Prediction of survival after liver retransplantation for late graft failure based on preoperative prognostic scores

The impact of age and frailty on hospitalization and survival in older liver transplant recipients: a longitudinal cohort study

Purpose

Frailty is a well-established risk factor for adverse outcomes, particularly in liver transplant candidates. This study investigates the impact of age and frailty on key clinical outcomes-hospitalizations, waitlist survival, and post-transplant mortality-in cirrhotic patients evaluated for liver transplantation.

Methods

This study included older adults with chronic liver disease under consideration for transplantation. Data collected encompassed medical history, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and frailty status, assessed using both the Liver Frailty Index (LFI) and the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe Frailty Index (SHARE-FI). Clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospitalizations, were tracked over a 24-month period.

Results

Among 100 patients (67% male), those under 70 exhibited higher MNA, MMSE, and SHARE-FI scores. Based on frailty classification, 25 patients were frail, 28 pre-frail, and 47 robust. Younger patients experienced more hospitalizations during follow-up (p = 0.03) and had a higher probability of hospitalization within 24 months (p = 0.002). Although transplant-free survival did not differ significantly across groups, frail patients had a significantly higher mortality rate (p = 0.04). Overall, 24 patients underwent transplantation, while 26 died, including six post-transplant deaths. MELD and CTP scores were strong predictors of mortality, while among frailty measures, only SHARE-FI demonstrated significant predictive value. In multivariate Cox models, MELD [HR = 1.17, p = 0.001; HR = 1.11, p = 0.002], CTP [HR = 1.43, p = 0.003; HR = 1.41, p = 0.006], and LFI (HR = 1.69, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with mortality.

Conclusion

Frailty, rather than age, emerges as a key predictor of mortality in liver transplant candidates. Further research is needed to validate these findings and enhance frailty assessment, ultimately improving candidate selection for transplantation.

Protocol for an international multicenter, prospective, observational, non-competitive, study to validate and optimise prediction models of 90-day and 1-year allograft failure after liver transplantation: The global IMPROVEMENT Study

More liver transplants (LT) are performed worldwide thanks to extended criteria donors (ECD). This is paralleled by a supposed increased risk of allograft failure (AF) at 90 and 365 days. This study has been designed to portray the LT practice worldwide and investigate models of AF prediction and the impact of risk mitigation strategies for further improving graft and patient outcomes. This is a multicenter, international, non-competitive, observational two segment study on consecutive LTs over two periods (2017-2019 and 2022-2024). A steering committee of LT experts defined the study protocol. The prospective segment will enroll 750 patients from 15 high-volume LT centers (50 per center), and the retrospective segment will enrol 4200 patients from 56 LT centers (75 per center). To provide a snapshot of the LT activity globally and to develop new algorithms for the timely prediction of AF at 90 and 365 days post-LT. The study also aims (1) to validate the existing predictive models and (2) to investigate the best time for re-transplantation, paying attention to the differences in AF and Ischemic cholangiopathy according to the donor types and mitigation strategies implemented in the various settings. Since the adoption of machine perfusion has increased in different proportions worldwide, models will be adjusted according to this parameter. Finally, retrospective and prospective data will be available for further stratifications and modelling according to the degree of decompensation at transplant, gender match, postoperative complications and their management. This protocol was approved by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS Ethics Committee (study ID: 4571) and the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Los Angeles. The provisional study protocol was submitted to the main scientific international societies in the transplant field. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented at congresses.

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Insights from the latest UNOS database

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

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.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BACKGROUND

Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.

METHOD

We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.

RESULTS

A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Allograft liver failure awaiting liver transplantation in Japan

BACKGROUND

Following liver transplantation (LT), allograft liver failure can be developed by various causes and requires re-LT. Hence, this study aimed to clarify the characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with allograft liver failure awaiting deceased donor LT (DDLT) in Japan.

METHODS

Of the 2686 DDLT candidates in Japan between 2007 and 2016, 192 adult patients listed for re-LT were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Factors associated with waitlist mortality were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model. The transplant-free survival probabilities were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median period from the previous LT to listing for re-LT was 1548 days (range, 4-8449 days). Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), which was a primary indication, showed a higher listing probability for re-LT as compared with other primary etiologies. Recurrent liver disease was a leading cause of allograft failure and was more frequently observed in the primary indication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and PSC in contrast with other etiologies. Multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors associated with waitlist mortality: age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, mode for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and causes of allograft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent HCV and PSC were major causes of allograft liver failure in Japan. In addition to CTP and MELD scores, either serum ALT levels or causes of allograft failure should be considered as graft liver allocation measures.

Impact of Albumin-Bilirubin Score on Short- and Long-Term Survival After Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, stratified from the ALBI score, may have prognostic value in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aim to evaluate the prognostic abilities of the ALBI score/grade among living-donor liver transplantation patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of 81 patients who underwent living-donor liver transplant at Kobe University Hospital between June 2000 and October 2018. The efficacy of the ALBI score/grade as a prognostic factor was assessed and compared with that of the well-established Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

MAIN FINDINGS

Multivariate analysis indicated that recipient age (P = .003), donor age (P = .003), ALBI score ≥ -1.28 (P = .002), and ALBI grade III (P = .004) were independently associated with post-transplant survival. A high MELD score was not associated with post-transplant survival in univariate or multivariate analyses. Although there was no significant difference in the overall survival rate relative to recipient and donor age, ALBI score/grade was significantly associated with the 1- and 5-year survival rates (P = .023, P = .005). ALBI scores specifically detected fatal complications of post-transplant graft dysfunction (P = .031) and infection (P = .020).

CONCLUSION

ALBI score/grade predicted patient survival more precisely than the MELD score did, suggesting that it is a more useful prognostic factor compared to the MELD score in living-donor liver transplantation cases.

Retransplant of the Liver: 12-Year Experience of the Shiraz Organs Transplantation Center

OBJECTIVES

Liver transplant is the most effective treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, hepatic malignancy, and acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary liver transplant, retransplant of the liver remains the only option. Here, we report the past 12-year experience of the Shiraz Transplant Center regarding liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of a 12-year period (2004-2015) of the Shiraz Center in Iran.

RESULTS

Of the 3107 patients who had a liver transplant during the study period, 58 retransplants were performed (1.86%) in 57 patients. The leading cause of retransplant was primary nonfunction in 24 patients (41.4% of retransplant cases and 0.77% of all liver transplant cases). The second leading cause of retransplant was vascular complications in 25 patients (23 with hepatic artery thrombosis and 2 with portal vein thrombosis), accounting for 43.1% of retransplant cases and 0.80% of all liver transplant cases. In addition, 5 patients (8.6%) had retransplant for rejection, which accounted for 0.16% of all liver transplant cases. Four patients with retransplant (6.9%) had recurrence of primary disease, which accounted for 0.12% of all liver transplant cases. Most liver retransplants occurred early (≤ 30 days after primary transplant) at the Shiraz Transplant Center. Five-year survival rate after retransplant was 35%, and retransplant for hepatic artery thrombosis was more common in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Because most patients required retransplants in the early period after primary transplant, the decision for retransplant must be considered carefully with full multidisciplinary evaluation and only in skilled hands. Retransplant in subgroups of patients with little chance of a successful outcome should be avoided.

Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

BACKGROUND

Share 35 prioritizes offers of deceased donor livers to regional candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 over local candidates with lower MELD scores. Analysis of Share35 has shown that overall 1- or 2-year post-transplant (LTx) outcomes have been unchanged while waitlist mortality has been reduced. However, these studies exclude retransplant (reLTx) recipients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of liver retransplants in evaluating the impact of the Share35 policy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database over the period June 2011-June 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19,748 LTx and 312 reLTx recipients were identified. Of the LTx recipients, 9626 (48.7%) underwent transplant pre-Share 35 and 10,122 (51.3%) post-Share 35. 123 (39.4%) reLTx recipients underwent retransplantation pre-Share 35 and 189 (60.6%) post-Share 35. ReLTx recipients experienced improved 2-year graft survival post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (67% vs. 21.1%). Patient survival also improved at 2-years for reLTx recipients post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (69.2% vs. 33.1%). Transplant post-Share 35 was protective for both 2-year graft (HR = 0.669, CI = 0.454-0.985, p = 0.04) and patient (HR = 0.659, CI = 0.44-0.987, p = 0.003) survival.

CONCLUSION

Share35 is associated with improved outcomes after retransplantation.

Early Vs Late Liver Retransplantation: Different Characteristics and Prognostic Factors

BACKGROUND

East Asia is a known endemic area for hepatitis B, and living donor liver transplantation is mainly performed. Liver retransplantation (ReLT) is expected to become an increasing problem because of a shortage of organs. This study aimed to compare early and late ReLT with consideration of specific circumstances and disease background of East Asians.

METHODS

Between October 1996 and January 2015, 51 patients underwent ReLT; we performed a retrospective analysis of data obtained from medical records of the patients. Clinical characteristics, indication, causes of death, survival rate, and prognostic factors were investigated.

RESULT

The survival rate for early ReLT (n = 18) was 51.5% and that for late ReLT (n = 33) was 50.1% at 1 year postoperatively. Continuous venovenous hemodialysis and the use of mechanical ventilators were more frequent, and pre-retransplant intensive care unit stay and prothrombin time was longer in early ReLT than in late ReLT. Operation time was longer and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was greater in late ReLT than in early ReLT. Multivariate analysis showed that a higher C-reactive protein level increased mortality in early ReLT (P = .045), whereas a higher total bilirubin level increased the risk of death in late ReLT (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Patients with early ReLT are likely to be sicker pre-retransplantation and require adequate treatment of the pretransplant infectious disease. On the other hand, late ReLT is likely to be technically more difficult and should be decided before the total bilirubin level increases substantially.

Impact of comorbidity on waiting list and post-transplant outcomes in patients undergoing liver retransplantation

AIM

To determine the impact of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) on waiting list (WL) and post liver retransplantation (LRT) survival.

METHODS

Comparative study of all adult patients assessed for primary liver transplant (PLT) (n = 1090) and patients assessed for LRT (n = 150), 2000-2007 at our centre. Demographic, clinical and laboratory variables were recorded.

RESULTS

Median age for all patients was 53 years and 66% were men. Median model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15. Median follow-up was 7-years. For retransplant patients, 84 (56%) had ≥ 1 comorbidity. The most common comorbidity was renal impairment in 66 (44.3%). WL mortality was higher in patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (76% vs 53%, P = 0.044). CCI (OR = 2.688, 95%CI: 1.222-5.912, P = 0.014) was independently associated with WL mortality. Patients with MELD score ≥ 18 had inferior WL survival (Log-Rank 6.469, P = 0.011). On multivariate analysis, CCI (OR = 2.823, 95%CI: 1.563-5101, P = 0.001), MELD score ≥ 18 (OR 2.506, 95%CI: 1.044-6.018, P = 0.04), and requirement for organ support prior to LRT (P < 0.05) were associated with reduced post-LRT survival. Donor/graft parameters were not associated with survival (P = NS). Post-LRT mortality progressively increased according to the number of transplanted grafts (Log-Rank 18.455, P < 0.001). Post-LRT patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were significantly inferior to those of PLT at 88% vs 73%, P < 0.001, 81% vs 71%, P = 0.018 and 69% vs 55%, P = 0.006, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidity increases WL and post-LRT mortality. Patients with MELD ≥ 18 have increased WL mortality. Patients with comorbidity or MELD ≥ 18 may benefit from earlier LRT. LRT for ≥ 3 grafts may not represent appropriate use of donated grafts.

Outcomes of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in liver transplant recipients with allograft failure

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) carries appreciable morbidity and mortality in the pre-liver transplant (LT) setting. However, the occurrence of SBP and its consequences in the post-LT setting have not been well characterized.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of SBP occurring in post-LT patients between January 2007 and December 2012. Outcomes were compared to a cohort of post-LT patients with allograft failure and ascites without SBP.

RESULTS

The most common indication for liver transplantation in this cohort was hepatitis C. A total of 29 episodes of SBP in 21 patients were identified. Escherichia coli (19%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10%) were the most frequent pathogens identified. Six patients died during their first episode of SBP. Ten patients were eventually listed for liver re-transplantation (re-LT) after their first episode of SBP; 5 of these patients were transplanted and the other 5 died. Of the 5 who were transplanted, 2 died shortly after re-transplant, and 3 are still alive. The cause of death in the majority of patients was infection (83.3%). The median time from onset of ascites to death was 214 days (range: 10-1085 days) and from the first episode of SBP to death was 50.5 days (range: 4-549 days). In contrast, the median time from onset of ascites to death in patients with allograft failure and ascites without SBP was 331.5 days (45-2400 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Allograft failure with ascites is a poor prognostic factor and these patients should be considered high risk for re-LT. SBP may accelerate the time to mortality.

Isoniazid Prophylaxis for Latent Tuberculosis Infections in Liver Transplant Recipients in a Tuberculosis-Endemic Area

Background

Isoniazid (INH) prophylaxis (Px) has good efficacy for preventing tuberculosis (TB) in the general population. However, its use for the treatment of latent TB infections (LTBI) in liver transplant (LT) recipients is challenging because little is known about INH-induced hepatotoxicity in graft recipients. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of INH Px in LT recipients.

Material/Methods

From March 2008 to December 2012, we retrospectively reviewed data on 277 patients who received LT at a single center. We examined the results of tuberculin skin tests and interferon-γ release assays, use of INH, INH-induced hepatotoxicity, and post-LT TB occurrence.

Results

Among 277 recipients, 7 cases of post-transplant TB were detected (2.52%). Seventeen patients received post-transplant INH Px. Among INH Px recipients, post-LT TB infection did not occur. Hepatotoxicity after INH Px was significantly lower in the patients who received INH Px at an aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level that was less than 50 U/L than in those who received INH Px at an AST level that was more than 50 U/L (P=0.046, 0.002).

Conclusions

INH is likely to be effective for preventing post-LT TB recurrence in LTBI. However, because of INH-induced hepatotoxicity, it is better to avoid using it in the early post-LT period and to wait to initiate INH Px until liver function is stable in LT recipients.

Outcomes of liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

Liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has not been well studied. The aims of this study were to characterize patients with PSC listed for and undergoing retransplantation and to describe the outcomes in these patients. The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was used to identify all primary liver transplantations and subsequent relistings and first retransplantations in adults with PSC between 1987 and 2015. A total of 5080 adults underwent primary transplantation for PSC during this period, and of the 1803 who experienced graft failure (GF), 762 were relisted, and 636 underwent retransplantation. Younger patients and patients with GF due to vascular thrombosis or biliary complications were more likely to be relisted, whereas those with Medicaid insurance or GF due to infection were less likely. Both 5-year graft and patient survival after retransplantation were inferior to primary transplantation (P < 0.001). Five-year survival after retransplantation for disease recurrence (REC), however, was similar to primary transplantation (graft survival, P = 0.45; patient survival, P = 0.09) and superior to other indications for retransplantation (graft and patient survival, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, mechanical ventilation, creatinine, bilirubin, albumin, advanced donor age, and a living donor were associated with poorer outcomes after retransplantation. In conclusion, although survival after liver retransplantation in patients with PSC was overall inferior to primary transplantation, outcomes after retransplantation for PSC REC were similar to primary transplantation at 5 years. Retransplantation may therefore represent a treatment option with the potential for excellent outcomes in patients with REC of PSC in the appropriate clinical circumstances. Liver Transplantation 23 769-780 2017 AASLD.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

Hepatocellular carcinoma biology predicts survival outcome after liver transplantation in the USA

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinicopathologic prognostic factors of cancer-specific survival (CSS) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who underwent liver transplantation (LT) stratified by tumor size.

METHODS

From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries (2004-2012), we retrieved data of 570 patients who underwent LT for a solitary primary HCC lesion ≤5 cm. A two multivariable Cox models were constructed to identify prognostic factors of CSS in a two different tumor sizes (2 cm cutoff).

RESULTS

Out of 570 HCC patients (median age 57 years), 16% had microvascular invasion (MVI) and 12% had a poorly differentiated tumor. Male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.6), tumor size >2 cm (OR 1.78), elevated AFP (OR 2.31), and poor tumor differentiation (OR 2.59) are significant predictors of MVI. With a median follow up of 41.5 months (range 1-107 months), the 5-year CSS rate was 90% in the absence of MVI compared to 75% in the presence of MVI (p<0.001). Multivariate models revealed that age ≥60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08), MVI (HR 2.26), and poor tumor differentiation (HR 2.42), were significant risk factors of a dismal CSS with HCC size >2 cm, but not with HCC ≤2 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary HCC tumor size ≤2 cm had an excellent prognosis after LT and was not affect by the presence of MVI or poor tumor differentiation.

Predictive factors for survival and score application in liver retransplantation for hepatitis C recurrence

AIM: To identify risk factors associated with survival in patients retransplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and to apply a survival score to this population.

METHODS: We retrospectively identified 108 patients retransplanted for HCV recurrence in eight European liver transplantation centers (seven in France, one in Spain). Data collection comprised clinical and laboratory variables, including virological and antiviral treatment data. We then analyzed the factors associated with survival in this population. A recently published score that predicts survival in retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C was applied. Because there are currently no uniform recommendations regarding selection of the best candidates for retransplantation in this setting, we also described the clinical characteristics of 164 patients not retransplanted, with F3, F4, or fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) post-first graft presenting with hepatic decompensation.

RESULTS: Overall retransplantation patient survival rates were 55%, 47%, and 43% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients who were retransplanted for advanced cirrhosis had survival rates of 59%, 52%, and 49% at 3, 5, and 10 years, while those retransplanted for FCH had survival rates of 34%, 29%, and 11%, respectively. Under multivariate analysis, and adjusting for the center effect and the occurrence of FCH, factors associated with better survival after retransplantation were: negative HCV viremia before retransplantation, antiviral therapy after retransplantation, non-genotype 1, a Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 25 when replaced on the waiting list, and a retransplantation donor age < 60 years. Although the numbers were small, in the context of the new antivirals era, we showed that outcomes in patients who underwent retransplantation with undetectable HCV viremia did not depend on donor age and MELD score. The Andrés score was applied to 102 patients for whom all score variables were available, producing a mean score of 43.4 (SD = 6.6). Survival rates after the date of the first decompensation post-first liver transplantation (LT1) in the liver retransplantation (reLT) group (94 patients decompensated) at 3, 5, and 10 years were 62%, 59%, and 51%, respectively, among 78 retransplanted individuals with advanced cirrhosis, and 42%, 32%, and 16% among 16 retransplanted individuals with FCH. In the non-reLT group with hepatic decompensation, survival rates were 27%, 18%, and 9% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively (P < 0.0001). Compared with non-retransplanted patients, retransplanted patients were younger at LT1 (mean age 48 ± 8 years compared to 53 ± 9 years in the no reLT group, P < 0.0001), less likely to have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection (4% vs 14% among no reLT patients, P = 0.005), more likely to have received corticosteroid bolus therapy after LT1 (25% in reLT vs 12% in the no reLT group, P = 0.01), and more likely to have presented with sustained virological response (SVR) after the first transplantation (20% in the reLT group vs 7% in the no reLT group, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION: Antiviral therapy before and after retransplantation had a substantial impact on survival in the context of retransplantation for HCV recurrence, and with the new direct-acting antivirals now available, outcomes should be even better in the future.

Hepatitis C virus and liver transplantation: where do we stand?

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects more than 180 million people globally, with increasing incidence, especially in developing countries. HCV infection frequently progresses to liver cirrhosis leading to liver transplantation or death, and HCV recurrence still constitutes a major challenge for the transplant team. Antiviral therapy is the only available instrument to slow down this process, although its actual impact on liver histology, in responders and nonresponders, is still controversial. We are now facing a "new era" of direct antiviral agents that is already changing the approach to HCV burden both in the pre- and in the post-liver transplantation settings. Available data on sofosbuvir/ledipasvir and sofosbuvir/simeprevir in patients with decompensated cirrhosis sustain a SVR12 of 89% , but one-third of patients do not clinically improved. The sofosbuvir/ribavirin treatment in stable cirrhotic patients with HCC before liver transplantation is associated with 2% recurrence rate if liver transplantation is performed at least one month after undetectable HCV-RNA is achieved. The treatment of recurrence with the new antiviral drugs is associated with a SVR that ranges between 60 and 90%. In this review, we have focused on the evolution of antiviral therapy for HCV recurrence from the "old" interferon-based therapy to the "new" interferon-free regimens, highlighting useful information to aid the transplant hepatologist in the clinical practice.

Impact of age on the prognosis after liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) offers the most effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Various preoperative variables are correlated with survival after LT, but the prognostic role of aging on LT remains controversial.

METHODS

Between January 2001 and December 2011, 290 consecutive transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma performed in Shanghai First People's Hospital (People's Republic of China) were analyzed retrospectively. We compared patient characteristics and survival curves between a younger group (less than 49 years, n=135) and an aged group (50 years or older, n=155). We then performed Cox multivariate regression analysis of the risk factors for survival in aged and younger patients.

RESULTS

Younger age was associated with higher alpha-fetoprotein (P=0.014), larger tumor size (P=0.038), poorer differentiation (P=0.025), portal lymph node metastasis (P=0.001), and higher recurrence rate (P=0.038). Aged patients had significantly longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival (P=0.020 and P=0.014, respectively); however, there were no significant differences between the younger and aged patients who met the Milan criteria (P>0.05). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 59.7%, 44.5%, and 37.3%, respectively, in the younger group, and 67.9%, 55.3%, and 53.8%, respectively, in the aged group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 68.4%, 45.5%, and 38.9%, respectively, in the younger group, and 76.1%, 59.7%, and 53.9%, respectively, in the aged group. Alpha-fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL, microvascular invasion, and tumor size >5 cm were independent risk factors for prognosis in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Younger patients in our center tended to present with more aggressive tumors and have a higher risk of recurrence. Our single-center experience suggests that younger patients should be assessed more rigorously before LT, while aged patients should be actively considered for LT after appropriate selection.

Keeping high model for end-stage liver disease score liver transplantation candidates alive

As the mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at time of liver transplantation continues to increase, it is crucial to implement preemptive strategies to reduce wait-list mortality. We review the most common complications that arise in patients with a high MELD score in an effort to highlight strategies that can maximize survival and successful transplantation.

High-risk liver transplant candidates: An ethical proposal on where to draw the line

In making liver transplantation (LT) listing decisions, transplant programs accept that very large differences in expected 5-year posttransplant survival should matter and that small differences in expected survival should not matter. To date, the transplant community has not explicitly addressed the difficult question of how to make decisions when the differences are less dramatic. Existing well-accepted transplant policies neither articulate a criterion for where to draw the line nor provide an ethical justification for distinguishing those who should not be eligible for transplantation from those who should be. Herein we analyze a case from our LT program that raises the issue of how much of a difference should separate the eligible from the ineligible. We explain how our ethical analysis is consistent with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients cumulative sum metric for transplant center performance, the United Network for Organ Sharing standard of capping Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at 40 for listing purposes, and the longstanding tradition of allocating scarce medical resources in accordance with the principle of triage. We also discuss how subjectivity can influence judgments about likely outcomes. We conclude by calling for research to gather data that could make survival predictions objective and by proposing a policy that would make the treatment of all patients fair.

Natural history, treatment and prevention of hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: Past, present and future

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma is the main indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide. Post-transplant HCV re-infection is almost universal and results in accelerated progression from acute hepatitis to chronic hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis. Comprehension and treatment of recurrent HCV infection after LT have been major issues for all transplant hepatologists and transplant surgeons for the last decades. The aim of this paper is to review the evolution of our knowledge on the natural history of HCV recurrence after LT, including risk factors for disease progression, and antiviral therapy. We will focus our attention on possible ways (present and future) to improve the final long-term results of LT for HCV-related liver disease.

Hepatic retransplant: what have we learned?

Hepatic retransplant accounts for 5% to 15% of liver transplants in most series and is associated with significantly increased hospital costs and inferior patient survival when compared with primary liver transplant. Early retransplants are usually due to primary graft nonfunction or vascular thrombosis, whereas later retransplants are most commonly necessitated by chronic rejection or recurrent primary liver disease. Hepatic retransplant remains the sole option for survival in many patients facing allograft failure after liver transplant. With improved techniques to match retransplant candidates with appropriate donor grafts, it is hoped that the outcomes of retransplant will continue to improve in future.

Retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts

BACKGROUND

This study reviews the outcomes of retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts.

METHODS

A retrospective study of liver retransplants performed between 1996 and 2013 was conducted. The retransplants were divided into the DD group (with deceased donors) and the LD group (with living donors). Survival outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The DD group contained 23 patients and 27 retransplants using whole-liver grafts and the LD group contained 11 patients and 11 retransplants using right-liver grafts. Vascular and biliary complications were the main indications for retransplantation in both groups. The LD group had significantly younger donors, lighter grafts, shorter cold ischemia and longer operations. The two groups were comparable in age, preoperative liver function, warm ischemia, blood loss, transfusion, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, hospital mortality, complication and graft loss. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year patient survival rates were 78.3%, 73.7% and 63.8%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.246). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year graft survival rates were 74.1%, 65.8% and 61.5%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.132).

CONCLUSION

Excellent long-term survival after retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts can be achieved.

Surgical site infections after liver retransplantation: incidence and risk factors

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after liver transplantation (LT) are associated with an increased risk of graft loss and death. The incidence of SSIs after LT and their risk factors have been determined for first LT but not for second LT. The importance of reporting the incidence of SSIs risk-stratified by first LT versus second LT is not known. All patients undergoing second LT at a single institution between 2003 and 2011 (n = 152) were reviewed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the cumulative SSI incidence. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate associations of potential risk factors with SSIs after second LT. Thirty-one patients developed SSIs (6 superficial SSIs, 1 deep SSI, and 24 organ/space SSIs). The cumulative incidence of SSIs 30 days after LT was 20.8% (95% CI = 14%-27%), which was slightly but not significantly higher than the previously reported incidence of SSIs after first LT at our institution between 2003 and 2008 (16%, RR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.90-1.93, P = .16). Units of transfused red blood cells [RR (doubling) = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.02-1.86, P = .04] and hepaticojejunostomy (RR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.05-4.72, P = .04) were the only factors associated with SSIs after second LT in single-variable analysis. The associations weakened in a multivariate analysis (P = .07 and P = .07, respectively), potentially because of the correlation of red blood cell transfusions and hepaticojejunostomy (P = .08). In conclusion, the incidence of SSIs after second LT was slightly higher but not significantly different than the published incidence of SSIs (16%) after first LT at the same institution. Significant independent risk factors for SSIs after second LT were not identified. Risk stratification for retransplantation may not be necessary when the incidence of SSIs after LT is being reported.

Preoperative selective desensitization of live donor liver transplant recipients considering the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, model for end-stage liver disease score, and graft liver volume

Several studies have suggested that a positive lymphocyte cross-matching (XM) is associated with low graft survival rates and a high prevalence of acute rejection after adult living donor liver transplantations (ALDLTs) using a small-for-size graft. However, there is still no consensus on preoperative desensitization. We adopted the desensitization protocol from ABO-incompatible LDLT. We performed desensitization for the selected patients according to the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and graft liver volume. We retrospectively evaluated 230 consecutive ALDLT recipients for 5 yr. Eleven recipients (4.8%) showed a positive XM. Among them, five patients with the high titer (> 1:16) by antihuman globulin-augmented method (T-AHG) and one with a low titer but a high MELD score of 36 were selected for desensitization: rituximab injection and plasmapheresis before the transplantation. There were no major side effects of desensitization. Four of the patients showed successful depletion of the T-AHG titer. There was no mortality and hyperacute rejection in lymphocyte XM-positive patients, showing no significant difference in survival outcome between two groups (P=1.000). In conclusion, this desensitization protocol for the selected recipients considering the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, MELD score, and graft liver volume is feasible and safe.

Liver retransplantation for adult recipients

Living donor liver graft can be used for the first or second liver transplantation. The timing of retransplantation also should be stratified as 2 types according to the reoperation timing. Combination of these two classifications results in 6 types of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT)-associated retransplantation. However, late retransplantation to LDLT might have not been performed in most LDLT programs, thus other 4 types of LDLT-associated retransplantation can be taken into account. The most typical type of LDLT-associated retransplantation might be early living donor-to-deceased donor retransplantation. For early living donor-to-living donor retransplantation, its eligibility criteria might be similar to those of early living donor-to-deceased donor retransplantation. For early deceased donor-to-living donor retransplantation, its indications are exactly the same to those for aforementioned living donor-to-living donor retransplantation. Late deceased donor retransplantation after initial LDLT has the same indication for ordinary late deceased donor retransplantation.

Have we changed the liver retransplantation survival?

INTRODUCTION

Orthotropic liver retransplantation (RT) is the therapeutic option for the failure of an allograft. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to primary liver transplantation (OLT). Because of the limited number of donors, it is essential that we optimize their use. We reviewed 68 consecutive retransplantations to evaluate their results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult RT between 1991 and 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups (urgent vs elective RT) to compare the utility of RT. We also analyzed data collected at the time of RT, including age, gender, indications for primary OLT and RT (hepatitis C virus [HCV]+ and HCV-). At various stages (1991-2000, 2001-2006, and 2007-2010), we calculated probability survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method with comparisons using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Among 771 adult liver transplantations, 68 (8.8%) underwent late secondary OLT. 21 (31%) cases were urgent and 47 elective RT (69%). Vascular complications was the most common cause for urgent RT, and chronic rejection, for elective RT. Differences were also detected in the overall survival of RT patients; mortality was significantly lower among the urgent procedures (15% vs 47.8%). Significantly differences were also detected in overall survival for RT patients between 2007 and 2010 (81.7% with urgent RT and 76.5% with elective situations).

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of RT in elective and emergency situations. Overall survival of elective RT patients has improved in recent years. Liver RT requires a multidisciplinary team to decide the inclusion and prioritization of elective RT cases on the OLT waiting list.

Liver retransplantation in adults: the largest multicenter Italian study

This study is the largest Italian survey on liver retransplantations (RET). Data report on 167 adult patients who received 2 grafts, 16 who received 3 grafts, and one who received 4 grafts over a 11 yr period.

There was no statistically significant difference in graft survival after the first or the second RET (52, 40, and 29% vs 44, 36, and 18% at 1,5,and 10 yr, respectively: Log-Rank test, p = 0.30).

Survivals at 1, 5, and 10 years of patients who underwent 2 (n = 151) or 3 (n = 15) RETs, were 65, 48,and 39% vs 59, 44, and 30%, respectively (p = 0.59).

Multivariate analysis of survival showed that only the type of graft (whole vs reduced) was associated with a statistically significant difference (HR = 3.77, Wald test p = 0. 05); the donor age appeared to be a relevant factor as well, although the difference was not statistically significant (HR = 1.91, Wald test p = 0.08).

Though late RETs have better results on long term survival relative to early RETs, no statistically significant difference can be found in early results, till three years after RET.

Considering late first RETs (interval>30 days from previous transplantation) with whole grafts the difference in graft survival in RETs due to HCV recurrence (n = 17) was not significantly different from RETs due to other causes (n = 53) (65–58 and 31% vs 66–57 and 28% respectively at 1–5 and 10 years, p = 0.66).

Liver retransplantation in HIV-infected patients: a prospective cohort study

Information regarding liver retransplantation in HIV-infected patients is scant. Data from 14 HIV-infected patients retransplanted between 2002 and 2011 in Spain (6% retransplantation rate) were analyzed and compared with those from 157 matched HIV-negative retransplanted patients. In HIV-infected patients, early (≤30 days) retransplantation was more frequently indicated (57% vs. 29%; p = 0.057), and retransplantation for HCV recurrence was less frequently indicated (7% vs. 37%; p = 0.036). Survival probability after retransplantation in HIV-positive patients was lower than in HIV-negative patients, 42% versus 64% at 3 years, although not significantly (p = 0.160). Among HIV-infected patients, those with undetectable HCV RNA at retransplantation and those with late (>30 days) retransplantation showed better 3-year survival probability (80% and 67%, respectively), similar to that in their respective HIV-negative counterparts (72% and 70%). In HIV-infected and HIV-negative patients, 3-year survival probability in those with positive HCV RNA at retransplantation was 22% versus 65% (p = 0.008); in those with early retransplantation, 3-year survival probability was 25% versus 56% (p = 0.282). HIV infection was controlled with antiretroviral therapy after retransplantation. In conclusion, HIV-infected patients taken as a whole have unsatisfactory survival after liver retransplantation, although patients with undetectable HCV RNA at retransplantation or undergoing late retransplantation show a more favorable outcome.

What is the prognosis after retransplantation of the liver?

In patients with failing liver grafts, hepatic retransplantation cannot be abandoned for the ethical and practical reasons that have been detailed previously. The current recommendations involve a strategy for risk stratification of retransplant candidates. The long-term patient and graft survival outcomes after ReLT are excellent and acceptable for the low and intermediate groups, respectively. However, pursuing ReLT in transplant candidates in the high-risk category cannot be recommended. Furthermore, ReLT should be reserved for centers equipped to manage the difficulties of the endeavor because it is a technically demanding operation that requires surgical expertise and excellent anesthesiology and critical care support both before and after transplantation.

Liver transplantation in the setting of chronic HCV

Recurrent HCV disease is the most common cause of graft loss and patient mortality in HCV-infected liver transplant (LT) recipients. Risk factors for more severe recurrence that are potentially modifiable are older donor age, prolonged cold ischaemia time, prior treated acute rejection, CMV hepatitis, IL28B donor genotype, and post-LT insulin resistance. The most effective means of preventing HCV recurrence is eradicating HCV prior to LT. Select wait-list candidates with compensated or mildly decompensated disease can be considered for antiviral treatment with peginterferon, ribavirin (and protease inhibitor if genotype 1). For the majority of LT patients, HCV treatment must be delayed until post-transplant. Treatment is generally undertaken if histologic severity reaches grade 3 or 4 necroinflammation or stage ≥2 fibrosis, or if cholestatic hepatitis. Achievement of sustained viral response (SVR) post-LT is associated with stabilization of fibrosis and improved graft survival. SVR is attained in ~30% of patients treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. Poor tolerability of therapy is a limitation. Combination therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin is anticipated to increase efficacy but with higher rates of adverse effects and challenges in managing drug-drug interactions between the protease inhibitors and calcineurin inhibitors/sirolimus.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompensation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from older donors, has a highly negative impact on the severity of recurrence and patient/graft survival. Although immunosuppressive regimens have a considerable impact on the outcome, the optimal regimen after liver transplantation for HCV-infected patients remains unclear. Disease progression monitoring with protocol biopsy and new noninvasive methods is essential for predicting patient/graft outcome and starting antiviral treatment with the appropriate timing. Antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. Living-donor liver transplantation is now widely accepted as an established treatment for HCV cirrhosis and the results are equivalent to those of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Analysis of 83 consecutive liver transplants performed at a tertiary care reference hospital in the interior of the state of Sao Paulo

PURPOSE

To analyze pre-, intra- and immediate postoperative parameters of patients submitted to liver transplantation.

METHODS

Eighty-three consecutive orthotopic liver transplants performed from January 2009 to July 2011 were analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: A, survivors (MELD between 9 and 60) and B, non-survivors (MELD between 14 and 40), with 30.6% of group A patients being CHILD C, 51℅ CHILD B and 18,4℅ CHILD A. In group B, 32.1℅ of the patients were CHILD C, 42,9℅ CHILD B, and 25℅ CHILD A. All orthotopic liver transplantations were performed using the piggyback technique without a portacaval shunt. Systemic arterial pressure and serum ALT and AST levels were determined preoperatively and 5, 60 and 1440 minutes after arterial graft revascularization. Serum ALT and AST profiles were evaluated for seven days after surgery.

RESULTS

Systemic arterial blood pressure levels, time of hot and hypothermic ischemia and time of graft implant were statistically similar for the two groups (p>0.05). Serum levels (U/L) of ALT and AST at the 5, 60 and 1440 minute time points after arterial revascularization of the graft were also similar for the two groups studied, as also were the serum ALT and AST profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference in any of the parameters studied was detected between the two groups. Under the conditions of the present study and on the basis of the parameters evaluated, no direct relation was detected between the intraoperative period and the type of patient outcome in the two groups studied.

A score predicting survival after liver retransplantation for hepatitis C virus cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Approximately one fourth of patients transplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-induced liver failure progress to cirrhosis within 5 years, potentially requiring retransplantation. Although the relisting decision can be difficult in these patients, a score could help in selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 1422 HCV-positive patients having undergone a retransplantation were included in this registry-based study. A multivariate Cox regression was performed, and an Akaike procedure was applied to design a score predicting survival after retransplantation and to allow an internal validation. Retained variables were donor age (DnAge), serum creatinine (Creat), International Normalized Ratio (INR), and serum albumin (Alb) at the second transplantation, recipient age (RecAge) at the first transplantation, and the interval between both transplantations (Int).

RESULTS

The score was designed as 0.23×DnAge+4.86×log Creat-2.45×log Int+2.69×INR+0.10×RecAge-3.27× Alb+40. The receiver operating characteristic area under curve was 0.643 at 3 years, and survivals were 71%, 56%, and 37% for scores <30, 30 to 40, and >40, respectively (log rank <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the proposed score is specifically designed for HCV-positive patients, accurately predicts survival after a liver retransplantation, and is helpful in the selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

Predictive index for long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver in adult recipients: analysis of a 26-year experience in a single center

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prognostic scoring system for risk stratification of patients with hepatic graft failure (GF) undergoing retransplants of the liver (ReLT) and improve patient selection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Retransplantation of the liver remains controversial because of inferior outcomes compared with the primary orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and raises concerns of inappropriate utilization of a scarce donor organ resource. Data on risk stratification of ReLT patients for long-term survival outcomes are limited.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis from our prospective database of 466 adults' ReLT between February 1984 and September 2010. Mean follow-up was 3 years. Each independent predictor for allograft failure was assigned risk score (RS) points of 1 or 2, proportional to the corresponding parameter estimate under the Cox model: Predictive index category (PIC) 1, RS = 0; PIC II, RS = 1 to 2; PIC III, RS = 3 to 4; and PIC IV, RS = 5 to 12.

RESULTS

Eight risk factors predictive for GF after ReLT included recipient age greater than 55 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score greater than 27, history of prior OLT greater than 1, pre-ReLT requirement for mechanical ventilation, serum albumin less than 2.5 g/dL, donor age greater than 45 years, intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cell transfusion greater than 30 units, and performance of ReLT between 15 and 180 days from the prior OLT. Five-year GF-free survival was significantly higher in PIC I (65%) than in PIC II (53%), PIC III (43%), and PIC IV (20%) groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This risk-stratification model was highly predictive of long-term outcome after liver retransplantation in adult recipients. This formula provides a practical guide for selection of candidates for retransplantation of the liver that can lead to improved patient outcomes and optimal utilization of a scarce resource.

Association of preoperative parameters with postoperative mortality and long-term survival after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The ability of Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores to predict recipient survival after liver transplantation is controversial. This analysis aims to identify preoperative parameters that might be associated with early postoperative mortality and long-term survival after liver transplantation.

METHODS

We studied a total of 15 parameters, using both univariate and multivariate models, among adults who underwent primary liver transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 458 primary adult liver transplants were performed. Fifty-seven (12.44%) patients died during the first 3 postoperative months and composed the early mortality group. The remaining 401 patients composed the long-term patient survival group. The parameters that were identified through univariate analysis to be associated with early postoperative mortality were CTP score, MELD score, bilirubin, creatinine, international normalized ratio and warm ischemia time (WIT). In all multivariate models, WIT retained its statistical significance. The 10-year long-term survival was 65%. The parameters that were identified to be independent predictors of long-term survival were the recipient's sex (improved survival in women, p = 0.005), diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer (p=0.015) and recipient's age (p=0.024).

CONCLUSION

Either CTP or MELD score, in conjunction with WIT, might have a role in predicting early postoperative mortality after liver transplantation, whereas the recipient's sex and the absence of hepatocellular cancer are associated with improved long-term survival.

Thrombotic microangiopathy-like disorder after living-donor liver transplantation: a single-center experience in Japan

AIM

To investigate thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in liver transplantion, because TMA is an infrequent but life-threatening complication in the transplantation field.

METHODS

A total of 206 patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were evaluated, and the TMA-like disorder (TMALD) occurred in seven recipients.

RESULTS

These TMALD recipients showed poor outcomes in comparison with other 199 recipients. Although two TMALD recipients successfully recovered, the other five recipients finally died despite intensive treatments including repeated plasma exchange (PE) and re-transplantation. Histopathological analysis of liver biopsies after LDLT revealed obvious differences according to the outcomes. Qualitative analysis of antibodies against a disintegrin-like domain and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin type 1 motifs (ADAMTS-13) were negative in all patients. The fragmentation of red cells, the microhemorrhagic macules and the platelet counts were early markers for the suspicion of TMALD after LDLT. Although the absolute values of von Willebrand factor (vWF) and ADAMTS-13 did not necessarily reflect TMALD, the vWF/ADAMTS-13 ratio had a clear diagnostic value in all cases. The establishment of adequate treatments for TMALD, such as PE for ADAMTS-13 replenishment or treatments against inhibitory antibodies, must be decided according to each case.

CONCLUSION

The optimal induction of adequate therapies based on early recognition of TMALD by the reliable markers may confer a large advantage for TMALD after LDLT.

Liver transplantation for alcohol-related cirrhosis: a single centre long-term clinical and histological follow-up

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation today. Due to the general organ shortage and continuous deaths on the waiting list there has been some debate on the issue of indication and ethical problems. It was the aim of this study to critically analyse the outcome of patients with alcoholic cirrhosis transplanted at our centre with special emphasis on alcohol-recurrence frequency and long-term histological follow-up.

METHODS

Three hundred five patients who received LT for alcoholic cirrhosis at our institution were followed over a period of 3-10 years after transplantation. Biopsies were taken 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LT. Specimens were analysed and staged concerning inflammation, rejection, fatty involution, and fibrosis/cirrhosis. Clinical characteristics as well as serological parameters, immunosuppressive protocols, rejection episodes, and patient and graft survival were recorded.

RESULTS

Recurrence of alcohol abuse occurred in 27% of all patients analysed. Regardless of alcohol consumption, 5-year graft and patient survival were excellent; after 10 years abstinent patients showed significantly better survival (82% vs. 68%; P=0.017). Histological changes were slightly more pronounced among recurrent drinkers, no significant difference regarding inflammation or fibrosis was detected.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing LT for alcohol-induced cirrhosis show excellent long-term survival rates with stable graft function. Alcohol recurrence impairs long-term prognosis; however, compared to other patient sub-populations (HCC, HCV) results are clearly above average.

Prediction of survival after liver transplantation for chronic severe hepatitis B based on preoperative prognostic scores: a single center's experience in China

Background

The aim of this study was to estimate the utility of a preoperative model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score in predicting the prognosis after othotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for chronic severe hepatitis B (CSHB) and explore the prognostic factors.

Methods

The outcome of 137 patients who underwent OLT using donors after cardiac death (DCDs) for CSHB in our center was reviewed retrospectively. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; the log-rank test was used for univariate analysis; and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for prognostic factors screening.

Results

The overall mortality rate was 33.6% (46/137); and 1-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 5-year patient survival rates were 75.8, 72.0, 71.0, and 60.1%, respectively. Most patients (33/46) died during the first month after OLT. The area under the curve values generated by the receiver operating characteristics curves were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.92] and 0.68 (95% CI 0.58–0.79), respectively (P < 0.01), for the MELD and CTP models in predicting 1-month mortality after OLT. Patients with a preoperative MELD score <33.8 or a CTP score <12.5 had significantly better prognosis than those with higher scores (P < 0.05). Other mortality predictors include hepatic encephalopathy, preoperative infection, serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl.

Conclusions

The MELD score was more efficient than the CTP score for evaluating the short-term prognosis in patients with CSHB undergoing OLT using DCDs, which should be taken into consideration during graft allocation.

Retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection recurs universally after liver transplantation (LT) and fibrosis progression is accelerated in the graft. Retransplantation (RT) is the only therapeutic option to achieve long-term survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after LT. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to those after primary LT. It is generally accepted that severe hepatitis C recurrence (cholestatic hepatitis) and forms with rapid fibrosis progression have a poor survival after RT. However, it is not clear whether rapid fibrosis progression in the first graft will be followed by the same rate of fibrosis progression in the second graft. The use of prognostic scores as screening tools has shown an improvement in survival in HCV-infected patients after RT, reaching similar survival rates as those obtained in non HCV-infected patients. Moreover, these scores can identify candidates with a high risk of mortality in whom the use of a new organ would be unreasonable. Prevention of severe hepatitis C recurrence could be the first step to avoid RT. Thus, antiviral treatment on the waiting list (if possible) and early identification and treatment of patients with severe hepatitis C recurrence may be a good strategy to avoid RT. In addition, active management of factors which can accelerate fibrosis progression (donor age, post-transplant diabetes, high dose of corticosteroids) might reduce the incidence of severe forms of hepatitis C recurrence.

Indications for and survival after liver retransplantation

INTRODUCTION

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (re-OLT) is the therapeutic option for hepatic graft failures. Survival after re-OLT is poorer than after primary OLT. Given that there is an organ shortage, it is essential that we optimize our use of this scarce resource. We evaluated the results of re-OLT among 58 consecutive Re-OLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult urgent versus elective re-OLT between 1991 and 2008. We recorded the indications for the initial OLT, and the intervals from OLT to re-OLT as well as age and gender. Using the Rosen model to stratify patients into low-intermediate-, and high-risk groups we calculated survivals.

RESULTS

Among 661 adult liver transplantations, 56 patients (8.4%) underwent late re-OLT at a median of 654.4 days post-OLT. There were 17 (29%) urgent re-OLT and 41 elective cases (71%). Vascular complications were the most common cause of urgent re-OLT (64%); elective re-OLT was primarily due to chronic rejection (56.1%). Overall survival for retransplanted patients was significantly lower among urgent procedures (82.4% vs 48.8%), as well as for overall survival after re-OLT for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) versus other etiologies.

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of retransplantation in elective and emergency situations. Liver re-transplantation has a high morbidity and mortality. It requires multidisciplinary experience to decide inclusion and prioritization criteria for re-OLT, especially among patients with HCV.

Does a positive lymphocyte cross-match contraindicate living-donor liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus on the importance of lymphocyte cross-matching (LCM) in the field of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

LCM examinations are routinely performed before LDLT, and the results of complement-dependent cytotoxicity were used in this study. A total of 1157 LDLT cases were evaluated. The recipients were divided into four groups based on the LCM and ABO compatibilities: (1) negative LCM and identical/compatible ABO; (2) negative LCM and incompatible ABO; (3) positive LCM and identical/compatible ABO; and (4) positive LCM and incompatible ABO. The diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) was made based on the clinical course, immunological assays and histopathological findings. C4d immunostaining was added if AMR was suspected.

RESULTS

The LCM-positive LDLT recipients showed significantly poorer outcomes than the LCM-negative recipients. Among the LCM-positive recipients, 44.1% of recipients eventually died and 85.2% of recipients revealed positive C4d findings. The survival rate of LCM-positive and ABO-incompatible group was 0.50. The survival days were compared with the LCM-negative and ABO-identical/compatible group, and the LCM-positive and ABO-identical/compatible group clearly showed early death after LDLT, although the ABO-incompatible groups did not show significant. The factors of age, disease, pre-transplant scores, LCM, ABO compatibility and graft-recipient weight ratio showed statistical significance in multivariate analysis for important factors of LDLT outcomes. However, the LCM and ABO compatibilities had no synergetic effects on the LDLT survival.

CONCLUSION

HLA antigens are more widely expressed than ABO antigens, and advanced immunological strategies must be established for LCM-positive LDLT as well as for ABO-incompatible LDLT.

Liver retransplantation in adults: a single-centre, 25-year experience

BACKGROUND

Retransplantation is the only form of treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyse a single centre's experience of the indications for and outcomes of retransplantation.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients who underwent liver retransplantation using 225 grafts, between January 1982 and July 2007, were included in the study. The following parameters were analysed: patient demographics; primary diagnosis; distribution of retransplantation over different time periods; indications for retransplantation; time interval to retransplantation, and overall patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Of the 2437 primary orthotopic liver transplantations, 196 patients (8%) required a first regraft, 23 patients (1%) a second regraft and six patients (0.25%) a third regraft. Autoimmune hepatitis was the most common primary diagnosis for which retransplantation was required (12.7% of primary transplantations). The retransplantation rate declined from 12% at the beginning of our programme to 7.6% at the end of the study period. The most common indication for retransplantation was hepatic artery thrombosis (31.6%). Nearly two-thirds of the retransplantations were performed within 6 months of the primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates following first retransplantation were 66%, 61%, 57% and 47%, respectively. Five-year survival after second retransplantation was 40%. None of the patients have yet survived 3 years after a third regraft. Donor age of < or =55 years and a MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score of < or =23 were associated with better outcome following retransplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

First retransplantation was associated with good longterm survival. There was no survival benefit following second and third retransplantations. A MELD score of < or =23 and donor age of < or =55 years correlated with better outcome following retransplantation.