Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Acute Liver Failure Patients with Grade IV Encephalopathy: Is Deep Hepatic Coma Still an Absolute Contraindication? A Successful Single-Center Experience

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver (ACLF) are distinct phenotypes of liver failure and, thus, need to be compared and contrasted for appropriate management. There has been a significant improvement in the outcomes of these patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Survival post-LT for ALF and ACLF ranges between 90% and 95% and 80% and 90% at 1 year, futility criteria have been described in both ALF and ACLF where organ failures define survival. Plasma exchange and continuous renal replacement therapy may serve as bridging therapies. Identifying the futility of LT is as necessary as the utility of LT in patients with ALF and ACLF. The role of regenerative therapies such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in ACLF and hepatocyte and xenotransplantation in both conditions remains uncertain. Measures to increase the donor pool through increasing deceased donor transplants in Asian countries, living donations in Western countries, auxiliary liver transplants, and ABO-incompatible liver transplants are necessary to improve the survival of these patients. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences in clinical characteristics and the timing and outcomes of LT for ALF and ACLF, briefly highlighting the role of bridging therapies and providing an overview of recent advances in the management of ALF and ACLF.

Impact of Renal Replacement Therapy on Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure: A Cohort Study

Despite the promising role of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in acute liver failure (ALF), high-risk patients need liver transplantation and remain at risk for death due to cerebral complications. The objective of this study was to report outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALF with perioperative RRT. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Out of 1167 LDLTs, 24 patients had ALF and met the King's College criteria for transplantation. They were categorized into no-RRT (n = 13) and RRT (n = 11) groups. We looked at 1-year posttransplant survival in these patients. The median serum ammonia level at the time of transplant in the no-RRT and RRT groups was 259.5 mcg/dL (222.7-398) and 70.6 mcg/dL (58.1-92.6) (p = 0.005). In the RRT group, serum ammonia level < 100 mcg/dL was achieved in all patients. Seven (53.8%) patients in the no-RRT group and 11/11 (100%) in the RRT group were extubated and regained full consciousness after LDLT (p = 0.013). The 90-day mortality was 6/13 (46.1%) and 2/11 (18.1%) (p = 0.211). There was no brainstem herniation-related mortality in the RRT group, that is, 5/13 (38.4%) and 0/11 (0%) (p = 0.030). The 1-year posttransplant survival was also significantly higher in the RRT group (p = 0.031). The use of RRT lowers serum ammonia levels and might reduce posttransplant mortality due to brainstem herniation.

Clinical significance and outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: a retrospective cohort study based on 15-year single-center experience

Purpose

This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020.

Results

The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%; P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16-6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59-2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Acute Liver Failure Prognostic Criteria: It's Time to Revisit

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a devastating disease, and patients are at a higher risk of death without liver transplantation. Indicators are needed to identify the risk of death in ALF, which will help in the timely referral of patients to specialized centers. Clichy criteriaand King's College Hospital (KCH) criteria are the most widely used prognostic criteria. Real-life application of Clichy criteria is limited due to the non-availability of factor V level measurement. KCH criteria have good specificity but low sensitivity to predict outcomes. Therefore, we attempted to use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score in ALF patients as prognostic indicators and need for liver transplantation.

METHODS

Forty-one patients with ALF were enrolled in the study. On the day of admission, MELD and CLIF-SOFA scores were calculated for each patient. Area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of MELD and CLIF-SOFA score were calculated to predict the outcome of the patients.

RESULTS

Out of 41 patients, nine patients left against medical advice. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DA for the MELD score of enrolled patients in the study were 81.5%, 62.5%, 59.5%, 83.3%, 70.1%, and for the CLIF-SOFA score of enrolled patients in the study were 88.9%, 90.0%, 85.7%, 92.3%, 89.6% respectively. Patients who did not survive had higher INR, MELD, CLIF-SOFA scores, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) grades. Five patients who had a combination of MELD ≥30 and CLIF-SOFA ≥10, expired.

CONCLUSION

 In our study, we used MELD score and CLIF-SOFA as prognostic markers, and we concluded that CLIF-SOFA is a better predictor of mortality than MELD score in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and diagnostic accuracy. AUROC for CLIF-SOFA score is higher when compared to the MELD score.

Complementary Roles of Cadaveric and Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Acute Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation may complement cadaveric transplantation in acute liver failure (ALF) patients.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2017, 89 patients were treated for ALF; 15 patients (17%) recovered with intensive care treatment; 31 (35%) died without transplant. The records of the remaining 43 patients (median (range) age: 14 (1-62)) who underwent transplantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

The etiologic factors were toxic agents (10; mushrooms: 8; herbs: 2), hepatitis viruses (7; A: 1; B: 6), Wilson's disease (7), autoimmune hepatitis (4), and Budd-Chiari syndrome (2); 13 cases were idiopathic. Cadaveric organs (whole, split, reduced) were transplanted to 32 patients; 11 patients underwent living donor transplantation. One patient (2%) died of septic shock on the second postoperative day. Bacterial infection was the most common early (< 3 months) complication in the remaining patients (31/42; 74%), followed by delirium (5/42; 12%) and acute rejection requiring steroid pulse (5/42; 12%). Seven other patients died during median (range) follow-up of 94 (14-142) months: various infections (5), leukemia (1), and acute myocardial infarction (1). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 100%, 96%, and 92% in children and 94%, 82%, and 65% in adults respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cadaveric organ sharing and transplantation from living donors when appropriate yield a high survival rate, despite high early morbidity, in ALF patients whose conditions deteriorate despite intensive care treatment. Efforts to eliminate preventable causes of acute liver failure will lead to more efficient use of health care resources.

Risk factors of delayed recovery from general anesthesia in patients undergoing radical biliary surgery: What can we prevent

Delayed recovery (DR) is very commonly seen in the patients undergoing laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, we aimed to investigate the potential risk factors of DR in the patients undergoing radical biliary surgery, to provide evidences into the management of DR.Patients who underwent radical biliary surgery from January 1, 2018 to August 31, 2020 were identified. The clinical characteristics and treatment details of DR and no-DR patients were compared and analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential influencing factors for DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery.We included a total of 168 patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, the incidence of postoperative DR was 25%. There were significant differences on the duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, and use of intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (all P < .05), and there were not significant differences on American Society of Anesthesiologists, New York Heart Association, tumor-lymph node- metastasis, and estimated blood loss between DR group and control group (all P > .05). Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that age ≥70 years (odd ratio [OR] 1.454, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.146-1.904), body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 1.303, 95% CI 1.102-1.912), alcohol drinking (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.336-3.085), smoking (OR 1.128, 95% CI 1.007-2.261), duration of surgery ≥220 minutes (OR 1.239, 95% CI 1.039-1.735), duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes (OR 1.223, 95% CI 1.013-1.926), intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (OR 1.207, 95% CI 1.008-1.764) were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery (all P < .05).It is clinically necessary to take early countermeasures against various risk factors to reduce the occurrence of DR, and to improve the prognosis of patients.

Liver transplantation in acute liver failure: Dilemmas and challenges

Acute liver failure (ALF) refers to a state of severe hepatic injury that leads to altered coagulation and sensorium in the absence of pre-existing liver disease. ALF has different causes, but the clinical characteristics are strikingly similar. In clinical practice, however, inconsistency in the definition of ALF worldwide and confusion regarding the existence of pre-existing liver disease raise diagnostic dilemmas. ALF mortality rates used to be over 80% in the past; however, survival rates on medical treatment have significantly improved in recent years due to a greater understanding of pathophysiology and advances in critical care management. The survival rates in acetaminophen-associated ALF have become close to the post-transplant survival rates. Given that liver transplantation (LT) is an expensive treatment that involves a major surgical operation in critically ill patients and lifelong immunosuppression, it is very important to select accurate patients who may benefit from it. Still, emergency LT remains a lifesaving procedure for many ALF patients. However, there is a lack of consistency in current prognostic models that hampers the selection of transplant candidates in a timely and precise manner. The other problems associated with LT in ALF are the shortage of graft, development of contraindications on the waiting list, vaguely defined delisting criteria, time constraints for pre-transplant evaluation, ethical concerns, and comparatively poor post-transplant outcomes in ALF. Therefore, there is a desperate need to establish accurate prognostic models and explore the roles of evolving adjunctive and alternative therapies, such as liver support systems, plasma exchange, stem cells, auxiliary LT, and so on, to enhance transplant-free survival and to fill the void created by the graft shortage.

Update on the management of acute liver failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes the current intensive care management of acute liver failure (ALF) and the latest evidence for emerging therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mortality from ALF continues to improve and in some cases, medical therapy can negate the need for liver transplantation because of protocolized management in specialist centres. Liver transplantation remains the cornerstone of management for poor prognosis ALF. The reduced use of blood products in ALF reflects growing evidence of balanced haemostasis in severe liver disease. Prophylactic therapeutic hypothermia is no longer recommended for neuroprotection. In cases not suitable for liver transplantation, high-volume plasma exchange (HVP) has potential benefit, although further research on the optimal timing and dosing is needed. Although sepsis remains an important complication in ALF, the use of prophylactic antimicrobials is being questioned in the era of emerging bacterial resistance.

SUMMARY

ICU management of ALF has improved such that liver transplantation is not required in some cases. HVP has emerged as a potential therapy for patients who may not be good liver transplantation candidates. Nevertheless in suitable patients with poor prognosis liver transplantation remains the optimal therapy.

Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (AoCLF) represents a newly defined entity in patients with liver disease leading to multiple organ failures and increased mortality. To date, no universally accepted definition exists, and different academic societies developed guidelines on the early diagnosis and classification of AoCLF. Recently published trials focused on factors associated with a poor outcome and on the development of severity scores aimed to identify patients who may benefit for advanced monitoring and treatment. No specific therapies are demonstrated to improve survival, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment associated with improved outcome. Our review focuses on current evidence for early diagnosis and prognostication of disease in patients with AoCLF, as well of criteria for intensive care unit admission, indication, and futility markers of LT, as well as bridging therapy and optimal timing of surgery.

Acute Liver Failure: From Textbook to Emergency Room and Intensive Care Unit With Concomitant Established and Modern Novel Therapies

Acute liver failure is a rare hepatic emergent situation that affects primarily young people and has often a catastrophic or even fatal outcome. Definition of acute liver failure has not reached a universal consensus and the interval between the appearance of jaundice and hepatic encephalopathy for the establishment of the acute failure is a matter of debate. Among the wide variety of causes, acetaminophen intoxication in western societies and viral hepatitis in the developing countries rank at the top of the etiology list. Identification of the clinical appearance and initial management for the stabilization of the patient are of vital significance. Further advanced therapies, that require intensive care unit, should be offered. The hallmark of treatment for selected patients can be orthotopic liver transplantation. Apart from well-established treatments, novel therapies like hepatocyte or stem cell transplantation, additional new therapeutic strategies targeting acetaminophen intoxication and/or hepatic encephalopathy are mainly experimental, and some of them do not belong, yet, to clinical practice. For clinicians, it is substantial to have the alertness to timely identify the patient and transfer them to a specialized center, where more treatment opportunities are available.