Optimization of Kidney Health in Liver Transplant Candidates: Pretransplant Considerations and Modalities.

Patients with decompensated end-stage liver disease (ESLD) are at increased risk for mortality, and only liver transplantation (LT) offers meaningful hope for survival. These patients are at risk for kidney dysfunction through the continuum of care for ESLD including LT. We discuss the role of accurate estimation and measurement of baseline glomerular filtration rate in assessment of kidney dysfunction among those with ESLD. Optimizing kidney function is a vital goal in the management of these patients before LT. In this review, we summarize salient aspects of assessing and optimizing kidney function in this patient population. Precipitating factors and different causes of acute kidney injury are discussed, including hepatorenal syndrome. We further review treatment options for acute kidney injury including volume management. The role of vasopressor therapy, renal replacement therapy, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting are discussed.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for adults with hepatorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is a condition that occurs in people with chronic liver disease (such as alcoholic hepatitis, advanced cirrhosis, or fulminant liver failure) and portal hypertension. The prognosis is dismal, often with a survival of weeks to months. Hepatorenal syndrome is characterised by the development of intense splanchnic vasodilation favouring ascites and hypotension leading to renal vasoconstriction and acute renal failure. Therefore, treatment attempts focus on improving arterial pressure through the use of vasopressors, paracentesis, and increasing renal perfusion pressure. Several authors have reported that the placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) may be a therapeutic option because it decreases portal pressure and improves arterial and renal pressures. However, the evidence is not clearly documented and TIPS may cause adverse events. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of the benefits and harms of TIPS to assess its value in people with hepatorenal syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in adults with hepatorenal syndrome compared with sham, no intervention, conventional treatment, or other treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 2 June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials with a parallel-group design, which compared the TIPS placement with sham, no intervention, conventional therapy, or other therapies, in adults aged 18 years or older, regardless of sex or ethnicity, diagnosed with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded trials of adults with kidney failure due to causes not related to hepatorenal syndrome, and we also excluded data from quasi-randomised, cross-over, and observational study designs as we did not design a separate search for such studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. morbidity due to any cause, and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. health-related quality of life, 2. non-serious adverse events, 3. participants who did not receive a liver transplant, 4. participants without improvement in kidney function, and 5. length of hospitalisation. We performed fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for the continuous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomised clinical trials comparing TIPS placement (64 participants) versus conventional treatment (paracentesis plus albumin 8 g/L of removed ascites) (66 participants). The co-interventions used in the trials were dietary treatment (sodium less than 60 mmoL/day), spironolactone (300 mg/day to 400 mg/day), and furosemide (120 mg/day). Follow-up was up to 24 months. Both were multicentre trials from Spain and the USA, and Germany, conducted between 1993 and 2002. Most participants were men (aged 18 to 75 years). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement compared with conventional treatment, during the first 24 months of follow-up, on all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 58%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the development of any serious adverse event (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.10 to 24.59; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 78%; very low-certainty evidence). The use of TIPS may or may not result in a decrease in overall morbidity such as bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, or refractory ascites, during the first 24 months of follow-up, compared with the conventional treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of TIPS placement versus conventional treatment on the number of people who did not receive a liver transplant (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 2 trials, 130 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) or on the length of hospitalisation (MD -20.0 days, 95% CI -39.92 to -0.08; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Kidney function may improve in participants with TIPS placement (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported health-related quality of life, non-serious adverse events, or number of participants with improvement in liver function associated with the TIPS placement. Funding No trials reported sources of commercial funding or conflicts of interest between researchers. Ongoing studies We found one ongoing trial comparing TIPS with conventional therapy (terlipressin plus albumin) and listed one study as awaiting classification as no full-text article could be found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TIPS placement was compared with conventional treatment, with a follow-up of 24 months, in adults with hepatorenal syndrome type 2. Based on two trials with insufficient sample size and trial limitations, we assessed the overall certainty of evidence as low or very low. We are unsure if TIPS may decrease all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, the number of people who did not receive a liver transplant, and the days of hospitalisation because of the very low-certainty evidence. We are unsure if TIPS, compared with conventional treatment, has better effects on overall morbidity (bacterial peritonitis, encephalopathy, or refractory ascites). TIPS may improve kidney function, but the certainty of evidence is low. The trials included no data on health-related quality of life, non-serious adverse events, and liver function associated with the TIPS placement. We identified one ongoing trial and one study awaiting classification which may contribute to the review when information becomes available.

Outcomes of patients with hepatorenal syndrome undergoing liver transplantation in the era of terlipressin.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of terlipressin in improving pre-liver transplant renal function in hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) has been well documented, however, its impact on post-transplant renal function remains poorly described. This study aims to describe the impact of HRS and terlipressin on post-liver transplant renal function and survival. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective, observational study was conducted to identify post-transplant outcomes of patients diagnosed with HRS undergoing liver transplant (HRS cohort) and those undergoing transplant for non-HRS, non-hepatocellular carcinoma cirrhotic indications (comparator cohort) between January 1997 and March 2020. The primary outcome was serum creatinine at 180 days post-liver transplant. Other renal outcomes and overall survival were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 109 patients with HRS and 502 comparator patients underwent liver transplant. The comparator cohort was younger than the HRS cohort (53 vs. 57 years, P < 0.001). The median creatinine at day 180 post-transplant was higher in the HRS transplant group (119 µmol/L vs. 103 µmol/L, P < 0.001), however, this association lost significance following multivariate analysis. Seven patients (7%) in the HRS cohort received a combined liver-kidney transplant. There was no significant difference in the 12-month post-transplant survival between the two groups (94% vs. 94%, P = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Patients with HRS treated with terlipressin who subsequently undergo liver transplantation have post-transplant renal and survival outcomes comparable to patients transplanted for cirrhosis without HRS. This study supports the practice of liver-only transplant in this cohort and the reservation of renal allografts for those who have primary renal disease.

Analysis of outcomes and renal recovery after adult living-donor liver transplantation among recipients with hepatorenal syndrome.

When timely access to deceased-donor livers is not feasible, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive option for patients with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). This study's primary objective was to describe outcomes after LDLT among HRS recipients, and the secondary objective was to determine predictors of poor renal recovery after LDLT. This single-center, retrospective study included 2185 LDLT recipients divided into HRS (n = 126, 5.8%) and non-HRS (n = 2059, 94.2%) groups. The study outcomes were survival and post-LT renal recovery. The HRS group had a higher death rate than the non-HRS group (17.5% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001). In the HRS group, post-LT renal recovery occurred in 69.0%, and the death rate was significantly lower in association with HRS recovery compared with non-recovery (5.7% vs. 43.6%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis indicated that post-LT sepsis (p < 0.001) and non-recovery of HRS (p < 0.001) were independent negative prognostic factors for survival. Diabetes mellitus (p = 0.01), pre-LT peak serum creatinine ≥3.2 mg/dl (p = 0.002), time interval from HRS diagnosis to LDLT ≥38 days (p = 0.01), and post-LT sepsis (p = 0.03) were important negative prognostic factors for renal recovery after LDLT. In conclusion, post-LT renal recovery was important for survival, and the interval from HRS to LDLT was significantly associated with post-LT renal recovery.

Effect of the response to preoperative treatment for hepatorenal syndrome on the outcome of recipients of living-donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of pretransplant hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) on the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients with special reference to the recovery of HRS before LDLT was investigated. METHODS: The rate of HRS was 43.9% (125/285) among the cohort, and the subjects were divided into three groups: those without HRS (No-HRS group, n = 160), those with HRS but recovered following pretransplant renal function restoration treatment (Responders group, n = 55), and those with persistent HRS (Non-responders group, n = 70). RESULTS: While the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were comparable between those with and without HRS (89.6%, 84.7%, and 84.7% vs 95.6%, 92.2%, and 87.5%), the cumulative incidence of the development of posttransplant chronic kidney disease (CKD) was significantly higher in those with HRS (P < .001). In addition, there was a significant difference between Responders and Non-responders in the development of CKD (P = .01). In the Cox regression model, Non-responders (P = .032, HR 1.79 [95% C.I. 1.05-3.03]) and recipient age (P = .014, HR 1.62 [95% C.I. 1.10-2.37]) were independent predictors for the development of CKD after LDLT. CONCLUSION: Living-donor liver transplantation is safe and effective for patients with HRS, and CKD progression could be reduced among those with HRS who responded to renal restoration treatment.

Improvement of renal function prior to liver transplantation is not associated with better long-term renal outcome or survival.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Since MELD implementation renal impairment in liver transplant (LT) recipients has become of increasing importance. This is the first study evaluating the course of renal function immediately prior to LT as predictor for long-term renal and overall outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 226 adults undergoing LT at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (2011-2015) were included. The impact of renal function over a period of 3 months prior to LT compared to renal function at the day of LT on long-term renal outcome and survival was assessed. RESULTS: According to GFR at day of LT renal function improved (≥1 CKD stage) in 64 patients (28%), remained stable in 144 (64%) or deteriorated in 18 (8%). Improvement of renal function prior to LT did neither significantly affect 90-day (13% vs. 14%, p = 0.83), nor 5-year post-LT mortality (35% vs. 41%, p = 0.57). 50 patients (22%) with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) received terlipressin prior to LT, but only 18 (37%) showed prolonged stabilization of renal function (improvement ≥1 CKD stage). Response to terlipressin did neither improve 90-day (p=1), 5-year mortality (p = 0.52) nor long-term renal function (p = 0.843). Nevertheless, need for dialysis pre-LT (59% vs. 34%, p = 0.005) and post-LT (62% vs. 17%, p<0.001) was associated with increased 5-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of renal function immediately prior to LT, either spontaneously or following terlipressin therapy, did neither ameliorate long-term renal outcome nor survival in LT recipients. Future studies need to clarify the impact of terlipressin in HRS on the transplant waiting time in LT candidates.

Response to Terlipressin and Albumin Is Associated With Improved Liver Transplant Outcomes in Patients With Hepatorenal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although terlipressin and albumin are effective at treating acute kidney injury-hepatorenal syndrome (AKI-HRS), liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment. However, it is unclear if an effective treatment with terlipressin and albumin improves post-LT outcomes in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of response to treatment with terlipressin and albumin on posttransplant outcomes in patients with AKI-HRS. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We analyzed two cohorts of patients with cirrhosis listed for LT between 2012 and 2016: 82 patients who developed AKI-HRS before LT and were treated with terlipressin and albumin and 259 patients without AKI-HRS who received transplants during the study period (control group). After LT, patients were followed up until discharge, every month for the first 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter. Of the patients, 43 (52%) responded to terlipressin and albumin. Responders had a better 30-day transplant-free survival (60% vs. 33%, P = 0.006), longer LT waiting list time (37 vs. 17 days, P = 0.041), and lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score at the time of LT (23 vs. 29, P = 0.007). Among patients with AKI-HRS receiving transplant, nonresponders required renal replacement therapy (RRT) more frequently than responders (20% vs. 0%, P = 0.024). Nonresponders had a significantly higher incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at 1 year after LT than responders (65% vs. 31%, P = 0.019). In multivariate analysis, nonresponse to terlipressin and albumin was found to be an independent predictor for CKD at 1 year after LT (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 2.76, P = 0.001), whereas responders did not have an increased risk (SHR = 1.53, P = 0.210). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AKI-HRS, response to terlipressin and albumin reduces the need for RRT after LT and reduces the risk of CKD at 1 year after LT.

Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata. CONCLUSIONS: The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts: Advances and New Uses in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts is an established treatment for portal hypertensive complications. Advancements in technology and technique have led to novel indications, including treatment of chronic portal vein thrombosis and use before abdominal surgery to alleviate portal hypertensive complications. Use of TIPS can facilitate the embolization of large portal-systemic shunts to alleviate refractory hepatic encephalopathy owing to excessive portal shunting. Despite these advances, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts is an invasive procedure with risk for complications and should be performed at a center with expertise to ensure a successful patient outcome.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and alfapump® system for refractory ascites in liver cirrhosis: Outcomes and complications.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of refractory ascites in liver cirrhosis is challenging. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and alfapump® have been proposed for the management, but few data comparing both exist. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and alfapump® for refractory ascites at our centre. METHODS: All consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed for baseline characteristics, efficacy of treatment, complications and survival. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and 40 patients with alfapump® were included. Patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt had better liver function and less hepatic encephalopathy at baseline. Fifty-eight per cent of patients developed hepatic encephalopathy in the first six months after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. In patients with alfapump®, renal function decreased and 58% developed prerenal impairment and 43% hepatorenal syndrome in the first six months. Alfapump® patients with new catheters required less reinterventions (26% versus 57% with old catheters, p = 0.049). Transplant-free survival at 1 year was 25% in alfapump® and 65% in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Hepatic encephalopathy predicted transplant-free survival in patients with alfapump® (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 0.99-4.02, p = 0.05). In a sensitivity analysis comparing patients with similar liver function, the rate of hepatorenal syndrome and prerenal impairment was higher in patients with alfapump® and these patients were hospitalised more frequently, whereas the rate of hepatic encephalopathy was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and alfapump® were effective treatments for refractory ascites in cirrhosis. Patients treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt had a better one-year transplant-free survival but had less negative prognostic factors at baseline. Selecting patients without hepatic encephalopathy prior to implantation of an alfapump® might improve transplant-free survival.

Inpatient Mortality Benefit with Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for Hospitalized Hepatorenal Syndrome Patients.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting (TIPS) might be utilized as a salvage option for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), while randomized controlled trials are pending and real-world contemporary data on inpatient mortality is lacking. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study from the National Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014. We included all adult patients admitted with HRS and cirrhosis, using ICD 9-CM codes. We excluded cases with variceal bleeding, Budd-Chiari, end-stage renal disease, liver transplant and transfers to acute-care facilities. TIPS' association with inpatient mortality was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression, as well as exact-matching, thus mitigating for TIPS selection bias. The exact-matched analysis was repeated among TIPS-only versus dialysis-only patients. RESULTS: A total of 79,354 patients were included. Nine hundred eighteen (1.2%) underwent TIPS. Between TIPS and non-TIPS groups, mean age (58 years) and gender (65% males) were similar. Overall mortality was 18% in TIPS and 48% in dialysis-only cases (n = 10,379; 13.1%). Ninety six (10.5%) TIPS patients underwent dialysis. In-hospital mortality in TIPS patients was twice less likely than in non-TIPS patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.62; p < 0.001), with similar results in matched analysis [exact-matched (em) OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.89; p < 0.024; groups = 96; unweighted n = 463]. Head-to-head comparison showed that TIPS-only patients were 3.3 times less likely to succumb inpatient versus dialysis-only patients (contrast aOR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.46; p < 0.001), with similar findings post-matching (emOR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.33; p < 0.001; groups = 54, unweighted n = 1457). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary, real-world data reveal that TIPS on its own, and when compared to dialysis, is associated with decreased inpatient mortality when utilized in non-bleeders-HRS patients. Further randomized studies are needed to establish the long-term benefit of TIPS in these patients.

Intervention on Spontaneous Splenorenal Shunt May Decrease the Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury After Liver Transplant.

OBJECTIVES: Spontaneous splenorenal shuntis a type of portosystemic shunt that develops frequently in the setting of chronic portal hypertension. It remains controversial whether shuntinterventions during liver transplant improve transplant outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparison between deceased-donor liver transplant recipients who received spontaneous splenorenal shunt intervention and those who did not at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2017. Primary outcomes of interest included intraoperative transfusion requirement, hospital length of stay, acute kidney injury posttransplant, portal vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, and 1-year graft and patient survival. RESULTS: Of 268 liver transplant recipients, 50 (18.6%) had large spontaneous splenorenal shunts pretransplant, with 45 patients having available radiologic and outcome data. Nine of 45 patients (20%) received shunt intervention, including pretransplant balloonoccluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (n = 5), intraoperative ligation of the left renal vein (n = 3), and intraoperative direct shunt ligation (n = 1). Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores were not different between the intervention and the nonintervention groups. Intraoperative transfusion, length of hospitalization, portal vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, and 1-year graft and patient survival were also similar between the 2 groups. However, the rate of posttransplant acute kidney injury was significantly lower in patients in the intervention group (0 cases vs 12 cases; odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90). Patients with no SRS intervention (n = 36) were followed radiologically for 1 year posttransplant, with follow-up data showing complete resolution of spontaneous splenorenal shunt in just 4 patients (15%) and no changes in the remaining patients. CONCLUSIONS: Peritransplant interventions for spontaneous splenorenal shunt may reduce posttransplant acute kidney injury. In patients without intervention, spontaneous splenorenal shunt predominantly persisted 1 year posttransplant.

Breast implant during orthotopic liver transplant to avoid hepatic outflow obstruction.

Donor-recipient size mismatch in liver transplantation is a recognized but uncommon situation. It can lead to a partial or complete obstruction of the inferior vena cava with subsequent hepatic outflow obstruction. Placement of a breast implant in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen during liver transplantation is a technically easy resource and can protect the liver graft from kinking or rotation.

Ganciclovir-resistant post-transplant cytomegalovirus infection due to combined deletion mutation at codons 595-596 of the UL97 gene.

The development of antiviral-resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection complicates the management of transplant recipients. We describe the case of a 65-year-old male who developed CMV disease on valganciclovir prophylaxis (donor CMV IgG positive, recipient CMV IgG indeterminate) 30 days after combined liver-kidney transplantation for alcoholic cirrhosis and hepato-renal syndrome. After an initial complete response to treatment dose oral valganciclovir, he developed recurrent CMV viraemia. Resistance testing revealed a UL97 mutation with in-frame deletions of codons 595-596. He was treated successfully with foscarnet and reduction in immunosuppression. This mutation has not been described previously and was suspected to confer ganciclovir resistance. Ganciclovir resistance occurs most commonly due to mutations in the UL97 or UL54 genes, which encode a protein kinase and a DNA polymerase, respectively. The UL97-encoded protein kinase phosphorylates ganciclovir to ganciclovir triphosphate, which competitively inhibits viral replication. Mutations in the UL97 gene are typically point mutations or deletions. We describe a new mutation, del595-596 in the CMV UL97 gene, occurring in the context of clinical treatment failure with standard and double-dose ganciclovir, and successful virological control achieved with foscarnet. This mutation is likely to result in ganciclovir resistance, although recombinant phenotyping is required for confirmation.

Clinical Outcomes after Liver Transplantation for Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) decreases survival of cirrhotic patients. The outcomes of HRS after liver transplantation (LT) were inconsistently reported. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis study to estimate the post-LT rates of death and HRS reversal. METHODS: A thorough search of literatures was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and conference abstracts for reports on post-LT survival and HRS reversal. Data for the posttransplant rates of HRS reversal, death, and acute rejection were extracted. The rates were pooled using inverse variance method if there was no heterogeneity between studies. Otherwise, the random effect model was applied. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. Pooling HRS reversal rates indicated high heterogeneity with a pooled rate of 0.834 (95% CI: 0.709-0.933). The pooled overall death rates for HRS and non-HRS after LT were 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.33) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.14-0.26). The risk ratio of death between HRS and non-HRS patients was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.14-1.47, P < 0.001). The probability of death at 1, 3, and 5 years tended to be higher among HRS. CONCLUSIONS: HRS is reversible in about 83% of patients after LT. However, the posttransplant mortality rate of HRS patients is still increased.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for hepatorenal syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is a severe complication of advanced liver diseases with a dismal prognosis. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome. METHOD: Publications were searched via PubMed and EMBASE databases. The pooled proportion and mean difference were calculated by using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Nine publications were included, in which 128 patients with hepatorenal syndrome were treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. The pooled short-term and 1-year survival rates were 72% and 47% in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome and 86% and 64% in type 2 hepatorenal syndrome. No lethal procedure-related complications were observed. The pooled rate of hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was 49%. The pooled rate of renal function improvement after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was 93% in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome and 83% in any type of hepatorenal syndrome. After transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, serum sodium, sodium excretion, and urine volume were significantly improved; by comparison, serum bilirubin slightly increased, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggested a potential survival benefit of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with hepatorenal syndrome but with a high incidence of hepatic encephalopathy.