Using Transesophageal Echocardiography in Liver Transplantation with Veno-Venous Bypass Is a Tool with Many Applications: A Case Series from an Italian Transplant Center

The effects of venovenous bypass use in liver transplantation with piggyback technique: a propensity score-weighted analysis

Venovenous bypass (VVB) use during liver transplantation (LT) is notably variable among the centres and it is actually restricted to surgically complex cases, severely unstable recipients or grafts from high-risk donors. Historically, VVB was associated with the classical LT with caval cross clamping, while not much is known about the safety of this technique applied to piggyback LT. This retrospective observational study evaluated the effects of VVB applied to piggyback LT on mortality, hospital outcomes, postoperative graft and other organ dysfunction. We retrospectively collected data about recipient status, surgical complexity and graft quality of all the piggyback LTs performed at the Transplant Unit of IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy, from January 2012 to December 2022. A propensity score (PS) was built taking into account the variables possibly associated with either VVB choice and the investigated outcomes with the average treatment overlap method. PS-weighted general linear models (GLMs) were developed to investigate the adjusted effect of VVB use on the selected outcomes. The final analysis included 874 LT cases, of whom 74 (8.5%) underwent VVB. The effective sample sizes after PS-weighting were 280.2 and 64.3 patients in the no-VVB and VVB groups, respectively. PS-weighted GLMs did not show any differences regarding hospital and graft-related outcomes. However, significantly higher odds ratios for serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL and AKIN stage 2 or 3 during the first 24 h after ICU admission together with a higher renal replacement therapy need during ICU stay were reported for VVB exposure in the weighted analyses. This study suggests similar mortality and length of stay but a higher risk for postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing piggyback LT with VVB.

Venovenous bypass in adult liver transplant recipients: A single-center observational case series

BACKGROUND

Very little information is currently available on the use and outcomes of venovenous bypass (VVB) in liver transplantation (LT) in adults in Australia. In this study, we explored the indications, intraoperative course, and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent VVB in a high-volume LT unit.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, retrospective observational case series of adult patients who underwent VVB during LT at Austin Health in Melbourne, Australia between March 2008 and March 2022. Information on baseline preoperative status and intraoperative variables, including specific VVB characteristics as well as postoperative and VVB-related complications was collected. The lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays as well as intraoperative and in-hospital mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 900 LTs performed at this center during the aforementioned 14-year period, 27 (3%) included a VVB procedure. VVB was performed electively in 16 of these 27 patients (59.3%) and as a rescue technique to control massive bleeding in the other 11 (40.1%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of those who underwent VVB procedures was 48 (39-55) years; the median age was 56 (47-62) years in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar between the two patient groups. Complete blood data was available for 622 non-VVB patients. Twenty-six VVB (96.3%) and 603 non-VVB (96.9%) patients required intraoperative blood transfusions. The median (IQR) number of units of packed red blood cells transfused was 7 (4.8-12.5) units in the VVB group compared to 3.0 units (1.0-6.0) in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). Inpatient mortality was 18.5% and 1.1% for the VVB and non-VVB groups, respectively (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or incidence of acute kidney injury, primary graft dysfunction, or long-term graft failure between the two groups. Patients in the VVB group experienced a higher rate of postoperative non-anastomotic biliary stricture compared to patients in the non-VVB group (33% and 7.9%, respectively; p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

VVB continues to play a vital role in LT. This case series highlights the heightened risk of major complications linked to VVB. However, the global transition to selective use of VVB underscores the urgent need for collaborative multi-center studies designed to address outstanding questions and parameters related to the safe implementation of this procedure.