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

Retransplantation in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

The need for retransplantation after living donor liver transplantation can occur early, mainly because of technical difficulties such as hepatic artery thrombosis or as a result of early allograft dysfunction as a symptom of small-for-size syndrome. Patients with autoimmune diseases may develop progressive graft failure from recurrent disease. The ethics of retransplantation can be complicated by the cause of the initial liver disease, which may be self-inflicted or the outcome of malignancy. This is especially true in countries without the availability of deceased donors for salvage, and a second living donor would be needed. Nevertheless, patients who experience early or late graft failure should be considered for retransplant if they are deemed acceptable candidates. When a living donor is required for retransplant, the equipoise between donor risk and autonomy and recipient outcome should be considered.

Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signs of Chronic Liver Rejection: A Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

In liver transplantation, chronic rejection is still poorly studied. This study aimed to investigate the role of imaging in its recognition.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective observational case-control series. Patients with histologic diagnosis of chronic liver transplant rejection were selected; the last imaging examination (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) before the diagnosis was evaluated. At least 3 controls were selected for each case; radiological signs indicative of altered liver function were analyzed. χ 2 Test with Yates correction was used to compare the rates of radiologic signs in the case and control groups, also considering whether patients suffered chronic rejection within or after 12 months. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.050.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included in the study (27 in the case group and 91 in the control group). Periportal edema was appreciable in 19 of 27 cases (70%) and in 6 of 91 controls (4%) ( P < 0.001); ascites and hepatomegaly were present in 14 of 27 cases (52%) and 12 of 27 cases (44%), respectively, and in 1 of 91 controls (1%) ( P < 0.001); splenomegaly was present in 13 of 27 cases (48%) and in 8 of 91 controls (10%) ( P < 0.001); and biliary tract dilatation was present in 13 of 27 cases (48%) and in 11 of 91 patients controls (5%) ( P < 0.001). In the controls, periportal edema was significantly less frequent beyond 12 months after transplant (1% vs 11%; P = 0.020); the other signs after 12 months were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of periportal edema, biliary dilatation, ascites, and hepatosplenomegaly can serve as potential warning signs of ongoing chronic liver rejection. It is especially important to investigate periportal edema if it is present 1 year or more after orthotopic liver transplantation.

BSHI and BTS UK guideline on the detection of alloantibodies in solid organ (and islet) transplantation

Solid organ transplantation represents the best (and in many cases only) treatment option for patients with end-stage organ failure. The effectiveness and functioning life of these transplants has improved each decade due to surgical and clinical advances, and accurate histocompatibility assessment. Patient exposure to alloantigen from another individual is a common occurrence and takes place through pregnancies, blood transfusions or previous transplantation. Such exposure to alloantigen's can lead to the formation of circulating alloreactive antibodies which can be deleterious to solid organ transplant outcome. The purpose of these guidelines is to update to the previous BSHI/BTS guidelines 2016 on the relevance, assessment, and management of alloantibodies within solid organ transplantation.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Modern Outcomes After Liver Retransplantation: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor.

METHODS

To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT.

Factors affecting survival after liver retransplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Liver retransplantation (reLT) has historically had inferior survival relative to primary liver transplant (LT). To improve outcomes after reLT, researchers have identified factors predicting overall (OS) and/or graft survival (GS) after reLT. This systematic review and random effects meta-analysis sought to summarize this literature to elucidate the strongest independent predictors of post-reLT.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify manuscripts reporting factors affecting survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Papers with overlapping cohorts were excluded.

Results

All 25 included studies were retrospective, and 15 (60%) were single-center studies. Patients on pre-transplant ventilation (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.56-6.20; p = 0.001) and with high serum creatinine (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.87; p = 0.002) had the highest mortality risk after reLT. Recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor age, and cold ischemia time >12 h also conferred a significant risk of post-reLT death (all p < 0.05). Factors affecting GS included donor age and retransplant interval (the time between LT and reLT; both p < 0.05). OS is significantly higher when the retransplant interval is ≤7 days relative to 8-30 days (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis was complicated by papers utilizing non-standardized cut-off values to group variables, which made between-study comparisons difficult. However, it did identify 7 variables that significantly impact survival after reLT, which could stimulate future research into improving post-reLT outcomes.