Aqel, Bashar

Background. Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are common in liver transplant recipients. The optimal SSI antimicrobial prophylaxis agent and duration are not established. We aimed to explore risk factors for SSIs after transplant, with a particular interest in the impact of perioperative antibiotic regimen on the development of SSIs. Methods. Retrospective study of adults undergoing liver transplant across 3 transplant programs between January 1, 2020, and June 01, 2021. Results. Of 557 patients included in the study, 32 (5.7%) were infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) within 1 y before liver transplant. Narrow-spectrum SSI prophylaxis with ceftriaxone or cefazolin alone was administered in 488 of 577 patients (87.6%); the remaining 69 patients (12.4%) received broad-spectrum prophylaxis with vancomycin and aztreonam (n = 40), piperacillin–tazobactam (n = 11), carbapenems (n = 8), ceftriaxone and another antibiotic (n = 7), and others. Patients with pretransplant MDRO were more likely to receive broad-spectrum coverage than those without pretransplant MDROs (28.1% versus 11.4%, P = 0.005). SSIs were identified in 40 patients (7.2%); 25 (62.5%) were organ–space infections, 3 (7.5%) were deep incisional infections, and 12 (30.0%) were superficial incisional infections. The median time from liver transplant to SSIs was 14 d (interquartile range, 10–20.2). MDROs were identified in 12 SSIs (30%). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant association between antimicrobial spectrum and risk of SSIs (P = 0.5), whereas surgical leak (P<0.001) and reoperation (P = 0.017) were independently associated with increased risk of SSIs. SSIs were not significantly associated with composite risk of death or liver allograft failure. Conclusions. The spectrum of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not impact the development of SSIs in liver transplant recipients.

Introduction Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. Project aim The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. Design This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. Results Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications ( P = .11). There were no differences in patient ( P = .88) or graft survival ( P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. Conclusion Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

Abstract Background: Starting in November 2017, 3 liver transplant centers in a single health care system tested and implemented a new protocol to begin accepting livers from hepatitis C virus–seropositive donors for seronegative liver transplant recipients. Although reports show an increase in donors after protocol implementation, there are no details regarding protocol uptake at each transplant center. Literature is limited on protocol implementation that is developed and disseminated by the same protocol producers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a new liver transplant protocol adopted at 3 transplant centers in the same health care system. Methods: A multimethod implementation study using interview, survey, and transplant data was conducted to develop a conceptual model of protocol implementation, identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation, and detect differences in implementation between 3 centers. Results: The conceptual model included 4 domains: rationale, development, implementation, and sustainability. Facilitators included clear, science-based rationale, input from multiple hepatologists, leadership support, and funded pilot data. Barriers included insurance coverage of posttransplant medication and donor field availability. A total of 94 physicians and staff at the 3 transplant centers completed the survey. Implementation factors were all rated moderately high to high at all 3 centers. One-way analysis of variance showed significant differences in mean implementation scores between the centers (F(2, 84)=11.65; P<.001) and between physicians at the 3 centers (F(2, 23)=4.65; P=.02); post hoc comparisons indicated that the scores for physicians differed only between the leading center and 1 participating center. Transplant numbers increased across all 3 centers from 2017 to 2021. Conclusions: Protocol implementation was successful across all 3 centers, especially at the leading transplant center where the protocol was developed. Future efforts should examine the appropriateness of the protocol for other organs (eg, heart, kidney) and additional medical outcome data (eg, mortality, morbidity, quality of life). Trial Registration: Not applicable

Background. With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet‚ to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods. All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results. A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions. In appropriately selected recipients with grades I–II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

AbstractGraft‐versus‐hostdisease (GVHD) following liver transplantation (LT) is rare but can lead tosignificant mortality. The leading cause of death following GVHD diagnosis isinfectious complications. However, there is a lack of clear descriptions concerning infection and antimicrobial management patterns. Our study aims toprovide the focused details of all infectious complications of acute GVHDfollowing LT. We retrospectively reviewed all adult LT recipients with acute GVHD at Mayo Clinic's Transplant Centers from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. Detailed characteristics of infection in each case were described. Among 4,585 LTs performed during this period, 12 (0.3%) patients developed acuteGVHD. The median time from transplantation to GVHD diagnosis was 49.0 days [IQR 31.5–99.0]. Ten (83.3%) patients developed severe infections leading tomortality. The most common cause of infection was nosocomial bacteremia fromenteric bacteria such as vancomycin‐resistant enterococci and gram‐negative bacilli. Other infections included breakthrough invasive fungal infections,cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, and Clostridioides difficile colitis. Antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies in most cases were based on the degree of neutropenia—these include levofloxacin for bacterial prophylaxis, nebulized pentamidine for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis, posaconazole for invasive fungal prophylaxis, and valganciclovir based on CMVstatus. All GVHD patients with severe infections succumbed to thesecomplications. Ourstudy reiterates that despite prophylaxis, infectious complications in GVHDfollowing LT are common and lead to exceptionally high mortality. Individualizedantimicrobial treatment, prophylaxis and monitoring strategies remain a criticalcomponent of GVHD management. Further study to optimize these practices isrequired. image

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For early- and intermediate-stage disease, liver-directed therapies for locoregional control, or down-staging prior to definitive surgical therapy with hepatic resection or liver transplantation, have been studied broadly, and are the mainstays of current treatment guidelines. As HCC incidence has continued to grow, and with more patients presenting with advanced disease, our current treatment modalities do not suffice, and better therapies are needed to improve disease-specific and overall survival. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy utilized, and was associated with dismal results. The advent of immuno-oncology has been of significant interest, and has changed the paradigm of therapy for HCC. Lately, combination regimens including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; durvalumab plus tremelimumab; and pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have shown impressive responses of between 25–35%; this is much higher than responses observed with single agents. Complete responses with checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been observed in advanced-stage HCC patients. These dramatic results have naturally led to several questions. Can or should checkpoint inhibitors, or other immunotherapy combinations, be used routinely before resection or transplant? Is there a synergistic effect of immunotherapy with locoregional therapy, and will pre-treatment increase disease-free survival after surgical intervention? Is it immunologically safe to use these therapies prior to transplantation? Much is still to be learned in terms of the dosing, timing, and overall utility of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for pre-transplant care and down-staging. More studies will be needed to understand the management of adverse events while maximizing the therapeutic window of these agents. In this review, we look at the current data on therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC, with a focus on pre-transplant treatment prior to liver transplant.

Abstract Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non‐TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow‐up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent‐free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re‐LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98–4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.