Model for end-stage liver disease exceptions committee activity in Argentina: does it provide justice and equity among adult patients waiting for a liver transplant?

LI-RADS 4 or 5 categorization may not be clinically relevant for decision-making processes: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The liver imaging reporting data system (LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was proposed to standardize and enhance consensus of reporting. However, clinical utility of LI-RADS has not been evaluated in Latin America. We therefore sought to compare LI-RADS categories with histopathology findings in liver transplant (LT) explants in a regional center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort study conducted between 2012 and 2018 in a single center from Argentina including patients with HCC listed for LT. LI-RADS definitions were applied to magnetic resonance images (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) abdominal scans at time of listing and at final pre-LT reassessment and compared to explant pathology findings; specifically, major nodule (NOD1).

RESULTS

Of 130 patients with HCC listed for LT (96.1% with cirrhosis and 35.6% with hepatitis C virus infection), 72 underwent LT. Overall, 65% had imaging HCC diagnosis based on MRI (n = 84), 26% with CT (n = 34) and 9% (n = 12) with both methods. Among LT patients with pre-transplant imaging at our institution (n = 42/72), 69% of the NOD1 were LR-5, 21% LR-4 and 10% LR-3. Definite HCC diagnosis was 50% in LR-3 NOD1 (CI 18-90); none presented microvascular invasion. In LR-4 NOD1, HCC was confirmed in 89% (CI 59-98), of which 11% showed microvascular invasion; whereas in LR-5 NOD1 77% (CI 64-87) had confirmed HCC, 17% with microvascular invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

LI-RADS was useful to standardize reports; however, no significant differences were observed between LR-4 and LR-5 HCC probability when compared to explant pathology.

Argentinian clinical practice guideline for surveillance, diagnosis, staging and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

The A.A.E.E.H has developed this guideline for the best care of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Argentina. It was done from May 2018 to March 2020. Specific clinical research questions were systematically searched. The quality of evidence and level of recommendations were organized according to GRADE. HCC surveillance is strongly recommended with abdominal ultrasound (US) every six months in the population at risk for HCC (cirrhosis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C); it is suggested to add alpha-feto protein (AFP) levels in case of inexeperienced sonographers. Imaging diagnosis in patients at risk for HCC has high specificity and tumor biopsy is not mandatory. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm is strongly recommended for HCC staging and treatment-decision processes. Liver resection is strongly recommended for patients without portal hypertension and preserved liver function. Composite models are suggested for liver transplant selection criteria. Therapies for HCC with robust clinical evidence include transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and first to second line systemic treatment options (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab). Immunotherapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab has failed to show statistical benefit but the novel combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently shown survival benefit over sorafenib in frontline.

Current status of liver transplantation in Latin America

The lack of adequate financial coverage, education, and the organization has been the main limiting factor for the development of transplantation in Latin America. As occurred worldwide, the number of patients on liver waiting lists in Latin America grows disproportionately compared to the number of liver transplantations (LTs) performed. Although many law modifications have been made in the last year, most countries lack social awareness about the importance of donation and the irreversibility of brain death. The mechanisms and norms for organ procurement and infrastructure development, capable of supporting this high demand, are still in slow progress in most countries. Access to LT in the region is very heterogeneous. While some countries have no active LT programs so far, others are an international model of a public transplantation system (Brazil) or a national information system (Argentina). While some countries have only a few LT centers, others have too many LT centers performing an inadequate low number of LTs. Disparity to access transplantation remains the major challenge in the region. Cultural and educational efforts have to be accompanied by transparent public policies that will likely increase organ donation and activity in transplantation. The purpose of this article is to review the trends and current activity in LT within Latin America, based on prior publications and the information available in each country of the region.

Access to Grafts in a Liver Transplant Center: Does It Rely on the Severity of the Waiting List Population?

BACKGROUND

The number of transplants performed relies, partially, on recipients' variables on the waiting list. The goal of this study was to compare recipients from a high-volume liver center in Argentina with the rest of the country.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of liver transplant recipients nationally between January 2013 and April 2017. It involved extracting data from the open database CRESI-SINTRA (the Argentinian database of the National Procurement Organization, an equivalent to the United Network for Organ Sharing); expressing results by percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs); and comparing the national population with the population transplanted at Hospital El Cruce (HEC). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Nationally, 1434 liver transplants were performed. A total of 177 (12.34%) were emergency status; 811 (56.6%) were by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) (n = 759)/PELD (Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease) (n = 52), with a median graft assignment position of 5 (IQR, 3-10) in 57.2 days (IQR, 11-217). Median MELD access was 29 points (IQR, 24-33). A total of 446 (31.1%) had MELD exceptions; 249 (55.8%) of these were due to Milan hepatocellular carcinoma. At the HEC, 167 liver transplantations were performed; 26 (15.6%) were emergency status and 97 (58.1%) by MELD (none PELD). Their median graft assignment position was 4 (IQR, 4-16) in 19.1 days (IQR, 4-90); median MELD access was 28 points (IQR, 24-31). Forty-five patients (26.9%) had MELD exceptions; 31 (68.9%) were due to hepatocellular carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our center has a larger proportion of recipients transplanted by emergency status and MELD, similar MELD access, and less waiting list time, reflecting our wide policy of liver graft acceptance.

Liver Transplantation without Perioperative Transfusions Single-Center Experience Showing Better Early Outcome and Shorter Hospital Stay

Background. Significant amounts of red blood cells (RBCs) transfusions are associated with poor outcome after liver transplantation (LT). We report our series of LT without perioperative RBC (P-RBC) transfusions to evaluate its influence on early and long-term outcomes following LT. Methods. A consecutive series of LT between 2006 and 2011 was analyzed. P-RBC transfusion was defined as one or more RBC units administrated during or ≤48 hours after LT. We divided the cohort in “No-Transfusion” and “Yes-Transfusion.” Preoperative status, graft quality, and intra- and postoperative variables were compared to assess P-RBC transfusion risk factors and postoperative outcome. Results. LT was performed in 127 patients (“No-Transfusion” = 39 versus “Yes-Transfusion” = 88). While median MELD was significantly higher in Yes-Transfusion (11 versus 21; P = 0.0001) group, platelet count, prothrombin time, and hemoglobin were significantly lower. On multivariate analysis, the unique independent risk factor associated with P-RBC transfusions was preoperative hemoglobin (P < 0.001). Incidence of postoperative bacterial infections (10 versus 27%; P = 0.03), median ICU (2 versus 3 days; P = 0.03), and hospital stay (7.5 versus 9 days; P = 0.01) were negatively influenced by P-RBC transfusions. However, 30-day mortality (10 versus 15%) and one- (86 versus 70%) and 3-year (77 versus 66%) survival were equivalent in both groups. Conclusions. Recipient MELD score was not a predictive factor for P-RBC transfusion. Patients requiring P-RBC transfusions had worse postoperative outcome. Therefore, maximum efforts must be focused on improving hemoglobin levels during waiting list time to prevent using P-RBC in LT recipients.

Liver transplantation using Chagas-infected donors in uninfected recipients: a single-center experience without prophylactic therapy

Organ shortage is the first cause of death on liver transplant waiting lists. As a consequence, we recently decided to expand liver acceptance to those organs that could potentially transmit infectious diseases to their recipients. On January 2010, we initiated a prospective protocol using livers from Chagas-infected donors for transplanting uninfected recipients without using prophylactic therapy. During a 13-month period, 9 of 37 (24%) liver transplants were performed within this protocol. After transplant, each recipient was sequentially and strictly monitored for infection transmission using the Strout method and promptly treated with benznidazole if this occurs. During follow-up, two patients died without Chagas infection and only two (donor-derived T. cruzi transmission rate: 2/9; 22%) patients developed donor-derived Chagas transmission without clinical symptoms. The median follow-up time of the seven live patients was 15 months (range: 13-20). At present, all are symptoms-free with excellent allograft function and without evidence of Chagas disease. In conclusion, we consider that Chagas-infected donors are a promising source of liver grafts that could reduce the growing mortality on liver waiting lists in America. Relevant data from larger prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary excellent results.

Is it safe to use a liver graft from a Chagas disease-seropositive donor in a human immunodeficiency virus-positive recipient? A case report addressing a novel challenge in liver transplantation

This is the first report presenting a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patient with fulminant hepatic failure receiving a liver graft from a Chagas disease-seropositive deceased donor. We describe the history of a 38-year-old HIV-positive female patient who developed fulminant hepatic failure of an autoimmune etiology with rapid deterioration of her clinical status and secondary multiorgan failure and, therefore, needed emergency liver transplantation (LT) as a lifesaving procedure. Because of the scarcity of organs and the high mortality rate for emergency status patients on the LT waiting list, we decided to accept a Chagas disease-seropositive deceased donor liver graft for this immunocompromised Chagas disease-seronegative patient. The recipient had a rapid postoperative recovery and was discharged on postoperative day 9 without prophylactic treatment for Chagas disease. Fifteen months after LT, she was still alive and had never experienced seroconversion on periodic screening tests for Chagas detection. Although there is an inherent risk of acute Chagas disease developing in seronegative recipients, our report suggests that these infected organs can be safely used as a lifesaving strategy for HIV patients with a high need for LT.

Experience using liver transplantation for the treatment of severe bile duct injuries over 20 years in Argentina: results from a National Survey

BACKGROUND

Bile duct injury (BDI) is a severe complication that may arise during the surgical treatment of benign disease and a few patients will develop end-stage liver disease (ESLD) requiring a liver transplant (LT).

OBJECTIVE

Analyse the experience using LT as a definitive treatment of BDI in Argentina.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A national survey regarding the experience of LT for BDI.

RESULTS

Sixteen out 18 centres reported a total of 19 patients. The percentage of LT for BDI from the total number of LT per period was: 1990-94 = 3.1%, 1995-99 = 1.6%, 2000-04 = 0.7% and 2005-09 = 0.2% (P < 0.001). The mean age was 45.7 ± 10.3 years (range 26-62) and 10 patients were female. The BDI occurred during cholecystectomy in 16 and 7 had vascular injuries. One patient presented with acute liver failure and the others with chronic ESLD. The median time between BDI and LT was 71 months (range 0.2-157). The mean follow-up was 8.3 years (10 months to 16.4 years). Survival at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years was 73%, 68%, 68% and 45%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LT for the treatment of BDI declined over the review period. LT plays a role in selected cases in patients with acute liver failure and ESLD.