Recipient hepatectomy technique may affect oncological outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.

Humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among liver transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: Immunosuppressive agents are known to interfere with T and/or B lymphocytes, which are required to mount an adequate serologic response. Therefore, we aim to investigate the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in liver transplant (LT) recipients after COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre case-control study, analysing antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 and their neutralising activity in LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19-LT) compared with immunocompetent patients (COVID-19-immunocompetent) and LT recipients without COVID-19 symptoms (non-COVID-19-LT). RESULTS: Overall, 35 LT recipients were included in the COVID-19-LT cohort. 35 and 70 subjects fulfilling the matching criteria were assigned to the COVID-19-immunocompetent and non-COVID-19-LT cohorts, respectively. We showed that LT recipients, despite immunosuppression and less symptoms, mounted a detectable antinucleocapsid antibody titre in 80% of the cases, although significantly lower compared with the COVID-19-immunocompetent cohort (3.73 vs 7.36 index level, p<0.001). When analysing anti-S antibody response, no difference in positivity rate was found between the COVID-19-LT and COVID-19-immunocompetent cohorts (97.1% vs 100%, p=0.314). Functional antibody testing showed neutralising activity in 82.9% of LT recipients (vs 100% in COVID-19-immunocompetent cohort, p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the humoral response of LT recipients is only slightly lower than expected, compared with COVID-19 immunocompetent controls. Testing for anti-S antibodies alone can lead to an overestimation of the neutralising ability in LT recipients. Altogether, routine antibody testing against separate SARS-CoV-2 antigens and functional testing show that the far majority of LT patients are capable of mounting an adequate antibody response with neutralising ability.

Liver transplantation in patients with non-neoplastic portal vein thrombosis: 20 years of experience in a single center.

BACKGROUND: The Yerdel classification is widely used for describing the severity of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in liver transplant (LT) candidates, but might not accurately predict transplant outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data regarding 97 adult patients with PVT who underwent LT, investigating whether the complexity of portal reconstruction could better correlate with transplant outcome than the site and extent of the thrombosis. RESULTS: 79/97 (80%) patients underwent thrombectomy and anatomical anastomosis (TAA), 18/97 (20%) patients underwent non-anatomical physiological reconstructions (non-TAA). PVT Yerdel grade was 1-2 in 72/97 (74%) patients, and 3-4 in 25/97 (26%) patients. Univariate analysis revealed higher 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and a higher rate of severe early complications in the non-TAA group than in the TAA group (p = .018, .001, .014, .009, respectively). In the model adjusted for PVT Yerdel grade, non-TAA remained independently associated with higher 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality (p = .021, .007, and .015, respectively). The portal vein re-thrombosis and overall patient and graft survival rates were similar. DISCUSSION: In our experience, the complexity of portal reconstruction better correlated with transplant outcome than the Yerdel classification, which did not even appear to be a reliable predictor of the surgical complexity and technique.

COVID-19 in an international European liver transplant recipient cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in liver transplant recipients is lacking, particularly in terms of severity of the disease. The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, baseline clinical characteristics and early outcomes of a European cohort of liver transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: We conducted an international prospective study across Europe on liver transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by microbiological assay during the first outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, management of immunosuppressive therapy and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: 57 patients were included (70% male, median (IQR) age at diagnosis 65 (57-70) years). 21 (37%), 32 (56%) and 21 (37%) patients had one cardiovascular disease, arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus, respectively. The most common symptoms were fever (79%), cough (55%), dyspnoea (46%), fatigue or myalgia (56%) and GI symptoms (33%). Immunosuppression was reduced in 22 recipients (37%) and discontinued in 4 (7%). With this regard, no impact on outcome was observed. Forty-one (72%) subjects were hospitalised and 11 (19%) developed acute respiratory distress syndrome. Overall, we estimated a case fatality rate of 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%), which increased to 17% (95% CI 7% to 32%) among hospitalised patients. Five out of the seven patients who died had a history of cancer. CONCLUSION: In this European multicentre prospective study of liver transplant recipients, COVID-19 was associated with an overall and in-hospital fatality rate of 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) and 17% (95% CI 7% to 32%), respectively. A history of cancer was more frequent in patients with poorer outcome.