Chadha, Ryan

ABSTRACT Background With increasing use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor grafts, the need for accurate risk‐stratification tools in liver transplantation has become critical. Machine perfusion has been shown to improve both graft and patient survival. However, existing prediction models were developed in the static cold storage (SCS) era and their accuracy when using machine perfusion remains unknown. Our study aims to study if current scoring systems can predict graft and patient survival for DCD livers preserved using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP). Methods This was a retrospective study of patient and graft survival in a two‐center U.S. DCD NMP cohort ( n = 532) between January 2022 and December 2024. Predicted graft and patient survival rates were obtained from established risk scoring systems, including the United Kingdom DCD risk score (UK‐DCD), Early Allograft Dysfunction (EAD) Olthoff score, Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L‐GrAFT 7 ) score, Donor Risk Index (DRI), Balance of Risk (BAR) score, and Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplant (SOFT) score. Model discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (C‐statistics). Survival outcomes across risk strata were estimated and compared using Kaplan‐Meier (KM) analysis. Results Across scoring systems, predicted survival consistently underestimated actual graft and patient survival in the NMP DCD cohort. The DRI, SOFT, EAD and L‐GrAFT 7 did not demonstrate predictive value. UK‐DCD predicted ≤85% and <40% 1‐year graft survival for its high‐risk and “futile” groups, whereas observed rates were 93.7% and 86.8%. BAR low‐risk predicted >60% 5‐year survival but 94.2% was observed; the high‐risk group predicted <60% and observed was 53.3%. Despite underestimations and generally poor C‐statistics, in KM stratification, high‐risk groups still showed statistical differences in the UK‐DCD categories ( p = 0.007), and in SOFT score groups ( p < 0.001). No statistical difference was seen in BAR ( p = 0.36), DRI ( p = 0.36), EAD ( p = 0.12), or L‐GrAFT 7 ( p = 0.75). Conclusion Existing liver transplant risk scores show limited predictive value for donor‐related risk factors in the NMP era, whereas recipient‐related factors remain somewhat predictive, despite overestimating risk. Early allograft dysfunction metrics were not reliable predictors of short or long‐term outcomes. Future risk models should integrate machine‐perfusion parameters and refined donor variables to reflect outcomes more accurately in contemporary DCD liver transplantation.

Abstract Background: Amyloidosis is a complex disease with a multitude of sequalae, particularly with the variants that cause cardiac amyloidosis. There is minimal literature on the types of procedures these patients undergo and the associated postprocedural outcomes. This gap of knowledge makes it difficult for anesthesia providers to risk stratify amyloidosis patients. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective chart review study performed at a tertiary care medical center that serves as a referral center for patients with amyloidosis. Patients with a known diagnosis of transthyretin (ATTR) or light chain (AL) amyloidosis who underwent procedures requiring anesthesia between January 1, 2018 and October 24, 2024 were included in the study. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications and analysis of types of procedures requiring anesthesia. Results: During the study period, 160 patients underwent a total of 466 procedures requiring anesthesia. Overall, 30-day mortality rate for all encounters was 1.7% (2.7% AL vs 0.5% ATTR, OR 5.71). Endoscopy was the most common procedure, accounting for 26.6% of all procedures. At the patient level, several procedures were more common in ATTR patients including TEE/Cardioversions (21.7% vs 6.6%, p=0.008), electrophysiology (36.2% vs 9.9%, p<0.001), and neurosurgery (13.0% vs 3.3%, p=0.031). Conclusions: In conclusion, patients with amyloid variants that cause cardiac amyloidosis carry substantial postoperative risk when undergoing procedures, with a trend toward increased mortality in patients with AL compared to ATTR. Patients with ATTR are more likely to require neurosurgery and treatment of arrythmias than patients with AL. Additional studies are needed to determine specific diagnostic parameters to help optimize these patients in the future. Trial Registration : Not applicable. Not a clinical trial

The 2025 Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), themed “ Advancing Liver Transplantation: Embracing Innovation for the Future ,” was held from May 28 to 31 in Singapore. The meeting offered a comprehensive scientific program, featuring 92 sessions and 7 pre-congress workshops spanning living donor liver transplantation, advanced surgery, anesthesia and critical care, transplant oncology and immunology, basic science, pediatrics, and more. The program emphasized collaboration and innovation to advance patient outcomes in liver transplantation. In this report, the ILTS Vanguard Committee summarizes the key proceedings of the congress.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver disease. As its use expands worldwide, ensuring the safety and well-being of live liver donors (LLD) is of paramount importance. Published evidence on early postoperative complications after living donor hepatectomy—those occurring within 90 days of surgery—is limited, and standardized postoperative care protocols are lacking. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for the safe care of the LLDs. This manuscript details the recommendations on early postoperative considerations for the safety of LLDs developed by Working Group III (WGIII) 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. WGIII addressed four key areas: (1) standardized postoperative care, (2) early biliary complications, (3) early postoperative liver dysfunction, and (4) early postdischarge follow-up. This report emphasizes the need for vigilant postoperative monitoring in specialized units, with access to experienced providers and defined clinical pathways. Structured clinical and psychosocial follow-up protocols, perioperative prophylaxis for surgical site infections and venous thromboembolism, and management of early biliary and vascular complications are discussed. These may help standardize care, reduce complications and improve short-term outcomes in LLDs.

Background and Aims: Liver transplant is a specialized treatment for a spectrum of indications that use a scarce resource. Transplant is guided by principles of justice, equity, and benefit, with a constant conflict between competing interests. Organs are a national resource with a goal of equitable distribution across sites. An AASLD guideline for the evaluation and selection of appropriate candidates for transplant has been available since 2005. Methods: A multidisciplinary writing group of liver transplant experts and a librarian convened over 24 months. The writing group reviewed the literature, generated guideline recommendations, and rated the level of evidence for each recommendation based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. The group categorized the strength of recommendations based on the level of evidence, risk-benefit ratio, and patient preferences. Conclusions: Liver transplant is a lifesaving procedure that should be offered to selected patients with clear indications and a reasonable prospect of benefit. The evaluation is designed to identify those in need, to outline hurdles to a successful outcome, and to develop an effective transplant plan. The goal of this document is to provide a template for this process.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use during liver transplantation is a complex and evolving aspect of critical care. This retrospective analysis presents the largest North American case series to date, offering a detailed comparison of survival outcomes in liver transplant (LT) patients supported by ECMO. A total of 15 patients were supported with ECMO, eight were supported on venoarterial (VA) ECMO and the remaining seven on venovenous (VV) ECMO. The median duration of ECMO support was 10 days. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were 34.8 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1–158) and 49.2 days (IQR: 1–121), respectively. Overall survival was 33.3%, comparable to published rates (20–30%). Survival was based on ECMO initiation timing: preoperative 33.3% (1/3); intraoperative 50% (3/6); postoperative, 16.6% (1/6). All the patients (five) discharged from hospital were alive at 1 year follow-up. Significant ECMO-related complications included acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (40%, n = 6/15), neurological complications (40%, n = 6/15), and bleeding requiring transfusion (26.6%, n = 4/15). Literature review suggests better outcomes with intraoperative or postoperative ECMO. While ECMO use is increasing in LT, outcomes remain poor. Improved survival may depend on careful patient selection, optimal timing of initiation, and distinguishing reversible pathology from irreversible one.