Incidence of liver retransplantation and its effect on patient survival

Indications and Outcomes with Liver Retransplantation in 2025

Five to 10% of the annual liver transplants in the United States are performed in prior liver recipients with 70% occurring within 1 year of transplantation. Fortunately, the incidence of primary non-function (PNF) has significantly decreased from 8% in the 1980's to < 2%, but PNF and hepatic artery thromboses remain the leading reasons for early emergency retransplantation. Other indications for early retransplantation include severe biliary or vascular complications and refractory rejection. Fortunately, the need for late retransplantation (> 1 year) has also declined due to improved immunosuppression, earlier detection of recurrent disease, and use of oral antiviral agents for recurrent hepatitis C. Patient survival with retransplantation is consistently lower than with primary liver transplantation. Risk factors for poor outcomes with retransplantation include a higher MELD score, ICU status, renal failure, and use of marginal allografts. Therefore, most centers use younger, whole deceased brain-dead donor organs whenever possible. However, increased use of machine perfused livers has expanded the donor pool for these more complex and technically challenging cases. Retransplant recipients have a higher rate of early technical, infectious, and cardiovascular complications compared to primary LT recipients. Going forward, LT recipients with recurrent steatotic and alcoholic liver disease will likely pose ethical, medical, and surgical challenges to the transplant community.

Indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers

INTRODUCTION

retransplantation is the only viable treatment for patients with irreversible graft loss. The objective of this study was to analyze the indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers.

METHODS

a total of 66 patients who underwent liver retransplantation from September 1991 to December 2021 were included in the study. A retrospective analysis was performed evaluating patients demographic, clinical, primary diagnosis, indications for and time interval to retransplantation, complications and patient survival.

RESULTS

from a total of 1293 primary liver transplants performed, 70 required one or more liver retransplant. The main indication for primary transplant was hepatitis C cirrhosis (21,2%). Hepatic artery thrombosis was the main cause of retransplantation (60,6%), with almost half (46,9%) of retransplants having occurred within 30 days from initial procedure. The average survival time after a repeat liver transplant, was 89,1 months, with confidence interval from 54 to 124,2. The 1-,5- and 10- year survival rate following liver retransplant were 48,4%, 38% and 30,1%, respectively. Male gender, primary non function as the cause for retransplant, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

operative mortality and morbidity rates of liver retransplantation are higher than those of the first transplantation. Male gender, primary non function, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with less favorable outcomes.

LIVER RETRANSPLANTATION: PROGNOSTIC SCORES AND RESULTS IN THE STATE OF PARANÁ

BACKGROUND

Hepatic retransplantation is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to primary transplantation. Given the scarcity of organs and the need for efficient allocation, evaluating parameters that can predict post-retransplant survival is crucial.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze prognostic scores and outcomes of hepatic retransplantation.

METHODS

Data on primary transplants and retransplants carried out in the state of Paraná in 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The two groups were compared based on 30-day survival and the main prognostic scores of the donor and recipient, namely Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-albumin (MELD-a), Donor MELD (D-MELD), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT), Preallocation Score to Predict Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (P-SOFT), and Balance of Risk (BAR).

RESULTS

A total of 425 primary transplants and 30 retransplants were included in the study. The main etiology of hepatopathy in primary transplantation was ethylism (n=140; 31.0%), and the main reasons for retransplantation were primary graft dysfunction (n=10; 33.3%) and hepatic artery thrombosis (n=8; 26.2%). The 30-day survival rate was higher in primary transplants than in retransplants (80.5% vs. 36.7%, p=0.001). Prognostic scores were higher in retransplants than in primary transplants: MELD 30.6 vs. 20.7 (p=0.001); MELD-a 31.5 vs. 23.5 (p=0.001); D-MELD 1234.4 vs. 834.0 (p=0.034); SOFT 22.3 vs. 8.2 (p=0.001); P-SOFT 22.2 vs. 7.8 (p=0.001); and BAR 15.6 vs. 8.3 (p=0.001). No difference was found in terms of Donor Risk Index (DRI).

CONCLUSIONS

Retransplants exhibited lower survival rates at 30 days, as predicted by prognostic scores, but unrelated to the donor's condition.

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.

Classification of Distinct Patterns of Ischemic Cholangiopathy Following DCD Liver Transplantation: Distinct Clinical Courses and Long-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Cohort

BACKGROUND

As the number of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplants (LTs) performed in the United States continues to increase annually, there has been interest by policy makers to develop a more robust exception point safety net for patients who develop ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) following DCD LT. As such, there is a need for better understanding of the clinical course and long-term outcomes in patients who develop IC, as well as determining if IC can be classified into distinct categories with distinctly different clinical outcomes.

METHODS

All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Arizona, and Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1999 to March 2020 were included (N = 770). Outcomes were compared between 4 distinct radiologic patterns of IC: diffuse necrosis, multifocal progressive, confluence dominant, and minor form.

RESULTS

In total, 88 (11.4%) patients developed IC, of which 42 (5.5%) were listed for retransplantation of liver (ReLT). Patients with diffuse necrosis and multifocal progressive patterns suffered from frequent hospital admissions for cholangitis in the first year following DCD LT (median 3 and 2), were largely stent dependent (100% and 85.7%), and almost universally required ReLT. Patients with confluence dominant disease were managed with multiple stents and frequently recovered, ultimately becoming stent free without need for ReLT. Patients with the minor form IC did well with limited need for stent placement or repeat procedures and did not require ReLT. Graft survival was different between the 4 distinct IC patterns (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis provides a detailed analysis on the natural history and clinical course of IC. Patients developing IC can be classified into 4 distinct patterns with distinct clinical courses.

Outcomes of Adult Liver Retransplantation: A Canadian National Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation remains as the only treatment for graft failure. This investigation aims to assess the incidence, post-transplant outcomes, and risk factors in liver retransplantation recipients in Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Canadian Organ Replacement Register was used to obtain and analyse data on all adult liver retransplant recipients, matched donors, transplant-specific variables, and post-transplant outcomes from January 2000 to December 2018.

RESULTS

377 (6.5%) patients underwent liver retransplantation. Autoimmune liver disease and hepatitis C virus (HCV) were the most common underlying diagnoses. Graft failure was 7.9% and 12.5%, and overall survival was 77.1% and 65.6% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. In contrast to recipients receiving their first graft transplant, the retransplantation group had a significantly higher incidence of graft failure (p < 0.001) and lower overall survival (p < 0.001). The graft failure and patient survival rates were comparable between second transplant and repeat retransplant recipients. Furthermore, there were no differences in graft failure and patient survival when stratified according to time to retransplantation. Recipient and donor age (HR = 1.12, p=0.011; HR = 1.09, p=0.008), recipient HCV status (HR = 1.81, p=0.014), and donor cytomegalovirus status (HR = 4.10, p=0.006) were predictors of patient mortality.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of liver retransplantation demonstrates that this is a safe treatment for early and late graft failure. Furthermore, even in patients requiring more than two grafts, similar outcomes to initial retransplantation can be achieved with careful selection.

Association between hospital liver transplantation volume and mortality after liver re-transplantation

BACKGROUND

The relationship between institutional liver transplantation (LT) case volume and clinical outcomes after liver re-transplantation is yet to be determined.

METHODS

Patients who underwent liver re-transplantation between 2007 and 2016 were selected from the Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service database. Liver transplant centers were categorized to either high-volume centers (≥ 64 LTs/year) or low-volume centers (< 64 LTs/year) according to the annual LT case volume. In-hospital and long-term mortality after liver re-transplantation were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 258 liver re-transplantations were performed during the study period: 175 liver re-transplantations were performed in 3 high-volume centers and 83 were performed in 21 low-volume centers. In-hospital mortality after liver re-transplantation in high and low-volume centers were 25% and 36% (P = 0.069), respectively. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different between low and high-volume centers. Adjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.05-4.37, P = 0.037) compared to high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was also superior in high-volume centers (P = 0.005). Other risk factors of in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality included female sex and higher Elixhauser comorbidity index.

CONCLUSION

Centers with higher case volume (≥ 64 LTs/year) showed lower in-hospital and overall mortality after liver re-transplantation compared to low-volume centers.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

Liver retransplant is considered the only hope for patients with irreversible graft failure after primary transplant. In most Western centers, retransplantis done mainly from deceased donors; so far, only few published studies have reported on outcomes of liver retransplant with living donors. In this study, our aim was to analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent liver retransplant between February 2011 and February 2019 were included in the study. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed. Results from 2 patient groups were compared: liver retransplant with living donors and liver retransplant with deceased donors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent liver retransplant (21 adult and 11 pediatric patients). The most common indications for liver retransplant were hepatic artery thrombosis (28.5%) and primary graft nonfunction (23.8%) in adults and hepatic artery thrombosis (45.5%) and chronic rejection (36.4%) in pediatric patients. Seventeen retransplant patients (53.1%) required early retransplant (within 1 mo), mainly due to hepatic artery thrombosis (52.9%) and primary graft nonfunction (35.3%). Late retransplant was mainly due to chronic rejection (40%) and recurrence of primary disease (26.7%). Seventeen patients (53.1%) underwent living-donor retransplant, and 5 donors underwent robotic right hepatectomy. Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81.3% for living-donor and 51.4% for deceased-donor liver retransplant recipients (P = .08). On multivariate analyses, we observed significant differences between both groups in pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = .05), preoperative international normalized ratio (P = .012), and cold ischemia time (P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of living donors for liver retransplant, despite its technical demand, was shown to be a safe and feasible option, especially when there is scarcity of deceased donors.

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.

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.

Outcomes of orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatic sarcoidosis: an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data files for a comparative study with cholestatic liver diseases

Hepatic sarcoidosis is a rare indication for liver transplantation. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database, we evaluated patient and graft survival after orthotopic liver transplantation for sarcoidosis between October 1987 and December 2007. We assessed the potential prognostic value of multiple demographic and clinical variables, and we also compared these patients to a case-matched group of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) or primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). The 1- and 5-year survival rates for the sarcoidosis group were 78% and 61%, respectively, and these rates were significantly worse than the rates for the PSC/PBC group (P = 0.001). Disease recurrence in the liver is a rare cause of graft loss or patient death. Three deaths occurred in the sarcoidosis group because of recurrent hepatic sarcoidosis, and 1 death was a result of cardiac sarcoidosis. A univariate analysis identified an increasing donor risk index as a significant negative factor for outcomes for the sarcoidosis group [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.06, confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-4.06, P = 0.037], but this finding was not found in a multivariate analysis, in which no independent predictors were found to have a significant impact. A case-matched univariate analysis demonstrated that sarcoidosis and morbid obesity were significant negative factors for outcomes, and in a multivariate analysis, sarcoidosis continued to predict worse outcomes (HR = 2.39, CI = 1.21-4.73, P = 0.012). In conclusion, an analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database indicates that the patient and allograft survival rates for hepatic sarcoidosis are satisfactory, but they are worse in comparison with the rates for other cholestatic liver diseases.

A case-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts after liver transplantation

The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion in managing the complications of portal hypertension is well established, but its utility in patients who have previously undergone liver transplantation is not well documented. Twenty-two orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) patients and 44 nontransplant patients (matched controls) who underwent TIPS were analyzed. In the OLT patients, the TIPS procedure was performed at a median of 44.8 months (range = 0.3-143 months) after transplantation. Eight (36.4%) had variceal bleeding, and 14 (63.6%) had refractory ascites. The underlying liver disease was cholestatic in 10 (45.4%) and viral in 4 (18.2%). The mean pre-TIPS Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 13.4 ± 5.1. There were no significant differences in age, sex, indication, etiology, or MELD score with respect to the control group. The mean initial portal pressure gradients (PPGs) were similar in the 2 groups (21.0 versus 22.4 mm Hg for the OLT patients and controls, respectively), but the final PPG was lower in the control group (9.9 versus 6.9 mm Hg, P < 0.05). The rates of both technical success and clinical success were higher in the control group versus the OLT group [95.5% versus 68.2% (P < 0.05) and 93.2% versus 77.2% (P < 0.05), respectively]. The rates of complications and post-TIPS encephalopathy were similar in the 2 groups, and there was a trend toward increased rates of shunt insufficiency in the OLT group. The mortality rate of the patients with a pre-TIPS MELD score > 15 was significantly higher in the OLT group [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.45-12.88, P < 0.05], but the mortality rates of the patients with a pre-TIPS MELD score < 15 were similar in the 2 groups. In the OLT group, the predictors of increased mortality were the pre-TIPS MELD score (HR = 1.161, 95% CI = 1.036-1.305, P < 0.05) and pre-TIPS MELD scores > 15 (HR = 5.846, 95% CI = 1.754-19.485, P < 0.05). In conclusion, TIPS insertion is feasible in transplant recipients, although its efficacy is lower in these patients versus control patients. Outcomes are poor for OLT recipients with a pre-TIPS MELD score > 15.

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.