Blood-transfusion requirements and blood salvage in donors undergoing right hepatectomy for living related liver transplantation

Anaesthesia for Liver Transplantation: An Update

Liver transplantation (LT) is a challenging surgery performed on patients with complex physiology profiles, complicated by multi-system dysfunction. It represents the treatment of choice for end-stage liver disease. The procedure is performed under general anaesthesia, and a successful procedure requires an excellent understanding of the patho-physiology of liver failure and its implications. Despite advances in knowledge and technical skills and innovations in immunosuppression, the anaesthetic management for LT can be complicated and represent a real challenge. Monitoring devices offer crucial information for the successful management of patients. Hemodynamic instability is typical during surgery, requiring sophisticated invasive monitoring. Arterial pulse contour analysis and thermo-dilution techniques (PiCCO), rotational thromboelastometry (RO-TEM), transcranial doppler (TCD), trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and bispectral index (BIS) have been proven to be reliable monitoring techniques playing a significant role in decision making. Anaesthetic management is specific according to the three critical phases of surgery: pre-anhepatic, anhepatic and neo-hepatic phase. Surgical techniques such as total or partial clamping of the inferior vena cava (IVC), use of venovenous bypass (VVBP) or portocaval shunts have a significant impact on cardiovascular stability. Post reperfusion syndrome (PRS) is a significant event and can lead to arrhythmias and even cardiac arrest.

Anesthesia Management and Fluid Therapy in Right and Left Lobe Living Donor Hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Right lobe living donor hepatectomy poses a greater risk for the donor in relation to blood loss. The aims of this study were to compare anesthetic and intraoperative fluid management in right and left lateral segment living donor hepatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The anesthesia records of living donor hepatectomy patients were retrospectively reviewed. Donor age and weight, anesthesia time, central venous pressure, blood loss, blood product transfusion, intravenous fluids used, doses of furosemide, and urine output were compared and analyzed between groups using the Mann Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients underwent living donor left lateral segment hepatectomy (Group I); while 31 patients underwent right lobe hepatectomy (Group II). The mean blood loss in Group II was significantly higher compared to Group I (118 ± 81 mL vs 68 ± 64 mL), but clinically such amount of blood loss was not high enough to affect the hemodynamics. The fluid management was therefore not meaningfully different between the two groups. No blood transfusions or colloid infusions were required for either group. Urine output, hemoglobin changes, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine pre- and postoperatively were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As long as blood loss is minimal, we found no difference in the anesthetic management and fluid replacements between right and left lateral segment living donor hepatectomy.

Fluid management in living donor hepatectomy: Recent issues and perspectives

The importance of the safety of healthy living liver donors is widely recognized during donor hepatectomy which is associated with blood loss, transfusion, and subsequent post-operative morbidity. Although the low central venous pressure (CVP) technique can still be effective, it may not be advantageous concerning the safety of healthy donors undergoing hepatectomy. Emerging evidence suggests that stroke volume variation (SVV), a simple and useful index for fluid responsiveness and preload status in various clinical situations, can be applied as a guide for fluid management to reduce blood loss during living donor hepatectomy. Synthetic colloid solutions are also associated with serious adverse events such as the use of renal replacement therapy and transfusion in critically ill or septic patients. However, it is uncertain whether the intra-operative use of colloid solution is associated with similarly adverse effects in patients undergoing living donor hepatectomy. In this review article we discuss the recent issues regarding the low CVP technique and the high SVV method, i.e., maintaining 10%-20% of SVV, for fluid management in order to reduce blood loss during living donor hepatectomy. In addition, we briefly discuss the effects of intra-operative colloid or crystalloid administration for surgical rather than septic or critically ill patients.

Effect of stroke volume variation-directed fluid management on blood loss during living-donor right hepatectomy: a randomised controlled study

Reducing blood loss is beneficial in living liver donor hepatectomy. Although it has been suggested that maintaining a low central venous pressure is important, it is known that low stroke volume variation may be associated with increased blood loss. Therefore, we compared the effect on blood loss of 40 patients randomly assigned to a high stroke volume variation group (maintaining 10-20% of stroke volume variation) vs 38 patients in a control group (maintaining < 10% stroke volume variation) during living-donor right hepatectomy. Mean (SD) blood loss during donor hepatectomy was significantly lower in the high stroke volume variation group than in the control group: 476 (131) ml vs 836 (341) ml, respectively (p < 0.001). Blood pressure and peri-operative laboratory values did not differ between the two groups. However, in the high stroke volume variation group, central venous pressure values were also significantly lower. We were unable to disentangle the effects of stroke volume variation and central venous pressure, but our results confirm that the two together appear beneficial.

Review of anesthesia in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-accepted treatment modality of many end-stage liver diseases. The main issue in LT is the shortage of deceased donors to accommodate the needs of patients waiting for such transplants. Live donors have tremendously increased the pool of available liver grafts, especially in countries where deceased donors are not common. The main ethical concern of this procedure is the safety of healthy donors, who undergo a major abdominal surgery not for their own health, but to help cure others. The first part of the review concentrates on live donor selection, preanesthetic evaluation, and intraoperative anesthetic care for living liver donors. The second part reviews patient evaluation, intraoperative anesthesia monitoring, and fluid management of the recipient. This review provides up-to-date information to help improve the quality of anesthesia, and contribute to the success of LT and increase the long-term survival of the recipients.

Intraoperative care of the transplant patient

Patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation have extensive comorbidities that can affect many organ systems including the cardiovascular system. Intraoperative anesthesia care can be very challenging and requires thorough understanding of the disease specific physiology as well as knowledge of the comorbidities and the surgical procedure. There is no approach to intraoperative anesthesia care that will work equally well for every center but standardization of protocols for each transplant center will improve patient care and safety and ultimately contributes to superior outcomes. In this article we provide background and suggestions that will help with the development of standardized protocols for intraoperative management.

Anaesthesia for Living Related Liver Transplantation

With the greater success of liver transplantation, livers from deceased donors are insufficient to meet the need for livers required for transplantation. In various parts of Asia, living related liver transplantation is the treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. An overview of anaesthesia for both the donor and the recipient is described. Controversies involving epidural anaesthesia, blood loss prevention and blood conservation techniques in the donor are discussed. Various aspects in the anaesthetic management of the recipient are also looked at.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation

A perception that living donor liver transplantation can be accomplished with an acceptable donor complication rate and recipient survival rate has led to the acceptance of living donor liver transplantation as a viable alternative to decreased deceased donor transplantation. Careful candidate evaluation and selection has been crucial to the success of this procedure. Advancements in the understanding of the lobar nature of the liver and of liver regeneration have advanced the surgical technique. Initial attempts at adult-to-adult donation utilized the left hepatic lobe, but now have evolved into use of the right hepatic lobe. Size matching is very important to successful graft function in the recipient. There is great concern regarding morbidity and mortality in donors. Biliary complications and infections continue to be among the most highly reported complications, although rates vary among centers and countries. Reports of single center complications have ranged from 9% to 67%. A survey of centers in the United States in 2003 reported complications of 10%. A series from our institution reported complications arising in 13 (33%) of 39 patients. A review focused on documenting donor deaths found 33 living liver donor deaths worldwide. The much publicized immediate postoperative mishap of 2002 that resulted in a donor’s death resulted in a drop in the utilization of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, from which this procedure has never fully recovered. The future development and expansion of living donor liver transplantation depends on open communication regarding donor complications and deaths. Close immediate postoperative monitoring and meticulous management will remain an essential aspect in limiting donor complications and deaths.

Effect of induced hypotensive anaesthesia vs isovolaemic haemodilution on blood loss and transfusion requirements in orthognathic surgery: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical study

Induced hypotensive anaesthesia and isovolaemic haemodilution are well-established blood-sparing techniques in major surgery. This prospective study compared them for blood loss, transfusion requirements, and surgical field quality during standardized orthognathic operations. In a surgeon-blinded trial, 60 healthy patients requiring either Le Fort I osteotomy or bimaxillary surgery were randomly allocated to receive normotensive anaesthesia, induced hypotensive anaesthesia, or induced hypotensive anaesthesia combined with isovolaemic haemodilution. Blood loss and haemoglobin level were measured intraoperatively and calculated on postoperative day 3. The surgeons rated surgical field quality. Mean blood loss was 1021.63, 392.38 (p<0.05) and 1191.65ml in the normotensive, hypotensive and haemodilution groups, respectively. Mean haemoglobin level immediately after surgery was 9.3, 10.3, and 7.4g/dl (p<0.05), respectively. No hypotensive group patients received transfusions; four normotensive group patients required allogenic transfusions; seven haemodilution group patients needed autogenous retransfusions (p<0.05). Surgical field quality was significantly better in the hypotensive than in the normotensive (p<0.05) or haemodilution (p<0.05) groups. In orthognathic surgery, hypotensive anaesthesia significantly reduces blood loss and transfusion requirements and minimizes allogenic transfusions risks. Induced hypotensive anaesthesia combined with isovolaemic haemodilution has no additional blood-sparing effects but impairs surgical field quality.

Is cell salvage safe in liver resection? A pilot study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the quality of cell salvaged (CS) blood in patients undergoing hemihepatectomy (study group) and compare it with CS-blood from aortic surgery (control group).

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Operating room in a university hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

6 patients undergoing hemihepatectomy or aortobifemoral bypass with intraoperative blood loss of more than 800 mL. Samples were drawn from the central venous catheter, from the reservoir of a CS recovery system, and from the processed blood in each patient to determine interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), complement C3a, and the terminal complement complex C5b-9. Microbiological analysis included colony count after cultivation in aerobic and anaerobic medium as well as enrichment culture for 6 days.

MAIN RESULTS

In the hemihepatectomy group, levels of IL-6, C3a, and C5b-9 were significantly higher in the reservoir than in samples obtained from the central venous catheter. After the washing procedure, levels of IL-6, C3a, and C5b-9 were lower in the liver resection group than in each patient's own plasma levels. In all patients undergoing aortobifemoral bypass and in 5 patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, blood samples were sterile or showed growth of commensal skin microflora in low numbers (coagulase-negative staphylococci or propionibacteria). In one patient in the liver resection group, we could not exclude contamination with intestinal flora.

CONCLUSION

Cell salvaged blood in liver resection seems to be safe for retransfusion with respect to cytokine release and complement activation, but requires further investigation in regard to bacterial contamination.

Association between central venous pressure and blood loss during hepatic resection in 984 living donors

BACKGROUND

Although low central venous pressure (CVP) anesthesia has been used to minimize blood loss during hepatectomy, the efficacy of this technique remains controversial. We therefore assessed the association between blood loss and CVP during hepatic resection, and examined significant determinants associated with intraoperative hemorrhage during hepatectomy in living donors.

METHODS

Between April 2004 and April 2008, 984 living donors who underwent a hepatic resection were assessed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the relationships between intraoperative blood loss and several variables including CVP.

RESULTS

The mean intraoperative blood loss was 691.3 +/- 365.5 ml. Only four donors required packed red blood cell transfusions (mean, 1.5 U). The mean duration of hepatic resection was 92.1 +/- 26.3 min. The mean, maximum, and minimum values of CVP measured during hepatectomy were 4.6 +/- 1.7, 5.3 +/- 1.8, and 4.0 +/- 1.8 mmHg, respectively, and were not significantly correlated with intraoperative blood loss. On multivariate analysis, predictors of hemorrhage were liver fatty change, gender, and body weight, but none of the mean CVP, surgeons, anesthesiologists, anesthesia duration, resected liver volume, hepatectomy type, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, or body temperature were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

CVP during hepatic resection was not associated with intraoperative blood loss in living liver donors, suggesting that CVP may not be an important factor in predicting blood loss during hepatectomy in healthy subjects.

Effect of restrictive fluid management and acute normovolemic intraoperative hemodilution on transfusion requirements during living donor hepatectomy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a restrictive fluid management strategy and acute normovolemic intraoperative hemodilution (ANIH) to decrease transfusion requirements among living-donors for liver transplantation (LDLT). We retrospectively reviewed the data of 114 consecutive LDLT donors. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether (Group I; n = 73) or not (Group II; n = 41) a restrictive fluid management strategy with ANIH was used during the procedure. For each group we recorded demographic features, intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, amount of administered intraoperative crystalloid and colloids, intraoperative hemodynamics, preoperative and postoperative laboratory values (renal and liver functions), intraoperative and postoperative urine output, and length of hospital stay. Demographic features and preoperative laboratory values were similar for the 2 groups, except for age (Group I, 36 +/- 9 vs Group II, 33 +/- 8; P = .04). Intraoperatively, 7 patients (10%) in Group 1 and 9 (22%) in Group II required blood transfusions (P = .06). The respective amount of heterologous blood transfusion for Groups I and II was 96 +/- 321 mL vs 295 +/- 678 mL (P = .06). Postoperative renal and liver functions were not different between the 2 groups (P > .05). Patients in Group I had a shorter hospital stay than those in Group II (8.2 +/- 4.6 days vs 10.1 +/- 4.9 days; P = .03). In conclusion, a restrictive fluid management strategy with ANIH was a safe blood-salvage technique for LDLT. This approach was also associated with decreased length of hospital stay and a trend toward decreased transfusion requirements.

Can peripheral venous pressure be an alternative to central venous pressure during right hepatectomy in living donors?

The safety of living donors is a matter of cardinal importance in addition to obtaining optimal liver grafts to be transplanted. Central venous pressure (CVP) is known to have significant correlation with the amount of bleeding during parenchymal transection and many centers have adopted CVP monitoring for right hepatectomy. However, central line cannulation can induce some serious complications. Peripheral venous pressure (PVP) has been suggested as a comparable alternative to CVP. The aim of this study was to determine whether a clinically acceptable agreement or a reliable correlation between CVP and PVP exist and if CVP can be replaced by PVP in living liver donors. A central venous catheter was placed through the right internal jugular vein and a peripheral venous catheter was inserted at antecubital fossa in the right arm. CVP and PVP were recorded in 15-minute intervals in 50 adult living donors. The paired data were divided into 3 stages: preparenchymal transection, parenchymal transection, and postparenchymal transection. A total of 1,430 simultaneous measurements of CVP and PVP were recorded. Overall, the PVP, CVP, and bias were 7.0+/-2.46, 5.9+/-2.32, and 1.16+/-1.12 mmHg, respectively. A total of 88.9% of all measurements were clinically within acceptable limits of bias (+/-2 mmHg). Regression analysis showed a high correlation coefficient between PVP and CVP (r=0.893; P<0.001) and the limits of agreement were -1.03 to 3.34 overall. In conclusion, frequencies of differences, bias, correlation coefficient, and limits of agreement between PVP and CVP remained relatively constant throughout the operation. Therefore, PVP measurement in the arm can be an alternative to predict CVP and further, obviate central venous catheter-related complications in living liver donors.

Anesthesia care for adult live donor hepatectomy: our experiences with 100 cases

A total of 100 patients who underwent elective lobar donor hepatectomy from 2000 to 2002 at the University of Rochester Medical Center were reviewed. Assessed clinical data were estimated blood loss, intraoperative central venous pressure (CVP), blood product and fluid administration, perioperative arterial blood gas tension and acid-base state, metabolic status, perioperative serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, prothrombin time, albumin, and lactate, procedure duration, and perioperative complications. All patients survived surgery, and the average duration of surgery (from skin incision to skin closure) was 615 +/- 99.6 minutes. Mean blood loss was 549 +/- 391 mL (range, 80-2,500 mL), and only 4 patients required homologous blood transfusion. The intraoperative blood loss did not correlate with CVP values. A total of 72 patients received isotonic sodium bicarbonate solution, and their metabolic variables were superior to those of normal saline group patients (arterial pH, 7.35 +/- 0.03 vs. 7.29 +/- 0.07; base excess, -4.3 +/- 2.4 vs. 7.3 +/- 3.4; and serum bicarbonate level, 20.6 +/- 2.2 vs. 18.6 +/- 2.9). However, the better control of metabolic acidosis was not associated with serum lactate levels or other outcome measures. Maintaining the CVP < 5 mmHg was not associated with blood loss. Clinically significant anesthetic complications were severe metabolic acidosis, pneumothorax and respiratory insufficiency immediately following extubation in the operating room. In conclusion, placement of a thoracic epidural catheter delivering a local anesthetic in addition to intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia with opiates provided safe and effective pain control in most patients. Further prospective studies should shed a light on the optimal care of patients undergoing liver donor hepatic resection.

Central venous pressure monitoring during living right donor hepatectomy

Low central venous pressure (CVP) has been advocated during liver resection to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements. As a consequence, CVP catheter placement has been considered essential for hepatic surgery, including living donor hepatectomies. We retrospectively analyzed whether intraoperative management without CVP monitoring influenced fluid administration, blood loss, and patient outcome. Medical charts and hospital data system of 50 adult to adult living liver donors were retrospectively reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, intraoperative variables such as fluid management, blood loss, urine output, and operating room time. Postoperative variables were collected during the postanesthesia care unit stay and for the first 24 hours after surgery. Patients were then grouped on the basis of the presence or absence of a CVP catheter. Data were reanalyzed and groups compared. Patient groups did not differ in terms of demographics at baseline. When divided into groups with CVP and without CVP, the presence of CVP did not result in decreased intraoperative fluid administration. All patients were hemodynamically stable, and renal function was not different between groups throughout hospitalization. Length of postanesthesia care unit and hospital stay was the same. There was no difference in the frequency of complications during the hospital stay and at 3 months' follow-up. CVP monitoring did not appear to reduce blood loss when compared with patients without CVP monitoring. In centers with extensive experience, CVP monitoring may not be necessary in this highly selective patient population.

Evaluation of cell salvage autotransfusion utility during liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) may be associated with massive blood loss and the need for allogenic blood product transfusions. Cell salvage autotransfusion (CS) is an attractive alternative to allogenic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. However, controversy surrounds its usefulness during OLT; some studies stated that CS decreased transfusions of allogenic blood products and others stated that blood loss was increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of the CS during OLT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After approval by the institutional ethics committee, a prospective survey was undertaken. A total of 150 consecutive OLTs were included in the study. Two groups of patients were formed. Period 1 included patients 1-75 with no CS use. Period 2 comprised patients 76-150 with systematic CS use.

RESULTS

Patients from both periods were comparable. CS was used in all cases in period 2, and there was enough salvaged blood to retransfuse 65% of these OLTs. The mean volume of retransfused blood was 338+/-339 ml. The transfusion rate did not change from period 1 to period 2. The mean number of RBC units transfused per patient was 0.4+/-0.9 vs 0.4+/-1.2 with 78.7% vs 81.3% of cases not receiving transfusion of any blood product. The threshold for RBC transfusions was the same. The length of surgery and blood loss were greater in period 2 than in period 1 (associated with the arrival of two junior surgeons), but the hemoglobin (Hb) value was also higher at the end of surgery (93.8+/-19.3 g/L vs 85.2+/-17.8 g/L, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Despite increased blood loss in period 2, CS saved 21 g/L of Hb per patient or two RBC unit transfusions. As long as we cannot predict with accuracy which patients will bleed, we will continue to use the CS for all OLTs.

The changes in coagulation profile and epidural catheter safety for living liver donors: a report on 6 years of our experience

The use of epidural catheters has been a subject of active debate in living liver donors because of the possible postoperative coagulation derangement and the subsequent risk of epidural hematoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of epidural catheters in relation to the changes in coagulation profile based on a review of previously published literature and the results of our 360 donors. In both the literature and in our cases, platelet count, prothrombin time (PT), and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) in cases of heparin administration showed significant changes (P < 0.05), especially after right lobectomy. Platelet count reached its nadir on postoperative day (POD) 2-3, while PT and aPTT reached their peaks on POD 1-2 and at the end of the operation, respectively. In our donors, the ranges of platelet count, PT, and aPTT for the first 3 PODs were 54-359 x10/microL, 0.99-2.38 international normalized ratio (INR), and 25.9-300 seconds, respectively, and of note, 5 donors (1.4%) had a platelet count of <80 x 10/microL and 9 donors (2.5%) had a PT of >2.0 INR. Epidural catheterizations were performed in 242 donors, and the catheters were removed on POD 3-4 in 177 donors (73.1%). Mean (range) of platelet count, PT, and aPTT on the day of catheter removal were 168.4 +/- 42.9 (82-307) x 10/microL, 1.33 +/- 0.18 (0.99-1.93) INR, and 40.9 +/- 4.8 (32.0-70.6) seconds, respectively. No epidural hematoma was observed in this study. In conclusion, the discreet use of epidural catheters in live liver donors, in spite of postoperative coagulation derangements, appears to be safe regardless of the type of hepatectomy performed.

Live donor liver transplantation

With ever-increasing demand for liver replacement, supply of organs is the limiting factor and a significant number of patients die while waiting. Live donor liver transplantation has emerged as an important option for many patients, particularly small pediatric patients and those adults that are disadvantaged by the current deceased donor allocation system. Ideally there would be no need to subject perfectly healthy people in the prime of their lives to a potentially life-threatening operation to procure transplantable organs. Donor safety is imperative and cannot be compromised regardless of the implication for the intended recipient. The evolution of split liver transplantation is the basis upon which live donor transplantation has become possible. The live donor procedures are considerably more complex than whole organ decreased donor transplantation and there are unique considerations involved in the assessment of any specific recipient and donor. Donor selection and evaluation have become highly specialized. The critical issue of size matching is determined by both the actual size of the donor graft and the recipient as well as the degree of recipient portal hypertension. The outcomes after live donor liver transplantation have been at least comparable to those of deceased donor transplantation. Nevertheless, all efforts should be made to improve deceased donor donation so as to minimize the need for live donors. Transplant physicians, particularly surgeons, must take responsibility for regulating and overseeing these procedures.

Refined Suture Techniques to Prevent Bleeding From Accidental Slippage of Vascular Clamps During Living Donor Hepatectomy

Accidental slippage of vascular clamps during living donor hepatectomy can induce brisk bleeding and even imperil the donor. After practicing more than 1000 cases of living donor hepatectomy, the investigators realized that specialized suture techniques were important to secure the vascular closure to prevent unnecessary bleeding. For secure division of intrahepatic vein branches, we devised a continuous penetration suture method in which the orders of procedures were changed to clamping-closure-cut sequence. For secure division of the main and accessory hepatic vein branches from the inferior vena cava, we applied stay sutures at each corner and midpoint of the hepatic vein stump so as not to permit its slippage. After application of these methods, we did not experience any episode of accidental clamp slippage. We are sure that these suture techniques are beneficial to prevent unnecessary bleeding during living donor hepatectomy and to make surgeons feel at ease during the living donor operation.

Adult live donor liver transplantation

The increasing awareness of liver diseases and their early detection have led to an increase in the number of transplant waiting list candidates over the past decade. This need has not been matched by the actual number of orthotopic liver transplantations performed. Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an innovative surgical technique intended to expand the available organ donor pool. Although LDLT offers definite advantages to the recipient, it offers none to the donor except for the possibility of psychological well-being. Clinical research studies aimed at the prospective collection of data for donors and recipients need to be conducted.

Living donor surgery: overview of surgical and anesthesia issues

Organ transplantation occupies the center stage in the treatment of many forms of end-stage organ disease. When the limits of conventional medical care are exhausted, bridging therapies, cadaveric transplantation, and posttransplant medical care come to the fore. Living donor transplantation has grown out of the numerical and immunosuppression limitations of this process. Living donor transplantation medicine and surgery encompass two of the most fascinating and compelling social and ethical dilemmas of modern health care. This article provides an overview of medical and ethical concerns for those who decide to become living donors and those who care for them in the perioperative period.

Progress in living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has the capacity to reduce the current discrepancy between the number of patients on the transplant waiting list and the number of available organ donors. For pediatric patients, LDLT has clearly reduced the number of waiting list deaths, providing compelling evidence for an increase in LDLT programs. This review discusses many of the recent advances in LDLT.

Increased prothrombin time and platelet counts in living donor right hepatectomy: implications for epidural anesthesia

The risks and benefits of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation need to be carefully evaluated. Anesthetic management includes postoperative epidural pain relief; however, even patients with a normal preoperative coagulation profile may suffer transient postoperative coagulation derangement. This study explores the possible causes of postoperative coagulation derangement after donor hepatectomy and the possible implications on epidural analgesia. Thirty donors, American Society of Anesthesiology I, with no history of liver disease were considered suitable for the study. A thoracic epidural catheter was inserted before induction and removed when laboratory values were as follows: prothrombin time (PT) > 60%, activated partial thromboplastin time < 1.24 (sec), and platelet count > 100,000 mmf pound sterling (mm3). Standard blood tests were evaluated before surgery, on admission to the recovery room, and daily until postoperative day (POD) 5. The volumes of blood loss and of intraoperative fluids administered were recorded. Coagulation abnormalities observed immediately after surgery may be related mostly to blood loss and to the diluting effect of the intraoperative infused fluids, although the extent of the resection appears to be the most important factor in the extension of the PT observed from POD 1. In conclusion, significant alterations in PT and platelet values were observed in our patients who underwent uncomplicated major liver resection for living donor liver transplantation. Because the potential benefits of epidural analgesia for liver resection are undefined according to available data, additional prospective randomized studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of intravenous versus epidural analgesia in this patient population should be performed.

Anesthetic considerations during liver surgery

This article demonstrates the broad range of considerations that affect the outcome of patients undergoing hepatectomy. The progressive improvements in survival, despite the increasing complexity of the surgery, area testament to advances in both surgery and anesthesia. The key elements include careful patient selection, appropriate monitoring, and mechanical and pharmacologic protection of the liver and other vital organs.

Living-related liver transplantation: implication for the anaesthetist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living donor liver transplantation, originally introduced about a decade ago to overcome paediatric cadaveric organ shortage, has rapidly gained acceptance within the transplant community and is nowadays almost routinely applied to the growing number of adult and paediatric patients awaiting a live-saving liver transplantation. In fact its introduction has contributed to a continuing decrease of waiting list deaths.

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk of potential complications and even death for the donor increases with the extent of liver tissue resected. Better preoperative evaluation of suitability, refinement of surgical technique and smarter anaesthetic management, based on extended knowledge of underlying pathophysiology, have made the procedure safer for donors, with low morbidity and even lower mortality rates, tending towards zero in experienced centres. Despite these improvements, a certain risk is inherent. Yet from an ethical point of view it has to remain unacceptable especially because donors are otherwise healthy people and their only motives are altruistic. The procedure of living donor liver transplantation like conventional liver transplantation involves various disciplines, each of which contributes in a specific manner. There is a broad scope of issues that anaesthetists are responsible for and these largely depend on the department and hospital requirements. These issues may range from perioperative anaesthetic management and pain relief, to--and there are definite continental differences--the coordination of donor evaluation, intensive care management, postoperative complication management, as well as psychological support for donors, recipients and their relatives.

SUMMARY

In this paper we review and summarize the potential impact of findings and advances made in this particular field as described by the most important articles published during the past year.

Surgery without blood

OBJECTIVE

The principle aim of "bloodless surgery" is to minimize blood loss and to reduce or eliminate exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion. The risks associated with blood transfusions have been well documented, and it is the goal of bloodless surgery centers to avoid complications and unnecessary use of blood. Blood transfusion is a significant adjunct to perioperative resuscitation. However, we aim to elucidate different approaches to minimizing blood loss and avoiding transfusion.

DESIGN

In this document, we review the background and current status of bloodless surgery centers and then the different approaches to achieve the program goals.

FINDINGS

There is no one single universal blood conservation strategy that is applicable to all patients and populations. Factors such as preexisting disease will alter the approach; however, it is the ability of any program to form a comprehensive strategy for blood conservation that is integral to the success of any such program.

CONCLUSION

The success of a bloodless surgery program requires both teamwork and careful cooperation between the blood bank, pharmacy, administration, hematologists, surgeon, and anesthesiologist to ensure that the goals of minimizing blood loss and avoiding transfusion are met.