Citations

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.

Background: COVID-19 is associated with higher morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs). However, our understanding of the long-term outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with CLD is limited. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of adult patients with CLD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before May 30, 2020, to determine long-term clinical outcomes. We used a control group of patients with CLD confirmed negative for COVID-19. Results: We followed 666 patients with CLD (median age 58 years, 52.8% male) for a median of 384 (interquartile range: 31–462) days. The long-term mortality was 8.1%; with 3.6% experiencing delayed COVID-19-related mortality. Compared to a propensity-matched control group of patients with CLD without COVID-19 (n=1332), patients with CLD with COVID-19 had worse long-term survival [p<0.001; hazards ratio (HR): 1.69; 95% CI: 1.19–2.41] and higher rate of hospitalization (p<0.001, HR: 2.00, 1.62–2.48) over a 1-year follow-up period. Overall, 29.9% of patients reported symptoms of long-COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, female sex (p=0.05, HR: 2.45, 1.01–2.11), Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.003, HR: 1.94, 1.26–2.99), and severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation (p=0.028, HR: 1.74, 1.06–2.86) predicted long-COVID-19. In survivors, liver-related laboratory parameters showed significant improvement after COVID-19 resolution. COVID-19 vaccine status was available for 72% (n=470) of patients with CLD and history of COVID-19, of whom, 70% (n=326) had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions: Our large, longitudinal, multicenter study demonstrates a high burden of long-term mortality and morbidity in patients with CLD and COVID-19. Symptoms consistent with long-COVID-19 were present in 30% of patients with CLD. These results illustrate the prolonged implications of COVID-19 both for recovering patients and for health care systems.

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.

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.