Should advanced perfusion be the standard of care for donation after circulatory death liver transplant?

As an alternative to static cold storage (SCS), advanced perfusion techniques such as normothermic regional perfusion and ex-situ perfusion (normothermic or hypothermic) have emerged as a way to improve the ischemic injury suffered by donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers. Multiple studies have been published that have demonstrated superior post-DCD liver transplant outcomes when using advanced perfusion compared with SCS. In particular, these studies have shown lower rates of ischemic cholangiopathy with advanced perfusion. In addition to the improved post-liver transplant outcomes, studies have also demonstrated higher rates of liver utilization from DCD donors when advanced perfusion is used compared with SCS. Given the high rates of graft loss in patients who develop ischemic cholangiopathy, the significant reduction seen in DCD donor livers that have undergone advanced perfusion represents a key step in more broad utilization of these livers. With such compelling evidence from multiple trials, it seems reasonable to ask the question: should advanced perfusion be the standard of care for DCD liver transplant?

Obesity, organ failure, and transplantation: A review of the role of metabolic and bariatric surgery in transplant candidates and recipients.

Obesity is a risk factor for kidney, liver, heart, and pulmonary diseases, as well as failure. Solid organ transplantation remains the definitive treatment for the end-stage presentation of these diseases. Among many criteria for organ transplant, efficient management of obesity is required for patients to acquire transplant eligibility. End-stage organ failure and obesity are 2 complex pathologies that are often entwined. Metabolic and bariatric surgery before, during, or after organ transplant has been studied to determine the long-term effect of bariatric surgery on transplant outcomes. In this review, a multidisciplinary group of surgeons from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Society for Transplant Surgery presents the current published literature on metabolic and bariatric surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with obesity awaiting solid organ transplantation. This manuscript details the most recent recommendations, pharmacologic considerations, and psychological considerations for this specific cohort of patients. Since level one evidence is not available on many of the topics covered by this review, expert opinion was implemented in several instances. Additional high-quality research in this area will allow for better recommendations and, therefore, treatment strategies for these complex patients.

Obesity, organ failure, and transplantation: a review of the role of metabolic and bariatric surgery in transplant candidates and recipients.

Obesity is a risk factor for kidney, liver, heart, and pulmonary diseases, as well as failure. Solid organ transplantation remains the definitive treatment for the end-stage presentation of these diseases. Among many criteria for organ transplant, efficient management of obesity is required for patients to acquire transplant eligibility. End-stage organ failure and obesity are 2 complex pathologies that are often entwined. Metabolic and bariatric surgery before, during, or after organ transplant has been studied to determine the long-term effect of bariatric surgery on transplant outcomes. In this review, a multidisciplinary group of surgeons from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Society for Transplant Surgery presents the current published literature on metabolic and bariatric surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with obesity awaiting solid organ transplantation. This manuscript details the most recent recommendations, pharmacologic considerations, and psychological considerations for this specific cohort of patients. Since level one evidence is not available on many of the topics covered by this review, expert opinion was implemented in several instances. Additional high-quality research in this area will allow for better recommendations and, therefore, treatment strategies for these complex patients.

American Society of Transplant Surgeons recommendations on best practices in donation after circulatory death organ procurement.

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons supports efforts to increase the number of organs that are critically needed for patients desperately awaiting transplantation. In the United States, transplantation using organs procured from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has continued to increase in number. Despite these increases, substantial variability in the utilization and practices of DCD transplantation still exists. To improve DCD organ utilization, it is important to create a set of best practices for DCD recovery. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on contemporary issues surrounding DCD organ procurement in the United States. A work group was composed of members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeon Scientific Studies Committee and the Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee. The following topics were identified by the group either as controversial or lacking standardization: prewithdrawal preparation, definition of donor warm ischemia time, DCD surgical technique, combined thoracic and abdominal procurements, and normothermic regional perfusion. The proposed recommendations were classified on the basis of the grade of available evidence and the strength of the recommendation. This information should be valuable for transplant programs as well as for organ procurement organizations and donor hospitals as they develop robust DCD donor procurement protocols.

Development of a portable abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) program in the United States.

In situ abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) has been used for liver transplantation (LT) with donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts in Europe with excellent results; however, adoption of A-NRP in the United States has been lacking. The current report describes the implementation and results of a portable, self-reliant A-NRP program in the United States. Isolated abdominal in situ perfusion with an extracorporeal circuit was achieved through cannulation in the abdomen or femoral vessels and inflation of a supraceliac aortic balloon and cross-clamp. The Quantum Transport System by Spectrum was used. The decision to use livers for LT was made through an assessment of perfusate lactate (q15min). From May to November 2022, 14 A-NRP donation after circulatory death procurements were performed by our abdominal transplant team (N = 11 LT, N = 20 kidney transplants, and 1 kidney-pancreas transplant). The median A-NRP run time was 68 minutes. None of the LT recipients had post-reperfusion syndrome, nor were there any cases of primary nonfunction. All livers were functioning well at the time of maximal follow-up with zero cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. The current report describes the feasibility of a portable A-NRP program that can be used in the United States. Excellent short-term post-transplant results were achieved with both livers and kidneys procured from A-NRP.

Hepatocellular carcinoma radiation segmentectomy treatment intensification prior to liver transplantation increases rates of complete pathologic necrosis: an explant analysis of 75 tumors.

PURPOSE: To verify the correlation between yttrium-90 glass microsphere radiation segmentectomy treatment intensification of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and complete pathologic necrosis (CPN) at liver transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective, single center, analysis of patients with HCC who received radiation segmentectomy prior to liver transplantation from 2016 to 2021 was performed. The tumor treatment intensification cohort (n = 38) was prescribed radiation segmentectomy as per response recommendations identified in a previously published baseline cohort study (n = 37). Treatment intensification and baseline cohort treatment parameters were compared for rates of CPN. Both cohorts were then combined for an overall analysis of treatment parameter correlation with CPN. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with a combined 75 tumors were analyzed. Specific activity, dose, and treatment activity were significantly higher in the treatment intensification cohort (all p < 0.01), while particles per cubic centimeter of treated liver were not. CPN was achieved in 76% (n = 29) of tumors in the treatment intensification cohort compared to 49% (n = 18) in the baseline cohort (p = 0.013). The combined cohort CPN rate was 63% (n = 47). ROC analysis showed that specific activity ≥ 327 Bq (AUC 0.75, p < 0.001), dose ≥ 446 Gy (AUC 0.69, p = 0.005), and treatment activity ≥ 2.55 Gbq (AUC 0.71, p = 0.002) were predictive of CPN. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that a specific activity ≥ 327 Bq was the sole independent predictor of CPN (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Radiation segmentectomy treatment intensification for patients with HCC prior to liver transplantation increases rates of CPN. While dose strongly correlated with pathologic response, specific activity was the most significant independent radiation segmentectomy treatment parameter associated with CPN.

Radiation Segmentectomy for the Treatment of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes Compared with Those of Surgical Resection.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy (RS) versus standard-of-care surgical resection (SR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multisite, retrospective analysis of treatment-naïve patients who underwent either RS or SR was performed. The inclusion criteria were solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤8 cm in size, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Cohort performance status of 0-1, and absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic disease. Target tumor and overall progression, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival rates were assessed. Outcomes were censored for liver transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included (RS, 57; SR, 66). Tumor size, Child-Pugh class, albumin-bilirubin score, platelet count, and fibrosis stage were significantly different between cohorts (P ≤ .01). Major adverse events (AEs), defined as grade ≥3 per the Clavien-Dindo classification, occurred in 0 patients in the RS cohort vs 13 (20%) patients in the SR cohort (P < .001). Target tumor progression occurred in 3 (5%) patients who underwent RS and 5 (8%) patients who underwent SR. Overall progression occurred in 19 (33%) patients who underwent RS and 21 (32%) patients who underwent SR. The median overall TTP was 21.9 and 29.4 months after RS and SR, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.5-28.2 and 18.5-40.3, respectively; P = .03). Overall TTP subgroup analyses showed no difference between treatment cohorts with fibrosis stages 3-4 (P = .26) and a platelet count of <150 × 109/L (P = .29). The overall progression hazard ratio for RS versus SR was not significant per the multivariate Cox regression analysis (1.16; 95% CI, 0.51-2.63; P = .71). The median overall survival was not reached for either of the cohorts. Propensity scores were calculated but were too dissimilar for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RS and SR were performed in different patient populations, which limits comparison. RS approached SR outcomes, with a lower incidence of major AEs, in patients who were not eligible for hepatectomy.

Successfully sharing the sandbox: A perspective on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation is currently being performed in the United States as part of a clinical trial. As with all donor procurements, effective coordination between all involved teams is vital for successful organ recovery and maximal utilization of donor organs. The current discussion relays a viewpoint on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement. Key issues highlighted include the vital importance of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) on outcome for both recipients as well as issues pertaining to DWIT that may arise when performing combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

Sequential Protocol Biopsies Post-Liver Transplant From Donors With Moderate Macrosteatosis: What Happens to the Fat?

The number of steatotic deceased donor livers encountered has continued to rise as a result of the obesity epidemic. Little is known about the histological characteristics of moderately macrosteatotic livers over time in the recipient following liver transplantation (LT). All recipients undergoing LT at Mayo Clinic Florida with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) from 2000-2017 were identified (n = 96). Routine protocol liver biopsies were performed 1-week and 6-months following LT. All liver donor and protocol biopsies were read by an experienced liver pathologist. Of the 96 moderate macrosteatosis LTs, 70 recipients had post-LT protocol liver biopsies available and comprised the study cohort. Median donor allograft macrosteatosis at the time of transplant was 33% (IQR, 30%-40%) compared with 0% (IQR, 0%-2%) at 1-week (P < 0.001) and 0% (IQR, 0%-0%) at 6-months (P < 0.001) following LT. Biopsies at 1-week post-LT displayed pericentral necrosis in 57.1% of recipients and lipopeliosis in 34.3% of recipients. In the 6-month post-LT biopsies, cholestasis was seen in 3 (4.3%) of the recipients, whereas grade 2 fibrosis was seen in 6 recipients (8.6%). Graft survival at 5 years in the present cohort was 74.0%. Moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) in the donor allograft demonstrates complete reversal on liver biopsies performed as early as 7 days following LT and remains absent at 6-months following LT. Both pericentral necrosis and lipopeliosis are common features on day 7 biopsies. Despite these encouraging findings, the perioperative risks of using these livers (postreperfusion cardiac arrest and primary nonfunction) should not be understated. Long-term graft survival is acceptable in patients who are able to overcome the immediate perioperative risk of using moderately steatotic donor livers.

Post-Liver Transplant Early Allograft Dysfunction Modifies the Effect of Pre-Liver Transplant Renal Dysfunction on Post-Liver Transplant Survival.

Pre-liver transplantation (LT) renal dysfunction is associated with poor post-LT survival. We studied whether early allograft dysfunction (EAD) modifies this association. Data on 2,856 primary LT recipients who received a transplant between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died within the first post-LT week or received multiorgan transplants and previous LT recipients were excluded. EAD was defined as (1) total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 7, (2) international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on POD 7, and/or (3) alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase ≥2000 IU/mL in the first postoperative week. Pre-LT renal dysfunction was defined as serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or on renal replacement therapy at LT. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD development. Recipients who had both pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD had the worst unadjusted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year post-LT patient and graft survival, whereas patients who had neither renal dysfunction nor EAD had the best survival (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple factors, the risk of death was significantly higher only in those with both pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-3.03; P < 0.001), whereas those with renal dysfunction and no EAD had a comparable risk of death to those with normal kidney function at LT (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P = 0.41). Results remained unchanged when pre-LT renal dysfunction was redefined using different glomerular filtration rate cutoffs. Pre-LT renal dysfunction negatively impacts post-LT survival only in patients who develop EAD. Livers at higher risk of post-LT EAD should be used with caution in recipients with pre-LT renal dysfunction.

Variation in opioid prescribing patterns after abdominal transplant surgery.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are associated with negative transplant outcomes. We sought to identify patient and center effects on over-prescribing of opioids (> 200 OME (oral morphine equivalents)). STUDY DESIGN: Clinical and opioid prescription data (2014-2017) were collected from three academic transplant centers for kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) patients. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of opioid over-prescribing at discharge and the occurrence of refill prescriptions at 90 days. RESULTS: Three-thousand seven-hundred and two patients underwent transplant in the cohort (KT: n = 2358, LT: n = 1221, SLK: n = 123). More than 80% of recipients were over-prescribed opioids at discharge (Median OME (mOME) = 300 (IQR 225-375). LT and SLK had the largest prescription size (LT mOME 338 (IQR 300-450); SLK mOME 338 (IQR 225-450) and refill rate (LT: 64%, SLK 59%) (all, P < .001). Multivariable analysis indicated that transplant center was a significant predictor of opioid over-prescription after KT and LT (all, P < .001); older age (in KT) and length of stay (LOS) (in LT) were protective factors (both, P < .05). Refill occurrence was associated with initial prescription size and was reduced by older age and initial LOS (all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in opioid prescribing patterns has implications for transplant practice innovation, guideline development, and further study.

Pathologic Response of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Yttrium-90 Glass Microsphere Radiation Segmentectomy Prior to Liver Transplantation: A Validation Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pathologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with Yttrium-90 radiation segmentectomy using glass microspheres prior to liver transplantation and explore parameters associated with pathologic necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institution retrospective analysis of HCC patients who received radiation segmentectomy prior to liver transplantation from November 2016 to May 2020 was performed. Patients were included if the treatment angiosome encompassed the entire tumor and could be correlated with available gross pathology. Archived histology slides were reviewed for percentage of pathologic necrosis. Thirty-three patients with 37 tumors were evaluated. The median tumor size was 2.3 cm (range, 1-6.7 cm). RESULTS: All tumors received a single treatment. The median time from radiation segmentectomy to transplantation was 206 days (range, 58-550 days). Objective response per Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was 92% (complete response, 76%; partial response, 16%). A total of 68% (n = 25) of tumors demonstrated ≥99% pathologic necrosis. Complete pathologic necrosis was present in 53% and 75% of tumors treated with >190 Gy (n = 18) and >500 Gy (n = 8) single-compartment Medical Internal Radiation Dose, respectively. Complete response per mRECIST, posttreatment angiosome T1 hypointensity, dose >190 Gy, microsphere specific activity >297 Bq, and a longer time between treatment and transplant were associated with ≥99% tumor necrosis (P < .05). No posttransplant tumor recurrences occurred within a median follow-up of 604 days (range, 138-1,223 days). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation segmentectomy can serve as an ablative modality for the treatment of HCC prior to liver transplant.

The changing impact of pre-liver transplant renal dysfunction on post-transplant survival: results of 2 decades from a single center.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Renal dysfunction before liver transplantation (LT) is associated with higher post-LT mortality. We aimed to study if this association still persisted in the contemporary transplant era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on 2871 primary LT performed at our center from 1998 to 2018. All patients were listed for LT alone and were not considered to be simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant candidates. SLK recipients and those with previous LT were excluded. Patients were grouped into 4 eras: era-1 (1998-2002, n = 488), era-2 (2003-2007, n = 889), era-3 (2008-2012, n = 703) and era-4 (2013-2018, n = 791). Pre-LT renal dysfunction was defined as creatinine (Cr) >1.5 mg/dl or on dialysis at LT. The effect of pre-LT renal dysfunction on post-LT patient survival in each era was examined using Kaplan Meier estimates and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Pre-LT renal dysfunction was present in 594 (20%) recipients. Compared to patients in era-1, patients in era-4 had higher Cr, lower eGFR and were more likely to be on dialysis at LT (P < 0.001). Pre-LT renal dysfunction was associated with worse 1, 3 and 5-year survival in era-1 and era-2 (P < 0.005) but not in era-3 or era-4 (P = 0.13 and P = 0.08, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated the lack of independent effect of pre-LT renal dysfunction on post-LT mortality in era-3 and era-4. A separate analysis using eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at LT to define renal dysfunction showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-LT renal dysfunction had less impact on post-LT survival in the contemporary transplant era.

Significance of proximal ductal margin status after resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of additional resection for positive proximal bile duct margins during hepatic resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) on survival and disease progression remains unclear. We asked how re-resection of positive proximal bile duct margins affected outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection between 1993-2017 were reviewed. Both frozen section and final margin status were reviewed. Overall survival was the primary outcome. RESULTS: 153 patients underwent surgical resection for HCCA. Median survival (months) for initial margin negative (M-), margin-positive to margin-negative (M+/M-) and margin-positive to margin-positive (M+/M+) was 45, 33, and 35 months respectively. Nodal metastases increased with margin positivity: 32% with M-, 49% with M+/M- and 63% with M+/M+ (p = 0.016). Local/regional progression more frequently occurred in M+/M- (27.3%) and M+/M+ (33.3%) patients (M+/M- vs. M-: p = 0.41, M+/M+ vs. M-: p = 0.27). Patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy were 33% M-, 46% M+/M- and 63% in M+/M+. Postoperative radiation was used in 13% of M-, 31% of M+/M- and 63% of M+/M+. Most frequent initial recurrences were within the liver and hepaticojejunostomy site. CONCLUSION: Competing risk for systemic disease based on primary characteristics of HCCA outweighs the impact of re-resection to achieve R0 status. Improved survival will likely depend on future regional and systemic therapy.

Donation after Circulatory Death: Potential Mechanisms of Injury and Preventative Strategies.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors represent a potential means to help address the disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and the availability of donor livers. While initial enthusiasm for DCD LT was high in the early 2000s, early reports of high rates of biliary complications and inferior graft survival resulted in reluctance among many transplant centers to use DCD liver grafts. As with all innovations in transplant practice, there is undoubtedly a learning curve associated with the optimal utilization of liver grafts from DCD donors. More contemporary data has demonstrated that results with DCD LT are improving and the number of DCD LT performed annually has been steadily increasing. In this concise review, potential mechanisms of injury for DCD livers are discussed along with strategies that have been employed in clinical practice to improve DCD LT outcomes.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of utilizing donation after circulatory death liver grafts with macrosteatosis: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the potentially additive risk from using donor livers that are both steatotic and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with macrosteatosis. METHODS: All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 1999 to 2019 were included (N = 714). Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%), mild macrosteatosis (5%-30%), and no steatosis (<5%). RESULTS: Patients with moderate macrosteatosis had a higher rate of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS; 53.9% vs 26.2%; P = .002), postreperfusion cardiac arrest (7.7% vs 0.3%; P < .001), primary nonfunction (PNF; 7.7% vs 1.0%; P = .003), early allograft dysfunction (EAD; 70.8% vs 45.6% and 8.3%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (AKI; 39.1% vs 19.4%; P = .02) than patients with no steatosis. No difference in any of the perioperative complications was seen between the mild macrosteatosis and the no steatosis groups except for the rate of EAD (56.8% vs 45.6%; P = .04). No difference in ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), vascular thrombosis/stenosis or graft, and patient survival was seen between the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: DCD donors with mild macrosteatosis < 30% can be utilized with no increase in perioperative complications and similar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis. When utilizing DCD donors with moderate macrosteatosis higher rates of PRS, PNF, postreperfusion cardiac arrest, EAD, and AKI should be anticipated.

Improved National Results With Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantation Using Donation After Circulatory Death Donors.

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD-SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000-2010) and era 2 (2011-2018). Improvement in DCD-SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD-SLKT. When DCD-SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity-matched cohort of DBD-SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow-up were not different between the DCD-SLKT and DBD-SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD-SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD-SLKT. DCD-SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Simultaneous liver transplant and sleeve gastrectomy not associated with worse index admission outcomes compared to liver transplant alone - a retrospective cohort study.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) at the time of liver transplant (LT) has been argued to decrease resource utilization. However, larger studies examining outcomes are lacking. We aim to determine the outcomes of simultaneous SG and LT compared to LT alone. This is a retrospective cohort study using the 2011-2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS). The primary outcome was the odds of inpatient mortality in patients undergoing simultaneous SG and LT compared with LT alone. Secondary outcomes included inpatient morbidity, resource utilization, hospital length of stay (LOS), and inflation-adjusted total hospital costs and charges. A total of 45 361 patients underwent LT in the study period, 49 underwent simultaneous SG. Patients undergoing simultaneous LT and SG had lower crude mortality (0.0%) compared to LT alone (2.97%; P = 0.52). There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity, resource utilization, and hospital costs and charges. Patients undergoing simultaneous LT and SG did not have significantly different mortality rates, morbidity, resource utilization, or LOS during the index admission when compared to LT alone. SG may be feasible at the time of LT in very carefully selected patients. Studies should focus in determining which patients are the optimal candidates to undergo simultaneous LT and SG.

The impact of postreperfusion syndrome during liver transplantation using livers with significant macrosteatosis.

The impact of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) during liver transplantation (LT) using donor livers with significant macrosteatosis is largely unknown. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) (N = 96) between 2000 and 2017 were compared to propensity score matched cohorts of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with mild macrosteatosis (10%-29%) (N = 96) and no steatosis (N = 96). Cardiac arrest at the time of reperfusion was seen in eight (8.3%) of the patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group compared to one (1.0%) of the patients in the mild macrosteatosis group (P = .02) and zero (0%) of the patients in the no steatosis group (P = .004). Patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (37.5% vs 18.8%; P = .004), early allograft dysfunction (EAD) (76.4% vs 25.8%; P < .001), renal dysfunction requiring continuous renal replacement therapy following transplant (18.8% vs 8.3%; P = .03) and return to the OR within 30 days (24.0% vs 7.3%; P = .002), than the no steatosis group. Both long-term patient (P = .30 and P = .08) and graft survival (P = .15 and P = .12) were not statistically when comparing the moderate macrosteatosis group to the mild macrosteatosis and no steatosis groups. Recipients of LT using livers with moderate macrosteatosis are at a significant increased risk of PRS. If patients are able to overcome the initial increased perioperative risk of using these donor livers, long-term graft survival does not appear to be different than matched recipients receiving grafts with no steatosis.