Chadha, Ryan

AbstractIntroductionFor patients with catecholamine‐resistant vasoplegic syndrome (VS) during liver transplantation (LT), treatment with methylene blue (MB) and/or hydroxocobalamin (B12) has been an acceptable therapy. However, data on the effectiveness of B12 is limited to case reports and case series.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of patients undergoing LT from January 2016 through March 2022. We identified patients with VS treated with vasopressors and MB, and abstracted hemodynamic parameters, vasopressor requirements, and B12 administration from the records. The primary aim was to describe the treatment efficacy of B12 for VS refractory to vasopressors and MB, measured as no vasopressor requirement at the conclusion of the surgery.ResultsOne hundred one patients received intraoperative VS treatment. For the 35 (34.7%) patients with successful VS treatment, 14 received MB only and 21 received both MB and B12. Of the 21 patients with VS resolution after receiving both MB and B12, 17 (89.5%) showed immediate, but transient, hemodynamic improvements at the time of MB administration and later showed sustained response to B12.ConclusionImmediate but transient hemodynamic response to MB in VS patients during LT supports the diagnosis of VS and should prompt B12 administration for sustained treatment response.

The 2023 Joint International Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association (ELITA), and the Liver Intensive Care Group of Europe (LICAGE) held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, marked a significant recovery milestone for the liver transplant community after COVID-19. With 1159 participants and a surge in abstract submissions, the event focused on “Liver Disorders and Transplantation: Innovations and Evolving Indications.” This conference report provides a comprehensive overview of the key themes discussed during the event, encompassing Hepatology, Anesthesia and Critical Care, Acute Liver Failure, Infectious Disease, Immunosuppression, Pediatric Liver Transplantation, Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Transplant Oncology, Surgical Approaches, and Machine Perfusion. The congress provided a platform for extensive discussions on a wide range of topics, reflecting the continuous advancements and collaborative efforts within the liver transplant community.

We conducted a web-based survey to characterize liver transplant (LT) evaluation and listing practices for patients being evaluated for combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT), with a specific emphasis on patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), around transplant centers in North America. Very few protocols for liver evaluation and listing in patients undergoing combined heart-liver transplantation are published, and no guidelines currently exist on this topic. A subject of intense debate in the transplant community is the decision of which patients with CHD and liver disease benefit from CHLT compared with heart transplantation. A focus group from the American Society of Transplantation Liver-Intestine Community of Practice Education Subcommittee developed a web-based survey that included questions (1) respondee demographic information; (2) LT evaluation practices in CHLT; (3) liver organ listing practices in CHLT, and (4) 4 clinical vignettes with case-based scenarios in CHLT liver listings among CHD patients who underwent Fontan palliation. The survey was distributed to medical and surgical LT program directors of 47 centers that had completed at least 1 CHLT up to July 2021 in the US and the University of Toronto, Canada. The survey had an excellent 83% response rate (87% for centers that completed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 y). Total 66.7% used transjugular liver biopsy with HVPG measurements, 30% used percutaneous liver biopsy with no consensus on the use of a fibrosis staging system, 95% mandated contrasted cross-sectional imaging, and 65% upper endoscopy. The following isolated findings evaluation mandated CHLT listing: isolated elevated HVPG (61.5%); the presence of portosystemic collaterals on imaging (67.5%); the endoscopic presence of esophageal or gastric varices (75%), and the presence of HCC (80%), whereas the majority of centers did not feel that the presence of isolated splenomegaly (100%), thrombocytopenia (81.6%), endoscopic findings of portal hypertensive gastropathy (66.7%), or highly sensitized patients (84.6%) justified CHLT. In our survey of North American centers that had performed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 years, we observed heterogeneity in practices for both evaluation and listing protocols in these patients.

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).

The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia (SATA) is dedicated to improving patient care in all facets of transplant anesthesia. The anesthesia fellowship training recommendations for thoracic transplantation (heart and lungs) and part of the abdominal organ transplantation (liver) have been presented in previous publications. The SATA Fellowship Committee has completed the remaining component of abdominal transplant anesthesia (kidney/pancreas) and has assembled core competencies and milestones derived from expert consensus to guide the education and overall preparation of trainees providing care for kidney/pancreas transplant recipients. These recommendations provide a comprehensive approach to pre-operative evaluation, vascular access procedures, advanced hemodynamic monitoring, assessment of coagulation and metabolic abnormalities, operative techniques, and post-operative pain control. As such, this document supplements the current liver/hepatic transplant anesthesia fellowship training programs to include all aspects of “Abdominal Organ Transplant Anesthesia” recommended knowledge.

Liver grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are a source of organs to decrease wait‐list mortality. While there have been lower rates of graft loss, there are concerns of an increased incidence of intraoperative events in recipients of DCD grafts. We aim to look at the incidence of intraoperative events between recipients of livers from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We collected data for 235 DCD liver recipients between 2006 and 2017. We performed a 1:1 propensity match between these patients and patients with DBD donors. Variables included recipient age, liver disease etiology, biological Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, allocation MELD score, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, and year of transplantation. DCD and DBD groups had no significant differences in incidence of postreperfusion syndrome (P = 0.75), arrhythmia requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = 0.66), and treatments for hyperkalemia (P = 0.84). In the DCD group, there was a significant increase in amount of total intraoperative and postreperfusion blood products (with exception of postreperfusion packed red blood cells) utilized (P < 0.05 for all products), significant differences in postreperfusion thromboelastography parameters, as well as inotropes and vasopressors used (P < 0.05 for all infusions). There was no difference in patient (P = 0.49) and graft survival (P = 0.10) at 1, 3, and 5 years. In conclusion, DCD grafts compared with a cohort of DBD grafts have a similar low incidence of major intraoperative events, but increased incidence of transient vasopressor/inotropic usage and increased blood transfusion requirements. This does not result in differences in longterm outcomes. While centers should continue to look at DCD liver donors, they should be cognizant regarding intraoperative care to prevent adverse outcomes.

Liver transplantation is a complex procedure performed on critically ill patients with multiple comorbidities, which requires the anesthesiologist to be facile with complex hemodynamics and physiology, vascular access procedures, and advanced monitoring. Over the past decade, there has been a continuing debate whether or not liver transplant anesthesia is a general or specialist practice. Yet, as significant data have come out in support of dedicated liver transplant anesthesia teams, there is not a guarantee of liver transplant exposure in domestic residencies. In addition, there are no standards for what competencies are required for an individual seeking fellowship training in liver transplant anesthesia. Using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines for residency training as a model, the Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia Fellowship Committee in conjunction with the Liver Transplant Anesthesia Fellowship Task Force has developed the first proposed standardized core competencies and milestones for fellowship training in liver transplant anesthesiology.