Routine End-ischemic Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation From Donors After Brain Death: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether end-ischemic hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE) is superior to static cold storage (SCS) in preserving livers procured from donors after brain death (DBD). BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence of the benefits of HOPE in liver transplantation, but predominantly in the setting of high-risk donors. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, livers procured from DBDs were randomly assigned to either end-ischemic dual HOPE for at least 2 hours or SCS (1:3 allocation ratio). The Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) was the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measure was 90-day morbidity (ClinicalTrials. gov, NCT04812054). RESULTS: Of the 104 liver transplantations included in the study, 26 were assigned to HOPE and 78 to SCS. Mean MEAF was 4.94 and 5.49 in the HOPE and SCS groups ( P =0.24), respectively, with the corresponding rates of MEAF >8 of 3.8% (1/26) and 15.4% (12/78; P =0.18). Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 20.9 after transplantations with HOPE and 21.8 after transplantations with SCS ( P =0.19). Transaminase activity, bilirubin concentration, and international normalized ratio were similar in both groups. In the case of donor risk index >1.70, HOPE was associated with significantly lower mean MEAF (4.92 vs 6.31; P =0.037) and lower median Comprehensive Complication Index (4.35 vs 22.6; P =0.050). No significant differences between HOPE and SCS were observed for lower donor risk index values. CONCLUSION: Routine use of HOPE in DBD liver transplantations does not seem justified as the clinical benefits are limited to high-risk donors.

Is operation time over the benchmark value a risk factor for worse short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection?

Introduction: Laparoscopic liver resection is a challenging surgical procedure that may require prolonged operation time, particularly during the learning curve. Operation time significantly decreases with increasing experience; however, prolonged operation time may significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications. Aim: To assess whether prolonged operation time over the benchmark value influences short-term postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study based on data from the National Polish Registry of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery was performed. A total of 197 cases consisting of left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hemihepatectomy (LH), and right hemihepatectomy (RH) with established benchmark values for operation time were included. Data about potential confounders for prolonged operation time and worse short-term outcomes were exported. Results: Most cases (129; 65.5%) were performed during the learning curve, while the largest rate was observed in LLS (57; 78.1%). Median operation time exceeded the benchmark value in LLS (Me = 210 min) and LH (Me = 350 min), while in RH the benchmark value was exceeded in 39 (44.3%) cases. Textbook outcomes were achieved in 138 (70.1%) cases. Univariate analysis (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.61-2.06; p = 0.720) and multivariate analysis (OR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.50-2.68; p = 0.734) did not reveal a significant impact of prolonged surgery on failing to achieve a textbook outcome. Conclusions: Prolonging the time of laparoscopic liver resection does not significantly impair postoperative results. There is no reason related to the patients' safety to avoid prolonging the time of laparoscopic liver resection over the benchmark value.