Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio can Preempt Development of Sepsis After Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

Background: Development of sepsis is a major contributor to poor outcomes after liver transplant. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an easily calculable inflammatory biomarker. We aim to utilize NLR to diagnose and predict the onset of sepsis in patients undergoing living donor liver transplants (LDLT). Materials and methods: Analysis of the perioperative course of 314 consecutive adult patients who underwent elective ABO compatible LDLT was done. Patients were divided into two cohorts; those who developed sepsis and a control group. Sepsis was defined by the combination of SIRS and clinical/radiological suspicion of infection. NLR was calculated by dividing the percentage of neutrophils by the percentage of lymphocytes in peripheral blood. Results: ostoperatively, 127 out of 314 patients (40.5%) having at least one episode of sepsis were included in the septic cohort and were compared to the 187 (59.5%) patients in the control group. Demographic and baseline characteristics, including NLR (13.74 ± 0.99 vs. 12.65 ± 0.57, P = 0.294) were comparable preoperatively. The NLR of the septic cohort was significantly higher than the control cohort (15.01 ± 1.67 vs. 9.98 ± 0.63, P = 0.001) 3 days prior to sepsis and remained significantly higher till the day of sepsis. The area under the cover was maximum for NLR 1 day prior to the development of sepsis (r = 0.707) with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 62.4%, 62.2%, 51.4%, and 72.0%, respectively, at a cutoff of 8.5. Conclusion: NLR is a useful tool in diagnosing and pre-empting development of sepsis in LDLT.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Live Donor Liver Transplantation: It's Time to Redefine?

BACKGROUND: An ideal definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains elusive. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of existing EAD definitions, identify the predictors of early graft loss due to EAD, and formulate a new definition, estimating EAD-related mortality in LDLT recipients. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing elective LDLT were analyzed. Patients with technical (vascular, biliary) complications and biopsy-proven rejections were excluded. RESULTS: There were 19 deaths due to EAD of a total of 304 patients. On applying the existing definitions of EAD, we revealed their limitations of being either too broad with low specificity or too restrictive with low sensitivity in patients with LDLT. A new definition of EAD-LDLT (total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, international normalized ratio [INR] > 1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7) was derived after doing a multivariate analysis. In receiver operator characteristics analysis, an AUC for EAD-LDLT was 0.86. The calibration and internal cross-validation of the new model confirmed its predictability. CONCLUSION: The new model of EAD-LDLT, based on total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, INR >1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7, has a better predictive value for mortality due to EAD in LDLT recipients.

Large adrenal tumours mimicking hepatic malignancy: the role of concurrent adrenalectomy and anterior approach hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Large right adrenal tumours may invade the liver and mimic primary hepatic malignancy, presenting diagnostic and management challenges. The 'anterior approach hepatectomy' (AAH) using hanging manoeuvre may be safe for resection of such tumours. METHODS: Prospectively maintained database was analysed to identify the large tumours of adreno-hepatic region subjected to hepatectomy. Clinico-biochemical, radiological and surgical details were reviewed. AAH and hanging manoeuvre was adopted for the patients requiring right hepatectomy. RESULTS: Out of the eight patients with adreno-hepatic tumour, four had indeterminate origin of the mass, two had complex cysts, and two were diagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma on the pre-operative imaging. The median age was 38 years (23-66); male:female ratio was 5:3. AAH was performed in four patients, while others underwent non-anatomical resection of involved segment(s). This accounted for 1.01% of 789 hepatectomies performed during the study period. The median intra-operative blood loss was 525 mL (150-2200 mL) and the median tumour size was 9 cm (6-17 cm). All patients underwent R0 resection. The final histopathological diagnoses were: three phaeochromocytomas (two malignant and one benign), two adrenocortical carcinomas, one malignant paraganglionomas and two adrenal cysts. Major complication (grade IVa) was experienced in one patient. On median follow-up of 67.5 months (7-84), all were alive and one patient had tumour recurrence. CONCLUSION: Adrenal tumours mimicking primary hepatic malignancy are rare but pose diagnostic challenges. The AAH is a safe approach with acceptable R0 resection, blood loss, surgical complications and overall outcome for the patients requiring right hepatectomy.

A Long-Term Prospective Study of Quality of Life, Abdominal Symptoms, and Cosmesis of Donors After Hepatectomy for Live-Donor Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive assessment of quality of life of live liver donors is required for adequate donor outcome reporting, but there is a lack of prospective data. Assessment of all aspects of liver donation over a long period is a necessity to have complete understanding of the donation process. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of liver donors operated between March 2012 to August 2013, examined donors (n = 52) from predonation to five years after the donation. Participants were administered 'World Health Organization quality of life Brief and questionnaires' regarding their attitude predonation, their overall well-being in terms of abdominal symptoms, cosmesis, and satisfaction with donation and consent process at predefined time points till five years after donation. The weight of the donors was recorded at predefined time points. RESULTS: The donors whose recipients died were less likely to continue with the study (8.9% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). After surgery, physical domain took 2 years to reach to predonation level while psychological and social relationship domains took 3 months and 1 month, respectively; environmental domain remained stable throughout. Even after recovery and discharge from hospital, donors experienced abdominal symptoms for a long period of time, but as the time increased from donation the reporting of symptoms decreased. Body image scores (12 ± 2.46 at 3 months vs. 14.9 ± 3.16 at five years, P < 0.001) and cosmesis scores (14.6 ± 3.67 at 3 months vs. 18.75 ± 3 at five years, P < 0.001) significantly improved over time. There was significant weight gain in donors (65.2 ± 6.1 kg predonation vs. 70.69 ± 2.4 kg at 2 years P < 0.001). Donors understood the consent process well, but did not use it for decision making. Overall, they showed a high level of satisfaction in the donation process. CONCLUSION: Donors have good quality of life and show steady recovery in all aspects. Recipient death affects attitude towards donation process.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in Indian patients- Is the scenario different?

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been controversial in terms of selection and outcome. We share our experience of LDLT for HCC in Indian patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LDLT for HCC discovered either preoperatively or incidentally on explant pathology was done. Preoperative characteristics and explant histopathology findings were recorded. Overall, recurrence-free survival and factors predicting recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: Six hundred and eleven LDLT were performed between June 2011 and October 2019. HCC constituted 6.5% (n = 53) of transplant activity. Forty had preoperative diagnosis, while 13 were detected incidentally. The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 18 for patients with HCC. Only in 10 patients (19%), HCC was the primary indication for liver transplant (LT), and the rest had undergone transplant for progressive decompensation. Thirty-two patients were within up-to-7, while 21 were outside up-to-7 criteria. Overall 5-year survival was 85.4% and recurrence-free survival was 83.3% after a median follow-up of 35 months (13-59). This was similar to LDLT for other indications (81.2% at 5 years). Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score was best able to predict recurrence (p = 0.03) with odds ratio of 6.8. CONCLUSION: Patients with HCC in India present late for liver transplant. Most patients have some form of decompensation before they undergo LT. In selected patients, overall survival was comparable with other indications for LDLT with acceptable recurrence rates. RETREAT score was best to predict recurrence.

Sarcopenia in Cirrhosis: Fallout on Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is a game changer in cirrhosis. Poor muscle mass defined as sarcopenia may potentially upset the LT scoreboard. AIM: To assess the prevalence and impact of sarcopenia on the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes in Indian patients undergoing LT. METHODS: Pre LT, single-slice routine computed tomography images at L3 vertebra of 115 LT recipients were analyzed, to obtain cross-sectional area of six skeletal muscles normalized for height in m2 - skeletal muscle index (SMI; cm2/m2). SMI< 52.4 in males and <38.5 in females was called sarcopenia. The intraoperative, postoperative outcome parameters and 90-day mortality were compared between sarcopenics and nonsarcopenics. RESULTS: Sarcopenia was found in 47.8% of patients [M (90.4%); age, 46.3 ± 10; BMI, 24.5 ± 4.3 kg/m2; child A:B:C = 1%:22%:77%; MELD, 20.6 ± 6.3; etiology alcohol: nonalchohol = 53%:47%; Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 3:≤3 = 56.5%:43.5%]. Sarcopenics vs. Nonsarcopenics; early postoperative complications: [sepsis, 49(89%) vs. 33(55%), P = 0.001; neurologic complications, 16(29.6%) vs. 5(8.8%), P = 0.040; Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3-24 (43.6%):15 (25.4%),P = 0.041; ancillary parameters (days), duration of ventilation [median (range)] 1.5(1-3) vs. 1 (1-2), P = 0.021; intensive care unit (ICU) stay 12 (8-16) vs. 10 (8-12), P = 0.024; time to ambulation 9 (7-11) vs. 6 (5-7), P = 0.001; drain removal 18.7 ± 7.3 vs. 14.4 ± 6.2, P = 0.001; need for tracheostomy 5 (9%) vs. 0 (%), P = 0.017; preoperative prevalence of acute kidney injury, comorbidities and requirement for dialysis, intraoperative blood loss & inotropic support were significantly higher in sarcopenics. Ninety-day mortality was comparable between sarcopenics 5 (9.09%) and nonsarcopenics 4 (6.6%) P = 0.63. SMI (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, P = 0.016; Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) presentation 12.5 (1.65-95.2), P = 0.015 and intraoperative blood loss 3.74 (0.96-14.6), P = 0.046 were predictors of 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Almost 50% of LT recipients had sarcopenia, who had a higher incidence of postoperative sepsis, neurological complications, longer ICU stay and ventilatory support. Low SMI, ACLF presentation, and intraoperative blood loss were the independent predictors of early mortality.

"No go" donor hepatectomy in living-donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Selection of appropriate donors after rigorous evaluation is of paramount importance in living-donor liver transplantation. Despite this, donor surgery may not proceed due to unforeseen reasons. The aim of this paper is to study reasons for "no go" donor hepatectomy in living liver donors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Donor operations stopped after surgical start, directly due to donor safety-related reasons, qualified for inclusion as "no go" donor hepatectomy. Living-donor evaluation was performed as per standard protocol. Data for consecutive living liver donors operated between April 2012 and November 2016 were analyzed to evaluate reasons for "no go" donor hepatectomy in a liver transplantation unit at a tertiary care teaching hospital. RESULTS: In 307 donors, the operation was aborted in 7 (2.3 %). One patient had unexpected biliary pathology with fibrosis found intraoperatively. Operations in five donors were abandoned in view of liver parenchymal abnormalities (fibrosis/steatohepatitis). One donor had hemodynamically significant bradycardia after handling the round ligament. All these donors recovered uneventfully and remained well on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: "No go" donor hepatectomy remains a real possibility despite rigorous assessment. Although thresholds for on-table rejection of the donor after complete evaluation vary, "no go" hepatectomy is a calculated risk-avoidance approach.