Effect of positive cumulative fluid balance on postoperative complications after living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective analysis

Anesthesia and Critical Care for the Prediction and Prevention for Small-for-size Syndrome: Guidelines from the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS).

METHODS

A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India.

RESULTS

It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Incidental finding of elevated pulmonary arterial pressures during liver transplantation and postoperative pulmonary complications

BACKGROUND

In patients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) scheduled for liver transplantation (LT), an intraoperative incidental finding of elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) may be observed. Its association with patient outcome has not been evaluated. We aimed to estimate the effects of an incidental finding of a mPAP > 20 mmHg during LT on the incidence of pulmonary complications.

METHODS

We examined all patients who underwent a LT at Paul-Brousse hospital between January 1,2015 and December 31,2020. Those who received: a LT due to acute liver failure, a combined transplantation, or a retransplantation were excluded, as well as patients for whom known porto-pulmonary hypertension was treated before the LT or patients who underwent a LT for other etiologies than ESLD. Using right sided pulmonary artery catheterization measurements made following anesthesia induction, the study cohort was divided into two groups using a mPAP cutoff of 20 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses of multivariable models were also conducted with other mPAP cutoffs (mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg and ≥ 35 mmHg) and even with mPAP as a continuous variable.

RESULTS

Of 942 patients who underwent a LT, 659 met our inclusion criteria. Among them, 446 patients (67.7%) presented with an elevated mPAP (mPAP of 26.4 ± 5.9 mmHg). When adjusted for confounding factors, an elevated mPAP was not associated with a higher risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted OR: 1.16; 95%CI 0.8-1.7), nor with 90 days-mortality or any other complications. In our sensitivity analyses, we observed a lower prevalence of elevated mPAP when increasing thresholds (235 patients (35.7%) had an elevated mPAP when defined as ≥ 25 mmHg and 41 patients (6.2%) had an elevated mPAP when defined as ≥ 35 mmHg). We did not observe consistent association between a mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg or a mPAP ≥ 35 mmHg and our outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Incidental finding of elevated mPAP was highly prevalent during LT, but it was not associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.