Effect of vessel preservation on splenic volume and function in patients with spleen preserving distal pancreatectomies.

BACKGROUND: Spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (SpDP) can be accomplished by a variety of surgical approaches, but the impact on spleen function is unknown. This study aimed to compare spleen volume, function and complications between patients who underwent vessel sparing (VSDP) vs. vessel ligating (Warshaw, WDP) SpDP. METHODS: All patients who underwent SpDP at the Toronto General Hospital from 2006 to 2015 were included. Primary outcomes were pre- and post-operative spleen volumes and contrast enhancement on CT, hematologic parameters, and spleen-related complications. RESULTS: 82 patients underwent SpDP with median follow up of 20.4 months. Splenic volumes were able to be calculated on 44 patients (VSDP n = 8, WDP n = 36). There was no difference between WDP and VSDP in operative duration, blood loss, hospital length of stay, or Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complication rate. Spleen volumes did not differ from baseline in either group. On postoperative imaging more WDP patients had areas of splenic hypoperfusion (p = 0.032). These differences resolved by 3 months after surgery, there were no instances of long term infectious or bleeding complications related to poor splenic function or gastric varices. CONCLUSION: Both WDP and VSDP achieve splenic preservation. Neither technique resulted in clinically apparent spleen related complications. There is no difference in splenic volume and function in the short/long term.

Management and surveillance of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: /Objective. To determine the outcomes of a non-operative management approach for sporadic, small, non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours initially managed non-operatively at a single institution was performed. Patients were identified through a search of radiologic reports, and individuals with ≥2 cross-sectional imaging studies performed >6 months apart from Jan. 1, 2000 to Dec. 31, 2013 were included. Data on tumour size, radiologic characteristics at diagnosis, interval radiologic growth, and surgical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Over the thirteen-year study period, 95 patients met inclusion criteria and were followed radiologically for a median of 36 months (18-69 months). Median initial tumour size on first imaging was 14.0 mm (IQR 10-19 mm). Median overall tumour growth rate was 0.03 mm/month (IQR: 0.00-0.14 mm/month). There was no significant relationship between initial tumour size and growth rate for tumours ≤ 2 cm or for lesions between 2 and 4 cm. Thirteen (14%) patients initially managed non-operatively underwent resection during the follow-up period. Reasons for surgery included interval tumour growth, patient anxiety or preference, or diagnostic uncertainty. Median time to surgery was 14 months (IQR 8-19 months). No patients progressed beyond resectability or developed metastatic disease during the observation period. CONCLUSION: For patients with sporadic, small, non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, radiologic surveillance appears to be a safe initial approach to management.

Effect of portal vein embolization on treatment plan prior to major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein embolization (PVE) is used before major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to increase future liver remnant (FLR) volume. However, this may increase tumour growth rate, leading to more extensive resections. This study aimed to determine the effect of tumour growth, following PVE, on treatment plan. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study conducted on patients treated from 2008 to 2015 with PVE before major hepatectomy for HCC. Liver and tumour volumetry was performed on pre- and post-PVE CT scans. Image-based and actioned plans were compared before and after PVE. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received PVE. Non-tumour total liver volume decreased (median 1440 to 1394 cm3; p = 0.031), while tumour (median 161-240 cm3; p < 0.001) and FLR volumes (median 430-574 cm3; p < 0.001) increased. The treatment plan changed in 15/31 patients: more extensive resection (n = 6), less extensive resection (n = 1), no resection as scheduled (n = 8). Tumour progression accounted for a clinically relevant change in treatment plan in 8/31 patients. CONCLUSION: Following PVE in the setting of HCC, tumour progression accounts for a change in treatment plan in approximately a quarter of patients. Further research is warranted to determine whether additional liver directed therapy should routinely be used to slow the growth of HCC post-PVE.

Patterns and Predictors of Mortality After Waitlist Dropout of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information about survival after dropout from the liver transplant waiting list. Therefore, we aimed to assess the overall survival, and risk factors for death, after waiting list dropout due to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression. METHODS: We assessed patients who dropped out of the liver transplant waiting list between 2000 and 2016 in a single, large academic North American center. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the types of HCC progression: locally advanced disease (LAD), extrahepatic disease (EHD), and macrovascular invasion (MVI). The primary outcome was overall survival. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of death after dropout were assessed by multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: During the study period, 172 patients dropped out due to HCC progression. Of those, 37 (21.5%), 74 (43%), and 61 (35.5%) dropped out due to LAD, EHD, and MVI, respectively. Median survival according to cause of dropout (LAD, EHD, or MVI) was 1.0, 4.4, or 3.3 months, respectively (P = 0.01). Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.08), alcoholic liver disease (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.02-2.71), and α-fetoprotein >1000 ng/mL (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.22-2.84) were predictors of mortality after dropout. Dropout due to EHD (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98) and undergoing treatment after dropout were protective factors (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.48) for death. CONCLUSIONS: Patient prognosis after dropout is dismal. However, a subgroup of patients may have longer survival. The present study identifies the patterns of waitlist dropout in patients with HCC and provides evidence for the effectiveness of treatment strategies offered to HCC patients after dropout.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death. CONCLUSION: Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period. LAY SUMMARY: Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Outcomes of radiofrequency ablation as first-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma less than 3 cm in potentially transplantable patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an effective treatment for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤3 cm. Disease recurrence is common, and in some patients will occur outside transplant criteria. We aimed to assess the incidence and risk factors for recurrence beyond Milan criteria in potentially transplantable patients treated with RFA as first-line therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of potentially transplantable patients with new diagnoses of unifocal HCC ≤3 cm that underwent RFA as first-line therapy between 2000-2015. We defined potentially transplantable patients as those aged <70 years without any comorbidities that would preclude transplant surgery. Incidence of recurrence beyond Milan criteria was compared across 2 groups according to HCC diameter at the time of ablation: (HCC ≤2 cm vs. HCC >2 cm). Competing risks Cox regression was used to identify predictors of recurrence beyond Milan criteria. RESULTS: We included 301 patients (167 HCC ≤2 cm and 134 HCC >2 cm). Recurrence beyond Milan criteria occurred in 36 (21.6%) and 47 (35.1%) patients in the HCC ≤2 cm and the HCC >2 cm groups, respectively (p = 0.01). The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial survival rates after RFA were 98.2%, 86.2% and 79.0% in the HCC ≤2 cm group vs. 93.3%, 77.6% and 70.9% in the HCC >2 cm group (p = 0.01). Tumor size >2 cm (hazard ratio 1.94; 95%CI 1.25-3.02) and alpha-fetoprotein levels at the time of ablation (100-1,000 ng/ml: hazard ratio 2.05; 95%CI 1.10-3.83) were found to be predictors of post-RFA recurrence outside Milan criteria. CONCLUSION: RFA for single HCC ≤3 cm provides excellent short- to medium-term survival. However, we identified patients at higher risk of recurrence beyond Milan criteria. For these patients, liver transplantation should be considered immediately after the first HCC recurrence following RFA. LAY SUMMARY: Radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation are treatment options for early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). After ablation some patients will experience recurrence or metastatic spread of the initial tumor or may develop new tumors within the liver. Despite close follow-up, these recurrences can progress rapidly and exceed transplant criteria, preventing the patient from receiving a transplant. We identified that patients with HCC >2 cm and higher serum alpha-fetoprotein are at greater risk of recurrence beyond the transplant criteria. These data suggest that liver transplantation should be considered immediately after the first HCC recurrence for these patients.

Renal outcomes following left renal vein harvest for venous reconstruction during pancreas and liver surgery.

BACKGROUND: The left renal vein (LRV) may be used for venous reconstruction during hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery, although concerns exist about compromising renal function. This study aimed to determine renal outcomes following LRV harvest during HPB resections. METHODS: Circumferential PV/SMV resections from 2008 to 2014 were included within two groups (LRV harvest, Control). Absolute and change in Creatinine (Cr) and estimated GFR (eGFR), and rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 76 patients were included (LRV n = 17, Control n = 59). Median Cr and eGFR did not change within groups, although change in eGFR differed between groups at postoperative day (POD) 3 (-4.3 vs. 12.8, p = 0.0035) and 7 (-1.8 vs. 12.4, p = 0.0074). AKI occurred more frequently in the LRV group at POD1 (5/17 vs. 4/59, p = 0.023) and POD3 (5/17 vs. 3/59, p = 0012), with no difference in CKD between groups (2/11 vs. 5/33 at 3 months, p = 0.99). LRV harvest was an independent risk factor for AKI at POD1 and POD3, but not thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo LRV harvest experience a higher rate of AKI in the first three post-operative days. LRV harvest during pancreas resection does not impact on long-term renal function.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Selected Grafts With 2 Bile Ducts Compared With 1 Bile Duct Does Not Impact Patient Outcome.

The outcome after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using grafts with multiple bile ducts (BDs) remains unclear. We analyzed 510 patients who received an adult-to-adult right lobe LDLT between 2000 and 2015 and compared outcome parameters of those receiving grafts with 2 BDs (n = 169) with patients receiving grafts with 1 BD (n = 320). Additionally, patients receiving a graft with 3 BDs (n = 21) were analyzed. Demographic variables and disease severity were similar between the groups. Roux-en-Y reconstruction was significantly more common in the 2 BD group (77% versus 38%; P < 0.001) compared with the 1 BD group. No difference was found in biliary complication rates within 1 year after LDLT (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 18% versus 21%, respectively; P = 0.46). In the 2 BD group, 82/169 (48.5%) patients were reconstructed with 2 anastomoses. The number of anastomoses did not negatively impact biliary complication rates. Recipients' major complication rate (Clavien ≥ 3b) was similar between both groups (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 21% versus 24%, respectively; P = 0.36). Furthermore, no difference could be found between the 1 BD, the 2 BD, and the 3 BD groups in the frequency of developing biliary complications within 1 year (18%, 21%, 14%, respectively; P = 0.64), BD strictures (15%, 15%, 5%, respectively; P = 0.42), or BD leaks (10%, 11%, 10%, respectively; P = 0.98). In addition, the 1-year (90% versus 91%), 5-year (82% versus 77%), and 10-year (70% versus 66%) graft survival rates as well as the 1-year (92% versus 93%), 5-year (84% versus 80%), and 10-year (75% versus 76%) patient survival rates were comparable between the 1 BD and the 2 BD groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.54, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that selected living donor grafts with 2 BDs can be used safely without negatively impacting biliary complication rates and graft or patient survival rates.

Live donor liver transplantation with older donors: Increased long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence.

Using our prospectively collected database all adult hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients receiving an adult-to-adult LDLT between October 2000 and May 2014 were identified. Outcome of LDLT with grafts from younger (<50 years=128) vs older donors (≥50 years=31) was compared. Post-transplant graft function, postoperative complications and incidence of HCV recurrence were evaluated. Long-term graft and patient survival was calculated. No difference in graft function was observed between younger and older grafts. Overall complications were similar between both groups. The severity of complications determined by the Dindo-Clavien score was similar. Graft loss from HCV recurrence was significantly less frequent in younger grafts (18% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Young vs older livers had a trend toward improved 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival (89% vs 87%, 77% vs 69%, 70% vs 55%, P = 0.096), while patient survival was comparable between both groups (91% vs 90%, 78% vs 69%, 71% vs 60%, P = 0.25). In conclusion, LDLT with older vs younger grafts are more frequently associated with long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence. Differences in graft survival might be more prominent with prolonged (≥5-year) follow-up. Living donor-recipient matching is particularly important for younger HCV-positive recipients.

Liver Transplantation Without Venovenous Bypass: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND: The use of venovenous bypass in liver transplantation has declined over time. Few studies have examined the impact of surgical approach in cases performed exclusively without venovenous bypass. We hypothesized that advances in liver transplant anesthesia and perioperative care have minimized the importance of surgical approach in the modern era. METHODS: Deceased donor liver transplants at the University of Toronto from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed, all performed without venovenous bypass. First, an unadjusted analysis was performed comparing perioperative outcomes and graft/patient survival for 3 different liver transplant techniques (caval interposition, piggyback, side-to-side cavo-cavostomy). Second, a propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing caval interposition to caval-preserving techniques. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred thirty-three liver transplants were included in the study. On unadjusted analysis, blood loss, transfusion requirement, postoperative complications, and graft/patient survival were equivalent for the 3 different techniques. To account for possible confounding patient variables, propensity matching was performed. Analysis of the propensity-matched cohorts also demonstrated similar outcomes for caval interposition versus caval-preserving approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In the modern era at centers with a multidisciplinary team, the importance of specific liver transplant technique is minimized. Full or partial cross-clamping of the inferior vena cava is feasible without the use of venovenous bypass.

Expanding the donor pool: Donation after circulatory death and living liver donation do not compromise the results of liver transplantation.

Because of the shortfall between the number of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) and the available grafts, strategies to expand the donor pool have been developed. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and living donor (LD) grafts are not universally used because of the concerns of graft failure, biliary complications, and donor risks. In order to overcome the barriers for the implementation of using all 3 types of grafts, we compared outcomes after LT of DCD, LD, and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts. Patients who received a LD, DCD, or DBD liver graft at the University of Toronto were included. Between January 2009 through April 2017, 1054 patients received a LT at our center. Of these, 77 patients received a DCD graft (DCD group); 271 received a LD graft (LD group); and 706 received a DBD graft (DBD group). Overall biliary complications were higher in the LD group (11.8%) compared with the DCD group (5.2%) and the DBD group (4.8%; P < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were similar between the groups with 88.3%, 83.2%, and 69.2% in the DCD group versus 92.6%, 85.4%, and 84.7% in the LD group versus 90.2%, 84.2%, and 79.9% in the DBD group (P = 0.24). Furthermore, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival was comparable, with 92.2%, 85.4%, and 71.6% in the DCD group versus 95.2%, 88.8%, and 88.8% in the LD group versus 93.1%, 87.5%, and 83% in the DBD group (P = 0.14). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the type of graft did not impact graft survival. In conclusion, DCD, LD, and DBD grafts have similar longterm graft survival rates. Increasing the use of LD and DCD grafts may improve access to LT without affecting graft survival rates. Liver Transplantation 24 779-789 2018 AASLD.

Neoadjuvant hyperfractionated chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation may be offered for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). This study aimed to determine the dropout rate and survival of patients who entered a national tri-modality protocol. METHOD: Patients enrolled Jan 2009-Aug 2015 were included. Enrolment criteria: ≤65 years, brush biopsy-proven unresectable pCCA <3.5 cm diameter. Conformal radiotherapy was given concurrently with Capecitabine. Following surgical staging, patients received maintenance Cisplatin and Gemcitabine until transplant or progression. Time to event analyses were performed from start of neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of 43 patients screened, 18 started treatment; median age 53.9 (26.7-62.8) years, tumour diameter 2.7 (2.0-3.4) cm. 11/18 dropped out due to metastatic disease identified during chemoradiation (n = 2), surgical staging (n = 6), or maintenance chemotherapy (n = 3). Six patients underwent transplantation. Median follow up was 17.6 (4.9-57.7) months and overall survival 16.4 months. One and two year survival was 70.6% and 35.3%, respectively. One and 2 year post transplant survival was 83.3% and 55.6%. Median progression free survival was 11.5 months. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable early stage pCCA is feasible, although with high rates of dropout and disease progression. Further research is required to determine factors to help select patients for treatment.

Liver Transplantation for NASH-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Versus Non-NASH Etiologies of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant (LT) for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well characterized in the literature. The aim of the study was to examine characteristics and outcomes of patients who had LT for NASH-HCC (NASH) versus HCC from other liver diseases (non-NASH). METHODS: Using a 2-center retrospective design, all patients from 2004 to 2014 that received LT for HCC were analyzed. Subgroup analysis stratified patients according to Milan criteria. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-nine patients were transplanted for HCC. Sixty (6.5%) of 929 had HCC in the context of NASH. There were no significant differences between groups for pretransplant or explant tumor characteristics. The actuarial 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival was 98%, 96%, and 80% in NASH versus 95%, 84%, and 78% in non-NASH (P = 0.1). No differences in tumor recurrence were observed in patients within and beyond Milan in the NASH group. Multivariate Cox regression demonstrated NASH status to be a protective factor for recurrence among patients with tumors beyond Milan (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: After LT, outcomes are similar between NASH and non-NASH etiologies for HCC. The hypothesis that patients with more advanced HCC tumors in the context of NASH may have more favorable outcomes after LT has been generated, but requires further study.

Liver Transplantation is Equally Effective as a Salvage Therapy for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Following Radiofrequency Ablation or Liver Resection with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are curative-intent therapies for early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). If HCC recurs, salvage liver transplant (SLT) may constitute a treatment option. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients transplanted for recurrent HCC after curative-intent therapies with those transplanted as initial therapy. METHODS: We conducted a matched-control (1:1) cohort study comparing patients with HCC treated with primary liver transplant (PLT) with SLT after HCC recurrence. Matching was performed according to the size and number of viable tumors at explant pathology following liver transplant. RESULTS: Between November 1999 and December 2014, 687 patients with HCC were listed for transplant at our institution. A total of 559 patients were transplanted; 509 patients were treated with PLT and 50 patients were treated with SLT for HCC recurrence after primary treatment with LR (n = 25) or RFA (n = 25). The median length of follow-up from transplant was 64 months (0.5-195), and the median time from curative-intent treatment of HCC with RFA or LR to recurrence was 9.5 months (1-36) and 14.5 months (3-143), respectively (p = 0.04). The matched cohort was composed of 48 SLT patients (23 LR and 25 RFA) and 48 PLT patients. The 5-year risk of recurrence after LT was 22% in the PLT group versus 32% in the SLT group (p = 0.53), while the 5-year actuarial patient survival after PLT was 69% versus 70% in the SLT group (p = 1). CONCLUSION: Liver transplant is an effective treatment for patients with HCC recurrence following RFA or LR. Outcomes are similar in both groups.

Defining Benchmarks in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Outcome Analysis Determining Best Achievable Results.

: This multicentric study of 17 high-volume centers presents 12 benchmark values for liver transplantation. Those values, mostly targeting markers of morbidity, were gathered from 2024 "low risk" cases, and may serve as reference to assess outcome of single or any groups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose benchmark outcome values in liver transplantation, serving as reference for assessing individual patients or any other patient groups. BACKGROUND: Best achievable results in liver transplantation, that is, benchmarks, are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons within or across centers over time remain speculative. METHODS: Out of 7492 liver transplantation performed in 17 international centers from 3 continents, we identified 2024 low risk adult cases with a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease score ≤20 points, a balance of risk score ≤9, and receiving a primary graft by donation after brain death. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course, with a focus on complications graded by severity including the complication comprehensive index (CCI). Respective benchmarks were derived from the median value in each center, and the 75 percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented 8% to 49% of cases per center. One-year patient-survival was 91.6% with 3.5% retransplantations. Eighty-two percent of patients developed at least 1 complication during 1-year follow-up. Biliary complications occurred in one-fifth of the patients up to 6 months after surgery. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤4 days for ICU stay, ≤18 days for hospital stay, ≤59% for patients with severe complications (≥ Grade III) and ≤42.1 for 1-year CCI. Comparisons with the next higher risk group (model for end stage liver disease 21-30) disclosed an increase in morbidity but within benchmark cutoffs for most, but not all indicators, while in patients receiving a second graft from 1 center (n = 50) outcome values were all outside of benchmark values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with half of patients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cutoffs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess higher risk groups.

Avoiding ICU Admission by Using a Fast-Track Protocol Is Safe in Selected Adult-to-Adult Live Donor Liver Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated patient characteristics of live donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients undergoing a fast-track protocol without intensive care unit (ICU) admission versus LDLT patients receiving posttransplant ICU care. METHODS: Of the 153 LDLT recipients, 46 patients were included in our fast-track protocol without ICU admission. Both, fast-tracked patients and ICU-admitted patients were compared regarding donor and patient characteristics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes and complications. In a subgroup analysis, we compared fast-tracked patients with patients who were admitted in the ICU for less than 24 hours. RESULTS: Fast-tracked versus ICU patients had a lower model for end-stage liver disease score (13 ± 4 vs 18 ± 7; P < 0.0001), lower preoperative bilirubin levels (51 ± 50 µmol/L vs 119.4 ± 137.3 µmol/L; P < 0.001), required fewer units of packed red blood cells (1.7 ± 1.78 vs 4.4 ± 4; P < 0.0001), and less fresh-frozen plasma (2.7 ± 2 vs 5.8 ± 5; P < 0.0001) during transplantation. Regarding postoperative outcomes, fast-tracked patients presented fewer bacterial infections within 30 days (6.5% [3] vs 29% [28]; P = 0.002), no episodes of pneumonia (0% vs 11.3% [11]; P = 0.02), and less biliary complications within the first year (6% [3] vs 26% [25]; P = 0.001). Also, fast-tracked patients had a shorter posttransplant hospital stay (10.8 ± 5 vs 21.3 ± 29; P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, fast-tracked vs ICU patients admitted for less than 24 hours had lower requirements of packed red blood cells (1.7 ± 1.78 vs 3.9 ± 4; P = 0.001) and fresh-frozen plasma (2.7 ± 2 vs 5.8 ± 4.5; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Fast-track of selected patients after LDLT is safe and feasible. An objective score to perioperatively select LDLT recipients amenable to fast track is yet to be determined.

Characteristics of liver transplant candidates delisted following recompensation and predictors of such delisting in alcohol-related liver disease: a case-control study.

Whether and when recovery beyond the need for transplant may occur in patients listed for decompensation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients delisted following recompensation. Seventy-seven patients who were listed between 2005 and 2015 for decompensation, but later delisted following recompensation were included. Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) was the underlying etiology in the majority (n = 47, 61%). Listing characteristics of these patients were compared with those of decompensated ALD patients who either underwent deceased donor liver transplantation or died on the waiting list. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score <20 and serum albumin ≥32 g/l at listing were the only independent predictors of recompensation/delisting in ALD. The probability of recompensation was 70% when both factors were present at listing. Interestingly, about a tenth of decompensated ALD patients who died on the waiting list (median duration on waiting list 11 months) and a quarter of decompensated ALD patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (median duration on waiting list 2 months) also had both factors at listing. In conclusion, ALD seems to be the most favorable etiology for recompensation beyond the need for transplantation. Both MELD and serum albumin at listing independently predict recompensation/delisting in ALD. It seems advisable to implement a period of observation for ALD patients with both favorable factors, before embarking on living donor liver transplantation.

Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience.

BACKGROUND: In parallel with the obesity epidemic, liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing dramatically in North America. Although survival outcomes are similar to other etiologies, liver transplantation in the NASH population has been associated with significantly increased resource utilization. We sought to compare outcomes between live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high volume North American transplant center, with a particular focus on resource utilization. METHODS: The study population consists of primary liver transplants performed for NASH at Toronto General Hospital from 2000 to 2014. Recipient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, graft and patient survivals, and resource utilization were compared for LDLT versus DDLT. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included in the study (48 LDLT vs 128 DDLT). LDLT recipients had a lower model for end-stage liver disease score and were less frequently hospitalized prior to transplant. Estimated blood loss and early markers of graft injury were lower for LDLT. LDLT recipients had a significantly shorter hospitalization (intensive care unit, postoperative, and total hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS: LDLT for NASH facilitates transplantation of patients at a less severe stage of disease, which appears to promote a faster postoperative recovery with less resource utilization.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs. TACE or RFA as a bridge to transplant in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. An intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is limited information on the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma and no study comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We aimed to ascertain the safety and efficacy of SBRT on an intention-to-treat basis compared with TACE and RFA as a bridge to liver transplantation in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Outcomes between groups were compared from the time of listing and from the time of transplant. Between July 2004 and December 2014, 379 patients were treated with either SBRT (n=36, SBRT group), TACE (n=99, TACE group) or RFA (n=244, RFA group). RESULTS: The drop-out rate was similar between groups (16.7% SBRT group vs. 20.2% TACE group and 16.8% RFA group, p=0.7); 30 patients were transplanted in the SBRT group, 79 in the TACE group and 203 in the RFA group. Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Patients in the RFA group had more tumor necrosis in the explant. The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial patient survival from the time of listing was 83%, 61% and 61% in the SBRT group vs. 86%, 61% and 56% in the TACE group, and 86%, 72% and 61% in the RFA group, p=0.4. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from the time of transplant was 83%, 75% and 75% in the SBRT group vs. 96%, 75% and 69% in the TACE group, and 95%, 81% and 73% in the RFA group, p=0.7. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, SBRT can be safely utilized as a bridge to LT in patients with HCC, as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with liver cancer included in the waiting list for liver transplantation are at risk of tumor progression and death. Stereotactic body radiotherapy may be a good alternative to conventional therapies to reduce this risk.