Recent outcomes of liver transplantation for Budd-Chiari syndrome: A study of the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) and affiliated centers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Management of Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) has improved over the last decades. The main aim was to evaluate the contemporary post-liver transplant (post-LT) outcomes in Europe. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Data from all patients who underwent transplantation from 1976 to 2020 was obtained from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR). Patients < 16 years, with secondary BCS or HCC were excluded. Patient survival (PS) and graft survival (GS) before and after 2000 were compared. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified predictors of PS and GS after 2000. Supplemental data was requested from all ELTR-affiliated centers and received from 44. In all, 808 patients underwent transplantation between 2000 and 2020. One-, 5- and 10-year PS was 84%, 77%, and 68%, and GS was 79%, 70%, and 62%, respectively. Both significantly improved compared to outcomes before 2000 ( p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 50 months and retransplantation rate was 12%. Recipient age (aHR:1.04,95%CI:1.02-1.06) and MELD score (aHR:1.04,95%CI:1.01-1.06), especially above 30, were associated with worse PS, while male sex had better outcomes (aHR:0.63,95%CI:0.41-0.96). Donor age was associated with worse PS (aHR:1.01,95%CI:1.00-1.03) and GS (aHR:1.02,95%CI:1.01-1.03). In 353 patients (44%) with supplemental data, 33% had myeloproliferative neoplasm, 20% underwent TIPS pre-LT, and 85% used anticoagulation post-LT. Post-LT anticoagulation was associated with improved PS (aHR:0.29,95%CI:0.16-0.54) and GS (aHR:0.48,95%CI:0.29-0.81). Hepatic artery thrombosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) occurred in 9% and 7%, while recurrent BCS was rare (3%). CONCLUSIONS: LT for BCS results in excellent patient- and graft-survival. Older recipient or donor age and higher MELD are associated with poorer outcomes, while long-term anticoagulation improves both patient and graft outcomes.

Transplant benefit-based offering of deceased donor livers in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The National Liver Offering Scheme (NLOS) was introduced in the UK in 2018 to offer livers from deceased donors to patients on the national waiting list based, for most patients, on calculated transplant benefit. Before NLOS, livers were offered to transplant centres by geographic donor zones and, within centres, by estimated recipient need for a transplant. METHODS: UK Transplant Registry data on patient registrations and transplants were analysed to build statistical models for survival on the list (M1) and survival post-transplantation (M2). A separate cohort of registrations - not seen by the models before - was analysed to simulate what liver allocation would have been under M1, M2 and a transplant benefit score (TBS) model (combining both M1 and M2), and to compare these allocations to what had been recorded in the UK Transplant Registry. The number of deaths on the waiting list and patient life years were used to compare the different simulation scenarios and to select the optimal allocation model. Registry data were monitored, pre- and post-NLOS, to understand the performance of the scheme. RESULTS: The TBS was identified as the optimal model to offer donation after brain death (DBD) livers to adult and large paediatric elective recipients. In the first 2 years of NLOS, 68% of DBD livers were offered using the TBS to this type of recipient. Monitoring data indicate that mortality on the waiting list post-NLOS significantly decreased compared with pre-NLOS (p <0.0001), and that patient survival post-listing was significantly greater post- compared to pre-NLOS (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In the first two years of NLOS offering, waiting list mortality fell while post-transplant survival was not negatively impacted, delivering on the scheme's objectives. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The National Liver Offering Scheme (NLOS) was introduced in the UK in 2018 to increase transparency of the deceased donor liver offering process, maximise the overall survival of the waiting list population, and improve equity of access to liver transplantation. To our knowledge, it is the first scheme that offers organs based on statistical prediction of transplant benefit: the transplant benefit score. The results are important to the transplant community - from healthcare practitioners to patients - and demonstrate that, in the first two years of NLOS offering, waiting list mortality fell while post-transplant survival was not negatively impacted, thus delivering on the scheme's objectives. The scheme continues to be monitored to ensure that the transplant benefit score remains up-to-date and that signals that suggest the possible disadvantage of some patients are investigated.

One-year transplant-free survival following hospital discharge after ICU admission for ACLF in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis or acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) often require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for organ support. Existing research, mostly from specialized liver transplant centers, largely addresses short-term outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate in-hospital mortality and 1-year transplant-free survival after hospital discharge in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide observational cohort study, including patients with a history of cirrhosis or first complications of cirrhotic portal hypertension admitted to ICUs in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2020. The influence of ACLF grade at ICU admission on 1-year transplant-free survival after hospital discharge among hospital survivors was evaluated using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and an adjusted Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Out of the 3,035 patients, 1,819 (59.9%) had ACLF-3. 1,420 patients (46.8%) survived hospitalization after ICU admission. The overall probability of 1-year transplant-free survival after hospital discharge was 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.64). This rate varied with ACLF grade at ICU admission, being highest in patients without ACLF (0.71; 95% CI 0.66-0.76) and lowest in those with ACLF-3 (0.53 [95% CI 0.49-0.58]) (log-rank p <0.0001). However, after adjusting for age, malignancy status and MELD score, ACLF grade at ICU admission was not associated with an increased risk of liver transplantation or death within 1 year after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort study, ACLF grade at ICU admission did not independently affect 1-year transplant-free survival after hospital discharge. Instead, age, presence of malignancy and the severity of liver disease played a more prominent role in influencing transplant-free survival after hospital discharge. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure often require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for organ support. In these patients, short-term mortality is high, but long-term outcomes of survivors remain unknown. Using a large nationwide cohort of ICU patients, we discovered that the severity of acute-on-chronic liver failure at ICU admission does not influence 1-year transplant-free survival after hospital discharge. Instead, age, malignancy status and overall severity of liver disease are more critical factors in determining their long-term survival.

Evaluation of a delayed liver transplantation strategy for patients with HCC receiving bridging therapy: the DELTA-HCC study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To maximize utility and prevent premature liver transplantation (LT), a delayed LT strategy (DS) was adopted in France in 2015 in patients listed for any single HCC treated with resection or thermal ablation during the waiting phase. The DS involves postponing LT until recurrence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the DS to make sure that it did not hamper pre- and post-LT outcomes. METHODS: Patients listed for HCC in France between 2015 and 2018 were studied. After data extraction from the national LT database, 2,025 patients were identified and classified according to six groups: single tumor entering DS, single tumor not entering DS, multiple tumors, no curative treatment, untreatable HCC or T1 tumors. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 18-month risk of dropout for death, too sick to be transplanted or tumor progression before LT, 5-year post-LT HCC recurrence and post-LT survival rates were compared. RESULTS: Median waiting-time in the DS group was 910 days. Pre-LT dropout probability was significantly lower in the DS group compared to other groups (13% vs. 19%, p = 0.0043) and significantly higher in the T1 group (25.4%, p = 0.05). Post-LT HCC recurrence rate in the multiple nodules group was significantly higher (19.6%, p = 0.019), while 5-year post-LT survival did not differ among groups and was 74% in the DS group (p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: The DELTA-HCC study shows that DS does not negatively impact either pre- nor post-LT patient outcomes, and has the potential to allow for redistribution of organs to patients in more urgent need of LT. It can reasonably be proposed and pursued. The unexpectedly high risk of dropout in T1 patients seems related to the MELD-based offering rules underserving this subgroup. IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS: To maximize utility and prevent premature liver transplantation (LT), a delayed LT strategy was adopted in France in 2015. It involves postponing LT until recurrence in patients listed for any single HCC curatively treated by surgical resection or thermal ablation. The DELTA-HCC study was conducted to evaluate this nationwide strategy. It shows in a European LT program that delayed strategy does not negatively impact pre- nor post-LT patient outcomes and is relevant to up to 20% of LT candidates; thus, it could potentially enable the redistribution of organs to patients in more urgent need of LT. Such a delayed strategy can reasonably be pursued and extended to other LT programs. Of note, an unexpectedly high risk of dropout in T1 patients, seemingly related to MELD-based offering rules which underserve these patients, calls for further scrutinization and revision of allocation rules in this subgroup.

Pediatric liver transplant recipients are not just young adults: The importance of a structured health care transition program in adult transplant centers.

Health care transition (HCT) is a vulnerable period that continues into adulthood, even after the transfer of care. Given the growing population of pediatric liver transplant recipients reaching young adulthood, the need for a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to transition that spans from pediatric to adult care is becoming more imperative. In this article, we review the unique challenges and barriers to successful HCT that adolescent and young adults (AYAs) who have undergone liver transplant face, highlight the gap in transition care in the adult setting, and present the Six Core Elements of Health Care Transition TM as a framework that can be used by adult providers to incorporate AYAs systematically and collaboratively into adult practice. Multidisciplinary HCT programs should be the standard of care for all AYAs with liver transplant, and while implementation is a necessary first step, ongoing efforts to increase awareness, funding, and research on HCTs into adulthood are needed.

A retrospective cohort study of socioeconomic deprivation and post-liver transplant survival in adults.

The Area Deprivation Index is a granular measure of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. The relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and recipient survival following liver transplantation (LT) is unclear. To investigate this, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent LT at the University of Washington Medical Center from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The primary exposure was a degree of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation as determined by the Area Deprivation Index score. The primary outcome was posttransplant recipient mortality. In a multivariable Cox proportional analysis, LT recipients from high-deprivation areas had a higher risk of mortality than those from low-deprivation areas (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.03-3.18, p =0.04). Notably, the difference in mortality between area deprivation groups did not become statistically significant until 6 years after transplantation. In summary, LT recipients experiencing high socioeconomic deprivation tended to have worse posttransplant survival. Further research is needed to elucidate the extent to which neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation contributes to mortality risk and identify effective measures to improve survival in more socioeconomically disadvantaged LT recipients.

A cost comparison of liver acquisition fees for donation after circulatory death versus donation after brain death donors.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors now represent over 30% of the deceased donor pool in the United States. Compared to donation after brain death, DCD is less likely to result in transplantation. For each potential donor whose organs cannot be utilized for transplantation (ie, dry run), fees are associated with the attempted donation, which add to the overall costs of organ acquisition. To better characterize the true costs of DCD liver acquisition, we performed a cost comparison of the fees associated with organ acquisition for DCD versus donation after brain death at a single transplant institute that comprises 2 liver transplant centers. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases, including fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2021, were collected. We found that the total cost of DCD liver acquisition per liver transplant was $15,029 more than that for donation after brain death donation, with 18% of the costs of the DCD transplant attributed to dry runs. Overall, the costs associated with DCD transplantation accounted for 34.5% of the total organ acquisition costs; however, DCD transplantation accounted for 30.3% of the transplantation volume. Because the expansion of DCD is essential to increasing the availability of liver grafts for transplantation, strategies need to be implemented to decrease the costs associated with dry runs, including using local recovery, transferring donors to hospitals close to transplant centers, and performing more prerecovery organ analysis. Moreover, these strategies are needed to ensure that financial disincentives to DCD procurement and utilization do not reverse the gains made by expanding the organ donor pool using machine perfusion technologies.

The financial burden after liver transplantation is significant among commercially insured adults: A large US National Cohort.

Liver transplantation (LT) is lifesaving for patients with cirrhosis; however, the resultant financial burden to patients has not been well characterized. We aimed to provide a nationally representative portrayal of patient financial burden after LT. Adult recipients of LT from 2006 to 2021 were identified using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics-a large nationally representative claims database of commercially insured Americans. Patient financial liability (ie, what patients owe) was estimated using the difference between allowed and paid costs for adjudicated medical/pharmacy claims. Descriptive statistics were provided stratified by the financial liability group within 1 year after LT. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified factors associated with high/extreme liability adjusting for covariates. Potential indirect costs of post-LT care were estimated based on hourly wages lost for care. Among 1412 recipients of LT, financial liability was heterogeneous-~3% had no liability and 21% had extreme liability > $10K for 1-year post-LT care; most (69%) paid between $1 and 10K, with 48% having liability >$5K. Factors associated with >$5K liability included older age, insurance/enrollment type, US region, history of HCC, and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (for liability >$10K). Medication costs comprised ~30% of outpatient financial liability. Potential indirect costs from wages lost were $2,201-$6,073 per person, depending on an hourly wage. In a large national cohort of commercially insured recipients of LT, financial liability was highly variable across sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; nearly 1 out of 2 recipients of LT owed >$5K for 1 year of post-LT care. Transplant programs should help patients anticipate potential costs and identify vulnerable populations who would benefit from enhanced financial counseling.

Identifying drivers of cost in pediatric liver transplantation.

Understanding the economics of pediatric liver transplantation (LT) is central to high-value care initiatives. We examined cost and resource utilization in pediatric LT nationally to identify drivers of cost and hospital factors associated with greater total cost of care. We reviewed 3295 children (<21 y) receiving an LT from 2010 to 2020 in the Pediatric Health Information System to study cost, both per LT and service line, and associated mortality, complications, and resource utilization. To facilitate comparisons, patients were stratified into high-cost, intermediate-cost, or low-cost tertiles based on LT cost. The median cost per LT was $150,836 [IQR $104,481-$250,129], with marked variance in cost within and between hospital tertiles. High-cost hospitals (HCHs) cared for more patients with the highest severity of illness and mortality risk levels (67% and 29%, respectively), compared to intermediate-cost (60%, 21%; p <0.001) and low-cost (51%, 16%; p <0.001) hospitals. Patients at HCHs experienced a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation, total parental nutrition use, renal comorbidities, and surgical complications than other tertiles. Clinical (27.5%), laboratory (15.1%), and pharmacy (11.9%) service lines contributed most to the total cost. Renal comorbidities ($69,563) and total parental nutrition use ($33,192) were large, independent contributors to total cost, irrespective of the cost tertile ( p <0.001). There exists a significant variation in pediatric LT cost, with HCHs caring for more patients with higher illness acuity and resource needs. Studies are needed to examine drivers of cost and associated outcomes more granularly, with the goal of defining value and standardizing care. Such efforts may uniquely benefit the sicker patients requiring the strategic resources located within HCHs to achieve the best outcomes.

Controversies in terlipressin and transplantation in the United States: How do we MELD the two?

Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is a severe complication of cirrhosis that carries a poor prognosis. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of terlipressin has substantial implications for managing HRS-AKI and liver allocation in the United States. Terlipressin has been available in Europe for over a decade, and several countries have adapted policy changes such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score "lock" for HRS-AKI. In this article, we outline the European experience with terlipressin use and explore the question of whether terlipressin treatment for HRS-AKI should qualify for the MELD score "lock" in the United States in those who respond to therapy. Arguments for the MELD lock include protecting waitlist priority for terlipressin responders or partial responders who may miss offers due to MELD reduction in the terlipressin treatment window. Arguments against MELD lock include the fact that terlipressin may produce a durable response and improve overall survival and that equitable access to terlipressin is not guaranteed due to cost and availability. We subsequently discuss the proposed next steps for studying terlipressin implementation in the United States. A successful approach will require the involvement of all major stakeholders and the mobilization of our transplant community to spearhead research in this area.

Financial burden following adult liver transplantation is common and associated with adverse recipient outcomes.

The financial impact of liver transplantation has been underexplored. We aimed to identify associations between high financial burden (≥10% annual income spent on out-of-pocket medical costs) and work productivity, financial distress (coping behaviors in response to the financial burden), and financial toxicity (health-related quality of life, HRQOL) among adult recipients of liver transplant. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we surveyed 207 adult recipients of liver transplant across 5 US transplant centers. Financial burden and distress were measured by 25 items adapted from national surveys of cancer survivors. Participants also completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L HRQOL questionnaires. In total, 23% of recipients reported high financial burden which was significantly associated with higher daily activity impairment (32.9% vs. 23.3%, p =0.048). In adjusted analyses, the high financial burden was significantly and independently associated with delayed or foregone medical care (adjusted odds ratio, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.85-8.42) and being unable to afford basic necessities (adjusted odds ratio, 5.12; 95% CI: 1.61-16.37). Recipients experiencing high financial burden had significantly lower self-reported HRQOL as measured by the EQ-5D-5L compared to recipients with low financial burden (67.8 vs. 76.1, p =0.008) and an age-matched and sex-matched US general population (67.8 vs. 79.1, p <0.001). In this multicenter cohort study, nearly 1 in 4 adult recipients of liver transplant experienced a high financial burden, which was significantly associated with delayed or foregone medical care and lower self-reported HRQOL. These findings underscore the need to evaluate and address the financial burden in this population before and after transplantation.

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Insights from the latest UNOS database.

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

Incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute allograft rejection following liver transplantation in Australia.

Acute allograft rejection is a well-known complication of liver transplantation (LT). The incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute rejection have not been well described in Australia. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT at a single center between 2010 and 2020. Donor and recipient data at the time of LT and recipient outcomes were collected from a prospective LT database. Liver biopsy reports were reviewed, and only a graft's first instance of biopsy-proven acute rejection was analyzed. During the study period, 796 liver transplants were performed in 770 patients. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 34.9% of transplants. There were no significant changes in the incidence of rejection over time (linear trend p =0.11). The median time to the first episode of rejection was 71 days after LT: 2.2% hyperacute, 50.4% early (≤90 d), and 47.5% late rejection (>90 d). Independent risk factors for rejection were younger recipient age at transplant (aHR 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00, p =0.01), and ABO-incompatible grafts (aHR 2.55 vs. ABO-compatible, 95% CI: 1.27-5.09, p <0.01) while simultaneous multiorgan transplants were protective (aHR 0.21 vs. LT only, 95% CI: 0.08-0.58, p <0.01). Development of acute rejection (both early and late) was independently associated with significantly reduced graft (aHR 3.13, 95% CI: 2.21-4.42, p <0.001) and patient survival (aHR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.35-4.98, p <0.001). In this 11-year Australian study, acute LT rejection occurred in 35%, with independent risk factors of younger recipient age and ABO-incompatible transplant, while having a simultaneous multiorgan transplant was protective. Acute rejection was independently associated with reduced graft and patient survival after adjustment for other factors.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

Waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of pregnancy-related acute liver failure in the United States.

Data on the liver transplant (LT) outcomes of women with acute liver failure (ALF) due to liver diseases unique to pregnancy (P-ALF) are limited. Using United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) data (1987-2021), we analyzed waitlist and post-LT outcomes of ALF in women of childbearing age comparing P-ALF versus ALF due to liver diseases not unique to pregnancy. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups at the time of listing for LT. Of 3542 females aged 16-43 years and listed for LT for ALF, 84 (2%) listed for P-ALF were less likely to be Black (11 vs. 21%, p =0.033), have lower international normalized ratio (2.74 vs. 4.53 p <0.002), but more likely to have respiratory failure (56% vs. 41%, p <0.005), be on pressors (58% vs. 43%, p <0.005), and require dialysis (23% vs. 10%, p <0.001). The cumulative 90-day waitlist mortality (WLM) was lower in P-ALF vs. ALF due to liver diseases not unique to pregnancy (7.4 vs. 16.6%, p <0.001). Posttransplant survival rates at 5 years were similar (82% vs. 79%, p =0.89). In a Fine and Gray regression model controlled for listing year and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, 90-day WLM was lower in P-ALF with a sub-HR of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.19-0.94, p =0.035). Of 84 women with P-ALF and listed for LT, 45 listed for hemolysis-elevated liver enzymes-low platelets (HELLP) versus 39 for acute fatty liver of pregnancy had higher 90-day WLM (19.3% vs. 5.7% p <0.005). The 90-day WLM was about 10-fold higher in HELLP versus acute fatty liver of pregnancy with a sub-HR of 9.97 (95% CI: 1.64-60.55, p =0.013). In this UNOS database analysis of ALF among women of childbearing age, the waitlist outcome is better in women with P-ALF compared to women with ALF due to liver diseases not unique to pregnancy. Among women with P-ALF, the 90-day WLM is worse for HELLP versus acute fatty liver of pregnancy. Further studies are needed to improve the management of HELLP and prevent the development of ALF in this subgroup population.

Pursuing living donor liver transplantation improves outcomes of patients with autoimmune liver diseases: An intention-to-treat analysis.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [ p <0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [ p <0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p =0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [ p >0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

Bariatric surgery post-liver transplantation: A Belgian nationwide study.

Weight gain poses a rising concern post-liver transplantation (LT), and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease might impair graft health. The timing is crucial when considering bariatric surgery (BS) in a population with liver disease or transplantation. BS can be considered for post-LT weight gain, although the evidence is limited and the long-term outcome still uncertain. We conducted a national retrospective analysis in 5 Belgian transplant centers and included 25 patients with an LT followed by a bariatric procedure. A total of 187 LT patients without BS were included for comparison. Clinical, biochemical, and outcome data were retrospectively retrieved. In our nationwide cohort, 25 patients had undergone BS post-LT, at a median 3.5 years after LT. Twenty-one (84.0%) patients received a sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Patients were predominantly male (72.0%), with a lower age at time of transplantation compared with the non-BS population (54.5 vs. 60.6, p <0.001). Weight loss was significant and sustained, with a decrease in body mass index from 41.0±4.5 pre-BS to 32.6±5.8 1-3 years post-BS ( p <0.001) and 31.1±5.8 3-5 years post-BS ( p <0.001). Three pre-BS (12.0%) patients presented with recurrent and one (4.0%) de novo metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease after LT, with 100% resolution post-BS ( p =0.016). Notable reductions were observed in alanine transaminase levels (40.5±28.5 U/L to 27.1±25.1 U/L post-BS, p =0.05) and HbA1c levels (6.9±1.6 to 6.0±1.4 post-BS, p <0.001). Three patients were re-transplanted, and eight patients died, of which five (20.0%) due to a nonhepatic malignancy and one (4.0%) due to liver failure. SG is the favored BS post-LT and has proven to be safe and feasible in a post-LT setting with favorable metabolic consequences. SG post-LT is a valid treatment for de novo and recurrent metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease post-LT. Although we report on the largest cohort to date, there is still a need for larger cohorts to examine the effect of BS on patient and graft survival.

Recipient hepatectomy technique may affect oncological outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.

Barriers to liver transplant referral in safety net settings: A national provider survey.

Safety net systems care for patients with a high burden of liver disease yet experience many barriers to liver transplant (LT) referral. This study aimed to assess safety net providers' perspectives on barriers to LT referrals in the United States. We conducted a nationwide anonymous online survey of self-identified safety net gastroenterologists and hepatologists from March through November 2022. This 27-item survey was disseminated via e-mail, society platforms, and social media. Survey sections included practice characteristics, transplant referral practices, perceived multilevel barriers to referral, potential solutions, and respondent characteristics. Fifty complete surveys were included in analysis. A total of 60.0% of respondents self-identified as White and 54.0% male. A total of 90.0% practiced in an urban setting, 82.0% in tertiary medical centers, and 16.0% in community settings, with all 4 US regions represented. Perceived patient-level barriers ranked as most significant, followed by practice-level, then provider-level barriers. Patient-level barriers such as lack of insurance (72.0%), finances (66.0%), social support (66.0%), and stable housing/transportation (64.0%) were ranked as significant barriers to referral, while medical mistrust and lack of interest were not. Limited access to financial services (36.0%) and addiction/mental health resources (34.0%) were considered important practice-level barriers. Few reported existing access to patient navigators (12.0%), and patient navigation was ranked as most likely to improve referral practices, followed by an expedited/expanded pathway for insurance coverage for LT. In this national survey, safety net providers reported the highest barriers to LT referral at the patient level and practice level. These data can inform the development of multilevel interventions in safety net settings to enhance equity in LT access for vulnerable patients.

Caregivers' and providers' perspectives of social and medical care after pediatric liver transplant: Results from the multicenter SOCIAL-Tx study.

Disparities exist in pediatric liver transplant (LT). We characterized barriers and facilitators to providing transplant and social care within pediatric LT clinics. This was a multicenter qualitative study. We oversampled caregivers reporting household financial strain, material economic hardship, or demonstrating poor health literacy. We also enrolled transplant team members. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants. Caregiver interviews focused on challenges addressing transplant and household needs. Transplant provider interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to providing social care within transplant teams. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model. We interviewed 27 caregivers and 27 transplant team members. Fifty-two percent of caregivers reported a household income <$60,000, and 62% reported financial resource strain. Caregivers reported experiencing (1) high financial burdens after LT, (2) added caregiving labor that compounds the financial burden, (3) dependency on their social network's generosity for financial and logistical support, and (4) additional support being limited to the perioperative period. Transplant providers reported (1) relying on the pretransplant psychosocial assessment for identifying social risks, (2) discomfort initiating social risk discussions in the post-transplant period, (3) reliance on social workers to address new social risks, and (4) social workers feeling overburdened by quantity and quality of the social work referrals. We identified barriers to providing effective social care in pediatric LT, primarily a lack of comfort in assessing and addressing new social risks in the post-transplant period. Addressing these barriers should enhance social care delivery and improve outcomes for these children.