Implementation of an ERAS protocol on cirrhotic patients in liver resection: a cohort study.

The development of laparoscopic liver surgery, the improvement in the perioperative care programs, and the surgical innovation have allowed liver resections on selected cirrhotic patients. However, the great majority of ERAS studies for liver surgery have been conducted on patients with normal liver parenchyma, while its application on cirrhotic patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an ERAS protocol in cirrhotic patients who underwent liver surgery. We present an analytical observational prospective cohort study, which included all adult patients who underwent a liver resection between December 2017 and December 2019 with an ERAS program. We compare the outcomes in patients cirrhotic (CG)/non-cirrhotic (NCG). A total of 101 patients were included. Thirty of these (29.7%) were patients ≥ 70 cirrhotic. 87% of the both groups had performed > 70% of the ERAS. Oral diet tolerance and mobilization on the first postoperative day were similar in both groups. The hospital stay was similar in both groups (2.9 days/2.99 days). Morbidity and mortality were similar; Clavien I-II (CG: 44% vs NCG: 30%) and Clavien ≥ III (CG: 3% vs NCG: 8%). Hospital re-entry was higher in the NCG. Overall mortality of the study was 1%. ERAS protocol compliance was associated with a decrease in complications (ERAS < 70%: 80% vs ERAS > 90%: 20%; p: 0.02) and decrease in severity of complications in both study groups. The application of the ERAS program in cirrhotic patients who undergo liver surgery is feasible, safe, and reproducible. It allows postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, and readmission rates comparable to those in standard patients.

Primary Graft Dysfunction: Factor V's Value for Its Early Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Primary graft dysfunction is a common postoperative complication, lacking consensus regarding diagnostic criteria. Olthoff criteria are the most used, based on blood parameters in the first 7 postoperative days. This lack of consensus and late diagnosis evidence the need of early parameters. This study proposes factor V (FV) as a marker in the first 3 postoperative days for primary graft dysfunction. METHODS: Within a 500-patient database, 27 patients with graft loss in the first 90 days were chosen and compared with a group of 54 patients composed of the immediately preceding and following transplant to each case. Through receiver operating characteristic curves, FV and maximum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT) predictive value on the first 3 postoperative days were assessed. The best threshold value was selected according to the Youden index. RESULTS: FV was significantly higher in the control group, with second postoperative day as the highest discriminative one (area under the curve = 0.893). In addition, a cutoff point of FV 37.50 exhibited a specificity of 92% and sensibility of 69% in predicting allograft failure in the first 3 months. GPT showed a lower validity with area under the curve = 0.77, and a GPT of 1539 presented a specificity of 82% and sensibility of 67%. Combining FV < 37.5 and GPT > 1539, a specificity of 98% and sensibility of 55% was reached. CONCLUSIONS: FV could postulate as an early marker of primary graft dysfunction because of its high specificity despite having a lower sensibility. With de association of FV and GPT the maximum specificity for predicting graft loss in the first 3 months was reached, becoming a promising parameter for further analysis.

Outcome of Liver Transplants Using Donors After Cardiac Death With Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incorporation of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) to donors after cardiac death (DCD) allows the recovery of liver grafts without the deleterious effects on graft survival the super-rapid technique may cause. The aim of the present report is to determine if the use of NRP in Maastricht type III DCD donors achieves short- and medium-term results comparable to donors after brain death (DBD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational cohort study including 117 liver transplants executed between November 2016 and April 2021, divided into NRP (n = 39) and DBD (n = 78). RESULTS: Donors were younger in the NRP group (NRP 52 vs DBD 59.4 years; P < .005). Liver recipients in each study group were of similar age and severity of liver disease, although the predominant transplant indication in the NRP group was hepatocellular carcinoma. No differences in ischemia times were found. The incidence of early allograft disfunction and primary nonfunction was balanced between NRP and DBD. Eight patients required retransplant, all of them in the DBD group. No differences were found in biliary complications (NRP 12% vs DBD 5%; P = .104). Ischemic cholangiopathy affected a single DBD patient. Graft survival's Kaplan Meier curve shows a better outcome in the NRP group, although the difference did not reach significance (P = .075). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of perfusion machines, and specifically the NPR in situ, converts suboptimal liver grafts such as DCD into organs comparable to DBDs.

Results of liver transplantation with donors older than 80 years: a case control study.

AIM: The inclusion of elderly donors can increase the pool of organs available for transplant. BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients who received livers from donors aged ≥ 80 years vs. younger donors. METHODS: We considered all liver transplantations performed in our unit between January 2006 and January 2015. Twelve patients received liver from a cadaveric donor aged ≥ 80 years (study group) and their outcomes were compared with those of patients who received liver from a younger donor (control group). This study was carried out to analyze the characteristics of donors and recipients, as well as the clinical course and survival of recipients. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in donors' age (55.6 ± 14.4 vs. 82.7 ± 2.7 years, p < 0.001), donors' ICU stay (p = 0.008), donors' ALT levels (p = 0.009) and donors' AST levels (p = 0.01). Statistically significant differences were found in ischemia time (p < 0.05). In total, 8.3% of the recipients of liver from a donor aged < 80 required retransplantation vs. 25% of recipients of donor's ≥ 80 years. Patient survival at one, three and five years was 89%, 78.6% and 74.5%, respectively vs. 83.4%, 79.4% and 59.6% for the study group. CONCLUSION: Livers from older donors can be safely used for transplantation with acceptable patient survival rates. However, graft survival rates are lower for recipients of livers from older donors as compared to younger donors, and survival only increased with retransplantation.