Postreperfusion Liver Biopsy as Predictor of Early Graft Dysfunction and Survival After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Postreperfusion liver biopsy (PRB) can assess the degree of ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The influence of IRI on graft outcomes and overall survival is controversial.

AIM

To determine the correlation between the severity of IRI in PRB and overall graft and patient survival and, secondarily, to identify factors on PRB that predict poor graft outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent OLT using donation after brain death (DBD) with PRB. The severity of IRI in PRB was graded. Predictors of IRI were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis and the Kaplan-Meier with log rank test for the graft and overall survival, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 280 OLTs (64.7%). The histopathological assessment of IRI severity was as follows: no IRI (N = 96, 34.3%), mild IRI (N = 65; 23.2%), moderate IRI (N = 101; 36.1%), and severe IRI (N = 18; 6.4%). The incidence rates of initial good graft function (IGGF), primary nonfunction and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) were 32.5%, 3.9%, and 18.6%, respectively. Severe IRI was associated with a lower incidence of IGGF (OR: 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.92; P = 0.03). Patients with severe IRI tended to have a higher incidence of EAD (33.2% vs. 18.6, P = 0.23). The cold ischemia time was an independent predictor of severe IRI on the multivariate analysis. Severe IRI was associated with poor 1- and 5-year overall survival rates (67% and 44%, respectively, compared with 84 and 68% in nonsevere IRI). Patients with severe IRI exhibited worse graft and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold ischemia time predicts the development of severe IRI. Patients with severe IRI show worse graft and overall survival and a lower incidence of IGGF, suggesting that histopathological findings could be useful for identifying patients at high risk of worse outcomes after OLT.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Live Donor Liver Transplantation: It's Time to Redefine?

BACKGROUND

An ideal definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains elusive. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of existing EAD definitions, identify the predictors of early graft loss due to EAD, and formulate a new definition, estimating EAD-related mortality in LDLT recipients.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients undergoing elective LDLT were analyzed. Patients with technical (vascular, biliary) complications and biopsy-proven rejections were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 19 deaths due to EAD of a total of 304 patients. On applying the existing definitions of EAD, we revealed their limitations of being either too broad with low specificity or too restrictive with low sensitivity in patients with LDLT. A new definition of EAD-LDLT (total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, international normalized ratio [INR] > 1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7) was derived after doing a multivariate analysis. In receiver operator characteristics analysis, an AUC for EAD-LDLT was 0.86. The calibration and internal cross-validation of the new model confirmed its predictability.

CONCLUSION

The new model of EAD-LDLT, based on total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, INR >1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7, has a better predictive value for mortality due to EAD in LDLT recipients.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Small-for-Size Grafts: Does Size Really Matter?

BACKGROUND

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) > 0.8% is perceived as the critical graft size. This lower limit of GRWR (0.8%) has been challenged over the last decade owing to the surgical refinements, especially related to inflow and outflow modulation techniques. Our aim was to compare the recipient outcome in small-for-size (GRWR < 0.8) versus normal-sized grafts (GRWR > 0.8) and to determine the risk factors for mortality when small-for-size grafts (SFSG) were used.

METHODS

Data of 200 transplant recipients and their donors were analyzed over a period of two years. Routine practice of harvesting middle hepatic vein (MHV) or reconstructing anterior sectoral veins into neo-MHV was followed during LDLT. Outcomes were compared in terms of mortality, hospital stay, ICU stay, and occurrence of various complications such as functional small-for-size syndrome (F-SFSS), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and postoperative sepsis. A multivariate analysis was also done to determine the risk factors for mortality in both the groups.

RESULTS

Recipient and donor characteristics, intraoperative variables, and demographical data were comparable in both the groups (GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8). Postoperative 90-day mortality (15.5% vs. 22.85%), mean ICU stay (10 vs. 10.32 days), and mean hospital stay (21.4 vs. 20.76 days) were statistically similar in the groups. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes such as occurrence of SFSS, HAT, PVT, EAD, or sepsis between the groups. Thrombosis of MHV/reconstructed MHV was a risk factor for mortality in grafts with GRWR < 0.8 but not in those with GRWR > 0.8.

CONCLUSION

Graft survival after LDLT using a small-for-size right lobe graft (GRWR < 0.8%) is as good as with normal grafts. However, patency of anterior sectoral outflow by MHV or reconstructed MHV is crucial to maintain graft function when SFSG are used.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Based on EASL-CLIF Diagnostic Criteria

BACKGROUND

The European association for the study of the liver and chronic liver failure consortium (EASL-CLIF) recently proposed diagnostic criteria for acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). There is lack of data regarding liver transplant outcomes in ACLF patients based on these criteria. The objective of this study was to determine outcome following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in ACLF patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LDLT for ACLF based on European association for the study of the liver and chronic liver failure consortium (EASL-CLIF) diagnostic criteria (group 1) (N = 60) and compared them with ACLF patients who did not undergo transplantation (group 2) (N = 59). The primary outcome of interest was 30 day mortality. We also looked at one year survival in these patients. Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log rank test was used to determine significance between variables.

RESULTS

Median MELD scores for group 1 and 2 patients in ACLF grade 1 was 28 (20-38) and 31 (24-36), in ACLF grade 2 was 35 (24-42) and 36 (24-42) and in ACLF grade 3 was 36 (29-42) and 38 (32-52). For group 1 and 2, 30 day mortality in ACLF grade 1, 2 and 3 was 2/43(4.6%) versus 9/15(60%) (P < 0.001), 1/15 (6.6%) versus 13/19 (68.4%), 0/2 (0%) versus 20/25 (80%) (P < 0.001). Actuarial 1 year overall survival was 92% versus 11% (P < 0.001) in patients who underwent transplantation versus those who did not. One year survival in patients with grade 1 and 2 ACLF who received transplant versus medical treatment was 91% versus 13% and 93% versus 15% (P < 0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSION

LDLT has excellent outcomes in patients with EASL-CLIF grade 1 and 2 ACLF. Without transplantation, ACLF patients have a very poor prognosis.