Intraoperative hepatic artery blood flow predicts early hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation.

Hepatic artery complications after orthotopic liver transplantation are associated with a high rate of graft loss and mortality (23% to 35%) because they can lead to liver ischemia. The reported incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) after adult liver transplantation is 2.5% to 6.8%. Typically, these patients are treated with urgent surgical revascularization or emergent liver retransplantation. Since January 2007, we have recorded the postanastomotic hepatic artery flow after revascularization. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between hepatic blood flow on revascularization and early HAT. Retrospectively, we reviewed perioperative variables from 110 consecutive liver transplantation performed at the Virgen del Rocío University Hospital (Seville, Spain) between January 2007 and October 2010. We evaluated the following preoperative (donor and recipient) and intraoperative variables: donor and recipient age, cytomegalovirus serology, ABO-compatibility, anatomical variations of the donor hepatic artery, number of arterial anastomoses, portal and hepatic artery flow before closure, cold ischemia time, and blood transfusion. These variables were included in a univariate analysis. Of the 110 patients included in the study, 85 (77.7%) were male. The median age was 52 years. ABO blood groups were identical between donor and recipient in all the patients. The prevalence of early HAT was 6.36% (7 of 110). Crude mortality with/without HAT was 22% versus 2% (P = .001), respectively. Crude graft loss rate with/without HAT was 27% versus 4% (P = .003), respectively. Early HAT was shown to be primarily associated with intraoperative hepatic artery blood flow (93.3 mL/min recipients with HAT versus 187.7 mL/min recipients without HAT, P < .0001). No retransplantation showed early HAT. In our experience, intraoperative hepatic artery blood flow predicts early HAT after liver transplantation.

Application of the McCluskey Index to predict blood product requirements during liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A recent study proposed a risk index (McCluskey index) based on 7 parameters to identify the transfusion needs of patients during surgery and in the first 24 hours postoperation. The initial objective of our study was to validate this predictor for blood product transfusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective, observational study of all liver transplant patients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. The following variables were recorded for each patient: age, gender, patient comorbidity, biochemical values prior to liver transplantation, and transfusion needs. RESULTS: Comparing the transfusion needs of those patients with scores <5 with those of scores >/=5, we observed significant differences in terms of the use of red blood cell concentrates, plasma, and platelets, both during the first 24 hours and in the total number. The index sensitivity was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.23-88.76), with a specificity of 84.21% (95% CI: 67.81-100), where the positive predictive value was 95.52% (95% CI: 90.57-100.4) and the negative predictive value was 50% (95% CI: 32.67-67.32). CONCLUSION: The McCluskey index showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to predict which patients will require a massive transfusion.

Scoring guide when deciding to accept an organ for a liver transplant.

UNLABELLED: Our objective was establish a scoring system that allows a donor to be evaluated quickly and easily using a set of variables that are evaluated prior to the donation and another set that are evaluated during surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prior to the donation we analyzed age, medication requirements, natremia, hepatic biochemistry, gas levels, days in ICU, history of hypertension, and weight. A value of 40% was allocated to this group of factors. During the transplant we assessed the characteristics of the organ-shine, consistency, surface, edge, color, presence of steatosis, and atheromatosis. A value of 60% was allocated to this set. We established a scale of 1 to 10, only accepting organs scoring 5 or more points. Those grafts that received a score between 5 and 7.5 points were called suboptimal and those with over 7.5 points, optimal. We prospectively analyzed 133 donors whose organs were implanted. RESULTS: The survival rate at 1 year was 85%, and the rejection rate was 12%. The incidence of primary graft dysfunction was 8.2% (n = 11) and that of primary graft nonfunction 2.2% (n = 3). The incidence of primary graft dysfunction was greater within the group with fewer points (suboptimal). There were no differences between the optimal and suboptimal groups in terms of primary malfunction, survival, or rejection rate. CONCLUSIONS: The score provided a guide to decide whether to accept viable organs for implantation, given that the point system was obtained quickly and easily. When greater than 5, it correlated with low rates of primary nonfunction (<3%) and of primary graft dysfunction (<15%), with acceptable survival at 1 year (>80%) and acute rejections rate (<15%).