Liver Transplantation for Porto-sinusoidal Vascular Liver Disorder: Long-term Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Porto-sinusoidal vascular liver disorder (PSVD) is a rare disease that occasionally requires liver transplantation (LT), despite usually presenting preserved liver function. There remains a paucity of data pertaining to LT in PSVD. The aim was to identify features associated with post-LT outcomes in PSVD. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study of 79 patients who received LT for PSVD. RESULTS: Median post-LT follow-up was 37 (range 1-261) mo. Refractory ascites 24 (30%), hepatic encephalopathy 16 (20%), and hepatopulmonary syndrome 13 (16.3%) were the most frequent indications for LT. Hepatocellular carcinoma was the indication in only 2 patients. Twenty-four patients died, 7 due to liver and 17 to non-liver related causes. Post-LT survival was 82.2%, 80.7%, and 68.6% at 1, 2, and 5 y, respectively. Post-LT survival was significantly better in patients without (n = 58) than in those with a persistent severe PSVD-associated condition (n = 21). Pre-LT hyperbilirubinemia levels and creatinine >100 µmol/L were also independently associated with poor survival. Six patients (7.6%) required a second LT. Recurrence of PSVD was confirmed by liver biopsy in only 1 patient and in 3 further patients it was likely. CONCLUSIONS: LT in PSVD is associated with an acceptable outcome in the absence of associated severe conditions. However, persistence of a severe associated condition, pre-LT high bilirubin levels, or creatinine >100 µmol/L impact outcome, and these are features that should be considered when evaluating PSVD patients for LT. PSVD recurrence is possible after LT and needs to be explored, at least, in cases of posttransplant portal hypertension.

Predicting portal thrombosis in cirrhosis: A prospective study of clinical, ultrasonographic and hemostatic factors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a relatively frequent event in patients with cirrhosis. While different risk factors for PVT have been reported, such as decreased portal blood flow velocity (PBFV) and parameters related with severity of portal hypertension, these are based on retrospective studies assessing only a discrete number of parameters. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence and risks factors for non-tumoral PVT development in a large prospective cohort of patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We performed an exhaustive evaluation of clinical, biochemical, inflammatory and acquired/hereditary hemostatic profiles in 369 patients with cirrhosis without PVT who were prospectively followed-up. Doppler ultrasound was performed at baseline and every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated. PVT development was always confirmed by computed tomography. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients developed non-tumoral PVT, with an incidence of 1.6%, 6% and 8.4% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. Low platelet count, PBFV <15 cm/sec and history of variceal bleeding were factors independently associated with a high PVT risk. No relationship between PVT development and any other clinical biochemical, inflammatory and acquired or hereditary hemostatic parameter was found. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis, the factors predictive of PVT development were mainly those related to the severity of portal hypertension. Our results do not support the role of hemostatic alterations (inherited or acquired) and inflammatory markers in the prediction of PVT in patients with cirrhosis. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with cirrhosis and more severe portal hypertension are at higher risk of non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis development. Acquired or inherited hemostatic disorders, as well as inflammatory status, do not seem to predict the development of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis.

Monitoring of miR-181a-5p and miR-155-5p Plasmatic Expression as Prognostic Biomarkers for Acute and Subclinical Rejection in de novo Adult Liver Transplant Recipients.

Background and Aims: News strategies for the accurate assessment of the state of immunosuppression (IS) in liver transplant recipients are needed to prevent rejection and minimize drug-related side effects. miRNAs can potentially be used as diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in transplant patients. This study evaluated the capacity of a plasmatic miRNA panel (miR-155-5p, miR-122-5p, miR-181a-5p, and miR148-3p) as an early non-invasive prognostic and diagnostic biomarker for T cell-mediated acute rejection (TCMAR) and subclinical rejection (SCR) in adult liver recipients. Methods: A total of 145 liver recipients were included. All patients received a calcineurin inhibitor with or without mycophenolate mofetil and methylprednisolone. Plasmatic miRNA expression was assessed by qPCR before and at different time-points after liver transplantation. Results: Seventeen patients experienced TCMAR, and eight were diagnosed with SCR during the protocol biopsy at the 3rd month post-transplantation. Pre-transplantation, miR-155-5p expression was significantly higher in TCMAR patients and in SCR patients than in non-rejectors, and miR-181a-5p expression was also significantly higher in SCR patients than in non-rejectors. Post-transplantation, before transaminase-level modification, significantly increased miR-181a-5p, miR-155-5p, and miR-122-5p expression was observed in TCMAR and SCR patients. Binary logistic regression analyses showed, post-transplantation, that TCMAR risk was better predicted by individual expression of miR-181a-5p (LOGIT = -6.35 + 3.87*miR-181a-5p), and SCR risk was better predicted by the combination of miR-181a-5p and miR-155-5p expression (LOGIT = -5.18 + 2.27*miR-181a-5p+1.74*miR-155-5p). Conclusions: Pre-transplantation plasmatic miR-155-5p expression may be useful for stratifying low-immunologic-risk patients, and post-transplantation miR-181a-5p and miR-155-5p may be candidates for inclusion in early, non-invasive prognostic biomarker panels to prevent TCMAR or SCR and better identify patient candidates for IS minimization. Large prospective randomized multicenter trials are needed to refine the cut-off values and algorithms and validate the clinical usefulness of these biomarkers.