Reversal of end-ileostomy in patients with Crohn's disease.

PURPOSE: End-ileostomy after two-staged ileocolic resection is frequently performed in Crohn's disease patients at high risk for postoperative complications. However, there is paucity on data regarding the morbidity after the stoma reversal. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients undergoing closure of end-ileostomy between 1994 and 2016 were included. Data collection was retrospective in 11 first, and it was prospective in 119 last patients. Anastomotic complications were defined as anastomotic leak, perianastomotic abscess, and perianastomotic peritonitis. RESULTS: The median interval between ileostomy construction and reversal was 4.0 months. Ninety-seven of 121 patients with available data (80%) gained weight between both surgeries. Hemoglobin level increased between surgeries in 107 patients (85%). Fifteen patients (11.5%) received parenteral fluid substitution or parenteral nutrition between both surgeries. There were 37 hospital readmissions during the time between stoma construction and reversal (29%). After ileostomy reversal, 14 patients developed anastomotic complications (11%). By multivariate regression analysis, preoperative steroid intake (hazard ratio 4.5, 95% CI: 1.11-18.0, p = 0.035) and hospital readmission for infectious complications (HR 4.5, 95% CI: 1.11-18.0, p = 0.035) were statistically significantly associated with an increased risk to develop postoperative anastomotic complications. There were no postoperative deaths. CONCLUSION: Closure of end-ileostomy could be complicated by some serious morbidity. These risks should be taken into consideration weighing carefully between the one- and two-stage ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease patients.

Healthcare utilization after liver transplantation is highly variable among both centers and recipients.

The relationship between healthcare utilization before and after liver transplantation (LT), and its association with center characteristics, is incompletely understood. This was a retrospective cohort study of 34 402 adult LTs between 2002 and 2013 using Vizient inpatient claims data linked to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models evaluated the association between hospitalization 90 days pre-LT and the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) 1 year post-LT. Of those patients alive at LT discharge, 24.7% spent ≥30 days hospitalized during the first year. Hospitalization in the 90 days pre-LT was inversely associated with DAOH (ß = -3.4 DAOH/week hospitalized pre-LT; P = .002). Centers with >30% of their liver transplant recipients hospitalized ≥30 days in the first LT year were typically smaller volume and/or transplanting higher risk recipients (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score ≥35, inpatient or ventilated pre-LT). In conclusion, pre-LT hospitalization predicts 1-year post-LT hospitalization independent of MELD score at the patient-level, whereas center-specific post-LT healthcare utilization is associated with certain center behaviors and selection practices.

The kidney allocation system does not appropriately stratify risk of pediatric donor kidneys: Implications for pediatric recipients.

Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was enacted in 2014 to improve graft utility, while facilitating transplantation of highly-sensitized patients and preserving pediatric access to high-quality kidneys. Central to this system is the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), a metric intended to predict transplant outcomes based on donor characteristics but derived using only adult donors. We posited that KAS had inadvertently altered the profile and quantity of kidneys made available to pediatric recipients. This question arose from our observation that most pediatric donors carry a KDPI over 35 and have therefore been rendered relatively inaccessible to pediatric recipients under KAS. Here we explore early trends in pediatric transplantation following KAS, including: (i) use of pediatric donors, (ii) use of Public Health System (PHS) high infectious risk donors, (iii) wait time, and (iv) living donor transplantation. We note some concerning preliminary changes following KAS implementation, including the allocation of fewer deceased donor pediatric kidneys to children and stagnation in pediatric wait times. Moreover, the poor predictive power of the KDPI for adult donors appears to be even worse when applied to pediatric donors. These early trends warrant further observation and consideration of changes in pediatric kidney allocation if they persist.

When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors.

Outcomes of retransplantation after initial living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand the indications, timing, and outcomes of retransplantation after initial LDLT when compared to after initial deceased donor transplantation (DDLT). From 2002 to 2013, 209 retransplant recipients after initial LDLT and 2893 after initial DDLT were identified in Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable logistic models evaluated the association between initial transplant type and 1-year mortality. The most frequent reason for early graft failure (≤14 days) in LDLT recipients was vascular thrombosis (63.6%) versus primary graft failure in initial DDLT recipients (59.1%). LDLT recipients were more often acutely and/or critically ill with a greater proportion of Status 1 (42.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (52.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.001) recipients at the time of retransplantation. There was no difference in adjusted 1-year mortality between retransplant recipients after initial LDLT versus DDLT (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.08). The proportion of recipients who ultimately required retransplantation for a third time was not different between the two groups (4.8%). Retransplantation outcomes after LDLT are not different from other retransplant procedures, despite recipients having greater acuity of illness and different indications.

Waiting time and explant pathology in transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a novel study using national data.

Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation have been well described. It has been surmised that longer time on the waitlist may select for tumors with a lower-risk of recurrence posttransplant, as patients with unfavorable tumor characteristics would be delisted due to tumor progression. Utilizing national explant pathology records from transplant recipients waitlisted with T2 HCC exception points, this study explored the correlation between waiting time and the development of pathologic HCC features associated with increased risk of tumor recurrence. Of 1976 explant pathology reports submitted nationally between April 8, 2012 and June 30, 2013, 1453 (73.5%) were from recipients with automatic T2 HCC exception points. There was no association between pretransplant waiting time and the proportion of HCC explants with either: (i) a poorly differentiated tumor; (ii) macrovascular invasion; (iii) HCC beyond Milan or University of California San Francisco criteria; (iv) HCC beyond the "up-to-seven" criteria; or (v) extra-hepatic or lymph node involvement. Though there was a statistically significant increase in microvascular invasion in recipients with pretransplant waiting 6-12 months, this association was not seen when adjusted for United Network for Organ Sharing region. These findings suggest that waiting time alone may not select for tumors with more favorable characteristics.

Waitlist priority for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond milan criteria: a potentially appropriate decision without a structured approach.

Due to the risk of waitlist dropout from tumor progression, liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria (MC) receive standardized exception points. An expansion of this process to candidates with HCC beyond MC has been proposed, though it remains controversial. This study sought to better define the utilization of exception points in candidates with HCC beyond MC and the associated outcomes. We reviewed all nonstandardized HCC applications that underwent formal regional review board evaluation between January 1, 2005 and March 2, 2011; 2184 initial HCC exception point applications were submitted. Of these, 41.9% fulfilled MC, 26.6% fulfilled University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and 17.6% exceeded UCSF criteria. The majority of applications were accepted: 89.8% within UCSF and 71.2% beyond UCSF. There was a significantly (p < 0.001) higher risk of death on the waitlist or within 90 days of waitlist removal for candidates within UCSF (12.4%) or beyond UCSF (13.0%) criteria, compared to candidates with HCC within MC (6.0%). However, posttransplant outcomes were similar. While these results suggest increasing access to candidates with HCC beyond MC, comprehensive documentation of tumor characteristics and of successful downstaging is needed to ensure priority is restricted to those with the highest likelihood of favorable posttransplant outcome.

Lack of standardization in exception points for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and bacterial cholangitis.

For conditions that the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not accurately predict waitlist mortality, transplant centers may apply to regional review boards for exception points. For patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) suffering from bacterial cholangitis, consensus recommendations published in December 2006 are to grant exception points for recurrent cholangitis with ≥ 2 episodes of bacteremia or ≥ 1 episode septic complications. Using data provided by the United Network for Organ Sharing, we evaluated PSC patients who applied for exception points due to bacterial cholangitis from February 27, 2002 to March 14, 2011. Before publication of the recommendations, 66.0% of applications were accepted, compared with 80.1% after (p < 0.001). Focusing on applications after publication of the recommendations, 311 (74.6%) did not meet the recommended criteria, and 250 (80.4%) of these were approved. Of patients with approved applications, those not meeting consensus criteria were more likely to be transplanted, (77.4% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.043), whereas those with denied applications for approved indications were more liked to die/be removed (44.4% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.49). Although data are needed to properly identify those patients at highest risk for waitlist mortality, standardized criteria or a centralized review board should be adopted to ensure consistency in the granting of exception points.