Textbook outcome in patients with biliary duct injury during cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy is associated with a complex and heterogeneous management owing to the burden of morbidity until their definitive treatment. This study aimed to define the textbook outcomes (TOs) after BDI with the purpose to indicate the ideal treatment and to improve it management. METHODS: We collected data from patients with an BDI between 1990 and 2022 from 27 hospitals. TO was defined as a successful conservative treatment of the iatrogenic BDI or only minor complications after BDI or patients in whom the first repair resolves the iatrogenic BDI without complications or with minor complications. RESULTS: We included 808 patients and a total of 394 patients (46.9%) achieved TO. Overall complications in TO and non-TO groups were 11.9% and 86%, respectively (P < .001). Major complications and mortality in the non-TO group were 57.4% and 9.2%, respectively. The use of end-to-end bile duct anastomosis repair was higher in the non-TO group (23.1 vs 7.8, P < .001). Factors associated with achieving a TO were injury in a specialized center (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.01; 95% CI, 2.68-5.99; P < .001), transfer for a first repair (aOR, 5.72; 95% CI, 3.51-9.34; P < .001), conservative management (aOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.63-15.36; P = .005), or surgical management (aOR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.50-4.00; P < .001). CONCLUSION: TO largely depends on where the BDI is managed and the type of injury. It allows hepatobiliary centers to identify domains of improvement of perioperative management of patients with BDI.

The role of HBIG in real life for patients undergoing liver transplantation due to HDV-related cirrhosis.

Recommended post-liver transplant (LT) prophylaxis in patients with hepatitis delta includes a nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) and anti-hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) indefinitely. We analysed the use of HBIG in real-life clinical practice and its impact on HBV/HDV recurrence in 174 HDV-related LT patients from 10 Spanish liver transplant centres (1988-2018). Median post-LT follow-up was 7.8 (2.3-15.1) years and patient survival at 5 years was 90%. Most patients (97%) received HBIG in the immediate post-LT, but only 42% were on HBIG at the last control. Among those discontinuing HBIG, the median time on treatment was 18 (7-52) months. Post-LT HBsAg+ was detected in 16 (9%) patients and HBV-DNA in 12 (7%). Despite HBsAg positivity, HDV recurrence was reported only in three patients (1.7%), all of whom were not receiving NA and had discontinued HBIG. Our data suggest that a finite HBIG prophylaxis in HDV-LT is feasible, especially if high-barrier NAs are used.

Cell-mediated and Neutralizing Antibody Responses to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted Bivalent Vaccine Booster in Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients.

Background: The immunogenicity elicited by the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent booster vaccine after solid organ transplantation (SOT) has not been characterized. Methods: We assessed cell-mediated and neutralizing IgG antibody responses against the BA.4/BA.5 spike receptor-binding domain at baseline and 2 wk after the administration of an mRNA-based bivalent (ancestral strain and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants) vaccine among 30 SOT recipients who had received ≥3 monovalent vaccine doses. Previous coronavirus disease 2019 history was present in 46.7% of them. We also recruited a control group of 19 nontransplant healthy individuals. Cell-mediated immunity was measured by fluorescent ELISpot assay for interferon (IFN)-γ secretion, whereas the neutralizing IgG antibody response against the BA.4/BA.5 spike receptor-binding domain was quantified with a competitive ELISA. Results: The median number of BA.4/BA.5 spike-specific IFN-γ-producing spot-forming units (SFUs) increased from baseline to 2 wk postbooster (83.8 versus 133.0 SFUs/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells; P = 0.0017). Seropositivity rate also increased (46.7%-83.3%; P = 0.001), as well as serum neutralizing activity (4.2%-78.3%; P < 0.0001). Patients with no prior coronavirus disease 2019 history experienced higher improvements in cell-mediated and neutralizing responses after booster vaccination. There was no correlation between BA.4/BA.5 spike-specific IFN-γ-producing SFUs and neutralizing activity. Nontransplant controls showed more robust postbooster cell-mediated immunity than SOT recipients (591.1 versus 133.0 IFN-γ-producing SFUs/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells; P < 0.0001), although no differences were observed for antibody responses in terms of postbooster seropositivity rates or neutralizing activity. Conclusions: Booster with the BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine generated strong subvariant-specific responses among SOT recipients. Booster-induced cell-mediated immunity, however, remained lower than in immunocompetent individuals.

Modifications in Abdominal Wall Graft Retrieval: When the Donor Closure Is Not Guaranteed.

BACKGROUND: Twenty percent of intestinal transplant recipients will require a surgical alternative to conventional primary abdominal wall closure. Abdominal wall transplant is a developing technique that is increasingly performed for this purpose in isolated intestinal or multivisceral recipients; however, adequate closure of the donor is paramount while simultaneously obtaining a large enough graft. The aim of this study is to describe alternative surgical techniques for closure of the donor in cases in which abdominal wall graft extraction hinders subsequent donor abdominal closure. METHODS: We describe the cases of 2 young donors in whom intestinal extraction was not carried out and in whom wall closure was not feasible, following standard techniques after abdominal wall graft extraction. We performed 2 different procedures to obtain adequate closure. 1. Hemifascia and hemiabdominal wall graft extraction: It is an option when the recipients require an extension of the abdominal aponeurosis yet have enough skin to guarantee skin closure. The perfusion of both epigastric arteries is needed. The remaining cutaneous half is used for closing the donor's abdomen.2. Hemiabdominal wall graft extraction: Full-thickness abdominal wall is harvested from the donor, selecting the most vascularized half. It is an alternative for recipients who need a skin implant in addition to an aponeurosis extension. This option should be used for recipients who do not require a large fascial graft but do require a significant cutaneous graft. The nontransplanted half of full-thickness abdominal wall is used for donor closure. RESULTS: Abdominal wall transplant allows for expansion of the abdominal cavity in organ recipients and reduces the risk of compartmental syndrome and subsequent ischemia. However, the donor wall defect must be considered. The choice of donation technique was based on the magnitude of the defect in the donor as well as the size of defect to be covered in the recipient while ensuring a tight and complete closure of the donor's abdomen. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal wall graft extraction can be performed using nonconventional techniques that account for the extension and type of coverage needed by the recipient while guaranteeing proper closure of the donor.

Vascular injury during cholecystectomy: A multicenter critical analysis behind the drama.

BACKGROUND: The management of a vascular injury during cholecystectomy is still very complicated, especially in centers not specialized in complex hepatobiliary surgery. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional retrospective study in patients with vascular injuries during cholecystectomy from 18 centers in 4 countries. The aim of the study was to analyze the management of vascular injuries focusing on referral, time to perform the repair, and different treatments options outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included. Twenty-nine patients underwent vascular repair (27.9%), 13 (12.5%) liver resection, and 1 liver transplant as a first treatment. Eighty-four (80.4%) vascular and biliary injuries occurred in nonspecialized centers and 45 (53.6%) were immediately transferred. Intraoperative diagnosed injuries were rare in referred patients (18% vs 84%, P = .001). The patients managed at the hospital where the injury occurred had a higher number of reoperations (64% vs 20%, P ˂ .001). The need for vascular reconstruction was associated with higher mortality (P = .04). Two of the 4 patients transplanted died. CONCLUSION: Vascular lesions during cholecystectomy are a potentially life-threatening complication. Management of referral to specialized centers to perform multiple complex multidisciplinary procedures should be mandatory. Late vascular repair has not shown to be associated with worse results.

Liver Transplantation in Sexagenarian Patients Using Grafts From Uncontrolled Circulatory Death Versus Grafts From Brain Death Donation.

BACKGROUND: An increased number of older recipients underwent liver transplantation in recent years, and consequently needing to obtain more liver grafts. In order to increase this pool, in 2006, we initiated the use of livers from uncontrolled circulatory death (uDCD). We analyzed the use of uDCD livers in sexagenarian recipients and their effect on overall survival. METHODS: A retrospective and comparative study was performed among 4 groups according to recipient age (less or greater than 60 years) and donor type (donor brain death [DBD] or uDCD): Group A: DBD livers in recipients aged <60 years (n = 169); Group B: uDCD livers in recipients aged <60 years (n = 36); Group C: DBD livers in recipients aged >60 years (n = 96); and Group D: uDCD livers in recipients aged >60 years(n = 39). RESULTS: Intraoperative transfusion, biliary complications, primary non-function, acute rejection, chronic renal dysfunction, retransplantation, and mortality during follow-up (cardiovascular diseases in 3 patients, hepatitis C virus recurrence in 4 patients, and de novo malignancies in 3 patients) were significantly higher, and 5-year patient and graft survival was significantly lower in sexagenarian recipients. Bilirubin and packed red blood cells transfusion were risk factors for patient survival, whereas hepatocelular carcinoma, creatinine, and packed red blood cells transfusion were risk factors for patient survival. Recipient age (<60 years) was confirmed as protective factor for patient and graft survival, whereas the use of uDCD was not a risk factor for patient or graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a uDCD liver did not demonstrate as a risk factor for patient and graft survival, and recipient age (<60 years) was a protective factor for patient and graft survival.

Machine Learning-Based Analysis in the Management of Iatrogenic Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy: a Nationwide Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI) is a challenging surgical complication. IBDI management can be guided by artificial intelligence models. Our study identified the factors associated with successful initial repair of IBDI and predicted the success of definitive repair based on patient risk levels. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-institution cohort of patients with IBDI after cholecystectomy conducted between 1990 and 2020. We implemented a decision tree analysis to determine the factors that contribute to successful initial repair and developed a risk-scoring model based on the Comprehensive Complication Index. RESULTS: We analyzed 748 patients across 22 hospitals. Our decision tree model was 82.8% accurate in predicting the success of the initial repair. Non-type E (p < 0.01), treatment in specialized centers (p < 0.01), and surgical repair (p < 0.001) were associated with better prognosis. The risk-scoring model was 82.3% (79.0-85.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and 71.7% (63.8-78.7%, 95% CI) accurate in predicting success in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Surgical repair, successful initial repair, and repair between 2 and 6 weeks were associated with better outcomes. DISCUSSION: Machine learning algorithms for IBDI are a novel tool may help to improve the decision-making process and guide management of these patients.

Fluconazole versus micafungin for initial antifungal prophylaxis against Candida in pancreas transplant recipients: A comparative study of two consecutive periods.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infection, particularly intraabdominal candidiasis, exerts a negative impact on the outcome of pancreas transplant recipients (PTRs). Optimal antifungal prophylaxis in this context remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a single-centre retrospective study to compare the incidence of invasive candidiasis during the first 6 post-transplant months in a cohort of 218 PTRs over two periods in which different agents for antifungal prophylaxis were used: fluconazole (Fluco-Px) from March 1995 to June 2012, and micafungin followed by fluconazole (Mica-Px) from July 2012 to December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 152 and 66 PTRs received Fluco-Px and Mica-Px. Mean age was 39.7 ± 7.8 years, 56.4% (123/218) were males, and 85.3% (186/218) underwent simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Invasive candidiasis occurred in 21.7% (33/152) of PTRs under Fluco-Px compared to 24.2% (16/66) of those under Mica-Px (p-value = .681). Median time from transplantation to infection was 8 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-16) under Fluco-Px versus 6.5 (IQR: 3.3-15.8) under Mica-Px (p-value = .623). Non-albicans Candida species comprised 27.5% (11/40) and 25.0% (4/16) of episodes under Fluco-Px and Mica-Px respectively (p-value = .849). Surgical site infection was the most common form in both groups (82.5% [33/40] and 87.5% [14/16]; p-value = .954). Multivariable analysis identified cold ischaemia time of the pancreas and kidney grafts, surgical reintervention and insulin requirement after transplantation as risks factor for invasive candidiasis. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study did not reveal a significant benefit from the initial use of micafungin-based antifungal prophylaxis over fluconazole among PTRs in terms of invasive candidiasis.

State of the art treatment of hepatitis B virus hepatocellular carcinoma and the role of hepatitis B surface antigen post-liver transplantation and resection.

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the major aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The optimal goal of therapy, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss and anti-HBs production, is achieved rarely and HBsAg-associated HCC risk is well recognized. Here we review the role of HBsAg in HCC, the link between HBsAg and HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation or resection, and the implications for therapy. HBV-associated carcinogenesis is a multifactorial process. The observation that HBV-related HCC can occur in the absence of cirrhosis is compatible with a direct oncogenic effect of the virus, which may occur via multiple mechanisms, including those mediated by both mutated and unmutated HBsAg. HCC recurrence in HBsAg-positive patients post-liver transplantation has been reported in 10%-15% of patients and is likely to be because of expansion of residual HCC tumour cell populations containing integrated HBV DNA, which expand and independently replicate HBV, leading to the recurrence of both HCC and HBV. The direct role of HBsAg in HCC recurrence post-liver resection is less clear. Cirrhosis is the most important risk factor for HCC development, and precancerous cirrhotic liver remains after resection, with the potential to undergo malignant transformation regardless of the existence of HBV-derived oncogenic drivers. The role of HBsAg in the development of HCC and its recurrence post-surgical intervention has multiple implications for therapy and suggests a potential role for immunotherapy in the future management of HCC, in particular post-liver transplantation. Use of hepatitis B immunoglobulins that target HBsAg directly, alongside immune-oncology therapies, may be relevant in this setting.

Discordance Between SARS-CoV-2-specific Cell-mediated and Antibody Responses Elicited by mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific cell-mediated immunity (SARS-CoV-2-CMI) elicited by mRNA-based vaccines in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and its correlation with antibody responses remain poorly characterized. METHODS: We included 44 (28 kidney, 14 liver, and 2 double organ) recipients who received the full series of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2-CMI was evaluated at baseline, before the second dose, and at 2 wk after completion of vaccination by an ELISpot-based interferon-γ FluoroSpot assay using overlapping peptides covering the S1 domain. SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seroconversion and serum neutralizing activity against the spike protein were assessed at the same points by commercial ELISA and an angiotensin-converting enzyme-2/spike antibody inhibition method, respectively. Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2-CMI was compared with 28 healthcare workers who received the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: Positive SARS-CoV-2-CMI increased from 6.8% at baseline to 23.3% after the first mRNA-1273 dose and 59.5% after the completion of vaccination (P < 0.0001). Lower rates were observed for immunoglobulin G seroconversion (2.3%, 18.6%, and 57.1%, respectively) and neutralizing activity (2.3%, 11.6%, and 31.0%). There was a modest correlation between neutralizing titers and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2-CMI (Spearman's rho: 0.375; P = 0.015). Fifteen recipients (35.7%) mounted SARS-CoV-2-CMI without detectable neutralizing activity, whereas 3 (7.1%) did the opposite, yielding poor categorical agreement (Kappa statistic: 0.201). Rates of positive SARS-CoV-2-CMI among SOT recipients were significantly decreased compared with nontransplant controls (82.1% and 100.0% after the first dose and completion of vaccination, respectively; P < 0.0001). Kidney transplantation, the use of tacrolimus and prednisone, and the number of immunosuppressive agents were associated with lower cell-mediated responses. Results remained unchanged when 3 recipients with prevaccination SARS-CoV-2-CMI were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of SOT recipients mounted SARS-CoV-2-CMI following vaccination with mRNA-1273. Notable discordance was observed between vaccine-induced cell-mediated and neutralizing humoral immunities. Future studies should determine whether these patients with incomplete responses are effectively protected.

Validation of McCluskey Index for Massive Blood Transfusion Prediction in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The McCluskey index has been used as a tool to predict massive bleeding (>6 red blood cells units) during orthotropic liver transplantation. The objective of this study is to verify its efficacy at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1998 and December 2017, we performed 1216 orthotropic liver transplantations, of which 1016 had sufficient data registered with respect to hemoderivative transfusion. We divided these patients into groups based on the original study of McCluskey. This study was approved by the ethical committee of our Institution and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. RESULTS: The mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score in the 4 groups was 7.5 (range, 7-8) for low risk; 13 (range, 3-32) for medium risk, 17 (range, 8-41) for high risk, and 25 (range, 11-36) for very high risk (P < .001). No significant differences were observed regarding body mass index or hospital stay. No differences have been found in the number of suboptimal donors among the groups. With respect to hemoderivative transfusions, we observed the following for red blood cells: 7 (range, 6-8) units for low risk; 5.5 (range, 0-74) for medium risk; 7 (range, 0-73) for high risk, and 12 (range, 5-30) for very high risk (P < .001) and transfusion of plasma: 12 (range, 10-15) units for low risk; 11 (range, 0-89) for medium risk; 14 (range, 0-76) for high risk, and 13 (range, 3-30) for very high risk (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The McCluskey index is a good indicator of the risk of hemorrhage and hence the necessity of transfusion.

Hemoderivative Transfusion in Liver Transplantation: Comparison Between Recipients of Grafts From Brain Death Donors and Recipients of Uncontrolled Donors After Circulatory Death.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative bleeding during liver transplantation has been correlated with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality and decrease in patient and graft survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2016 we performed 783 orthotopic liver transplants. After applying exclusion criteria, we found liver grafts from donors after circulatory death (DCD, group A) were used in 69 patients and liver grafts from donors after brain death (group B) were used in 265 patients. RESULTS: No difference was found in terms of sex, body mass index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, indication for transplantation, intensive care unit stay, and Child-Pugh score. The mean transfusion of hemoderivates was as follows: red blood cell 9 (0-28) units in group A vs 6 (0-20) units in group B (P = .004) and fresh frozen plasma 10 (0-29) units in group A vs 9.5 (0-23) in group B (P = .000). The only 2 factors related to massive blood transfusion (>6 units of red blood cell) were uncontrolled DCD condition (odds ratio = 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.31; P = .004), and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio = 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-4.55; P = .001). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 81.3%, 70.2%, and 68.9% in group A vs 89%, 83.7%, and 78% in group B (P = .070). CONCLUSION: The use of liver grafts from DCDs is associated with increased necessity of transfusion of hemoderivates in comparison with the use of liver grafts from donors after brain death.

COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients in Spain Throughout 2020: Catching the Wave?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have analyzed differences in clinical presentation and outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across different pandemic waves. METHODS: In this multicenter, nationwide, prospective study, we compared demographics and clinical features, therapeutic management, and outcomes in SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Spain before (first wave) or after (second wave) 13 July 2020. RESULTS: Of 1634 SOT recipients, 690 (42.2%) and 944 (57.8%) were diagnosed during the first and second periods, respectively. Compared with the first wave, recipients in the second were younger (median: 63 y [interquartile range, IQR: 53-71] versus 59 y [IQR: 49-68]; P < 0.001) and less likely to receive anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 drugs (81.8% versus 8.1%; P < 0.001), with no differences in immunomodulatory therapies (46.8% versus 47.0%; P = 0.931). Adjustment of immunosuppression was less common during the second period (76.4% versus 53.6%; P < 0.001). Hospital admission (86.7% versus 58.1%; P < 0.001), occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.1% versus 21.0%; P < 0.001), and case-fatality rate (25.8% versus 16.7%; P < 0.001) were lower in the second period. In multivariate analysis, acquiring COVID-19 during the first wave was associated with an increased risk of death (OR: 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.93; P = 0.005), although this impact was lost in the subgroup of patients requiring hospital (OR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = 0.873) or intensive care unit admission (OR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35-1.18; P = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: We observed meaningful changes in demographics, therapeutic approaches, level of care, and outcomes between the first and second pandemic waves. However, outcomes have not improved in the more severe cases of posttransplant COVID-19.

COVID-19 in liver transplant candidates: pretransplant and post-transplant outcomes - an ELITA/ELTR multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the impact of COVID-19 on patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) and on their post-LT course. DESIGN: Data from consecutive adult LT candidates with COVID-19 were collected across Europe in a dedicated registry and were analysed. RESULTS: From 21 February to 20 November 2020, 136 adult cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 33 centres in 11 European countries were collected, with 113 having COVID-19. Thirty-seven (37/113, 32.7%) patients died after a median of 18 (10-30) days, with respiratory failure being the major cause (33/37, 89.2%). The 60-day mortality risk did not significantly change between first (35.3%, 95% CI 23.9% to 50.0%) and second (26.0%, 95% CI 16.2% to 40.2%) waves. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed Laboratory Model for End-stage Liver Disease (Lab-MELD) score of ≥15 (Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 15-19, HR 5.46, 95% CI 1.81 to 16.50; MELD score≥20, HR 5.24, 95% CI 1.77 to 15.55) and dyspnoea on presentation (HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 7.51) being the two negative independent factors for mortality. Twenty-six patients underwent an LT after a median time of 78.5 (IQR 44-102) days, and 25 (96%) were alive after a median follow-up of 118 days (IQR 31-170). CONCLUSIONS: Increased mortality in LT candidates with COVID-19 (32.7%), reaching 45% in those with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and Lab-MELD score of ≥15, was observed, with no significant difference between first and second waves of the pandemic. Respiratory failure was the major cause of death. The dismal prognosis of patients with DC supports the adoption of strict preventative measures and the urgent testing of vaccination efficacy in this population. Prior SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection did not affect early post-transplant survival (96%).

T cell-mediated response to SARS-CoV-2 in liver transplant recipients with prior COVID-19.

Whether immunosuppression impairs severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific T cell-mediated immunity (SARS-CoV-2-CMI) after liver transplantation (LT) remains unknown. We included 31 LT recipients in whom SARS-CoV-2-CMI was assessed by intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) and interferon (IFN)-γ FluoroSpot assay after a median of 103 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. Serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were measured by ELISA. A control group of nontransplant immunocompetent patients were matched (1:1 ratio) by age and time from diagnosis. Post-transplant SARS-CoV-2-CMI was detected by ICS in 90.3% (28/31) of recipients, with higher proportions for IFN-γ-producing CD4+ than CD8+ responses (93.5% versus 83.9%). Positive spike-specific and nucleoprotein-specific responses were found by FluoroSpot in 86.7% (26/30) of recipients each, whereas membrane protein-specific response was present in 83.3% (25/30). An inverse correlation was observed between the number of spike-specific IFN-γ-producing SFUs and time from diagnosis (Spearman's rho: -0.418; p value = .024). Two recipients (6.5%) failed to mount either T cell-mediated or IgG responses. There were no significant differences between LT recipients and nontransplant patients in the magnitude of responses by FluoroSpot to any of the antigens. Most LT recipients mount detectable-but declining over time-SARS-CoV-2-CMI after a median of 3 months from COVID-19, with no meaningful differences with immunocompetent patients.