Immediate postoperative management and complications on the intensive care unit

Primary Nonfunction of the Liver Allograft

Severe allograft dysfunction, as opposed to the expected immediate function, following liver transplantation is a major complication, and the clinical manifestations of such that lead to either immediate retransplant or death are the catastrophic end of the spectrum. Primary nonfunction (PNF) has declined in incidence over the years, yet the impact on patient and healthcare teams, and the burden on the organ pool in case of the need for retransplant should not be underestimated. There is no universal test to define the diagnosis of PNF, and current criteria are based on various biochemical parameters surrogate of liver function; moreover, a disparity remains within different healthcare systems on selecting candidates eligible for urgent retransplantation. The impact on PNF from traditionally accepted risk factors has changed somewhat, mainly driven by the rising demand for organs, combined with the concerted approach by clinicians on the in-depth understanding of PNF, optimal graft recipient selection, mitigation of the clinical environment in which a marginal graft is reperfused, and postoperative management. Regardless of the mode, available data suggest machine perfusion strategies help reduce the incidence further but do not completely avert the risk of PNF. The mainstay of management relies on identifying severe allograft dysfunction at a very early stage and aggressive management, while excluding other identifiable causes that mimic severe organ dysfunction. This approach may help salvage some grafts by preventing total graft failure and also maintaining a patient in an optimal physiological state if retransplantation is considered the ultimate patient salvage strategy.

Graft Risk Index After Liver Transplant: Internal and External Validation of a New Spanish Indicator

OBJECTIVES

Scarcity of liver grafts has led to the use of marginal donors, consequently increasing the number of complications posttransplant. To prevent this situation, several indicators have been developed. However, important differences remain among countries. Here, we compared an early-risk liver transplant indicator based on the Spanish Liver Transplant Registry, called the Graft Risk Index, versus the US donor risk index and the Eurotransplant donor risk index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The new indicator was based on prospectively collected data from 600 adult liver transplants performed in our center. We considered 2 events to compare the indexes: graft survival and rejection-free graft survival, with Cox proportional regression for analyses. Power to predict graft survival was evaluated by calculating the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve.

RESULTS

We found no differences between the US and Eurotransplant donor risk indexes in prediction of patients with and without early graft failure. With regard to early survival, only the Graft Risk Index allowed better survival discrimination, in which survival progressively decreased with values ≥ 3 (with probability of graft survival at 1 month of 68%; 95% confidence interval, 46.2-82.5). This increase in risk was significant compared with the standard group (hazard ratio of 10.15; 95% confidence interval, C 3.91- 26.32; P < .001). We calculated powers of prediction of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.62), 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65), and 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77) for donor risk index, Eurotransplant donor risk index, and early Graft Risk Index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the US donor risk index nor the Eurotransplant donor risk index was valid for our Spanish liver donation and transplant program. Therefore, an indicator to predict posttransplant graft survival that is adapted to our environment is necessary. This national Graft Risk Index can be a useful tool to optimize donor-recipient matching.

Care of the Patient with Liver Failure Requiring Transplantation

Patients undergo liver transplantation to address chronic liver failure, acute fulminant liver failure, or primary liver cancer. Depending on acuity, patients with decompensated chronic or acute fulminant liver failure generally require preoperative intensive care unit admission to manage organ dysfunction. Those with chronic liver failure are allocated an organ based on waiting list position determined by their local organ procurement organization (OPO). This position is dependent upon blood type and Model for End- Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. These patients thus are critically ill and require preoperative ICU monitoring and care. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who require liver transplantation are given a MELD exception and rarely require preoperative ICU care. The patient’s ability to undergo liver transplant in the setting of HCC is determined by the Milan criteria or the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria.