A single-center experience of late retransplantation of the liver

Mortality and Morbidity Among Adult Liver Retransplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver failure with up to 20% of patients suffering graft failure following primary transplantation. Retransplantation (ReLT) remains the only definitive treatment for irreversible graft failure.

AIMS

We aimed to explore the postoperative outcomes following liver ReLT.

METHODS

Patients who had received a liver transplant between 2003 and 2016 were retrospectively identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTRs). Patients were stratified based on previous liver transplant history. The primary outcomes of this study were 5-year postoperative mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay following LT.

RESULTS

60,554 (96%) recipients were first LT recipients and 2524 (4%) were ReLT recipients. Compared with first LT, ReLT recipients had significantly higher rates of mortality (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.76-2.12), overall morbidity (OR 1.80, 95%CI 1.65-1.96), and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.52-1.81) on multivariate analysis. Morbidity including cardiovascular (CVD) complications (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.08-1.60), graft failure (OR 2.18, 95%CI 1.84-2.57), infection (OR 2.13, 95%CI 1.82-2.50), and hemorrhage (OR 2.67, 95%CI 2.00-3.61) were significantly greater in ReLT recipients. Compared to first LT, ReLT patients had a significant increase in overall 5-year mortality (p < 0.001), 5-year mortality due to CVD complications (p < 0.001), infection (p = 0.009), but not graft failure (p = 0.3543).

CONCLUSION

ReLT is associated with higher rates of 5-year mortality, overall morbidity, CVD morbidity, infection, and graft failure. Higher 5-year mortality in ReLT is due to CVD and infections. These results could be used in preoperative patient assessment and prognostic counseling for ReLT.

Impact of sarcopenia on mortality in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, which is a loss of skeletal muscle mass, has been reported to increase post-transplant mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing the first liver transplant. Cross-sectional imaging modalities typically determine sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis by measuring core abdominal musculatures. However, there is limited evidence for sarcopenia related outcomes in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation (re-OLT).

AIM

To evaluate the risk of mortality in patients with pre-existing sarcopenia following liver re-OLT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all adult patients who had undergone a liver re-OLT at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2017. We divided patients into sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. “TeraRecon AquariusNet 4.4.12.194” software was used to evaluate computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patients done within one year prior to their re-OLT, to calculate the Psoas muscle area at L3-L4 intervertebral disc. We defined cutoffs for sarcopenia as < 1561 mm² for males and < 1464 mm² for females. The primary outcome was to compare 90 d, one, and 5-year survival rates. We also compared complications after re-OLT, length of stay, and re-admission within 30 d. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Continuous variables were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were evaluated with Fisher’s exact tests.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were included, 32 males: 25 females, median age 50 years. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete information. Overall, 47% (26) of patients who underwent re-OLT had sarcopenia. Females were found to have significantly more sarcopenia than males (73% vs 17%, P < 0.001). Median model for end stage liver disease at re-OLT was 28 in both sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. Patients in the no sarcopenia group had a trend of longer median time between the first and second transplant (36.5 mo vs 16.7 mo). Biological markers, outcome parameters, and survival at 90 d, 1 and 5 years, were similar between the two groups. Sarcopenia in re-OLT at our center was noted to be twice as common (47%) as historically reported in patients undergoing primary liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and outcome parameters were no different in those with and without the evidence of sarcopenia after re-OLT.

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.

Withdrawal of immunosuppression following pediatric liver transplantation: a Markov analysis

OBJECTIVES

Survivors of pediatric liver transplantation are at risk for developing complications related to posttransplant immunosuppressive medications. Withdrawal is possible in selected patients but carries the risk of graft rejection and loss. We modeled the effect of withdrawing immunosuppressive medications on survival, cost, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a hypothetical cohort of pediatric patients who received transplantation for biliary atresia with stable liver enzymes and no recent episodes of rejection, and who were free from immunosuppression-related adverse effects.

METHODS

A decision analysis tree was developed, and Monte Carlo simulations were used to track patients through the model during a 10-year time course with 1-year cycles. Data from the literature were used to assign probabilities to major clinical events and preference-based utility scores to the values of health outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

Patients following the withdrawal strategy had a 10-year survival rate of 95.8% and experienced 8.61 QALYs versus 88.6% survival and 8.01 QALYs for those taking immunosuppressive medications. Each additional QALY is attained at a cost of -$18,992.41 and was therefore cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in our model who had their immunosuppression withdrawn had improved survival and QALYs with lower costs. Although every effort was made to validate the model, it is limited by the accuracy of the underlying assumptions. Therefore, clinical trials are needed to determine predictors of successful immunosuppression withdrawal to allow for personalization of medication regimens.

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.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after early versus late liver retransplantation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

As the survival of patients after liver transplantation (LT) improves, the requirement of liver retransplantation (reLT) for late graft failure has grown. Although some have reported that the short-term outcome of late reLT was comparable with that of early reLT, it remains unknown whether long-term survival of late reLT is inferior to that of early reLT patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed early (<6 mo after primary LT) and late (≥6 mo after primary LT) reLT cases performed between January 2000 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Sixteen early and 32 late reLT cases were analyzed. There was no significant difference regarding the number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplantation between the groups, whereas operative time was significantly longer in the late reLT cases. Graft loss within 3 mo after early and late reLT was 18.6% and 15.6%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates after 1, 3, 5, and 10 y in the late reLT group were 80.6%, 73.3%, 73.3%, and 67.7% and 80.7%, 69.1%, 63.3%, and 54.3%, respectively, whereas those in the early reLT group were 75.0%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 64.3% and 81.3%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival rates between the groups (P = 0.91 and 0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptable short- and long-term survival were provided in early and late reLT. The time between the primary LT and reLT does not seem to play significant role in the prognosis of reLT in the long term.

Short- and long-term outcomes of third liver transplantation at single centre

PURPOSE

Although three or more liver transplantation (LT)s in the same patient arouse not only medical but also ethical issues in the context of organ shortage, it is a fact that additional liver retransplantation (reLT) is the only lifesaving treatment option for those with graft failure after a second LT. However, little is known regarding the risks and benefits associated with a third LT.

METHODS

We analyzed fifteen cases of third LT and 48 of second LT performed between January 2000 and December 2010. Clinical outcomes were compared with those of second LT cases performed during the same period.

RESULTS

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores at transplant was similar between the two groups. As for surgical aspects, there was no significant difference in operative time or number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplant procedures between the groups. Patient and graft survival after the third LT at 1, 3, and 10 years were 66.7, 51.9, and 44.4 %, and 66.7, 51.9, and 29.6 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival between the groups. However, graft loss within 3 months after the third LT was significantly higher than that of second LT patients.

CONCLUSION

Third LT cases showed acceptable short- and long-term outcomes that were not significantly inferior to those of a second LT. Careful patient care especially in the early phase after a third LT may be essential to improve the outcome.

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.

Liver retransplantation: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

The curative effect of liver transplantation for patients with end-stage liver disease was encouraging in recent years and the 5-year patient survival rate can reach up to 70%. However, some patients might lose grafts due to a variety of reasons, including bile duct complications, vascular complications, primary non-function, graft rejection and disease recurrence etc. Liver retransplantation (re-LT) was the only available means for those patients whose initial grafts had failed, but the inferior outcomes of re-LT compared to primary liver transplantation (PLT) continue to be a major concern. This study aimed to analyze the indications for re-LT, optimal timing of re-LT, and strategies to improve the survival rate after re-LT.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2006, we performed 738 liver transplants and 39 re-LT (5.3%) at our center. A retrospective analysis was performed to identify factors (indication for re-LT, preoperative score of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), interval to re-LT from primary liver transplantation, methods of vascular and biliary reconstruction and common causes of death) associated with survival.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up period was 1.8 years (1 to 5 years). Patients with MELD score less than 20 were better than those whose MELD score was > 20 and MELD score > 30 (1-year survival, 80.0% versus 50.0% and 3/5). The perioperative survival rate of patients who received re-LT at an interval of more than 30 days and less than 8 days after the initial transplantation was higher than those who received retransplantation between 8 to 30 days following the first operation (88.5% and 74.3% versus 50.0%). The main causes of death were infection (60.0%), multiple organ failure (20.0%), vascular complications (10.0%) and biliary fistula (10.0%) in perioperative period. The overall patient survival rate of 1-month, 6-month and 1-year was 80.0%, 76.7% and 66.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested the favorable results after re-LT. The analysis also showed optimal timing of operation, refined surgical techniques, individualized immunosuppressive regimen and effective prophylaxis and treatment of perioperative infection play an important role in achieving a higher survival after re-LT.

Donor HLA-C genotype has a profound impact on the clinical outcome following liver transplantation

Late allograft dysfunction is a significant problem following liver transplantation and its pathogenesis is uncertain. HLA-C is the major inhibitory ligand for killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) that regulate the cytotoxic activity of natural killer (NK) cells. HLA-C alleles can be allocated into two groups, termed HLA-C1 and HLA-C2, based on their KIR specificity. HLA-C2 interactions are more inhibiting to NK cell activation. We studied the clinical importance of HLA-C genotype in a large liver transplant cohort and found that possession of at least one HLA-C2 allele by the donor allograft was associated with less histological evidence of chronic rejection and graft cirrhosis, a 16.2% reduction in graft loss (p = 0.003) (hazard ratio: 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.3) and a 13.6% improvement in patient survival (p = 0.01) (hazard ratio: 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3) at 10 years. Transplantation of an HLA-C2 homozygous allograft led to a particularly striking 26.5% reduction in graft loss (p < 0.001) (hazard ratio: 7.2, 95% CI 2.2-23.0) at 10 years when compared to HLA-C1 homozygous allografts. Donor HLA-C genotype is therefore a major determinant of clinical outcome after liver transplantation and reveals the importance of NK cells in chronic rejection and graft cirrhosis. Modulation of HLA-C and KIR interactions represents an important novel approach to promote long-term graft and patient survival.

Retransplantation for hepatitis C: results of a U.S. multicenter retransplant study

It is widely perceived that outcomes are relatively poor following retransplantation (reTX) for recurrent of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Transplant centers debate the utility of offering another liver to these patients. A U.S. study group was formed to retrospectively compare survival after reTX in patients with recurrent HCV (histologically proven) and those transplanted for other indications greater than 90 days after first transplantation, from 1996 to 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups; group 1: HCV reTX (n = 43), group 2: non-HCV reTX (n = 73), and group 3: recurrent HCV but no reTX (n = 156). They were predominantly male, Caucasian, with mean age of 47.2 yr. The commonest indications for non-HCV reTX were chronic rejection (36%), hepatic artery thrombosis (31%) and recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis (17%). Duration of hospitalization, number of intensive care unit (ICU) days, and time interval from listing to transplantation or reTX were similar between reTX groups. The 1-yr and 3-yr survival rates after reTX were also similar for HCV reTX and non-HCV reTX groups (1 yr, 69% vs. 73%; 3 yr, 49% vs. 55%). Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were not predictive of survival from reTX. However, with a MELD score of >30 in the non HCV group, survival was <50%. In the recurrent HCV not undergoing reTX group, 30% were reevaluated for reTX but only 15% were listed for reTX and the 3-yr survival was 47%. The most common reasons for not listing for reTX were recurrent HCV within 6 months (22%), fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (19%), and renal dysfunction (9%). In conclusion, patients retransplanted for recurrent HCV had similar 1-yr and 3-yr survival when compared to patients undergoing reTX for other indications. MELD scores were not predictive of post-reTX survival. Survival was <50% in the non-HCV reTx group with MELD score of >30. Many patients with recurrent HCV are not considered for reTX and die from recurrent disease.