Coronavirus disease 2019-related hepatic transplant pseudoaneurysm.

Coronavirus disease 2019-related transplant hepatic pseudoaneurysms have not been reported but can be life-threatening. They can be either solitary or multiple and can grow rapidly within weeks. They should be classified as mycotic and treated on an emergent basis. Both stenting of the vessel and coil embolization can potentially be viable treatment options of coronavirus disease 2019-related pseudoaneurysms.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within and Outside Traditional Selection Criteria: A Multicentric North American Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post-living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. BACKGROUND: LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% ( P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% ( P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

Decreased Utilization Rate of Grafts for Liver Transplantation After Implementation of Acuity Circle-based Allocation.

BACKGROUND: The allocation system for livers began using acuity circles (AC) in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of AC policy on the utilization rate for liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, LTs were equally divided into 2 eras: pre-AC (before February 4, 2020) and post-AC (February 4, 2020, and after). Deceased potential liver donors were defined as deceased donors from whom at least 1 organ was procured. RESULTS: The annual number of deceased potential liver donors increased post-AC (from 10 423 to 12 259), approaching equal to that of new waitlist registrations for LT (n = 12 801). Although the discard risk index of liver grafts was comparable between the pre- and post-AC eras, liver utilization rates in donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors were lower post-AC ( P < 0.01; 79.8% versus 83.4% and 23.7% versus 26.0%, respectively). Recipient factors, ie, no recipient located, recipient determined unsuitable, or time constraints, were more likely to be reasons for nonutilization after implementation of the AC allocation system compared to the pre-AC era (20.0% versus 12.3% for DBD donors and 50.1% versus 40.8% for DCD donors). Among non-high-volume centers, centers with lower utilization of marginal DBD donors or DCD donors were more likely to decrease LT volume post-AC. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of deceased potential liver donors has increased, overall liver utilization among deceased donors has decreased in the post-AC era. To maximize the donor pool for LT, future efforts should target specific reasons for liver nonutilization.

Reappraisal of Donor Age in Liver Transplantation: NASH as a Potential Target to Safely Utilize Old Liver Grafts.

BACKGROUND: With the chronic shortage of donated organs, expanding the indications for liver transplantation (LT) from older donors is critical. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) stands out because of its unique systemic pathogenesis and high recurrence rate, both of which might make donor selection less decisive. The present study aims to investigate the usefulness of old donors in LT for NASH patients. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Scientific Registry Transplant Recipient database. The cohort was divided into 3 categories according to donor age: young (aged 16-35), middle-aged (36-59), and old donors (60-). Multivariable and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare the risk of donor age on graft survival (GS). RESULTS: A total of 67 973 primary adult donation-after-brain-death LTs (2002-2016) were eligible for analysis. The multivariable analysis showed a reduced impact of donor age on GS for the NASH cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.13, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27), comparing old to middle-aged donors. If the cohort was limited to NASH recipients plus 1 of the following, recipient age ≥60, body mass index <30, or Model of End Stage Liver Disease score <30, adjusted hazard ratios were even smaller (0.99 [0.84-1.15], 0.92 [0.75-1.13], or 1.04 [0.91-1.19], respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in overall GS between old- and middle-aged donors in these subgroups (P = 0.86, 0.28, and 0.11, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Donor age was less influential for overall GS in NASH cohort. Remarkably, old donors were equivalent to middle-aged donors in subgroups of recipient age ≥60, recipient body mass index <30, or Model of End Stage Liver Disease score <30.

Normothermic Regional Perfusion Can Improve Both Utilization and Outcomes in DCD Liver, Kidney, and Pancreas Transplantation.

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) has gained widespread adoption in multiple European countries. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of thoracoabdominal-NRP (TA-NRP) on the utilization and outcomes of liver, kidney, and pancreas transplantation in the United States. Methods: Using the US national registry data between 2020 and 2021, donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors were separated into 2 groups: DCD with TA-NRP and without TA-NRP. There were 5234 DCD donors; among them 34 donors were with TA-NRP. After 1:4 propensity score matching, the utilization rates were compared between DCD with and without TA-NRP. Results: Although the utilization rates of kidney and pancreas were comparable (P = 0.71 and P = 0.06, 94.1% versus 95.6% and 8.8% versus 2.2%, respectively), that of liver in DCD with TA-NRP was significantly higher (P < 0.001; 70.6% versus 39.0%). Among 24 liver transplantations, 62 kidney transplantations, and 3 pancreas transplantations from DCD with TA-NRP, there were 2 liver grafts and 1 kidney graft that failed within 1 y after transplantation. Conclusions: TA-NRP in the United States significantly increased the utilization rate of abdominal organs from DCD donors with comparable outcomes after transplantation. Increasing use of NRP may expand the donor pool without compromising transplant outcomes.

The impact of geographic location versus center practice on center volume in liver transplantation after the acuity circle policy.

BACKGROUND: The allocation system for livers used the acuity circles (AC) beginning in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effect of the AC policy on center transplant volumes, from geographic and center practice perspectives. METHODS: Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, adult liver transplantations (LTs) were separated into two eras: before AC and after AC. RESULTS: The number of LT for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥29 have significantly increased by 10%, and waitlist times for those patients have been significantly shorter after AC. These benefits were not found in patients with MELD scores <29. The geographic distribution of transplant centers reveals that the majority of centers which increased their transplant volume (18 out of 25 centers) are located in high-population states while there are seven transplant centers in nonhigh-population states. The centers in the nonhigh-population states utilized more marginal donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors by 27% and 155%, respectively. MELD scores were significantly lower in the nonhigh-population states compared with those in the high-population states (p < .01). CONCLUSION: AC improved the LT access for patients with MELD scores ≥29, which benefited the high-population states. However, aggressive center practices to utilize marginal DBD and DCD donors were able to increase transplant volume and lower median allocation MELD scores.

The High Incidence of Occult Carcinoma in Total Hepatectomy Specimens of Patients Treated for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases With Liver Transplant.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate of occult carcinoma deposits in total hepatectomy specimens from patients treated with liver transplant (LT) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that patients with CRLM treated with systemic therapy demonstrate a high rate of complete radiographic response or may have disappearing liver metastases. However, this does not necessarily translate into a complete pathologic response, and residual invasive cancer may be found in up to 80% of the disappearing tumors after resection. METHODS: Retrospective review of 14 patients who underwent LT for CRLM, at 2 centers. Radiographic and pathologic correlation of the number of tumors and their viability before and after LT was performed. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) number of tumors at diagnosis was 11 (4-23). The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 24 (16-37). Hepatic artery infusion was used in 5 patients (35.7%); 6 (42.9%) underwent surgical resection, and 5 (35.7%) received locoregional therapy. The indication for LT was unresectability in 8 patients (57.1%) and liver failure secondary to oncologic treatment in the remaining 6 (42.9%). Before LT, 7 patients (50%) demonstrated fluorodeoxyglucose-avid tumors and 7 (50%) had a complete radiographic response. Histopathologically, 11 patients (78.6%) had a viable tumor. Nine (64.2%) of the 14 patients were found to have undiagnosed metastases on explant pathology, with at least 22 unaccounted viable tumors before LT. Furthermore, 4 (57.1%) of the 7 patients who demonstrated complete radiographic response harbored viable carcinoma on explant pathology. CONCLUSIONS: A complete radiographic response does not reliably predict a complete pathologic response. In patients with unresectable CRLM, total hepatectomy and LT represent a promising treatment options to prevent indolent disease progression from disappearing CRLM.

The Current State of Liver Transplantation for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the United States: A Call for Standardized Reporting.

BACKGROUND: Current success in transplant oncology for select liver tumors, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, has ignited international interest in liver transplantation (LT) as a therapeutic option for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In the United States, the CRLM LT experience is limited to reports from a handful of centers. This study was designed to summarize donor, recipient, and transplant center characteristics and posttransplant outcomes for the indication of CRLM. METHODS: Adult, primary LT patients listed between December 2017 and March 2022 were identified by using United Network Organ Sharing database. LT for CRLM was identified from variables: "DIAG_OSTXT"; "DGN_OSTXT_TCR"; "DGN2_OSTXT_TCR"; and "MALIG_TY_OSTXT." RESULTS: During this study period, 64 patients were listed, and 46 received LT for CRLM in 15 centers. Of 46 patients who underwent LT for CRLM, 26 patients (56.5%) received LTs using living donor LT (LDLT), and 20 patients received LT using deceased donor (DDLT) (43.5%). The median laboratory MELD-Na score at the time of listing was statistically similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups (8 vs. 9, P = 0.14). This persisted at the time of LT (8 vs. 12, P = 0.06). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year, disease-free, survival rates were 75.1, 53.7, and 53.7%. Overall survival rates were 89.0, 60.4, and 60.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This first comprehensive U.S. analysis of LT for CRLM suggests a burgeoning interest in high-volume U.S. transplant centers. Strategies to optimize patient selection are limited by the scarce oncologic history provided in UNOS data, warranting a separate registry to study LT in CRLM.

Inferior Survival Is Associated With Socioeconomic Deprivation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Pernicious health disparities have been reported in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Few tools exist to screen patients in order to facilitate educational and outreach initiatives. We hypothesize that neighborhood-level socioeconomic metrics such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) can predict inferior outcomes in patients with early-stage HCC. METHODS: A single institution's retrospective review of patients with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Stage I HCC between 2000 and 2020 was conducted. Univariate and multivariate models were constructed to identify clinical and socioeconomic variables correlated with treatment-specific survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare survival differences between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients were included in this study with newly diagnosed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Stage I HCC. Multivariate models demonstrated native model of end-stage liver disease, largest tumor size, insurance type, the distance to our transplant center, and the ADI score, a validated metric for a patient's socioeconomic status, are independent risk factors for worse overall survival (all P-values < 0.05). Concerningly, despite similar maximal tumor size, number of tumors, and native model of end-stage liver disease scores, patients from high ADI neighborhoods are 20% less likely to receive surgical treatment, especially liver transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The ADI is a useful tool for identifying patients at the time of presentation who are at risk for inferior treatment for early stage HCC, and the ADI should be incorporated as a social vital sign.

Recipient and Donor Outcomes After Living-Donor Liver Transplant for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases.

Importance: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and nearly 70% of patients with this cancer have unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Compared with chemotherapy, liver transplant has been reported to improve survival in patients with CRLMs, but in North America, liver allograft shortages make the use of deceased-donor allografts for this indication problematic. Objective: To examine survival outcomes of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) for unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included patients at 3 North American liver transplant centers with established LDLT programs, 2 in the US and 1 in Canada. Patients with liver-confined, unresectable CRLMs who had demonstrated sustained disease control on oncologic therapy met the inclusion criteria for LDLT. Patients included in this study underwent an LDLT between July 2017 and October 2020 and were followed up until May 1, 2021. Exposures: Living-donor liver transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perioperative morbidity and mortality of treated patients and donors, assessed by univariate statistics, and 1.5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free and overall survival for transplant recipients. Results: Of 91 evaluated patients, 10 (11%) underwent LDLT (6 [60%] male; median age, 45 years [range, 35-58 years]). Among the 10 living donors, 7 (70%) were male, and the median age was 40.5 years (range, 27-50 years). Kaplan-Meier estimates for recurrence-free and overall survival at 1.5 years after LDLT were 62% and 100%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity for both donors and recipients was consistent with established standards (Clavien-Dindo complications among recipients: 3 [10%] had none, 3 [30%] had grade II, and 4 [40%] had grade III; donors: 5 [50%] had none, 4 [40%] had grade I, and 1 had grade III). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings of recurrence-free and overall survival rates suggest that select patients with unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs may benefit from total hepatectomy and LDLT.

Early postoperative ERAS compliance predicts decreased length of stay and complications following liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) components for liver resection lack standardization and compliance. We evaluated our ERAS protocol and describe the association of postoperative ERAS compliance with length of stay (LOS) and complications. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing liver resection at our institution from 2016 to 2020. Pre- and post-ERAS outcomes and compliance at 72 h were compared with LOS and complications. LOS beyond 72 h was defined as LOS72. RESULTS: 210 patients were included. Post-ERAS patients had significantly shorter LOS (5.1 vs. 7.3 days, p = 0.0014) with no difference in 30-day mortality, morbidity, or readmissions. ERAS components associated with shorter LOS72 were regular diet (HR 1.73), fluid discontinuation (HR 1.63), drain removal (HR 1.94), multimodal and oral analgesia (HR 1.51), and ambulation >100 ft (HR 2.23). LOS72 was 1-day for ≥9 ERAS component compliance, 4-days for 6-8 components, and 6-days for <6 components. 30-day complication rates for patients with ≥9 components by postoperative day 3 (POD3) were significantly lower than those with 6-8 (12 vs 32%). CONCLUSION: ERAS decreases LOS after liver resection. Nutritional advancement, drain discontinuation, multimodal and oral analgesia, and ambulation >100 ft by POD3 are associated with decreased LOS72. Achieving ≥6 components by POD3 predicts decreased LOS72 and complications.

A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The concept of benchmarking is established in the field of transplant surgery; however, benchmark values for donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation are not available. Thus, we aimed to identify the best possible outcomes in DCD liver transplantation and to propose outcome reference values. METHODS: Based on 2,219 controlled DCD liver transplantations, collected from 17 centres in North America and Europe, we identified 1,012 low-risk, primary, adult liver transplantations with a laboratory MELD score of ≤20 points, receiving a DCD liver with a total donor warm ischemia time of ≤30 minutes and asystolic donor warm ischemia time of ≤15 minutes. Clinically relevant outcomes were selected and complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo-Grading and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Corresponding benchmark cut-offs were based on median values of each centre, where the 75th-percentile was considered. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented between 19.7% and 75% of DCD transplantations in participating centres. The 1-year retransplant and mortality rates were 4.5% and 8.4% in the benchmark group, respectively. Within the first year of follow-up, 51.1% of recipients developed at least 1 major complication (≥Clavien-Dindo-Grade III). Benchmark cut-offs were ≤3 days and ≤16 days for ICU and hospital stay, ≤66% for severe recipient complications (≥Grade III), ≤16.8% for ischemic cholangiopathy, and ≤38.9 CCI points 1 year after transplant. Comparisons with higher risk groups showed more complications and impaired graft survival outside the benchmark cut-offs. Organ perfusion techniques reduced the complications to values below benchmark cut-offs, despite higher graft risk. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high. Benchmark cut-offs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess the protective value of new preservation technologies in higher risk groups and to provide a valid comparator cohort for future clinical trials. LAY SUMMARY: The best possible outcomes after liver transplantation of grafts donated after circulatory death (DCD) were defined using the concept of benchmarking. These were based on 2,219 liver transplantations following controlled DCD donation in 17 centres worldwide. Donor and recipient combinations with higher risk had significantly worse outcomes. However, the use of novel organ perfusion technology helped high-risk patients achieve similar outcomes as the benchmark cohort.

Estimating the effect of increasing utilization of living donor liver transplantation using observational data.

There has been a recent increase in enthusiasm for expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) programmes. Using all adults initially placed on the waiting list in the United States, we estimated the risk of overall mortality under national strategies which differed in their utilization of LDLT. We used a generalization of inverse probability weighting which can estimate the effect of interventions in the setting of finite resources. From 2005 to 2015, 93 812 eligible individuals were added to the waitlist: 51 322 received deceased donor grafts while 1970 underwent LDLT. Individuals who underwent LDLT had more favourable prognostic factors, including lower mean MELD score at transplant (14.6 vs. 20.5). The 1-year, 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of death under the current level of LDLT utilization were 18.0% (95% CI: 17.8, 18.3%), 41.2% (95% CI: 40.8, 41.5%) and 57.4% (95% CI: 56.9, 57.9%) compared to 17.9% (95% CI: 17.7, 18.2%), 40.6% (95% CI: 40.2, 40.9%) and 56.4% (95% CI: 55.8, 56.9%) under a strategy which doubles LDLT utilization. Expansion of LDLT utilization would have a measurable, modest effect on the risk of mortality for the entire cohort of individuals who begin on the transplant waiting list.

Variation in complications and mortality following ALPPS at early-adopting centers.

BACKGROUND: Various, often conflicting, estimates for post-operative morbidity and mortality following ALPPS have been reported in the literature, suggesting that considerable center-level variation exists. Some of this variation may be related to center volume and experience. METHODS: Using data from seventeen centers who were early adopters of the ALPPS technique, we estimated the variation, by center, in standardized 90-day mortality and comprehensive complication index (CCI) for patients treated between 2012 and 2018. RESULTS: We estimated that center-specific 90-day mortality following treatment with ALPPS varied from 4.2% (95% CI: 0.8, 9.9) to 29.1% (95% CI: 13.9, 50.9), and that center-specific CCI following treatment with ALPPS varied from 17.0 (95% CI: 7.5, 26.5) to 49.8 (95% CI: 38.1, 61.8). Declines in estimated 90-day mortality and CCI were observed over time, and almost all individual centers followed this trend. Patients treated at centers with a higher number of ALPPS cases performed over the prior year had a lower risk of post-operative mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable center-level variation in ALPPS outcomes, perioperative outcomes following ALPPS have improved over time and treatment at higher volume centers results in a lower risk of 90-day mortality. Morbidity and mortality remain concerningly high at some centers.

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.