Combined lung-liver-pancreas transplantation in a recipient with cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects multiple organs including the lung, liver, and pancreas. Lung transplant, liver transplant, and combined lung-liver transplant have become well-established therapies for CF patients with end-stage organ failure. Thus far, however, there has been limited experience with pancreas transplantation in CF. In this report, we detail the clinical history, transplant procedure, and post-operative recovery of a patient who underwent combined lung-liver-pancreas transplant for advanced CF.

Donor BMI >30 Is Not a Contraindication for Live Liver Donation.

The increased prevalence of obesity worldwide threatens the pool of living liver donors. Although the negative effects of graft steatosis on liver donation and transplantation are well known, the impact of obesity in the absence of hepatic steatosis on outcome of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unknown. Consequently, we compared the outcome of LDLT using donors with BMI <30 versus donors with BMI ≥30. Between April 2000 and May 2014, 105 patients received a right-lobe liver graft from donors with BMI ≥30, whereas 364 recipients were transplanted with grafts from donors with BMI <30. Liver steatosis >10% was excluded in all donors with BMI >30 by imaging and liver biopsies. None of the donors had any other comorbidity. Donors with BMI <30 versus ≥30 had similar postoperative complication rates (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b: 2% vs. 3%; p = 0.71) and lengths of hospital stay (6 vs. 6 days; p = 0.13). Recipient graft function, assessed by posttransplant peak serum bilirubin and international normalized ratio was identical. Furthermore, no difference was observed in recipient complication rates (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b: 25% vs. 20%; p = 0.3) or lengths of hospital stay between groups. We concluded that donors with BMI ≥30, in the absence of graft steatosis, are not contraindicated for LDLT.

Inducing Hepatitis C Virus Resistance After Pig Liver Transplantation-A Proof of Concept of Liver Graft Modification Using Warm Ex Vivo Perfusion.

Normothermic ex vivo liver perfusion (NEVLP) offers the potential to optimize graft function prior to liver transplantation (LT). Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is dependent on the presence of miRNA(microRNA)-122. Miravirsen, a locked-nucleic acid oligonucleotide, sequesters miR-122 and inhibits HCV replication. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of delivering miravirsen during NEVLP to inhibit miR-122 function in a pig LT model. Pig livers were treated with miravirsen during NEVLP or cold storage (CS). Miravirsen absorption, miR-122 sequestration, and miR-122 target gene derepression were determined before and after LT. The effect of miravirsen treatment on HCV infection of hepatoma cells was also assessed. NEVLP improved miravirsen uptake versus CS. Significant miR-122 sequestration and miR-122 target gene derepression were seen with NEVLP but not with CS. In vitro data confirmed miravirsen suppression of HCV replication after established infection and prevented HCV infection with pretreatment of cells, analogous to the pretreatment of grafts in the transplant setting. In conclusion, miravirsen delivery during NEVLP is a potential strategy to prevent HCV reinfection after LT. This is the first large-animal study to provide "proof of concept" for using NEVLP to modify and optimize liver grafts for transplantation.

Ex-vivo liver perfusion for organ preservation: Recent advances in the field.

Liver transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage liver disease but is limited by the severe shortage of donor organs. This shortage has prompted increased utilization of marginal grafts from DCD and extended criteria donors, which poorly tolerate cold storage in comparison to standard criteria grafts. Ex-vivo liver perfusion (EVLP) technology has emerged as a potential alternative to cold storage for organ preservation, but there is no consensus regarding the optimal temperature or conditions for EVLP. Herein, we review recent advances in both pre-clinical and clinical studies, organized by perfusion temperature (hypothermic, subnormothermic, normothermic).

Live donor liver transplantation: a valid alternative for critically ill patients suffering from acute liver failure.

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0-7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0-10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18-72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work-up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short- and long-term outcomes.

Benefit of Treating Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Liver Transplantation and Analysis of Prognostic Factors for Survival in a Large Euro-American Series.

PURPOSE: To identify prognostic factors after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the combined experience at Toronto General Hospital and Hospital Vall d'Hebron managing HCC recurrence after LT (n = 121) between 2000 and 2012. We analyzed prognostic factors by uni- and multi-variate analysis. Median follow-up from LT was 29.5 (range 2-129.4) months. Median follow-up from HCC recurrence was 12.2 (range 0.1-112.5) months. RESULTS: At recurrence, 31.4 % were treated with curative-intent treatments (surgery or ablation), 42.1 % received palliative treatment, and 26.4 % received best supportive care. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survivals, respectively, after HCC recurrence were 75, 60, and 31 %, vs. 60, 19, and 12 %, vs. 52, 4, and 5 % (p < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, not being amenable to a curative-intent treatment [hazard ratio (HR) 4.7, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.7-8.3, p < 0.001], α-fetoprotein of ≥100 ng/mL at the time of HCC recurrence (HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.3-2.3, p = 0.002) and early recurrence (<12 months) after LT (HR 1.6, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5, p = 0.03) were found to be poor prognosis factors. A prognostic score was devised on the basis of these three independent variables. Patients were divided into three groups, as follows: good prognosis, 0 points (n = 22); moderate prognosis, 1 or 2 points (n = 84); and poor prognosis, 3 points (n = 15). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival for each group was 91, 50, and 50 %, vs. 52, 7, and 2 %, vs. 13, 0, and 0 %, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HCC recurrence after transplant amenable to curative-intent treatments can experience significant long-term survival (~50 % at 5 years), so aggressive management should be offered. Poor prognosis factors after recurrence are not being amenable to a curative-intent treatment, α-fetoprotein of ≥100 ng/mL, and early (<1 year) recurrence after LT.

Living vs. deceased donor liver transplantation provides comparable recovery of renal function in patients with hepatorenal syndrome: a matched case-control study.

Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation in patients with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) was compared using a matched pair study design. Thirty patients with HRS receiving a live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and 90 HRS patients receiving a full graft deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were compared. LDLT versus DDLT of patients with HRS was associated with decreased peak aspartate aminotransferase levels (339 ± 214 vs. 935 ± 1253 U/L; p = 0.0001), and similar 7-day bilirubin (8.42 ± 7.89 vs. 6.95 ± 7.13 mg/dL; p = 0.35), and international normalized ratio levels (1.93 ± 0.62 vs. 1.78 ± 0.78; p = 0.314). LDLT vs. DDLT had a decreased intensive care unit (2 [1-39] vs. 4 [0-93] days; p = 0.004), and hospital stay (17 [4-313] vs. 26 [0-126] days; p = 0.016) and a similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (20% vs. 27%; p = 0.62). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding graft survival at 1 (80% vs. 82%), at 3 (69% vs. 76%) and 5 years (65% vs. 76%) (p = 0.63), as well as patient survival at 1 (83% vs. 82%), 3 (72% vs. 77%) and 5 years (72% vs. 77%) (p = 0.93). The incidence of chronic kidney disease post-LT (10% vs. 6%; p = 0.4) was similar between both groups. LDLT results in identical long-term outcome when compared with DDLT in patients with HRS.

Extremely marginal liver grafts from deceased donors have outcome similar to ideal grafts.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a worldwide need to expand the donor pool, many cadaveric marginal livers are usually discarded for transplantation. Herein, we report the outcome of a series of patients receiving marginal grafts. METHODS: We analyzed all patients who underwent liver transplantation in our unit from August 2006 to March 2011 (n = 125) with the use of a prospectively collected database. Patients with ≥3 of donor (prolonged hypotensive episodes, donor age >55 years, high vasopressor drug requirement, hypernatremia, prolonged intensive care unit stay, elevated transaminases) and graft-related (cold ischemia >12 hours, warm ischemia time >40 minutes and steatosis >30%) extended criteria were defined as extremely marginal liver grafts (EMLG). The outcomes of patients receiving EMLG were compared with the recipients of grafts without any marginal criteria (ideal grafts). RESULTS: The EMLG group (n = 36) showed higher operative transfusion requirement (66.6% vs 55.6%) as well as 30-day (11.1% vs 55%) and 1-year (22.2% vs 5.5%) mortality rates, compared with the ideal grafts group (n = 18) but without a significant difference. Other variables, such as major complications, postoperative hemodialysis, ICU and hospital stay, and 1-year survival also were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The liver pool can be safely expanded using EMLG from deceased donors for liver transplantation. These usually discarded liver grafts showed similar early and long-term outcomes compared with ideal organs.

Liver transplantation using Chagas-infected donors in uninfected recipients: a single-center experience without prophylactic therapy.

Organ shortage is the first cause of death on liver transplant waiting lists. As a consequence, we recently decided to expand liver acceptance to those organs that could potentially transmit infectious diseases to their recipients. On January 2010, we initiated a prospective protocol using livers from Chagas-infected donors for transplanting uninfected recipients without using prophylactic therapy. During a 13-month period, 9 of 37 (24%) liver transplants were performed within this protocol. After transplant, each recipient was sequentially and strictly monitored for infection transmission using the Strout method and promptly treated with benznidazole if this occurs. During follow-up, two patients died without Chagas infection and only two (donor-derived T. cruzi transmission rate: 2/9; 22%) patients developed donor-derived Chagas transmission without clinical symptoms. The median follow-up time of the seven live patients was 15 months (range: 13-20). At present, all are symptoms-free with excellent allograft function and without evidence of Chagas disease. In conclusion, we consider that Chagas-infected donors are a promising source of liver grafts that could reduce the growing mortality on liver waiting lists in America. Relevant data from larger prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary excellent results.