Reperfusion of the liver allograft with blue blood: is it still the royal perfusate?

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Different Reperfusion Sequences in Liver Transplantation

Background

Although most centers perform primary portal vein reperfusion (PV) in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for historical reasons, there is so far no sound evidence as to whether this technique is superior. The present study evaluated the long-term outcome of 3 different reperfusion sequences: PV vs primary arterial (A) vs simultaneous reperfusion (SIM).

Material/Methods

All patients at our center who underwent OLT (who received a primary, whole-organ liver graft) from 2006 to 2007 were evaluated for analysis.

Results

A total of 61 patients were found eligible (PV: 25, A: 22, SIM: 14). Twenty-one patients (35%) were still alive after the follow-up period of 12 years. Despite poorer starting conditions such as higher recipient age (59 y (SIM) vs 55 y (A) vs 50 y (PV), P=0.01) and donor age (56 y (SIM) vs 51 y (PV) vs 50 y (A), n.s.), higher MELD scores (22 vs 19 (PV) vs 17 (A), n.s.), as well as a higher number of marginal donor organs (79% (SIM) vs 36% (A/PV), P=0.02), SIM-recipients demonstrated superior outcomes. Overall survival was 8.1 y (SIM), 4.8 y (PV), and 5.9 y (A, n.s.)). None of the SIM-recipients underwent re-transplantation, while the rate was 32% in the PV-group. The 8.1 y graft survival in SIM-recipients was significantly longer than in the other 2 groups, which were 3.3 y (PV) and 5.5 y (A, P=0.013).

Conclusions

Although SIM-reperfused recipients were the oldest and received grafts of inferior quality, these recipients showed superior results in terms of overall patient and graft survival. Multicentric randomized controlled trials with larger study populations are required to confirm this finding.

Order of liver graft revascularization in deceased liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ideal order for liver graft revascularization during liver transplantation remains unknown. The majority of liver transplant centers prefer portal venous reperfusion followed by arterial reperfusion to shorten the warm ischemia time. The aim of this study was to review the different revascularization techniques used in clinical liver transplantation to identify any potential clinical benefits.

METHODS

A systematic search of 5 databases was performed to identify all available original articles that reported liver transplantation and compared different techniques of reperfusion. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival. Secondary outcomes were defined by postreperfusion syndrome, primary nonfunction, vascular complications, biliary complications, and retransplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 1,160 patients undergoing liver transplantation from 15 studies were included in this review and meta-analysis. There were no differences regarding the 1-year patient and graft survival for the revascularization techniques. The incidence of primary nonfunction, vascular complications, and retransplantation did not differ between the groups. Although there were no differences regarding biliary complications between the different groups, there were more nonanastomotic strictures in patients with initial portal revascularization (9%) compared with those with simultaneous revascularization (2%; risk ratio 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.14; P = .05; I² = 51%).

CONCLUSION

The order of liver graft revascularization does not influence patient and graft survival. Each revascularization technique offers potential benefits that can be used under specific clinical situations.

A single center experience of donation after cardiac death liver transplantation in pediatric recipients

Many centers are now performing DCD adult LT. There has been a reluctance to transplant pediatric recipients with DCD livers due to concern over the medium to long-term outcome. We describe the outcome of 14 children (median age seven yr, 8 months-16 yr) that underwent LT with DCD grafts from July 2001 to December 2007. Donors had a median age of 23 yr (10-64), intensive care stay of five d (2-14) and bilirubin of 9 mmol/L (6-60). Median warm and cold ischemic time was 16 min (11-29) and seven h (5.5-8.4). Livers were transplanted as a whole organ (4), reduced graft (8), formal split (1) or auxiliary transplant (1). Compared to DBD recipients AST was significantly higher on the first three post-operative days and there was no difference in the INR, bilirubin or GGT out to 12 months. There were no biliary or vascular complications and patient and graft survival is 100% at a median follow-up of 41.8 months (1.7-74 months). LT with DCD grafts in pediatric recipients can be performed with low morbidity and excellent short-to-medium term patient and graft outcome.

Temporary portocaval shunt in orthotopic liver transplantation: need for a standardized approach?

Maintenance of portal and systemic venous return during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation (LT) improves hemodynamic stability. With the piggyback technique, caval return is maintained; however, temporary clamping of the portal vein is still necessary. The use of a temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS) has been proposed to minimize the effect of portal venous interruption. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is evidence to support the routine use of a TPCS in LT. An electronic search of the literature from 1963 to 2007 was performed. A total of 4386 articles were identified, of which 8 met all the criteria and were included in the study. Because of the variability in reporting and the small number of studies, statistical comparison was not possible; however, a trend toward a shorter operative time, less blood product transfusion, and maintenance of higher mean arterial pressures during portal vein clamping was seen in patients with a TPCS. In conclusion, the available evidence, albeit scarce, supports the use of a TPCS in patients undergoing LT. A prospective randomized study of patients most likely to benefit from a TPCS is necessary to substantiate these findings.