Croome, Kris P

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts are commonly used in liver transplantation. Attributable to the additional ischemic event during the donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), DCD grafts carry an increased risk for severe ischemia/reperfusion injury and postoperative complications, such as ischemic cholangiopathy. The actual ischemia during DWIT depends on the course of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support and varies widely between donors. The ischemic period (functional DWIT) starts when either Sp o 2 or blood pressure drop below a certain point and lasts until the start of cold perfusion during organ retrieval. Over the years, multiple definitions and thresholds of functional DWIT duration have been used. The International Liver Transplantation Society organized a Consensus Conference on DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion on January 31, 2020 in Venice, Italy. The aim of this conference was to reach consensus about various aspects of DCD liver transplantation in context of currently available evidence. Here we present the recommendations with regards to the definitions used for DWIT and functional DWIT, the importance of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support, and acceptable thresholds of duration of functional DWIT to proceed with liver transplantation.

Pre–liver transplantation (LT) renal dysfunction is associated with poor post‐LT survival. We studied whether early allograft dysfunction (EAD) modifies this association. Data on 2,856 primary LT recipients who received a transplant between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died within the first post‐LT week or received multiorgan transplants and previous LT recipients were excluded. EAD was defined as (1) total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 7, (2) international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on POD 7, and/or (3) alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase ≥2000 IU/mL in the first postoperative week. Pre‐LT renal dysfunction was defined as serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or on renal replacement therapy at LT. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD development. Recipients who had both pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD had the worst unadjusted 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year post‐LT patient and graft survival, whereas patients who had neither renal dysfunction nor EAD had the best survival (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple factors, the risk of death was significantly higher only in those with both pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58‐3.03; P < 0.001), whereas those with renal dysfunction and no EAD had a comparable risk of death to those with normal kidney function at LT (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86‐1.45; P = 0.41). Results remained unchanged when pre‐LT renal dysfunction was redefined using different glomerular filtration rate cutoffs. Pre‐LT renal dysfunction negatively impacts post‐LT survival only in patients who develop EAD. Livers at higher risk of post‐LT EAD should be used with caution in recipients with pre‐LT renal dysfunction.

Objective Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients have moderately increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). We evaluated the incidence and survival of PAC in 2 cohorts and aimed to identify potential risk factors. Methods This study performed a retrospective cohort analysis. Cohort A was extracted from the United Network of Organ Sharing data set and cohort B from SOT recipients evaluated at 3 Mayo Clinic transplant centers. The primary outcome was age-adjusted annual incidence of PAC. Descriptive statistics, hazard ratios, and survival rates were compared. Results Cohort A and cohort B included 617,042 and 29,472 SOT recipients, respectively. In cohort A, the annual incidence rate was 12.78 per 100,000 in kidney-pancreas, 13.34 in liver, and 21.87 in heart-lung transplant recipients. Receiving heart-lung transplant, 50 years or older, and history of cancer (in either recipient or donor) were independent factors associated with PAC. Fifty-two patients developed PAC in cohort B. Despite earlier diagnosis (21.15% with stage I–II), survival rates were similar to those reported for sporadic (non-SOT) patients. Conclusions We report demographic and clinical risk factors for PAC after SOT, many of which were present before transplant and are common to sporadic pancreatic cancer. Despite the diagnosis at earlier stages, PAC in SOT portends a very poor survival.

The number of steatotic deceased donor livers encountered has continued to rise as a result of the obesity epidemic. Little is known about the histological characteristics of moderately macrosteatotic livers over time in the recipient following liver transplantation (LT). All recipients undergoing LT at Mayo Clinic Florida with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%‐60%) from 2000‐2017 were identified (n = 96). Routine protocol liver biopsies were performed 1‐week and 6‐months following LT. All liver donor and protocol biopsies were read by an experienced liver pathologist. Of the 96 moderate macrosteatosis LTs, 70 recipients had post‐LT protocol liver biopsies available and comprised the study cohort. Median donor allograft macrosteatosis at the time of transplant was 33% (IQR, 30%‐40%) compared with 0% (IQR, 0%‐2%) at 1‐week (P < 0.001) and 0% (IQR, 0%‐0%) at 6‐months (P < 0.001) following LT. Biopsies at 1‐week post‐LT displayed pericentral necrosis in 57.1% of recipients and lipopeliosis in 34.3% of recipients. In the 6‐month post‐LT biopsies, cholestasis was seen in 3 (4.3%) of the recipients, whereas grade 2 fibrosis was seen in 6 recipients (8.6%). Graft survival at 5 years in the present cohort was 74.0%. Moderate macrosteatosis (30%‐60%) in the donor allograft demonstrates complete reversal on liver biopsies performed as early as 7 days following LT and remains absent at 6‐months following LT. Both pericentral necrosis and lipopeliosis are common features on day 7 biopsies. Despite these encouraging findings, the perioperative risks of using these livers (postreperfusion cardiac arrest and primary nonfunction) should not be understated. Long‐term graft survival is acceptable in patients who are able to overcome the immediate perioperative risk of using moderately steatotic donor livers.

AbstractDonation after circulatory death (DCD) donors represent a potential means to help address the disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and the availability of donor livers. While initial enthusiasm for DCD LT was high in the early 2000s, early reports of high rates of biliary complications and inferior graft survival resulted in reluctance among many transplant centers to use DCD liver grafts. As with all innovations in transplant practice, there is undoubtedly a learning curve associated with the optimal utilization of liver grafts from DCD donors. More contemporary data has demonstrated that results with DCD LT are improving and the number of DCD LT performed annually has been steadily increasing. In this concise review, potential mechanisms of injury for DCD livers are discussed along with strategies that have been employed in clinical practice to improve DCD LT outcomes.

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

Background. Aorto-hepatic conduits can provide arterial inflow for liver transplants in cases where the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use. Methods. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with an aorto-hepatic conduit between 2000 and 2016 were included. Recipients were divided into 2 groups: those with a supraceliac (SC) aortic conduit (N = 22) and those with an infrarenal (IR) aortic conduit (N = 82). Results. There was no difference in calculated model for end-stage liver disease score between the 2 groups. The SC group received grafts with a higher mean donor risk index (1.69 versus 1.48; P = 0.02). Early allograft dysfunction was 18.2% in the SC group and 29.3% in the IR group (P = 0.30). In the SC group, 10.5% of patients required initiation of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy compared to 12.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.69). No difference in the rate of postoperative acute kidney injury was seen between the 2 groups (P = 0.54). No significant difference in median creatinine at 1 year was seen between the SC (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 1–1.3) and IR (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 0.9–1.5) groups (P = 0.85). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, thrombosis of the aortic conduit occurred in 0% of patients in the SC group and 6.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.24). Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.47). Conclusions. No difference in renal dysfunction as demonstrated by need for post-LT continuous renal replacement therapy, acute kidney injury, or creatinine at 1 year post-LT was seen between SC and IR aortic conduits. A slight trend of higher conduit thrombosis rate was seen with IR compared to SC aortic conduits; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Both SC and IR aortic conduits represent reasonable options when the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use.