Impact of small-for-size liver grafts on medium-term and long-term graft survival in living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis

Anesthesia and Critical Care for the Prediction and Prevention for Small-for-size Syndrome: Guidelines from the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS).

METHODS

A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India.

RESULTS

It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Complications in Post-Liver Transplant Patients

Liver transplantation (LT) is the treatment of choice for liver failure and selected cases of malignancies. Transplantation activity has increased over the years, and indications for LT have been widened, leading to organ shortage. To face this condition, a high selection of recipients with prioritizing systems and an enlargement of the donor pool were necessary. Several authors published their case series reporting the results obtained with the use of marginal donors, which seem to have progressively improved over the years. The introduction of in situ and ex situ machine perfusion, although still strongly debated, and better knowledge and treatment of the complications may have a role in achieving better results. With longer survival rates, a significant number of patients will suffer from long-term complications. An extensive review of the literature concerning short- and long-term outcomes is reported trying to highlight the most recent findings. The heterogeneity of the behaviors within the different centers is evident, leading to a difficult comparison of the results and making explicit the need to obtain more consent from experts.

Donor-Recipient Body Surface Area Mismatch and the Outcome of Liver Transplantation in the UK

Introduction: Too small or too big liver grafts for recipient's size has detrimental effects on transplant outcomes. Research Questions: The purpose was to correlate donor-recipient body surface area ratio or body surface area index with recipient survival, graft survival, hepatic artery or portal vein, or vena cava thrombosis. High and low body surface area index cut-off points were determined. Design: There were 11,245 adult recipients of first deceased donor whole liver-only grafts performed in the UK from January 2000 until June 2020. The transplants were grouped according to the body surface area index and compared to complications, graft and recipient survival. Results: The body surface area index ranged from 0.491 to 1.691 with a median of 0.988. The body surface area index > 1.3 was associated with a higher rate of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months (5.5%). This risk was higher than size-matched transplants (OR: 2.878, 95% CI: 1.292-6.409, P = 0.01). Overall graft survival was worse in transplants with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 (HR: 1.254, 95% CI: 1.051-1.497, P = 0.012) or body surface area index > 1.4 (HR: 3.704, 95% CI: 2.029-6.762, P < 0.001) than those with intermediate values. The graft survival rates were reduced by 2% for cases with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 but were decreased by 20% for cases with body surface area index > 1.4. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap internal validation. No statistically significant differences were detected for hepatic artery thrombosis, occlusion of hepatic veins/inferior vena cava or recipient survival. Conclusions: Donor-recipient size mismatch affects the rates of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months and overall graft survival in deceased-donor liver transplants.

The short- and long-term outcomes in living-donor liver transplantation using small-for-size graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A standard graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) ≥0.8% is widely accepted in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, the potential donor pool is expanded to patients adopting small-for-size graft (SFSGs) with GRWR <0.8%. This study aimed to investigate the effect of SFSG on short- and long-term outcomes following LDLT.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from January 1995 to January 2022 for studies comparing short- or long-term outcomes between patients with SFSG (GRWR <0.8%, SFSG group) and sufficient volume graft (GRWR ≥0.8%, non-SFSG group). The primary outcomes were one-, three-, and five-year overall survival (OS) and graft survival (GS), while the secondary outcome was postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies comprising 7996 patients were included. In terms of OS, SFSG group had poor three-year OS (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.01, 2.15], p = 0.04), but there were no significant differences between two groups in one-year OS (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.98, 2.29], p = 0.06) and five-year OS (HR: 1.40, 95% CI [0.95, 2.08], p = 0.02). In GS, there were no significant differences in one-year (HR 1.31, 95% CI [1.00, 1.72], p = 0.05), three-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI [0.97, 1.82], p = 0.07), and five-year GS (HR 1.17, 95% CI [0.95, 1.44], p = 0.13). The SFSG group had comparable postoperative complications, except for a high incidence of vascular complications and small-for-size syndromes.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the potential donor pool in LDLT to SFSG with GRWR <0.8% can be acceptable in terms of comparable long-term OS and GS, despite the risk for vascular complications and small-for-size syndrome.

Does modification of portal pressure and flow enhance recovery of the recipient after living donor liver transplantation? A systematic review of literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Portal inflow modulation (PIM) aimed at reducing portal hyperperfusion is commonly used in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to reduce the risk of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). Many different techniques, both pharmacological and surgical have been used for this purpose. There is, however, little consensus on the best method of PIM, its exact role in preventing SFSS and on early post-LDLT recovery.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether modifications of portal pressures and flows enhance recovery after LDLT and to provide international expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021260997.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety four articles were identified through databases' search. Of the 24 included for a final review by the working group (WG), there were five randomized control trials, four prospective studies and 15 retrospective series. Six outcome measures which were likely to influence early recovery after LDLT, especially in small-for-size grafts (SFSG) were shortlisted. These included acute kidney injury, SFSS, morbidity including sepsis, length of ICU and hospital stay, morbidity of the PIM technique and overall mortality. The WG noted that PIM in this subset of LDLT recipients had a beneficial effect on all the outcomes measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all decision domains, the panel recommends pre- and intraoperative actual graft weight validation, portal pressure/flow measurements, and a comprehensive donor evaluation for the determination of potentially small-for-size/ small-for-flow grafts as mandatory. (Quality of Evidence: Moderate | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) Pharmacological PIM helps improve early renal function in LDLT recipients. (Quality of Evidence: High | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) In selected patients with SFSG, PIM helps reduce SFSS/EAD and sepsis. (Quality of Evidence: Moderate | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) PIM in the form of splenectomy has increased morbidity compared to splenic artery ligation (SAL). (Quality of Evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) In LDLT recipients with SFSG, PIM may help reduce morbidity/mortality. (Quality of Evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) In LDLT recipients with SFSG, modification of portal pressures and flows enhances recovery after LDLT. (Quality of Evidence: Moderate | Grade of Recommendation: Strong).

Deep 3D attention CLSTM U-Net based automated liver segmentation and volumetry for the liver transplantation in abdominal CT volumes

In living-donor liver transplantation, the safety of the donor is critical. In addition, accurately measuring the liver volume is significant as the amount that can be resected from living donors is limited. In this paper, we propose an automated segmentation and volume estimation method for the liver in computed tomography imaging based on a deep learning-based segmentation network. Our framework was trained using the data of 191 donors, achieved a dice similarity coefficient of 0.789, 0.869, 0.955, and 0.899, respectively, in the segmentation task for the left lobe, right lobe, caudate lobe, and whole liver. Moreover, the R^2 score reached 0.980, 0.996, 0.953, and 0.996 in the volume estimation task. We demonstrate that our approach provides accurate and quantitative liver segmentation results, reducing the error in liver volume estimation. Therefore, we expected to be used as an aid in estimating liver volume from CT volume data for living-donor liver transplantation.

Expanding Donor Selection and Recipient Indications for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

There is an acute shortage of deceased donor organs for liver transplantation in the United States. Nearly a third of patients either die or become too sick for transplant while on the transplant waitlist. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) bridges the gap between demand and supply of organs for liver transplantation. This article reviews current living donor selection criteria, and avenues for expansion of criteria with novel surgical techniques and ongoing outcomes research. Ways in which institutions can establish and expand LDLT programs using the Living Donor Champion model are discussed. Efforts to expand recipient indications for LDLT are described.

Prediction of liver regeneration in recipients after living-donor liver transplantation in using preoperative CT texture analysis and clinical features

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to predict the rate of liver regeneration in recipients after living-donor liver transplantation using preoperative CT texture and shape analysis of the future graft.

METHODS

102 donor-recipient pairs who underwent living-donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts were retrospectively included. We semi-automatically segmented the future graft from preoperative CT. The volume of the future graft (LV_pre) was measured, and texture and shape analyses were performed. The graft liver was segmented from postoperative follow-up CT and the volume of the graft (LV_post) was measured. The regeneration index was defined by the following equation: [(LV_post-LV_pre)/LV_pre] × 100(%). We performed a stepwise, multivariate linear regression analysis to investigate the association between clinical, texture and shape parameters and the RI and to make the best-fit predictive model.

RESULTS

The mean regeneration index was 47.5 ± 38.6%. In univariate analysis, the volume of the future graft, energy, effective diameter, surface area, sphericity, roundness_m, compactness1, and grey-level co-occurrence matrix contrast as well as several clinical parameters were significantly associated with the regeneration index (p < 0.05). The best-fit predictive model for the regeneration index made by multivariate analysis was as follows: Regeneration index (%) = 127.020-0.367 × effective diameter - 1.827 × roundness_m + 47.371 × recipient body surface area (m²) + 12.041 × log(recipient white blood cell count) (× 10³/μL)+ 18.034 (if the donor was female).

CONCLUSION

The effective diameter and roundness_m of the future graft were associated with liver regeneration. Preoperative CT texture analysis of future grafts can be useful for predicting liver regeneration in recipients after living-donor liver transplantation.

The postoperative hepatic artery resistance index after living donor liver transplantation can predict early allograft dysfunction

To investigate whether postoperative hepatic hemodynamics have an impact on graft function.Using a retrospective cohort with 262 adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients, we discussed the relationship between postoperative hepatic hemodynamics and patient outcomes.According to the definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD), the patients were classified into the EAD group (43 patients) and the non-EAD group (219 patients). In terms of postoperative hemodynamic parameters, there was no significant differences between these 2 groups regarding hepatic artery flow (HAF), hepatic artery velocity (HAV), portal vein flow (PVF), and portal vein velocity (PVV), except for the hepatic artery resistance index (HARI) which was somewhat higher in the EAD group on postoperative day 3 (POD3) (0.70 vs 0.61, P < .05). According to these results, we used a ROC curve and found that a HARI of 0.68 was the cutoff point (with 73.8% sensitivity and 58.3% specificity) for predicting EAD after LDLT. In addition, multivariate analysis showed that fulminant hepatic failure, pretransplant hepatorenal syndrome, and HARI ≥ 0.68 on POD3 were independent risk factors for postoperative EAD.Our results showed that postoperative hemodynamics might influence graft function by altering hepatic artery flow.