Findlay, James Y.

The success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has bridged the growing gap between organ demand and availability in patients with liver failure or liver cancer. Safety of the living liver donor (LLD) is paramount, and astute intraoperative management plays a critical role in ensuring optimal outcomes for them. Given that intraoperative surgical and anesthesia practices vary widely across centers, the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a global consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for intraoperative management of the LLD. This manuscript details the recommendations on intraoperative considerations for the safety of LLD developed by Working Group II of the Consensus Scientific Committee, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus. Working Group II focused on intraoperative monitoring, fluid and ventilation strategies, surgical techniques for vascular and biliary division, surgeon and center-specific experience, and intraoperative crises planning. These guidelines aim to support both established and emerging LDLT teams to ensure high-quality and safe intraoperative care for the LLD.

Background. During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). Methods. A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. Results. It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. Conclusions. Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

AbstractBackgroundIn the era of enhanced recovery after surgery, there is significant discussion regarding the impact of intraoperative anesthetic management on short‐term outcomes following liver transplantation (LT), with no clear consensus in the literature.ObjectivesTo identify whether or not intraoperative anesthetic management affects short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation.Data SourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021239758). An international expert panel made recommendations for clinical practice using the GRADE approach.ResultsAfter screening, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Six were prospective randomized clinical trials, three were prospective nonrandomized clinical trials, and five were retrospective studies. These manuscripts were reviewed to look at five questions regarding anesthetic care and its impact on short term outcomes following liver transplant. After review of the literature, the quality of evidence according to the following outcomes was as follows: intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality (low), early allograft dysfunction (low), and hospital and ICU length of stay (moderate).ConclusionsFor optimal short term outcomes after liver transplantation, the panel recommends the use of volatile anesthetics in preference to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak) and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) versus bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak). Regarding ventilation and oxygenation, the panel recommends a restrictive oxygenation strategy targeting a PaO2 of 70–120 mmHg (10–14 kPa), a tidal volume of 6–8 ml/kg ideal body weight (IBW), administration of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) tailored to patient intraoperative physiology, and recruitment maneuvers. (Level of evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). Finally, the panel recommends the routine use of antiemetic prophylaxis. (Level of evidence: low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong).

Background. Portopulmonary hypertension (POPH), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) that develops in the setting of portal hypertension, affects 5%–6% of patients with liver disease and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) threshold of 35 mm Hg is used to stratify perioperative risk and liver transplant eligibility in treated POPH patients but does not take into account the specific factors that contribute to the pressure elevation. Methods. In this case series, we describe the characteristics and posttransplant outcomes of patients with treated POPH and an mPAP ≥35 mm Hg and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) <250 dynes-s-cm−5 at or just before liver transplantation (LT). We also describe the effect of PAH therapy on pulmonary hemodynamics in patients with POPH. Results. Sixteen patients were included. All patients were on PAH therapy at the time of LT. PAH therapy resulted in a decrease of mPAP (median 18.4%; interquartile range [IQR] 8.9%–27.0%) with a reduction in PVR (median 50.5%; IQR, 45.4%–70.7%), and an increase in both cardiac output (CO) (median 28.1%; IQR 5.7%–63.8%) and PAWP (median 50.0%; IQR 16.7%–108.3%) before LT. One year posttransplant survival was 69% (11/16); however, only 1 death was attributed to POPH. At 1-year posttransplant, 63.6% (7/11) of patients were weaned off all PAH therapy with clinical and echocardiographic resolution of POPH. Conclusions. In treated POPH patients with an mPAP ≥35 mm Hg and PVR < 250 dynes-s-cm−5 before LT, 1-year posttransplant survival was 69% and the majority of patients were able to discontinue PAH therapy.

Background. Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. Methods. Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. Results. The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or <72 hours of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in case of ongoing sepsis were considered reasons to delay LT. A simple assessment of the number of organs failing was considered the most appropriate way to decide whether LT should be delayed or denied, with respiratory, circulatory and metabolic failures having the most influence in this decision. The thresholds of severity of organ failures contraindicating LT for which a consensus was achieved were a Pa o 2 /FiO2 ratio<150 mm Hg, a norepinephrine dose >1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. Conclusions. Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented.

Background. Anesthetic management of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) can be challenging. Management involves responding to sudden hemodynamic shifts, addressing instability, and performing ongoing volume assessment. To best prepare for these perturbations, various monitors are used intraoperatively. We sought to explore the impact of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use on outcomes of patients undergoing OLT. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed records of patients who underwent OLT at a single institution and included all who were monitored intraoperatively with TEE alone, PAC alone, or both methods concurrently (TEE + PAC). We determined whether these groups had differences in length of hospitalization (primary outcome), 30-day mortality rate, and other outcomes. Results. Three hundred eighteen liver transplant operations were included in the study. Patients in the TEE + PAC group had the shortest median length of hospitalization (TEE + PAC, 8.6 days; TEE, 10.3; PAC, 9.1; P = 0.04). The TEE + PAC group also had the lowest 30-day mortality rate (TEE + PAC, n = 1 [1.3%]; TEE, n = 5 [12.8%]; PAC, n = 7 [3.5%]; P = 0.009). However, the TEE + PAC group also had the highest rate of a new postoperative need for dialysis (TEE + PAC, n = 8 [10.3%]; TEE, n = 2 [5.1%]; PAC, n = 1 [0.5%]; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Compared with either TEE alone or PAC alone, intraoperative monitoring with TEE + PAC during OLT was associated with the shortest length of hospitalization and lowest 30-day mortality rate. Transplant anesthesiologists should be aware of the potential benefit on patient mortality and hospital length of stay with concurrent intraoperative TEE + PAC monitoring and the increased need for new postoperative dialysis.

Background. The assessment of perioperative risk factors for the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been described in various surgical populations. However, there are only limited data among patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT), particularly regarding the influence of intraoperative ventilation parameters. We sought to identify the perioperative risk factors associated with the development of ARDS in LT recipients. Methods. This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent LT at a tertiary academic medical center between January 1, 2006, and January 31, 2016. Postoperative ARDS was identified using the Berlin definition. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify perioperative risk factors for ARDS. Results. Of 817 eligible patients who underwent an LT during the study period, 20 (2.45%) developed postoperative ARDS. In the preoperative model, ongoing dialysis (odds ratio, 6.41; P < 0.01) was identified as an independent risk factor of ARDS post-LT. A higher mean peak inspiratory pressure per increase of 1 cm H2O (odds ratio, 1.31; P < 0.01) was the only independent risk factor in the intraoperative model. Patients who developed ARDS postoperatively had significantly greater intensive care unit and hospital stay compared to non-ARDS patients (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the 30-day (P = 0.16) and 1-year (P = 0.51) mortality between the groups. Conclusions. Dialysis at the time of transplant and elevated intraoperative mean peak inspiratory pressure were associated with the development of ARDS. ARDS post LT was associated with increased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, but not increased mortality.