplant programs have had patients who develop idiopathic recurrent liver allograft failure, necessitating serial transplants, and are deemed to have refractory or recurrent rejection. The frequency and the etiology of this immunologic dysfunction have not been well characterized.

METHODS

Herein, we illustrate the case of a patient who required three retransplants over a period of 20 years for recurrent liver allograft failure. By extensively compiling the patient's many liver biopsy specimens and explants over time, we demonstrate that antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) was a major contributing factor from the outset. We conducted a review of the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients database to estimate the potential frequency of AMR.

RESULTS

As illustrated by this case, AMR has varied histologic findings in the setting of elevated donor-specific antibody titers.

CONCLUSIONS

The cause of recurrent allograft failure in this patient was likely a combination of acute cellular rejection and AMR, manifestations of likely underlying immune dysregulation. Pathologists and transplant physicians should recognize the variable histologic presentations of AMR, which is imperative for its timely intervention. This case demonstrates how difficult the diagnosis of AMR can be to make, highlighting the need for strong clinical suspicion in patients having difficult-to-treat rejection and recurrent allograft failure.

Excellent Contemporary Graft Survival for Adult Liver Retransplantation: An Australian and New Zealand Registry Analysis From 1986 to 2017

Background.

Liver retransplantation is technically challenging, and historical outcomes are significantly worse than for first transplantations. This study aimed to assess graft and patient survival in all Australian and New Zealand liver transplantation units.

Methods.

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Australia and New Zealand Liver Transplant Registry. Graft and patient survival were analyzed according to era. Cox regression was used to determine recipient, donor, or intraoperative variables associated with outcomes.

Results.

Between 1986 and 2017, Australia and New Zealand performed 4514 adult liver transplants, 302 (6.7%) of which were retransplantations (278 with 2, 22 with 3, 2 with 4). The main causes of graft failure were hepatic artery or portal vein thrombosis (29%), disease recurrence (21%), and graft nonfunction (15%). Patients retransplanted after 2000 had a graft survival of 85% at 1 year, 75% at 5 years, and 64% at 10 years. Patient survival was 89%, 81%, and 74%, respectively. This was higher than retransplantations before 2000 (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis found that increased recipient age (P = 0.001), recipient weight (P = 0.019), and donor age (P = 0.011) were associated with decreased graft survival prior to 2000; however, only increased patient weight was significant after 2000 (P = 0.041). Multivariate analysis found only increased recipient weight (P = 0.042) and donor age (P = 0.025) was significant prior to 2000. There was no difference in survival for second and third retransplants or comparing time to retransplant.

Conclusions.

Australia and New Zealand have excellent survival following liver retransplantation. These contemporary results should be utilized for transplant waitlist methods.

Ischemic-type biliary lesions: A leading indication of liver retransplantation with excellent results

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation (RLT) is the only life-saving treatment option for patients with a failing graft, but it remains a major challenge because of inferior outcomes and technical difficulties.

METHODS

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of and risk factors for adult RLT in a single center, focusing on the etiology of graft failure. Between 1987 and 2011, 1592 liver transplants (LTs) and 143 RLTs (9%) were performed at our institution.

RESULTS

The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates after RLT were 60%, 52% and 39%, and the graft survival rates were 55%, 46% and 32%. The 90-day mortality rate was 32%, mainly due to septic complications (45% of deaths). Ischemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL) were the leading indication for RLT (23%), and patient survival was significantly better in patients retransplanted for ITBL than for any other indication (P<0.02). Indications other than ITBL (P=0.015), the transfusion of more than 7 units (P=0.006) and preoperative dialysis (P=0.005) were the three parameters associated with poor survival after RLT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ITBL benefit the most from elective RLT.

Posttransplant muscle mass measured by urinary creatinine excretion rate predicts long-term outcomes after liver transplantation

Long-term survival in orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients remains impaired because of many contributing factors, including a low pretransplant muscle mass (or sarcopenia). However, influence of posttransplant muscle mass on survival is currently unknown. We hypothesized that posttransplant urinary creatinine excretion rate (CER), an established noninvasive marker of total body muscle mass, is associated with long-term survival after OLT. In a single-center cohort study of 382 adult OLT recipients, mean ± standard deviation CER at 1 year posttransplantation was 13.3 ± 3.7 mmol/24 h in men and 9.4 ± 2.6 mmol/24 h in women. During median follow-up for 9.8 y (interquartile range 6.4-15.0 y), 104 (27.2%) OLT recipients died and 44 (11.5%) developed graft failure. In Cox regression analyses, as continuous variable, low CER was associated with increased risk for mortality (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.71, P = .001) and graft failure (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90, P = .03), independent of age, sex, and body surface area. Similarly, OLT recipients in the lowest tertile had an increased risk for mortality (HR = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.47-4.91, P = .001) and graft failure (HR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.04-7.39, P = .04), compared to OLT recipients in the highest tertile. We conclude that 1 year posttransplant low total body muscle mass is associated with long-term risk of mortality and graft failure in OLT recipients.

Aortic Versus Dual Perfusion for Retrieval of the Liver After Brain Death: A National Registry Analysis

There is lack of consensus in the literature regarding the comparative efficacy of in situ aortic-only compared with dual (aortic and portal venous) perfusion for retrieval and transplantation of the liver. Recipient outcomes from the Australia/New Zealand Liver Transplant Registry (2007-2016), including patient and graft survival and causes of graft loss, were stratified by perfusion route. Subgroup analyses were conducted for higher-risk donors. A total of 1382 liver transplantation recipients were analyzed (957 aortic-only; 425 dual perfusion). There were no significant differences in 5-year graft and patient survivals between the aortic-only and dual cohorts (80.1% versus 84.6% and 82.6% versus 87.8%, respectively) or in the odds ratios of primary nonfunction, thrombotic graft loss, or graft loss secondary to biliary complications or acute rejection. When analyzing only higher-risk donors (n = 369), multivariate graft survival was significantly less in the aortic-only cohort (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.92). Overall, there was a trend toward improved outcomes when dual perfusion was used, which became significant when considering higher-risk donors alone. Inferences into the ideal perfusion technique in multiorgan procurement will require further investigation by way of a randomized controlled trial, and outcomes after the transplantation of other organs will also need to be considered.

Retransplant of the Liver: 12-Year Experience of the Shiraz Organs Transplantation Center

OBJECTIVES

Liver transplant is the most effective treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, hepatic malignancy, and acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary liver transplant, retransplant of the liver remains the only option. Here, we report the past 12-year experience of the Shiraz Transplant Center regarding liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of a 12-year period (2004-2015) of the Shiraz Center in Iran.

RESULTS

Of the 3107 patients who had a liver transplant during the study period, 58 retransplants were performed (1.86%) in 57 patients. The leading cause of retransplant was primary nonfunction in 24 patients (41.4% of retransplant cases and 0.77% of all liver transplant cases). The second leading cause of retransplant was vascular complications in 25 patients (23 with hepatic artery thrombosis and 2 with portal vein thrombosis), accounting for 43.1% of retransplant cases and 0.80% of all liver transplant cases. In addition, 5 patients (8.6%) had retransplant for rejection, which accounted for 0.16% of all liver transplant cases. Four patients with retransplant (6.9%) had recurrence of primary disease, which accounted for 0.12% of all liver transplant cases. Most liver retransplants occurred early (≤ 30 days after primary transplant) at the Shiraz Transplant Center. Five-year survival rate after retransplant was 35%, and retransplant for hepatic artery thrombosis was more common in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Because most patients required retransplants in the early period after primary transplant, the decision for retransplant must be considered carefully with full multidisciplinary evaluation and only in skilled hands. Retransplant in subgroups of patients with little chance of a successful outcome should be avoided.

Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

BACKGROUND

Share 35 prioritizes offers of deceased donor livers to regional candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 over local candidates with lower MELD scores. Analysis of Share35 has shown that overall 1- or 2-year post-transplant (LTx) outcomes have been unchanged while waitlist mortality has been reduced. However, these studies exclude retransplant (reLTx) recipients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of liver retransplants in evaluating the impact of the Share35 policy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database over the period June 2011-June 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19,748 LTx and 312 reLTx recipients were identified. Of the LTx recipients, 9626 (48.7%) underwent transplant pre-Share 35 and 10,122 (51.3%) post-Share 35. 123 (39.4%) reLTx recipients underwent retransplantation pre-Share 35 and 189 (60.6%) post-Share 35. ReLTx recipients experienced improved 2-year graft survival post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (67% vs. 21.1%). Patient survival also improved at 2-years for reLTx recipients post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (69.2% vs. 33.1%). Transplant post-Share 35 was protective for both 2-year graft (HR = 0.669, CI = 0.454-0.985, p = 0.04) and patient (HR = 0.659, CI = 0.44-0.987, p = 0.003) survival.

CONCLUSION

Share35 is associated with improved outcomes after retransplantation.

Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure

With the advent of liver transplant for acute liver failure (ALF), survival rate has improved drastically. Liver transplant for ALF accounts for 8% of all transplant cases. The 1-year survival rates are 79% in Europe and 84% in the United States. Some patients with ALF may recover spontaneously, and approximately half will undergo liver transplant. It is imperative to identify patients with ALF as soon as possible to transfer them to a liver transplant center for a thorough evaluation. Emergent liver transplant in a patient with ALF may place the patient at risk for severe complications in the postoperative period.

A matched pair analysis of multicenter longterm follow-up after split-liver transplantation with extended right grafts

Split-liver transplantation has been proposed as an alternative to whole liver (WL) transplantation to expand the donor pool, but studies comparing adult longterm outcomes between the 2 methods are conflicting and limited. This is the first Italian multicenter study that retrospectively analyzed 119 matched-pair recipients of whole and extended right grafts (ERGs) for longterm survival outcomes. In the overall population, WL recipients showed higher patient survival at 1 (93% versus 73%), 5 (87% versus 65%), and 10 years (83% versus 60%) after transplantation compared with split-liver recipients (P < 0.001); graft survivals of WL recipients were also superior at 1 (90% versus 76%), 5 (84% versus 57%), and 10 years (81% versus 52%) posttransplant (P < 0.001). However, among the 81 matched pairs that survived the first posttransplant year, 5- and 10-year patient survivals were 90% and 81% for split recipients and 99% and 96% for whole recipients, respectively (P = 0.34). The 5- and 10-year graft survivals were also comparable: 87% and 77% for split recipients, and 86% and 82% for whole recipients (P = 0.86). Cox regression analysis identified donor age >50, donor-to-recipient weight ratio < 1, retransplantation status, and United Network for Organ Sharing I-IIA status as risk factors for partial graft use. There were no significant differences in 5-year outcomes based on center volume. In conclusion, we demonstrate that adult liver transplantation with ERGs can achieve longterm success comparable with that of whole grafts in appropriate patients but should be selectively used in patients with risk factors. Liver Transplantation 23 1384-1395 2017 AASLD.

Is Elective Status a Predictor of Poor Survival in Liver Retransplantation?

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (reLT) is considered to have poorer outcomes than primary transplantation. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of medical urgency status as a predictor of patient survival after reLT.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients who underwent reLT were included in this retrospective study. Urgent or elective status was based on the judgment of the surgical team, selected variables, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with patient survival following reLT.

RESULTS

Overall survival of the patient cohort was 57% at 1 year and 54.3% at 3 years after reTL. Survival in urgent-status patients was 68.8% and 63.4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, whereas the survival rate for elective patients was 40.0% at both time points. Mortality was significantly associated with elective status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.42; P = .046) at 1 year, but was no longer significant (HR, 2.19; P < .069) after 3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective status is associated with poorer outcome. Patient selection determines long-term survival more than any other single factor, so for patients designated to an elective status, prompt retransplantation should be encouraged.

Primary liver transplantation and liver retransplantation: comparison of health-related quality of life and mental status - a cross-sectional study

Background

Liver Retransplantation (Re-LT) procedures are associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Up to date, there is no knowledge on the health-related quality of life and the mental status of these patients.

Methods

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) was assessed by using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey and Mental Status was assessed by using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The patients were examined in different assessments: During regular check-up examinations in the LT outpatient department in 2011 (Survey 1) and in a postal survey in 2013 (Survey 2). Their medical data was collected by using an established database.

Results

We received eligible surveys of 383 patients (55.6%) with a history of LT, of which 15 (3.9%) had undergone Re-LT (Re-LT group). These patients were compared to a group of 60 patients who had undergone only one LT. With regard to their HRQoL, the Re-LT group had significantly lower scores on the scales of physical function (PF, p = 0.026), their role-physical (RP, p = 0.008), their vitality (VIT, p = 0.040), and their role-emotional (RE, p = 0.005). The scores for anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between the groups. In a multiple regression analysis, chronic kidney disease was found to be an independent risk factor for decreased scores of PF (p = 0.023).

Conclusions

Patients who have to undergo Re-LT procedures are faceing impairments in physical aspects of a HRQoL. Together with clinical results from other studies, the findings of the present examination underline the need for an optimized organ distribution strategy since not all patients listed for Re-LT appear to benefit from it.

Impact of comorbidity on waiting list and post-transplant outcomes in patients undergoing liver retransplantation

AIM

To determine the impact of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) on waiting list (WL) and post liver retransplantation (LRT) survival.

METHODS

Comparative study of all adult patients assessed for primary liver transplant (PLT) (n = 1090) and patients assessed for LRT (n = 150), 2000-2007 at our centre. Demographic, clinical and laboratory variables were recorded.

RESULTS

Median age for all patients was 53 years and 66% were men. Median model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15. Median follow-up was 7-years. For retransplant patients, 84 (56%) had ≥ 1 comorbidity. The most common comorbidity was renal impairment in 66 (44.3%). WL mortality was higher in patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (76% vs 53%, P = 0.044). CCI (OR = 2.688, 95%CI: 1.222-5.912, P = 0.014) was independently associated with WL mortality. Patients with MELD score ≥ 18 had inferior WL survival (Log-Rank 6.469, P = 0.011). On multivariate analysis, CCI (OR = 2.823, 95%CI: 1.563-5101, P = 0.001), MELD score ≥ 18 (OR 2.506, 95%CI: 1.044-6.018, P = 0.04), and requirement for organ support prior to LRT (P < 0.05) were associated with reduced post-LRT survival. Donor/graft parameters were not associated with survival (P = NS). Post-LRT mortality progressively increased according to the number of transplanted grafts (Log-Rank 18.455, P < 0.001). Post-LRT patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were significantly inferior to those of PLT at 88% vs 73%, P < 0.001, 81% vs 71%, P = 0.018 and 69% vs 55%, P = 0.006, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidity increases WL and post-LRT mortality. Patients with MELD ≥ 18 have increased WL mortality. Patients with comorbidity or MELD ≥ 18 may benefit from earlier LRT. LRT for ≥ 3 grafts may not represent appropriate use of donated grafts.

Retransplantation in Late Hepatic Artery Thrombosis: Graft Access and Transplant Outcome

BACKGROUND

Definitive treatment for late hepatic artery thrombosis (L-HAT) is retransplantation (re-LT); however, the L-HAT-associated disease burden is poorly represented in allocation models.

METHODS

Graft access and transplant outcome of the re-LT experience between 2005 and 2016 was reviewed with specific focus on the L-HAT cohort in this single-center retrospective study.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine (5.7%) of 1725 liver transplantations were re-LT with HAT as the main indication (n = 43; 43%) distributed into early (n = 25) and late (n = 18) episodes. Model for end-stage liver disease as well as United Kingdom model for end-stage liver disease did not accurately reflect high disease burden of graft failure associated infections such as hepatic abscesses and biliary sepsis in L-HAT. Hence, re-LT candidates with L-HAT received low prioritization and waited longest until the allocation of an acceptable graft (median, 103 days; interquartile range, 28-291 days), allowing for progression of biliary sepsis. Balance of risk score and 3-month mortality score prognosticated good transplant outcome in L-HAT but, contrary to the prediction, the factual 1-year patient survival after re-LT was significantly inferior in L-HAT compared to early HAT, early non-HAT and late non-HAT (65% vs 82%, 92% and 95%) which was mainly caused by sepsis and multiorgan failure driving 3-month mortality (28% vs 11%, 16% and 0%). Access to a second graft after a median waitlist time of 6 weeks achieved the best short- and long-term outcome in re-LT for L-HAT (3-month mortality, 13%; 1-year survival, 77%).

CONCLUSIONS

Inequity in graft access and peritransplant sepsis are fundamental obstacles for successful re-LT in L-HAT. Offering a graft for those in need at the best window of opportunity could facilitate earlier engrafting with improved outcomes.

Successful Hepatoatrial Anastomosis During a Consecutive Liver Retransplant in the Same Patient Shows Good Long-Term Results: Case Report and 2-Year Follow-Up

Liver retransplant is the last and only treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure. It is recognized as a high-risk procedure; thus surgical difficulties are multiplied with every successive liver transplant. Liver retransplant is a demanding technical procedure for the surgeon, with no guarantee of postoperative and long-term survival. Here, we report a 29-year-old male patient who underwent a liver transplant in April 2009 due to primary sclerosing cholangitis with overlapping autoimmune hepatitis. The patient underwent liver retransplant in May 2012 due to graft failure. A second liver retransplant was performed in April 2013 using the classical technique. An inflammatory process involving the inferior vena cava and diaphragm forced the surgeon to open the pericardium from the diaphragm and clamp the cuff of the right atrium to perform a hepatoatrial anastomosis of the inferior vena cava. The next steps were performed as for a typical liver transplant. Postoperative stay was free of complications and was not prolonged. Immunosuppression regimen was kept standard. During our follow-up of more than 32 months, the patient continued to show good results. A consecutive hepatectomy in the same recipient is associated with an increased risk of intraoperative complications. When excessive adhesions limit a safe and functioning cavocaval anastomosis, a hepatectomy with the excision of the intrahepatic inferior vena cava and end-to-end anastomosis through a pericardial window for the extension of the recipient's' vena cava cuff are feasible options. We found that a hepatoatrial anastomosis does not impair good overall outcomes and long-term results.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

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

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.

Nonvascular post-liver transplantation complications: from US screening to cross-sectional and interventional imaging

Orthotopic liver transplantation is becoming an increasingly routine procedure for a variety of benign and malignant diseases of the liver and biliary system. Continued improvements in surgical techniques and post-transplantation immunosuppression regimens have resulted in better graft and patient survival. A number of potentially treatable nonvascular complications of liver transplantation are visible at imaging, and accurate diagnosis of these complications allows patients to benefit from potential treatment options. Biliary complications include stricture (anastomotic and nonanastomotic), leak, biloma formation, and development of intraductal stones. Pathologic conditions, including hepatitis C infection, hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatic steatosis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis, may recur after liver transplantation. Transplant patients are at increased risk for developing de novo malignancy, including post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, which results from immunosuppression. Patients are also at increased risk for systemic infection from immunosuppression, and patients with hepatic artery and biliary complications are at increased risk for liver abscess. Transplant recipients are typically followed with serial liver function testing; abnormal serum liver function test results may be the first indication that there is a problem with the transplanted liver. Ultrasonography is typically the first imaging test performed to try to identify the cause of abnormal liver function test results. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, angiography, and/or cholangiography may be necessary for further evaluation. Accurately diagnosing nonvascular complications of liver transplantation that are visible at imaging is critically important for patients to benefit from appropriate treatment.