Who is too healthy and who is too sick for liver transplantation: external validation of prognostic scores and survival-benefit estimation

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.

Gamma-glutamyltransferase predicts macrovesicular liver graft steatosis - an analysis of discarded liver allografts in Finland

OBJECTIVE

Liver-transplantation activity is limited by the shortage of grafts. Donor-liver macrovesicular steatosis predisposes to ischemia-reperfusion injury and is associated with reduced graft survival. The increasing prevalence of fatty-liver disease underlines the importance of identifying macrovesicular steatosis in potential donor livers. We analyzed liver grafts discarded for transplantation, and particularly the role of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) in predicting graft steatosis.

METHODS

One-hundred sixty rejected cadaveric-donor liver grafts were studied. Donor selection was based on clinical data, and macroscopic graft inspection. Discarded grafts were biopsied at procurement of non-liver organs.

RESULTS

The most common reasons for discarding the graft were abnormal liver tests, ultrasound-verified steatosis and history of harmful alcohol use. GGT correlated moderately with macrovesicular steatosis (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), but poorly with microvesicular steatosis (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). Increased correlation between GGT and macrovesicular steatosis was observed among alcohol abusers (r = 0.67, p < 0.001). Area under the curve (AUC) of GGT for predicting >30% macrovesicular steatosis was 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.88), and for >60% steatosis, 0.79 (95% CI 0.68-0.90). The optimal GGT-cut off for detecting >30% and >60% macrovesicular steatosis were, respectively, 66 U/L (sensitivity 76% and specificity 68%) and 142 U/L (sensitivity 66% and specificity 83%). Among alcohol users, a GGT value >90 U/L showed 100% sensitivity for >60% macrovesicular steatosis. AUC for GGT in predicting fibrosis Stages 2-4 was 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.92, p < 0.001, optimal cut off 68, sensitivity 92%, specificity 61%).

CONCLUSIONS

Abnormal liver values, steatosis and harmful alcohol use were the main reasons for discarding liver-graft offers in Finland. GGT proved useful in predicting moderate and severe liver graft macrovesicular steatosis.

BAR Score Performance in Predicting Survival after Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

METHODS

146 adult liver transplant recipients were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the independent predictors of survival at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the BAR score was plotted, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test were used to compare survival above and below the best cutoff values.

RESULTS

The mean age was 52.45 ± 8.54 years, and 59.6% were males. The survival rates were 89, 78.8, and 72% at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years, respectively. The BAR score demonstrated a clinically significant value in the prediction of 3-month (AUROC = 0.89), 1-year (AUROC = 0.76), and 5-year survival (AUROC = 0.71). Among the investigated factors associated with survival, BAR score <10 points was the only independent predictor of 3-month (OR 7.34, p < 0.0001), 1-year (OR 3.37, p=0.001), and 5-year survival (OR 2.83, p=0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

BAR is a simple and easily applicable scoring system that could significantly predict short- and long-term survival after LDLT. A large multicenter study is warranted to validate our results in the Egyptian population.

BAR, SOFT AND DRI POST-HEPATIC TRANSPLANTATION: WHAT IS THE BEST FOR SURVIVAL ANALYSIS?

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with terminal liver disease. The Balance of Risk Score (BAR), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT) and Donor Risk Index (DRI) scores are predictive systems for post-transplant survival.

AIM

To evaluate the most accurate score and the best cutoff point for each predictor in the brazilian population.

METHOD

Retrospective cross-sectional study of 177 patients. Data on the recipient, donor and transplant were analyzed and the prognostic scores BAR, SOFT and DRI were calculated for each transplant. To determine the BAR and SOFT cutoff points associated with death in three months, ROC curves were adjusted. Results : The best cutoff point for BAR was 9 points with an area under the ROC curve=0.69 and for SOFT it was 12 points with an area under the ROC curve=0.73. The DRI score did not discriminate survival (p = 0.139).

CONCLUSION

The SOFT score proved to be better than BAR for survival analysis post-hepatic transplantation and the DRI was not effective.

Combining Donor and Recipient Age With Preoperative MELD and UKELD Scores for Predicting Survival After Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

The end-stage liver disease scoring systems MELD, UKELD, and D-MELD (donor age × MELD) have had mediocre results for survival assessment after orthotopic liver transplant. Here, we introduced new indices based on preoperative MELD and UKELDscores and assessed their predictive ability on survival posttransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 1017 deceased donor orthotopic liver transplants that were performed between 2008 (the year UKELD was introduced) and 2019. Donor and recipient characteristics, liver disease scores, transplant characteristics, and outcomes were collected for analyses. D-MELD, D-UKELD (donor age × UKELD),DR-MELD[(donor age + recipient age) × MELD], and DR-UKELD [(donor age + recipient age) × UKELD] were calculated.

RESULTS

No score had predictive value for graft survival. For patient survival,DR-MELD and DR-UKELD provided the best results but with low accuracy. The highest accuracy was observed at 1 year posttransplant (areas under the curve of 0.598 [95% CI, 0.529-0.667] and 0.609 [95% CI, 0.549-0.67]forDR-MELDandDR-UKELD). Addition of donor and recipient age significantly improved the predictive abilities of MELD and UKELD for patient survival, but addition of donor age alone did not. For 1-year mortality (using receiver operating characteristic curves), optimal cut-off points were DR-MELD>2345 and DR-UKELD>5908. Recipients with DR-MELD >2345 (P < .001) and DR-UKELD >5908 (P = .002) had worse patient survival within the first year, but only DR-MELD >2345 remained significant after multivariable analysis (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

DR-MELD and DR-UKELD scores provided the best, albeit mediocre, predictive ability among the 6 tested models, especially at 1 year after posttransplant, although only for patient but not for graft survival. A DR-MELD >2345 was considered to be an additional independent risk factor for worse recipient survival within the first postoperative year.

Prognostic role of the Donor Risk Index, the Eurotransplant Donor Risk Index, and the Balance of Risk score on graft loss after liver transplantation

This study aimed to identify cutoff values for donor risk index (DRI), Eurotransplant (ET)-DRI, and balance of risk (BAR) scores that predict the risk of liver graft loss. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly. Graft loss odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Cutoff values for predicting graft loss at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years were analyzed for each of the scores. Measures of calibration and discrimination used in studies validating the DRI and the ET-DRI were summarized. DRI ≥ 1.4 (six studies, n = 35 580 patients) and ET-DRI ≥ 1.4 (four studies, n = 11 666 patients) were associated with the highest risk of graft loss at all time points. BAR > 18 was associated with the highest risk of 3-month and 1-year graft loss (n = 6499 patients). A DRI cutoff of 1.8 and an ET-DRI cutoff of 1.7 were estimated using a summary receiver operator characteristic curve, but the sensitivity and specificity of these cutoff values were low. A DRI and ET-DRI score ≥ 1.4 and a BAR score > 18 have a negative influence on graft survival, but these cutoff values are not well suited for predicting graft loss.

Changing Trends in Liver Transplantation: Challenges and Solutions

Despite improvements in postliver transplant outcomes through refinements in perioperative management and surgical techniques, several changing trends in liver transplantation have presented challenges. Mortality on the waitlist remains high. In the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom, there is an increasing need for liver transplantation, primarily as a result of increased incidence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-related cirrhosis and cancer indications. Meanwhile, donor suitability has decreased, as donors are often older and have more comorbidities. Despite a mismatch between organ need and availability, many organs are discarded. Notwithstanding this, many solutions have been developed to overcome these challenges. Innovative techniques in allograft preservation, viability assessment, and reconditioning have allowed the use of suboptimal organs with adequate results. Refinements in surgical procedures, including live donor liver transplantations, have increased the organ pool and are decreasing the time and mortality on the waitlist. Despite many challenges, a similar number of solutions and prospects are on the horizon. This review seeks to explore the changing trends and challenges in liver transplantation and highlight possible solutions and future directions.

Allocation of liver grafts worldwide - Is there a best system?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. The most frequent principles for allocation policies in liver transplantation are therefore criteria that rely on pre-transplant survival (sickest first policy), post-transplant survival (utility), or on their combination (benefit). However, large differences exist between centers and countries for ethical and legislative reasons. The aim of this study was to report the current worldwide practice of liver graft allocation and discuss respective advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

Countries around the world that perform 95 or more deceased donor liver transplantations per year were analyzed for donation and allocation policies, as well as recipient characteristics.

RESULTS

Most countries use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, or variations of it, for organ allocation, while some countries opt for center-based allocation systems based on their specific requirements, and some countries combine both a MELD and center-based approach. Both the MELD and center-specific allocation systems have inherent limitations. For example, most countries or allocation systems address the limitations of the MELD system by adding extra points to recipient's laboratory scores based on clinical information. It is also clear from this study that cancer, as an indication for liver transplantation, requires special attention.

CONCLUSION

The sickest first policy is the most reasonable basis for the allocation of liver grafts. While MELD is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors, predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs.

LAY SUMMARY

An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. While the model for end-stage liver disease is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs.

Predictive Capacity of Risk Models in Liver Transplantation

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Several risk models to predict outcome after liver transplantation (LT) have been developed in the last decade. This study compares the predictive performance of 7 risk models.

Approaches for patients with very high MELD scores

In the era of the “sickest first” policy, patients with very high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been increasingly admitted to the intensive care unit with the expectation that they will receive a liver transplant (LT) in the absence of improvement on supportive therapies. Such patients are often admitted in a context of acute-on-chronic liver failure with extrahepatic failures. Sequential assessment of scores or classification based on organ failures within the first days after admission help to stratify the risk of mortality in this population. Although the prognosis of severely ill cirrhotic patients has recently improved, transplant-free mortality remains high. LT is still the only curative treatment in this population. Yet, the increased relative scarcity of graft resource must be considered alongside the increased risk of losing a graft in the initial postoperative period when performing LT in “too sick to transplant” patients. Variables associated with poor immediate post-LT outcomes have been identified in large studies. Despite this, the performance of scores based on these variables is still insufficient. Consideration of a patient’s comorbidities and frailty is an appealing predictive approach in this population that has proven of great value in many other diseases. So far, local expertise remains the last safeguard to LT. Using this expertise, data are accumulating on favourable post-LT outcomes in very high MELD populations, particularly when LT is performed in a situation of stabilization/improvement of organ failures in selected candidates. The absence of “definitive” contraindications and the control of “dynamic” contraindications allow a “transplantation window” to be defined. This window must be identified swiftly after admission given the poor short-term survival of patients with very high MELD scores. In the absence of any prospect of LT, withdrawal of care could be discussed to ensure respect of patient life, dignity and wishes.

Treatment of AECHB and Severe Hepatitis (Liver Failure)

This chapter describes the general treatment and immune principles and internal management for AECHB and HBV ACLF, including ICU monitoring, general supportive medications/nutrition/nursing, immune therapy, artificial liver supportive systems, hepatocyte/stem cell, and liver transplant, management for special populations, frequently clinical complications and the utilization of Chinese traditional medicines.

Early clinical indicators of severe hepatitis B include acratia, gastrointestinal symptoms, a daily increase in serum bilirubin >1 mg/dL, toxic intestinal paralysis, bleeding tendency and mild mind anomaly or character change, and the presence of other diseases inducing severe hepatitis. Laboratory indicators include T-Bil, PTA, cholinesterase, pre-albumin and albumin. The roles of immune indicators (such as IL-6, TNF-α, and fgl2), gene polymorphisms, HBV genotypes, and gene mutations as early clinical indicators.

Intensive Care Unit monitor patients with severe hepatitis include intracranial pressure, infection, blood dynamics, respiratory function, renal function, blood coagulation function, nutritional status and blood purification process. Nursing care should not only include routine care, but psychological and special care (complications).

Nutrition support and nursing care should be maintained throughout treatment for severe hepatitis. Common methods of evaluating nutritional status include direct human body measurement, creatinine height index (CHI) and subject global assessment of nutrition (SGA). Malnourished patients should receive enteral or parenteral nutrition support.

Immune therapies for severe hepatitis include promoting hepatocyte regeneration (e.g. with glucagon, hepatocyte growth factor and prostaglandin E1), glucocorticoid suppressive therapy, and targeting molecular blocking. Corticosteroid treatment should be early and sufficient, and adverse drug reactions monitored. Treatments currently being investigated are those targeting Toll-like receptors, NK cell/NK cell receptors, macrophage/immune coagulation system, CTLA-4/PD-1 and stem cell transplantation.

In addition to conventional drugs and radioiodine, corticosteroids and artificial liver treatment can also be considered for severe hepatitis patients with hyperthyreosis. Patients with gestational severe hepatitis require preventive therapy for fetal growth restriction, and it is necessary to choose the timing and method of fetal delivery. For patients with both diabetes and severe hepatitis, insulin is preferred to oral antidiabetic agents to control blood glucose concentration. Liver toxicity of corticosteroids and immune suppressors should be monitored during treatment for severe hepatitis in patients with connective tissue diseases including SLE, RA and sicca syndrome. Patient with connective tissue diseases should preferably be started after the antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues.

An artificial liver can improve patients’ liver function; remove endotoxins, blood ammonia and other toxins; correct amino acid metabolism and coagulation disorders; and reverse internal environment imbalances. Non-bioartificial livers are suitable for patients with early and middle stage severe hepatitis; for late-stage patients waiting for liver transplantation; and for transplanted patients with rejection reaction or transplant failure. The type of artificial liver should be determined by each patient’s condition and previous treatment purpose, and patients should be closely monitored for adverse reactions and complications. Bio- and hybrid artificial livers are still under development.

MELD score is the international standard for choosing liver transplantation. Surgical methods mainly include the in situ classic type and the piggyback type; transplantation includes no liver prophase, no liver phase or new liver phase. Preoperative preparation, management of intraoperative and postoperative complications and postoperative long-term treatment are keys to success.

Severe hepatitis belongs to the categories of “acute jaundice”, “scourge jaundice”, and “hot liver” in traditional Chinese medicine. Treatment methods include Chinese traditional medicines, acupuncture and acupoint injection, external application of drugs, umbilical compress therapy, drip, blow nose therapy, earpins, and clysis. Dietary care is also an important part of traditional Chinese medicine treatment.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Overview and pragmatic proposals

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration of liver function associated with extrahepatic organ failures is controversial. While transplantation has been shown to be beneficial on an individual basis, the potentially poorer post-transplant outcome of these patients taken as a group can be held as an argument against allocating livers to them. Although this issue concerns only a minority of liver transplants, it calls into question the very heart of the allocation paradigms in place. Indeed, most allocation algorithms have been centered on prioritizing the sickest patients by using the model for end-stage liver disease score. This has led to allocating increasing numbers of livers to increasingly critically ill patients without setting objective or consensual limits on how sick patients can be when they receive an organ. Today, finding robust criteria to deem certain cirrhotic patients too sick to be transplanted seems urgent in order to ensure the fairness of our organ allocation protocols. This review starts by fleshing out the argument that finding such criteria is essential. It examines five types of difficulties that have hindered the progress of recent literature on this issue and identifies various strategies that could be followed to move forward on this topic, taking into account the recent discussion on acute on chronic liver failure. We move on to review the literature along four axes that could guide clinicians in their decision-making process regarding transplantation of critically ill cirrhotic patients.

The donor risk index: A decade of experience

In 2006, derivation of the donor risk index (DRI) highlighted the importance of donor factors for successful liver transplantation. Over the last decade, the DRI has served as a useful metric of donor quality and has enhanced our understanding of donor factors and their impact upon recipients with hepatitis C virus, those with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and individuals undergoing retransplantation. DRI has provided the transplant community with a common language for describing donor organ characteristics and has served as the foundation for several tools for organ risk assessment. It is a useful tool in assessing the interactions of donor factors with recipient factors and their impact on posttransplant outcomes. However, limitations of statistical modeling, choice of donor factors, exclusion of unaccounted donor and geographic factors, and the changing face of the liver transplant recipient have tempered its widespread use. In addition, the DRI was derived from data before the MELD era but is currently being applied to expand the donor pool while concurrently meeting the demands of a dynamic allocation system. A decade after its introduction, DRI remains relevant but may benefit from being updated to provide guidance in the use of extended criteria donors by accounting for the impact of geography and unmeasured donor characteristics. DRI could be better adapted for recipients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by examining and including recipient factors unique to this population. Liver Transplantation 23 1216-1225 2017 AASLD.

Treatment strategies for chronic hepatitis C prior to and following liver transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease is the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide. However, HCV is an independent predictor of lower survival following LT, and recurrence of HCV post-LT is virtually universal. The historic standard of care during the interferon era of HCV therapy was expectant management-initiation of antiviral therapy in the setting of documented disease progression following LT. With the advent of new direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies for HCV, the paradigm of expectant treatment for recurrent HCV infection post-LT is shifting. The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DAAs, even among the sickest patients with advanced liver disease, enables treatment of HCV in the pre-transplant setting among LT waitlist registrants. Finally, emerging data are supportive of preemptive therapy with DAAs in liver transplant recipients as the preferred approach. Expectant management of HCV following LT can rarely be justified in the modern era of HCV therapy.