Combined Flush With Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate and University of Wisconsin Solutions in Liver Transplantation: Preliminary Results.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is the main cause of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and subsequent primary allograft failure (PAF). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare IRI, EAD, and PAF in liver transplantation in a cohort of patients perfused with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution and University of Wisconsin (UW) solution versus HTK alone. METHODS: A randomized trial was performed to compare outcomes in liver recipients who underwent transplantation surgery in the University Regional Hospital of Malaga, Spain. Forty patients were randomized to two groups. Primary endpoints included IRI, EAD, PAF, re-intervention, acute cellular rejection, retransplantation, arterial complications, and biliary complications at postoperative day 90. RESULTS: Postoperative glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (1869.15 ± 1559.75 UI/L vs. 953.15 ± 777.27 UI/L; P = .004) and glutamic pyruvic transaminase (1333.60 ± 1115.49 U/L vs. 721.70 ± 725.02 U/L; P = .023) were significantly higher in patients perfused with HTK alone. A clear tendency was observed in recipients perfused with HTK alone to present moderate to severe IRI (7 patients in the HTK + UW solution group vs. 15 patients in the HTK-alone solution group; P = .06), EAD (0 patients in the HTK + UW solution group vs. 0 patients in the HTK-alone solution group; P = .76), and PAF (3 patients in the HTK + UW solution group vs. 8 patients in the HTK-alone solution group; P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: Initial perfusion with HTK solution followed by UW solution in liver transplantation improves early liver function as compared to perfusion with HTK alone.

Up-to-7 Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Analysis of Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: The expansion of criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) liver transplantation should produce satisfactory outcomes in terms of survival and recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if the up-to-7 criteria are applicable to liver transplantation for HCC. METHODS: A review of all liver transplantations performed at our unit between January 2002 and December 2010 was conducted (645 patients). The 91 patients of the sample who had HCC were divided into 3 groups: in Milan criteria (MC; n = 74), in up-to-7 criteria (UTSC; n = 12), and outside of up-to-7 criteria (OUTSC; n = 5). A descriptive retrospective study was carried out to analyze the characteristics of liver tumors and recipients and to estimate recurrence and survival rates for this population of patients. RESULTS: The characteristics of transplant recipients of the 3 groups were comparable. Statistically significant differences were observed in the number of tumors (1 ± 0.65 for MC, 3 ± 1.05 for UTSC, 6 ± 4.10 for OUTSC; P < .001), largest tumor size (2.47 ± 1.12 cm for MC, 3.78 ± 0.04 cm for UTSC, 4.04 ± 1.73 cm for OUTSC; P < .001), and recurrence (5.4% for MC; 33.3% for UTSC; 20% for OUTSC; P = .008). Survival rates (MC, UTSC, and OUTSC) at 3 and 5 years were 71.6%, 66.7%, and 60%, and 58.1%, 58.3%, and 40%, respectively, whereas tumor-free survival rates were 70.3%, 58.3%, and 60%, and 58.1%, 50%, and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Survival in patients with HCC transplanted under up-to-7 criteria is acceptable. However, the expansion of criteria involves an increase in the number of patients included in the waiting list and a higher probability of relapse.

Results of Liver Transplantation With Donors Older than 75 Years: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of elderly donors can increase the pool of organs available for transplantation. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and survival rates of patients who received livers from donors aged ≥75 years versus younger donors. METHODS: We considered all liver transplantations performed in our unit from January 2006 to January 2015. Thirty-two patients received a liver from a cadaveric donor aged ≥75 years (study group), and their outcomes were compared with those of patients who received a liver from a younger donor (control group) immediately before and after each transplantation in the study group. This is a descriptive, retrospective, case-control study carried out to analyze the characteristics of donors and recipients as well as the clinical course and survival of recipients of older and younger donors. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed according to donors' age (53.3 ± 13.6 vs 79 ± 3.4 years; P < .001). In total, 6.2% of the recipients of a liver from a donor aged <75 years required retransplantation versus 15.6% of recipients of donors ≥75 years. Patient survivals at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, were 89%, 78.6%, and 74.5% for recipients of donors <75 years versus 83.4%, 79.4%, and 59.6% for the study group. CONCLUSIONS: Livers from older donors can be safely used for transplantation with acceptable survival rates. However, survival rates are lower for recipients of livers from older donors compared with younger donors, and survival only increased with retransplantation.

Liver transplantation without abdominal drainage.

This observational cohort compared 70 consecutive liver transplantations (OLT) with no intra-abdominal drain and 70 control subjects C with an intra-abdominal drain who were operated immediately prior to them. We sought to assess the impact of abdominal drainage on the diagnosis and prevention of early postoperative complications of hemoperitoneum, reinterventions, biliary leaks or percutaneous drainage. We assessed variables related to the recipient (age, indication, pretransplant ascites, body mass index, Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, and rejection episodes, to the donor (age, steatosis and, ischemia time) as well as intra- and postoperative factors (surgery time, blood product use, and coagulopathy). The endpoint was defined as the need for a reintervention, postoperative paracentesis, appearance/drainage of collections, as well as lengths of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays. Postoperative ICU and in-hospital stay were similar between the groups (3.6 versus 3.7 days and 12 versus 14 days respectively). Six patients in the drainage group were reoperated due to hemoperitoneum, whereas it was one in the cohort without drainage. Three patients presented a biliary fistula, two in the group without drainage, and one in the drainage group. One patient in the drainage group required percutaneous drainage of an intra-abdominal collection. The need for postoperative paracentesis was greater among the group without drainage (30% versus 6%; P < .008) and among those with a preoperative ascites > 1000 mL (38%). Patients with drainage displayed a greater incidence of perihepatic hematomas upon ultrasound (50% versus 22%, P < .008) and required more postoperative blood products, especially plasma (P < .01). In conclusion, OLT without intra- abdominal drainage is safe and does not increase morbidity. It seems likely that drainage may be responsible for intra-abdominal hematomas and greater consumption of blood products.

Conservative approach versus urgent appendectomy in surgical management of acute appendicitis with abscess or phlegmon.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of acute appendicitis with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon remains controversial. We studied the results of initial conservative treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage if necessary, with or without interval appendectomy) compared with immediate surgery. METHODS: We undertook an observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis with an abscess or phlegmon, treated in our hospital between January 1997 and March 2009. Patients younger than 14, with severe sepsis or with diffuse peritonitis were excluded. A study group of 15 patients with acute appendicitis complicated with an abscess or phlegmon underwent conservative treatment. A control group was composed of the other patients, who all underwent urgent appendectomy, matched for age and later randomized 1:1. The infectious risk stratification was established with the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS) index. Dependent variables were hospital stay and surgical site infection. Analysis was with SPSS, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Interval appendectomy was performed in 7 study group patients. Surgical site infection episodes were more frequent in the control group (6 vs. 0, p < 0.001). A greater percentage of high risk patients (NNIS ≥ 2) was identified in the control group (80 vs. 28.7%, p < 0.03), mostly related with contaminated or dirty procedures in this group (p < 0.001). No significant difference between groups was found in hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Initial conservative treatment should be considered the best therapeutic choice for acute appendicitis with abscess or phlegmon.

Is liver transplantation without abdominal drainage safe?

UNLABELLED: This observational, analytical cohort consisted of 35 consecutive liver transplant (OLT) patients with no intra-abdominal drain and a control cohort of 35 subjects operated immediately before the former who had placement of an intra-abdominal drain. We sought to assess the impact of abdominal drainage on the diagnosis and prevention of early postoperative complications: hemoperitoneum, reinterventions, biliary leaks, or percutaneous drainage. We assessed variables related to the recipient (age, indication, pretransplant ascites, body mass index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and rejection), the donor (age, steatosis, ischemia time) and intra- and postoperative factors (surgery time, blood product use, and coagulopathy). The end point was defined as the need for a reintervention, paracentesis, appearance, and drainage of collections as well as lengths of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays. The postoperative ICU and in-hospital stays were similar between groups (3.7 vs 3.9 days and 12 vs 14 days, respectively). Two patients in the group with drainage were reoperated due to hemoperitoneum, whereas we did not reoperate any patients in the group without drainage. No patient from either group developed a biliary fistula or required drainage of an intra-abdominal collections. The need for paracentesis was greater among the group without drainage (23% vs 5.7%; P < .04) and among those with a prior history of severe ascites. Patients with drainage displayed a greater incidence of perihepatic hematomas by ultrasound (53% vs 21%; P < .08) and required more postoperative blood products, especially platelets (P > .04) and plasma (P < .01). CONCLUSION: OLT without intra-abdominal drainage is safe, not increasing morbidity. It seems likely that drainage may be responsible for intra-abdominal hematomas and greater consumption of blood products.