Successful living donor liver transplantation in a patient with hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitor: A case report with perioperative recommendations.

Liver transplantation in patients with end-stage liver disease and coexisting hemophilia A has been described. Controversy exists over perioperative management of patients with factor VIII inhibitor predisposing patients to hemorrhage. We describe the case of a 58-year-old man with a history of hemophilia A and factor VIII inhibitor, eradicated with rituximab prior to living donor liver transplantation without recurrence of inhibitor. We also provide perioperative management recommendations from our successful multidisciplinary approach.

Positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET MPI) findings predictive of post-liver transplant major adverse cardiac events.

Positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET MPI) is a noninvasive diagnostic test capable of detecting coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). We aimed to determine the prognostic utility of PET MPI to predict post-liver transplant (LT) major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Among the 215 LT candidates that completed PET MPI between 2015 and 2020, 84 underwent LT and had 4 biomarker variables of clinical interest on pre-LT PET MPI (summed stress and difference scores, resting left ventricular ejection fraction, global MFR). Post-LT MACE were defined as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, sustained arrhythmia, or cardiac arrest within the first 12 months post-LT. Cox regression models were constructed to determine associations between PET MPI variable/s and post-LT MACE. The median LT recipient age was 58 years, 71% were male, 49% had NAFLD, 63% reported prior smoking, 51% had hypertension, and 38% had diabetes mellitus. A total of 20 MACE occurred in 16 patients (19%) at a median of 61.5 days post-LT. One-year survival of MACE patients was significantly lower than those without MACE (54% vs. 98%, p =0.001). On multivariate analysis, reduced global MFR ≤1.38 was associated with a higher risk of MACE [HR=3.42 (1.23-9.47), p =0.019], and every % reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction was associated with an 8.6% higher risk of MACE [HR=0.92 (0.86-0.98), p =0.012]. Nearly 20% of LT recipients experienced MACE within the first 12 months of LT. Reduced global MFR and reduced resting left ventricular ejection fraction on PET MPI among LT candidates were associated with increased risk of post-LT MACE. Awareness of these PET-MPI parameters may help improve cardiac risk stratification of LT candidates if confirmed in future studies.

Graft Survival and Segment Discards Among Split-Liver and Reduced-Size Transplantations in the United States From 2008 to 2018.

Split-liver transplantation has allocation advantages over reduced-size transplantation because of its ability to benefit 2 recipients. However, prioritization of split-liver transplantation relies on the following 3 major assumptions that have never been tested in the United States: similar long-term transplant recipient outcomes, lower incidence of segment discard among split-liver procurements, and discard of segments among reduced-size procurements that would be otherwise "transplantable." We used United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data to identify all split-liver (n = 1831) and reduced-size (n = 578) transplantation episodes in the United States between 2008 and 2018. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare 7-year all-cause graft loss between cohorts. Secondary analyses included etiology of 30-day all-cause graft loss events as well as the incidence and anatomy of discarded segments. We found no difference in 7-year all-cause graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.5) or 30-day all-cause graft loss (aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8) between split-liver and reduced-size cohorts. Vascular thrombosis was the most common etiology of 30-day all-cause graft loss for both cohorts (56.4% versus 61.8% of 30-day graft losses; P = 0.85). Finally, reduced-size transplantation was associated with a significantly higher incidence of segment discard (50.0% versus 8.7%) that were overwhelmingly right-sided liver segments (93.6% versus 30.3%). Our results support the prioritization of split-liver over reduced-size transplantation whenever technically feasible.

Changes in Dialysis Center Quality Associated With the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program : An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started levying performance-based financial penalties against outpatient dialysis centers under the mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether penalization was associated with improvement in dialysis center quality. DESIGN: Leveraging the threshold for penalization (total performance score < 60), a regression discontinuity design was used to examine the effect of penalization on quality over 2 years. Publicly available Medicare data from 2015-2018 were used. The effect of penalization at dialysis centers with different characteristics (for example, size or chain affiliation) was also examined. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatient dialysis centers (n = 5830). MEASUREMENTS: Dialysis center total performance scores (a composite metric ranging from 0 to 100 based on clinical quality and adherence to reporting requirements) and individual measures that contribute to the total performance score. RESULTS: There were 1109 (19.0%) outpatient dialysis centers that received penalties in 2017 on the basis of performance in 2015. Penalized centers were located in ZIP codes with a higher average proportion of non-White residents (36.4% vs. 31.2%; P < 0.001) and residents with lower median income ($49 290 vs. $51 686; P < 0.001). Penalization was not associated with improvement in total performance scores in 2017 (0.4 point [95% CI, -2.5 to 3.2 points]) or 2018 (0.3 point [CI, -2.8 to 3.4 points]). This was consistent across dialysis centers with different characteristics. There was also no association between penalization and improvement in specific measures. LIMITATION: The study could not account for how centers respond to penalization. CONCLUSION: Penalization under the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program was not associated with improvement in the quality of outpatient dialysis centers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Perioperative Risks of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Among Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Review of the MBSAQIP Database.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with CKD experience higher rates of perioperative complications after RYGB compared to sleeve gastrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For obese CKD patients who qualify for bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy is often preferred to RYGB based on perceptions of prohibitively-high perioperative risks surrounding RYGB. However, some patients with CKD are not candidates for sleeve gastrectomy and the incremental increased-risk from RYGB has never been rigorously tested in this population. METHODS: CKD patients who underwent RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2017 were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File. RYGB patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched with sleeve gastrectomy patients based on preoperative factors that influence operative choice. Primary outcomes included 30-day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications used to create the composite surgical/medical complications. Univariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. E-value statistic was used to test the strength of outcome point estimates against possible unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Demographics were similar between RYGB (n = 673) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 673) cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients (4.9% vs 2.7%, P = 0.035, E-value 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Among well-matched cohorts of RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy patients, incidence of primary outcomes were similar. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients; however, the E-value for this difference was small and relatively weak confounder(s) could abrogate the statistical difference. The perception that RYGB has prohibitively-high perioperative risks among CKD patients is disputable and operative selection should be weighed on patient candidacy and anticipated long-term benefit.

Evaluation of an opioid restrictive pain management initiative in adult kidney transplant recipients.

PURPOSE: Evidence to guide opioid utilization following kidney transplantation is lacking. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of an opioid restrictive post-operative pain management protocol in adult kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: We analyzed patients who underwent kidney transplant between 1/1/2017 to 8/15/2018. A standardized, opioid restrictive pain management protocol was implemented in February 2018. The primary outcome was quantity of opioid tablets prescribed at discharge. Secondary outcomes included amount of opioid prescribed within first 30 days, number of patient calls for pain, and opioid prescription in electronic medical record (EMR) at 90 days and 1 year. RESULTS: After implementation, significantly fewer opioid tablets were prescribed at discharge (4 vs. 60 tablets, p < .001) and less oral morphine milligram equivalence (OME) were prescribed within 30 days of transplant (38 vs. 300, p < .001). In cohort 2, fewer patients received more than one opioid prescription, more patients received truncal block and only 5 patients received patient controlled analgesia compared to all in cohort 1. CONCLUSION: A standardized, patient-centered pain management strategy after kidney transplantation reduced opioid prescribing without increasing readmissions or clinic calls. This data may be used to inform guidelines for appropriate OME prescribing at discharge after kidney transplantation.

Perioperative risks of bariatric surgery among patients with and without history of solid organ transplant.

Bariatric surgery is effective among patients with previous transplant in limited case series. However, the perioperative safety of bariatric surgery in this patient population is poorly understood. Therefore, we assessed the safety of bariatric surgery among previous-transplant patients using a database that captures >92% of all US bariatric procedures. All primary, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures between 2017 and 2018 were identified from the MBSAQIP dataset. Patients with previous transplant (n = 610) were compared with patients without previous transplant (n = 321 447). Primary outcomes were 30 day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Multivariable logistic regression with predictive margins was used to compare outcomes. Previous transplant patients experienced higher incidence of readmissions (8.0% vs 3.5%), surgical complications (5.0% vs 2.7%), and medical complications (4.3% vs 1.5%). There was no difference in incidence of death (0.2% vs 0.1%). Among individual complications, there no statistical differences in intraabdominal leak, unplanned reoperation, myocardial infarction, or infectious complications. Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was found to be a strong moderator of primary outcomes, with the highest risk of complications occurring at the lowest baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Given the many long-term benefits of bariatric surgery among patients with previous transplant, our findings should not preclude this patient population from operative consideration.

Bariatric surgery for prospective living kidney donors with obesity?

The obesity epidemic has gripped the transplant community. With nearly 40% of adults in the United States being obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 ) and 20% being morbidly obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m2 ), the implications for both donors and recipients of solid organs continue to grow.1 Nowhere is this more impactful than the candidacy of living kidney donors (LKDs). As increasing numbers of obese adults present for LKD consideration and evidence of inferior outcomes among obese LKDs grows, transplant surgeons will become progressively challenged by how to manage these patients in the clinic. Therefore, we offer this Personal Viewpoint to the transplant surgery community in order to review the current impact of obesity on living kidney donation, highlight what weight-loss interventions have already been attempted, and discuss the role that referral for weight-loss interventions including bariatric surgery might have going forward.

The impact of intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on donor and recipient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have a significant effect on donor and recipient outcomes. We sought to quantify variability in fluid management and investigate its impact on donor and recipient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDN from July 2011 to January 2016 with paired kidney recipients at a single center was performed. Patients were divided into tertiles of intraoperative fluid management (standard, high, and aggressive). Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 413 paired kidney donors and recipients were identified. Intraoperative fluid management (mL/h) was highly variable with no correlation to donor weight (kg) (R = 0.017). The aggressive fluid management group had significantly lower recipient creatinine levels on postoperative day 1. However, no significant differences were noted in creatinine levels out to 6 months between groups. No significant differences were noted in recipient postoperative complications, graft loss, and death. There was a significant increase (P < 0.01) in the number of total donor complications in the aggressive fluid management group. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive fluid management during LDN does not improve recipient outcomes and may worsen donor outcomes compared to standard fluid management.

Abdominal adiposity, body composition and survival after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Current measures of obesity do not accurately describe body composition. Using cross-sectional imaging, objective measures of musculature and adiposity are possible and may inform efforts to optimize liver transplantation outcomes. METHODS: Abdominal visceral fat area and psoas muscle cross-sectional area were measured on CT scans for 348 liver transplant recipients. After controlling for donor and recipient characteristics, survival analysis was performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Visceral fat area was significantly associated with post-transplant mortality (p < 0.001; HR = 1.06 per 10 cm(2) , 95% CI: 1.04-1.09), as were positive hepatitis C status (p = 0.004; HR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.21-2.61) and total psoas area (TPA) (p < 0.001; HR = 0.91 per cm(2) , 95% CI: 0.88-0.94). Among patients with smaller TPA, the patients with high visceral fat area had 71.8% one-yr survival compared to 81.8% for those with low visceral fat area (p = 0.15). At five yr, the smaller muscle patients with high visceral fat area had 36.9% survival compared to 58.2% for those with low visceral fat area (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal adiposity is associated with survival after liver transplantation, especially in patients with small trunk muscle size. When coupled with trunk musculature, abdominal adiposity offers direct characterization of body composition that can aid preoperative risk evaluation and inform transplant decision-making.

Sarcopenia and failure to rescue following liver transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcopenic liver transplant recipients have higher rates of mortality, but mechanisms underlying these rates remain unclear. Failure to rescue (FTR) has been shown to be a primary driver of mortality following major general and vascular surgery. We hypothesized that FTR is common in sarcopenic liver transplant recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 348 liver transplant recipients with perioperative CT scans. Analytic morphomic techniques were used to assess trunk muscle size via total psoas area (TPA). One-yr major complication and FTR rates were calculated across TPA tertiles. RESULTS: The one-yr complication rate was 77% and the FTR rate was 19%. Multivariate regression showed TPA as a significant predictor of FTR (OR = 0.27 per 1000 mm(2) increase in TPA, p < 0.001). Compared to patients in the largest muscle tertile, patients in the smallest tertile had 1.4-fold higher adjusted complication rates (91% vs. 66%) and 2.8-fold higher adjusted FTR rates (22% vs. 8%). DISCUSSION: These results suggest that mortality in sarcopenic liver transplant recipients may be strongly related to FTR. Efforts aimed at early recognition and management of complications may decrease postoperative mortality. Additionally, this work highlights the need for expanded multicenter collaborations aimed at collection and analysis of postoperative complications in liver transplant recipients.

Patients' perspectives of care and surgical outcomes in Michigan: an analysis using the CAHPS hospital survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between postoperative morbidity and mortality and patients' perspectives of care. BACKGROUND: Priorities in health care quality research are shifting to place greater emphasis on patient-centered outcomes. Whether patients' perspectives of care correlate with surgical outcomes remains unclear. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Using data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative clinical registry (2008-2012), we identified 41,833 patients undergoing major elective general or vascular surgery. Our exposure variables were the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Total and Base Scores derived from the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Patient Experience of Care Domain. Using multilevel, mixed-effects logistic regression models, we adjusted hospitals' rates of morbidity and mortality for patient comorbidities and case mix. We stratified reporting of outcomes by quintiles of hospitals' Total and Base Scores. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted morbidity (13.6%-28.6%) varied widely across hospitals. There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity rates between hospitals with the lowest and highest HCAHPS Total Scores (24.5% vs 20.2%, P = 0.312). The HCAHPS Base Score, which quantifies sustained achievement or improvement in patients' perspectives of care, was not associated with a reduction in postoperative morbidity over the study period despite an overall decrease of 2.5% for all centers. We observed a similar relationship between HCAHPS Total and Base Scores and postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients' perspectives of care do not correlate with the incidence of morbidity and mortality after major surgery. Improving patients' perspectives and objective outcomes may require separate initiatives for surgeons in Michigan.

Aneurysms in abdominal organ transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence and natural history of aneurysms among abdominal transplant recipients. METHODS: This article is a retrospective review of adult patients who underwent a kidney or liver transplant at a single center between February 23, 2000, and October 6, 2011. Data were obtained by searching electronic medical records for documentation of arterial aneurysm. Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) were included if they were ≥3.0 cm in diameter, and thoracic aortic aneurysms were included if they had a diameter ≥3.75 cm. Additional data collected included recipient demographics, transplant-specific data, and characteristics of the aneurysms. RESULTS: There were 927 liver transplant recipients, 2133 kidney transplant recipients, 23 liver-kidney transplant recipients, and 133 kidney-pancreas transplant recipients included in our study; 127 of these patients were identified to have aneurysms (40 liver, 83 kidney, 3 liver-kidney, 1 kidney-pancreas). The overall prevalence of any aneurysm was similar for liver and kidney recipients, but the distribution of aneurysm types was different for the two groups. AAAs made up 29.6% of aneurysms in kidney transplant recipients and 11.4% of aneurysms in liver transplant recipients (P = .02). Visceral aneurysms were 10-fold as common in liver transplant recipients compared with kidney transplant recipients (47.7% of aneurysms vs 5.1% of aneurysms; P < .01). The majority of visceral artery aneurysms involved the hepatic and splenic artery. For both liver and kidney transplant recipients, most aneurysms occurred post-transplantation. All known aortic aneurysm ruptures occurred post-transplantation (25% of AAAs in liver transplant patients and 22.2% of thoracic aortic aneurysms in kidney transplant patients). There was a trend toward higher AAA expansion rates after transplantation (0.58 ± 0.48 cm/y compared with 0.41 ± 0.16 cm/y). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the general population, aneurysms may be more common and may have an aggressive natural history in abdominal transplant recipients. Furthermore, the types of aneurysms that affect liver and kidney transplant recipients differ. Care teams should be aware of these risks and surveillance programs should be tailored appropriately.