Author Correction: A Donor Quality Index for liver transplantation: development, internal and external validation

Initial piggyback technique facilitates late liver retransplantation - a retrospective monocentric study

Optimal management of inferior vena cava (IVC) is crucial to ensure safety in late liver retransplantation (ReLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate different surgical strategies with regard to IVC in late ReLT. All consecutive late ReLT (≥90 days from the previous transplant) from 2013 to 2018 in a single center was reviewed (n = 66). Of them, 46 (69.7%) were performed without venovenous bypass (VVB) including 29 with caval preservation (CP) and 17 with caval replacement (CR). The remaining 20 cases (30.3%) required the use of VVB. Among ReLT without VVB, CP was associated with a lower number of packed red blood cells (median 4 vs. 7; P = 0.016) and a lower incidence of post-transplant acute kidney injury (6.9% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.003). The feasibility of CP was 95% (14/15) in patients with previous 3-vein piggyback caval anastomosis versus 48.3% (15/31) after other techniques (P = 0.003). Indirect signs of portal hypertension (PHT) before retransplantation were predictive of VVB requirement. Early and long-term outcomes were similar across the three groups (CP without VVB, CR without VVB, and VVB). Preserving the IVC in late ReLT is associated with better postoperative renal function and is facilitated by a previous 3-vein piggyback. Routine CR is not justified in late ReLT.

Matching Graft Quality to Recipient's Disease Severity Based on the Survival Benefit in Liver Transplantation

Persistent shortage and heterogeneous quality of liver grafts encourages the optimization of donor-recipient matching in liver transplantation (LT). We explored whether or not there was a survival benefit (SB) of LT according to the quality of grafts assessed by the Donor Quality Index (DQI) and recipients' disease severity, using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in 8387 French patients wait-listed between 2009 and 2014. SB associated with LT was estimated using the sequential stratification method in different categories of MELD and DQI. For each transplantation, a stratum was created that matched one transplanted patient with all eligible control candidates. Strata were thereafter combined, and a stratified Cox model, adjusted for covariates, was fitted in order to estimate hazard ratios that qualified the SB according to each MELD and DQI sub-group. A significant SB was observed for all MELD and DQI sub-groups, with the exception of high MELD patients transplanted with "high-risk" grafts. More specifically, in decompensated-cirrhosis patients, "high-risk" grafts did not appear to be detrimental in medium MELD patients. Interestingly, in hepatocellular-carcinoma (HCC) patients, a significant SB was found for all MELD-DQI combinations. For MELD exceptions no SB was found. In terms of SB, "low-risk" grafts appeared appropriate for most severe patients (MELD > 30). Conversely, low/medium MELD and HCC patients presented an SB while allocated "high-risk" grafts. Thus, SB based matching rules for LT candidates might improve the survival of the LT population as a whole.

Graft Risk Index After Liver Transplant: Internal and External Validation of a New Spanish Indicator

OBJECTIVES

Scarcity of liver grafts has led to the use of marginal donors, consequently increasing the number of complications posttransplant. To prevent this situation, several indicators have been developed. However, important differences remain among countries. Here, we compared an early-risk liver transplant indicator based on the Spanish Liver Transplant Registry, called the Graft Risk Index, versus the US donor risk index and the Eurotransplant donor risk index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The new indicator was based on prospectively collected data from 600 adult liver transplants performed in our center. We considered 2 events to compare the indexes: graft survival and rejection-free graft survival, with Cox proportional regression for analyses. Power to predict graft survival was evaluated by calculating the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve.

RESULTS

We found no differences between the US and Eurotransplant donor risk indexes in prediction of patients with and without early graft failure. With regard to early survival, only the Graft Risk Index allowed better survival discrimination, in which survival progressively decreased with values ≥ 3 (with probability of graft survival at 1 month of 68%; 95% confidence interval, 46.2-82.5). This increase in risk was significant compared with the standard group (hazard ratio of 10.15; 95% confidence interval, C 3.91- 26.32; P < .001). We calculated powers of prediction of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.62), 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65), and 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77) for donor risk index, Eurotransplant donor risk index, and early Graft Risk Index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the US donor risk index nor the Eurotransplant donor risk index was valid for our Spanish liver donation and transplant program. Therefore, an indicator to predict posttransplant graft survival that is adapted to our environment is necessary. This national Graft Risk Index can be a useful tool to optimize donor-recipient matching.