Good post-transplant outcomes using liver donors after circulatory death when applying strict selection criteria: A propensity-score matched-cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) with donors after circulatory death (DCD) have been considered suboptimal due to higher rates of ischemic cholangiopathy, especially when the super-rapid recovery (SRR) technique is used. This study aimed to compare the incidence of complications between recipients receiving DCD vs those receiving donors after brain death (DBD) in a large-volume liver transplant centre. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (LT from January 2015 to December 2018) comparing recipients who underwent a LT with DCD vs. a control group of LT with DBD, matched 1:1 without replacement by propensity score matching that included the following variables: LT indication, recipient sex and age, donor age and MELD score. RESULTS: 51 recipients with DCD-LT (29 SRR, 22 normothermic regional perfusion [NRP]) were matched with 51 DBD-LT recipients. Biliary complications were more frequent in DCD, 10% (n=5), all with SRR technique, vs 2% (n=1) in the DBD group, p=0.2. Two patients (4%) suffered primary graft non-function in the DCD group (1 SRR and 1 NRP) versus zero in the DBD group (p=0.49). Postoperative bleeding and reinterventions were also higher in the DCD group: 7 (13.7%) vs 1 (1.95%) and 8 (15.7%) vs 2 (3.9%) respectively (p=0.06 and 0.09). On the 1st postoperative day AST/ALT peak was higher in DCD (p≤0001). The incidence of rejection, vascular complications, renal injury, hospital stay, and readmissions were similar in both groups. Cumulative 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year graft and patient survival were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: DCD donors are an adequate option to increase the donor pool in LT, achieving similar graft and patient survival rates to those achieved with DBD donors, especially when the NRP technique is used.

Post-transplantation outcome in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis: Comparison with alcoholic cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) indication of liver transplant (LT) has increased recently, whereas alcoholic cirrhosis remains a major indication for LT. To characterize NASH-related cases and to compare the post-transplant outcome of these two conditions represents our major objective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing LT for NASH between 1997 and 2016 were retrieved. Those transplanted between 1997 and 2006 were compared to an "age and LT date" matched group of patients transplanted for alcoholic cirrhosis (ratio 1:2). Baseline features and medium-term outcome measures were compared. RESULTS: Of 1986 LT performed between 1997 and 2016, 40 (2%) were labeled as NASH-related indications. NASH-related cases increased initially (from 0.8% in 1997-2001 to 2.7% in 2002-2006) but remained stable in subsequent years (2.3%). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prevalence was greater in NASH-vs alcohol-related cirrhosis (40% vs 3%, p=0.001). The incidence of overweight, obesity, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, hyperuricemia, renal insufficiency and cardiovascular (CV) disease was similar in both groups at 5 years post-LT. Five-year survival was higher in NASH but without reaching statistical significance (83% vs 72%, p=0.21). The main cause of mortality in NASH-LT patients was HCC recurrence. CONCLUSION: Most previously considered cryptogenic cases are actually NASH-cirrhosis. While the incidence of this indication is increasing in many countries, it has remained relatively stable in our Unit, the largest LT center in Spain. HCC is common in these patients and represents a main cause of post-transplant mortality. Metabolic complications, CV-related disease and 5-yr survival do not differ in patients transplanted for NASH vs alcohol.

[Indications and results of liver retransplantation: experience with 1181 patients at the University Hospital La Fe]. / Indicaciones y resultados de retrasplante hepático: experiencia del hospital universitario La Fe (1.181 pacientes).

UNLABELLED: Liver retransplantation (LrT) is the only therapeutic option for irreversible failure of a hepatic graft and accounts for 2.9%-24.0% of all liver transplantations (LT). It is technically difficult and has a high level of immediate morbidity and a lower survival than primary LT. Our aim was to determine the rate of LrT and its indications, morbidity, post-operative mortality and actuarial survival in the retransplanted patient. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A historical cohort study of 1181 patients transplanted between 1991 and 2006. RESULTS: Of the 1260 LT performed, 79 were LrT. At the time of the first LT there were no differences between those patients and those that did not require an LrT. The LrT rate was 6.3% and the most frequent causes were: hepatic artery thrombosis (31.6%), recurrence of cirrhosis due the HVC (30.4%) and primary graft (21.5%). The ischemia times, perfusion syndrome and hepatic congestion were no different between the primary LT and the LrT. On the other hand, red cell transfusions were higher in LrT (6.3+/-4.9 vs. 3.5+/-3.0 units, P<0.001). The post-operative morbidity and morbidity (up to 30 days after the LT) was higher in retransplanted patients (68.4% vs. 57.0%, P=0.04 and 25.3% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001; respectively). The actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was 83% and 69% in those without LrT, 71% and 61% in early LrT and 64% and 34% in delayed LrT (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased morbidity and mortality of LrT, it appears that this treatment alternative is still valid in those patients with an early loss of the liver graft. On the other hand, when the graft loss is delayed, it needs to be defined, what would be the minimum acceptable results to indicate LrT and which patients could benefit from this treatment.