When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors

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.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Liver retransplantation: Timing is equally important

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To evaluate the effect of transplantation interval on patient and graft survival in liver retransplantation (reLT) using meta-analytical techniques.

METHODS

Literature search was undertaken until January 2022 to identify comparative studies evaluating patient survival rates, graft survival rates, and the interval time. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated with either the fixed or random effect model.

RESULTS

The 12 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The late reLT survival rate is better than the early reLT in the 30 days group, and there is no statistical significance in other time groups. The patient survival was significantly higher in late reLT than early reLT at 1 and 5 years (respectively: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.88]). The graft survival was significantly higher in late reLT than early reLT at 1 year (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.89]). The risk of death after reLT in early group was 1.43 times higher than that in late group (HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.71]).

CONCLUSIONS

Late reLT had significantly better survival rates than early reLT, and the transplantation interval was more reasonable to divide the early or late groups by 30 days.

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.

Comparing the Outcomes of Deceased-Donor and Living-Donor Liver Re-Transplantation In Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver graft failures have an extremely low chance of finding a cadaveric graft in countries with a scarcity of deceased donors. We compared the outcomes of liver re-transplantation with living-donor liver grafts (re-LDLT) and deceased-donor liver grafts (re-DDLT) in adult patients (>18 years).

METHODS

The medical records of 1513 (1417 [93.6%] LDLT and 96 [6.3%] DDLT) patients who underwent liver transplantation at Memorial Hospital between January 2011 and October 2022 were reviewed. Forty patients (24 adults and 16 pediatric) were re-transplanted (2.84%); 24 adult patients (2.72%: 25 re-LDLT, 1 patient with second re-LDLT) were divided into 2 groups: re-DDLT (n = 6) and re-LDLT (n = 18). The groups were compared in demographics, pre-, peri-, postoperative characteristics, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall survival rates were 91.7%, 79.2%, 75.0%, and 75% for <30 days, 31 to 90 days, 1, and 3 years, respectively. The LDLT group was significantly younger (P = .022), had smaller graft weight (P = .03), shorter mechanical ventilation (P = .036) but longer operation time (P = .019), and hospitalization period (P = .003). The groups were otherwise comparable. There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the groups (P = .058), although the re-LDLT group had an evidently higher survival rate (88.9% and 83.3 % vs 50.0%).

CONCLUSION

Re-LDLT has shown comparable outcomes to re-DDLT, if not better (even not far from significance P = .058). These results may encourage performing re-LDLTs in patients with indications for re-LT without worrying about low chances of survival, especially in countries with limited sources of deceased donors.

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.

Retransplantation After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Data from the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study

BACKGROUND

The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT.

METHODS

A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P < 0.001).

A Multicenter Japanese Survey Assessing the Long-term Outcomes of Liver Retransplantation Using Living Donor Grafts

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the most suitable treatment option available for end-stage liver disease. However, some patients require retransplantation, despite medical advances that have led to improved survival. We aimed to compile a definitive, nationwide resource of liver retransplantation data in Japan, seeking to identify the predictors of patient survival posttransplantation.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 32 institutions that had conducted 281 retransplantations before 2015.

RESULTS

Among the 265 patients included in this study (142 pediatric cases), the average age at primary transplantation was 23 years, and retransplantation was performed after an average of 1468 days. The main indication for retransplantation was graft rejection (95 patients). Living-donor liver transplantation accounted for 94.7% of primary transplantations and 73.2% of retransplantations. Patient survival at 1, 3, or 5 years did not differ by type of transplantation but was better for pediatric (70.8%, 68.3%, and 60.1%, respectively) than for adult (57.2%, 50.4%, and 45.2%, respectively) recipients (P = 0.0003). Small-for-size syndrome, retransplantation within 365 days, and inpatient status at retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in pediatric cases. Retransplantation within 365 days and conditions warranting retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, where >70% of retransplantations are performed using living donors, the indications and timing are different from those in previous reports from other countries, while maintaining comparable survival rates. Considering technical challenges, graft failure within 365 days should be thoroughly restricted to justify the use of living donor.

Adult Living Donor Liver Re-Transplant Following Late Pediatric Liver Transplant Failure: A Case Report

Patient: Male, 14

Final Diagnosis: Primary sclerosing cholangitis

Symptoms: Abdominal and/or epigastric pain • jaundice

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Liver transplantation twice • splenic artery embolization

Specialty: Transplantology

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.

Effects of infection on post-transplant outcomes: living versus deceased donor liver transplants

Introduction

Post-transplant infections have been studied widely but data on comparisons of deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT) and living donor liver transplants (LDLT), type and timings of infections, and their relations to outcomes are not explored.

Material and methods

We analysed data from 612 participants of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL), a retrospective data set of LDLT and DDLT. We compared the type and timing of the first post-transplant infection in relation to transplant outcomes between the two groups.

Results

Out of 611 patients, 24.5% experienced the first post-transplant infection, the majority of which were bacterial (35.3%), followed by fungal (11%) and viral infections (4.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate, type or timing of infection between LDLT and DDLT. Patients with late (> 1 year) first infection were 1.8 times more likely to die (95% CI: 1.12-2.98, p = 0.015) and 9 times more likely to have graft failures (95% CI: 3.26-24.8, p < 0.001). DDLT recipients who experienced bacterial infection had a significantly lower survival rate compared to LDLT recipients (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Late infection is associated with lower survival in both DDLT and LDLT. Bacterial infection might be more detrimental for DDLT than LDLT. Late infection should be managed aggressively to improve outcomes.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: an (almost) exclusive Eastern procedure?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most prevalent cancer and it is linked with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best curative treatment modality, since it can cure simultaneously the underlying liver disease and HCC. Milan criteria (MC) are the benchmark for selecting patients with HCC for LT, achieving up to 91% 1-year survival post transplantation. However, when considering intention-to-treat (ITT) rates are substantially lower, mainly due dropout. Additionally, Milan criteria (MC) are too restrictive and more inclusive criteria have been reported with good outcomes. Mainly, in Eastern countries, deceased donors are scarce, therefore Asian centers have developed living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to a state-of-art status. There are many eastern centers reporting huge numbers of LDLT with outstanding results. Regarding HCC patients, they have reported many criteria including more advanced tumors achieving reasonable outcomes. Western countries have well-established deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs. However, organ shortage and restrictive criteria for listing patients with HCC endorses LDLT as a good option to offer curative treatment to more HCC patients. However, there are some controversial reports claiming higher rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT. An extensive review included 30 studies with cohorts of HCC patients who underwent LDLT in both East and West countries. We reported also the results of our Institution, in Brazil, where it was performed the first LDLT. This review also addresses the eligibility criteria for transplanting patients with HCC developed in Western and Eastern countries.

Analysis of the long-term results of living donor liver transplantation in adults

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to conventional transplantation given its excellent results. The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes in LDLT recipients.

METHODS

100 consecutive THDV recipients from the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona from March 2000 to October 2015 were included. The main indication for transplantation was end-stage liver disease (58%) followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (41%). 95% of grafts consisted of the right liver of the donor and the 5% of the left liver.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 65.5 months, patient and graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 93%, 80% and 74% and 90%, 76%, and 71%, respectively. The overall re-transplant rate was 9%. The most common long-term complication was biliary stenosis (40%) with an average time of onset of 13.5±12 months, with repeated admissions and an average of 1.9±2 endoscopic procedures and 3.5±3 Radiological procedures per patient. The definitive treatment was radiological dilation in 40% of cases, surgical intervention in 22.5% and re-transplantation in 7.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the long-term results, LDLT is confirmed as an alternative to conventional transplantation. However, the high rate of late biliary complications involves repeated admissions and invasive treatments that, while not compromising survival, can affect the patient's quality of life.