Early allograft dysfunction after living donor liver transplantation-current concepts and future directions

Definition, Prognosis, and Complication Analysis of Early Allograft Dysfunction in Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) varies, and has hardly been studied in pediatric transplantation (pLT) since the adult EAD definition is not easily applicable to pLT.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive pLT patients aged <18 at the Department of Pediatric Transplantation of Tianjin First Central Hospital from April 2013 to December 2022. The definition of EAD explored in this study is (1) international normalized ratio ≥2.8 on day 1 and aspartate aminotransferase >1500 IU/mL within the first 7 days or (2) total bilirubin ≥5 mg/dL on day 7. The overall survival of patients and graft survival at 90 days after surgery were compared between this new definition and the adult EAD definition.

RESULTS

A total of 1620 pLT recipients were included in the study, of which 179 (11.0 %) recipients met the new definition of EAD for pLT. Twenty-five (13.97 %) died and 37 (20.67 %) graft lost within 90 days. The RR_death under Olthoff's EAD definition and our EAD definition are 3.45 and 9.57, respectively; The RR_graft_loss under Olthoff's EAD definition and our EAD definition are 4.18 and 11.48, respectively. A total of 97 (18.98 %) of 511 recipients who received deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) met the new definition of EAD, 18 (18.56 %) died and 29 (29.90 %) graft lost within 90 days. In DDLT group, the RR_death under Olthoff's EAD definition and our EAD definition are 2.29 and 10.98, respectively; The RR_graft_loss under Olthoff's EAD definition and our EAD definition are 2.34 and 11.24, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The broadly used Olthoff's EAD definition in adult liver transplantation is unsuitable for pLT use. The EAD definition established in this study is more suitable for patients <18 years old who received pLT, especially those <18 years old who received DDLT.

Impact of differential glycemic management goals in pre-anhepatic and anhepatic phase on early grafted liver function after liver transplantation: An open-label, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Liver graft function is related to the quality of liver transplantation (LT). High-quality perioperative glycemic management is considered hepatoprotective. However, no studies have explored the effects of specialized and staged blood glucose management target ranges on reducing glycemic variability (GV) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after LT.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, a total of 188 LT recipients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the less intensive glucose management (LIGM) group and the more intensive glucose management (MIGM) group. They followed goals of 7.8-10.0 mmol/L and 4.5-6.7 mmol/L in the pre-anhepatic and anhepatic phases, respectively, and the goals of 4.1-10.0 mmol/L in the neohepatic phase and postoperatively. The primary outcome was EAD, and the secondary outcomes were GV, incidence of hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia, postoperative liver enzyme levels, 30-day postoperative infection rate, one-year survival rate, and TNF-α, IL-6 and C-reactive protein levels.

RESULTS

A total of 182 adult patients (89 in the LIGM group and 93 in the MIGM group) completed the study. The mean age of the recipients was 51.46 ± 10.79 years, and the median MELD score before surgery was 16. The incidence of EAD was significantly lower in the LIGM group than in the MIGM group (10.11 % vs 31.18 %, P < 0.001), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.32 (2-sided 95 % CI 0.110-0.562). There was no statistical difference in the 30-day postoperative infection rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The one-year survival rate of the LIGM group was higher than that of the MIGM group (92.13 % vs 82.02 %, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting LIGM (7.8-10.0 mmol/L) during the pre-anhepatic and anhepatic phases helps to reduce the incidence of EAD after LT and promotes the recovery of liver function, but does not increase the incidence of postoperative infections.

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society

The 2024 Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) was from May 1-4 in Houston, Texas, USA, under the theme "Liver Disease and Transplantation: Breaking Barriers and Exploring New Frontiers." In addition to a robust scientific program, the congress also hosted a hands-on cadaveric robotic liver surgery course, a machine perfusion workshop, and a transesophageal echocardiography course. In this report, the ILTS Vanguard and Basic Sciences Committees present a summary of the congress proceedings.

Validation of a Pretransplant Risk Prediction Model for Early Allograft Dysfunction After Living-donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor's risks.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation.

RESULTS

In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient's pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

Association between low fasting glucose of the living donor and risk of graft loss in the recipient after liver transplantation

Several donor-specific factors influence the functional recovery and long-term outcomes of liver grafts. This study investigated the association between donor fasting glucose (DFG) and recipient outcomes after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in 950 cases at a single center. Patients were divided into two groups: low-DFG (< 85 mg/dL, n = 120) and control (≥ 85 mg/dL, n = 830). The five-year graft survival rate was significantly lower in the low-DFG group (71.5%) compared to the control group (80.0%) (P = 0.02). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that low DFG was independently associated with graft loss (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008). In propensity score-matched groups, the low-DFG group also had lower survival rates (71% vs. 83.1%, P = 0.004). The presence of additional risk factors, such as low graft-to-recipient weight ratio, older donor age, and longer cold ischemic time, further reduced graft survival in the low-DFG group. A DFG level < 85 mg/dL is associated with higher risk of graft failure after LDLT, especially when combined with other risk factors. Low DFG should be considered a prognostic marker in LDLT planning, with potential to improve patient outcomes as further research clarifies the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Effects of Desflurane versus sevoflurane on graft outcome of patients with cirrhosis receiving steatotic liver graft in deceased donor liver transplantation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the effects of two volatile anesthetic agents, desflurane and sevoflurane, on graft outcomes in patients undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for cirrhosis, with a specific focus on fatty grafts.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital (Severance Hospital, Korea).

PATIENTS

This study included 151 patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent DDLT for cirrhosis between January 2006 and December 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were grouped according to maintenance anesthesia received (desflurane or sevoflurane), the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and macrovesicular steatosis (MVS) of the liver graft.

MEASUREMENTS

Survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to graft failure or death. After propensity score matching (PSM), Cox regression analysis was used to compare hazards ratios (HR) for 5-year graft and overall survival. Subgroup analyses were performed for the MELD score and MVS of the liver graft. Incidences of 1-month acute rejection and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) were also compared between the two groups.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 151 eligible patients, 49 patients remained in each group after PSM, with 14 (28.6 %) graft failures and deaths occurring in each group. In matched analysis, sevoflurane showed poorer 5-year graft and overall survival compared to desflurane in recipients of graft with ≥10 % MVS, and this trend was significant in patients with MELD score of ≥35. In Cox regression model, compared to desflurane sevoflurane showed a propensity score-matched HR of 5.8 (95 % CI, 1.13-30.50 for both 5-year graft and overall survival. Additionally, sevoflurane showed an increased risk of 1-month acute rejection; however, no difference was observed for EAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane as a maintenance agent during DDLT in recipients with high MELD scores and fatty grafts may be associated with poorer outcomes compared to desflurane.

Impact of Paired Remote Ischemic Preconditioning on Postreperfusion Syndrome in Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

Background and Objectives: Postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) is a significant challenge in liver transplantation (LT), leading to severe circulatory and metabolic complications. Ischemic preconditioning (IPC), including remote IPC (RIPC), can mitigate ischemia-reperfusion injury, although its efficacy in LT remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of paired RIPC, involving the application of RIPC to both the recipient and the living donor, on the incidence of PRS and the need for rescue epinephrine during living-donor LT (LDLT). Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational cohort analysis included 676 adult patients who had undergone elective LDLT between September 2012 and September 2022. After applying exclusion criteria and propensity score matching (PSM), 664 patients were categorized into the paired RIPC and non-RIPC groups. The primary outcomes were the occurrence of PRS and the need for rescue epinephrine during reperfusion. Results: The incidence of PRS and the need for rescue epinephrine were significantly lower in the paired RIPC group than in the non-RIPC group. Furthermore, the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury was lower in the paired RIPC group. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for propensity scores indicated that paired RIPC was significantly associated with a reduced occurrence of PRS (odds ratio: 0.672, 95% confidence interval: 0.479-0.953, p = 0.021). Conclusions: Paired RIPC, involving both the recipient and the living donor, effectively reduces the occurrence of PRS and the need for rescue epinephrine during LDLT. These findings suggest that paired RIPC protects against ischemia-reperfusion injury in LDLT. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our results and to explore the underlying mechanisms of the protective effects of RIPC.

Dexmedetomidine use during orthotopic liver transplantation surgery on early allograft dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown a protective effect of dexmedetomidine use in kidney transplantation. In contrast, it is not known whether intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine can reduce early allograft dysfunction (EAD) incidence following liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine use during surgery on EAD following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT).

STUDY DESIGN

This is a single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Three hundred thirty adult patients undergoing OLT were enrolled from 14th January 2019 to 22nd May 2022. Patients received dexmedetomidine or normal saline during surgery. One year follow-ups were recorded.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to two groups receiving either dexmedetomidine or normal saline intraoperatively. For patients in the dexmedetomidine group, a loading dose (1 μg/kg over 10 min) of dexmedetomidine was given after induction of anesthesia followed by a continuous infusion (0.5 μg/kg /h) until the end of surgery. For patients in the normal saline group, an equal volume loading dose of 0.9% saline was given after the induction of anesthesia followed by an equal volume continuous infusion until the end of surgery. The primary outcome was EAD. Secondary outcomes included primary graft nonfunction, acute kidney injury, and acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome.

RESULTS

Of 330 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 165 were in the dexmedetomidine group [mean (SD) age, 49 (10) years; 117 (70.9%) men], and 165 were in the normal saline group [mean SD age, 49 (9) years; 118 (74%) men]. 39 (24.4%) patients in the dexmedetomidine group and 31 (19.4%) in normal saline group developed EAD and the difference was statistically insignificant ( P =0.28). Secondary outcomes including primary graft nonfunction and acute kidney injury was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine did not reduce EAD rate after OLT.