Graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation: A systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation is a serious and usually fatal complication. Data identifying the risk factors and specifying the diagnosis and treatment options of the disease are scarce and contentious. Moreover, recommendations for therapeutic approaches are similarly sparse. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 1988 to 2020 on graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation was performed using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Medical subject headings, such as graft-versus-host disease and GvHD were used in combination with solid organ transplant, transplantation, or liver transplant. Following duplicate removal, 9298 articles were screened for suitability. A total of 238 full-text articles were analyzed for eligibility, resulting in 130 eligible articles for meta-analysis. Two hundred twenty-five patients developing graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation reported herein were mainly published in case reports and case series. RESULTS: Graft-versus-host disease occurred with an incidence of 1.2%. 85% developed following deceased donor liver transplant and 15% following living-related donor liver transplantation. The median follow-up period following liver transplantation was 84 days (interquartile range, 45-180). The median time from liver transplantation to graft-versus-host disease onset was 30 days (interquartile range, 21-42). The main clinical features included skin rash (59%), fever (43%), diarrhea (36%), and pancytopenia (30%). The overall mortality rate was 71%. Neither univariate (HR = 0.999; 95% CI, 0.493-2.023; p = 1.0) nor multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between adaptation of immunosuppression and survival probability (HR = 1.475; 95% CI, 0.659-3.303; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that an increase in immunosuppressive regimen does not yield any survival benefit in patients suffering from graft-versus-host disease following liver transplantation.

Merendino Resection vs. Transhiatal Gastric Conduit After Resection of the Cardia and the Gastroesophageal Junction.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction after combined cardia resection and removal of the gastroesophageal junction can be carried out by the Merendino procedure or via a gastric conduit. This study compares postoperative complications and quality of life for both approaches. METHODS: All patients who underwent Merendino or gastric conduit reconstruction from 2011-2017 were included. Both groups were investigated regarding postoperative length of stay, complications, and gastrointestinal quality of life. RESULTS: 45 patients were identified, of which, 39 remained for analysis: 22 patients in the Merendino group and 17 patients in the gastric conduit group. The median age of patients in the gastric conduit group (71 (53-92) years) was significantly higher than in the Merendino group (58 (19-75) years), P = .0002. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the gastric conduit group (35.9 (11-82) days vs. 18.2 (7-43) days, P = .0299) and incidence of anastomotic leakage was higher (24% vs. 9%, P = .0171). General incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo) did not vary (P = .1694). However, grade 5 complications only occurred in the Merendino group (n = 1). Evaluation of long-term outcome and quality of life showed dysphagia to only have occurred in the Merendino group (n = 3, 14%). DISCUSSION: Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages: The Merendino procedure showed reduced incidence of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospital stay but was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate. Discrepancies in subgroup populations as well as small patient numbers limit the interpretation of the findings. This study does however provide a first comparison of these surgical approaches and may serve as a basis for further investigation.

Economic Burden of Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy Compared to Alternative Therapy Methods in Patients with Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become a promising option in the management of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. However, EVT is an effortful approach associated with multiple interventions. In this study, we conduct a comparative cost analysis for methods of management of AL. METHODS: All patients who experienced AL treated by EVT, stent, or reoperation following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were included. Cases that were managed by more than one modality were excluded. For the remaining cases, in-patient treatment cost was collected for material, personnel, (par)enteral nutrition, intensive care, operating room, and imaging. RESULTS: 42 patients were treated as follows: EVT n = 25, stent n = 13, and reoperation n = 4. The mean duration of therapy as well as length of overall hospital stay was significantly shorter in the stent than the EVT group (30 vs. 44d, p = 0.046; 34 vs. 53d, p = 0.02). The total mean cost for stent was €33.685, and the total cost for EVT was €46.136, resulting in a delta increase of 37% for EVT vs. stent cost. 75% (€34.320, EVT), respectively, 80% (€26.900, stent) of total costs were caused by ICU stay. Mean pure costs for endoscopic management were relatively low and comparable between both groups (EVT: €1.900, stent: €1.100, p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Management of AL represents an effortful approach that results in high overall costs. The expenses directly related to EVT and stent therapy were however comparatively low with more than 75% of costs being attributable to the ICU stay. Reduction of ICU care should be a central part of cost reduction strategies.

ABO-Incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in a Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Recipient From a Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Donor: A Case Report.

A human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer an absolute contraindication for solid organ transplantation, yet such a setting is still challenging and little explored because of general reservations and medical difficulties. We describe a 51-year-old man with end-stage renal failure due to polycystic kidney disease who underwent an ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation from his 49-year-old male partner. Early postoperative course revealed an episode of suspected acute rejection, which was successfully managed with a steroid pulse. Both donor and recipient continued to have an undetectable viral load after adjusting antiretroviral medication to renal function. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a successful ABO-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation from an HIV-positive donor in an HIV-positive recipient, and this case seems to be a valuable approach with favorable results.