Which cava anastomotic techniques are optimal regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after liver transplantation: A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: It has long been debated whether cava anastomosis should be performed with the piggyback technique or cava replacement, with or without veno-venous bypass (VVB), with or without temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) in the setting of liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To identify whether different cava anastomotic techniques and other maneuvers benefit the recipient regarding short-term outcomes and to provide international expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021240979). RESULTS: Of 3205 records screened, 307 publications underwent full-text assessment for eligibility and 47 were included in qualitative synthesis. Four studies were randomized control trials. Eighteen studies were comparative. The remaining 25 were single-center retrospective noncomparative studies. CONCLUSION: Based on existing data and expert opinion, the panel cannot recommend one cava reconstruction technique over another, rather the surgical approach should be based on surgeon preference and center dependent, with special consideration toward patient circumstances (Quality of evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). The panel recommends against routine use of vevo-venous bypass (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) and against the routine use of temporary porto-caval shunt (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong).

No apparent benefit of preemptive sorafenib therapy in liver transplant recipients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma on explant.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced HCC; however, limited data are available on its role in OLT recipients with advanced HCC in the explant. AIM: Evaluate the role of preemptive sorafenib therapy on HCC recurrence and survival after OLT with advanced HCC on explant pathology. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the outcome after OLT of all HCC recipients with advanced HCC in the explant pathology from 04/2006 to 12/2012 based on preemptive treatment with sorafenib. RESULTS: During the observation period, 217 HCC recipients underwent OLT; 50 explants revealed advanced HCC. After exclusion of 5 patients who were lost to follow-up, 45 LT recipients were finally included for analysis. Recipients were grouped as sorafenib Gr (N = 25) and nonsorafenib Gr (N = 20). Both recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = .67) and overall survival were similar between groups (P = .53) on Kaplan-Meier analysis. Additionally, sorafenib use was neither associated with HCC recurrence-free survival (HR 0.74, 95% CI [0.32-1.70]; P = .48) nor overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.39-2.15], P = .84) on multivariate Cox proportional hazard model with sorafenib use as time-varying covariates. CONCLUSION: Preemptive treatment with sorafenib in OLT recipients with high-risk features in explant does not improve HCC recurrence-free or overall survival.