Opinion of hepatic transplant waiting list patients regarding split liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Split liver transplantation (SLT) increases organ supply for hepatic transplantation. Long-term patient survival and complication rates seem to be equivalent between orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and SLT. There are controversies among transplant physicians due to an ethical dilemma between benefiting individual needs or those of society. Barshes and Goss (Am J Transplant 5:2047, 2005) demonstrated that the majority of adult liver transplant candidates are favorable to SLT. The aim of our study was to evaluate the opinions of patients at a Brazilian university hospital regarding SLT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire with 14 questions was applied to 50 patients included in a hepatic transplant waiting list regarding SLT. RESULTS: The overall attitudes of 66% of the participants were classified as utilitarian, 31% were classified as self-preserving, and 3% were undecided. Ninety-one percent of patients would be willing to share even if their expected survival after SLT was shorter than that with OLT. For 77% of patients, children must have priority over adults. However, 83% were unaware of the donors for pediatric transplantations. CONCLUSIONS: SLT is a consistent solution for organ demand despite controversies among transplant physicians. The present study demonstrated that most patients were favorable to SLT. In conclusion, attitudes toward graft sharing are not barriers to SLT.     

Split‐liver transplantation in the high‐MELD adult patient: are we being too cautious?

The fear that patients with high-mathematical model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score may not be suitable candidates for segmental grafts because of their need for greater liver mass has continued to push the transplant community toward the use of whole LT (WLT) in preference to split LT (SLT). In order to define the outcome of segmental liver transplantation in a better manner in high-MELD patients (score ≥26), we queried the UNOS registry for graft and patient survival results according to MELD score in adult patients receiving WLT and SLT in the United States from the inception of MELD allocation (February 27, 2002) through March 9, 2007. A total of 316 adult patients received a SLT as compared with 20 778 WLTs. Patient and graft survival rates at 6 and 12 months were comparable for all MELD ranges, including the 'high-MELD' recipients (e.g. at MELD score 31–35, patients' and grafts' survival rates at 12 months was 87.5% in SLT group vs. 84.4% and 76.7% in WLT group respectively). The results even at higher MELD scores (i.e. >35) were more than acceptable. In conclusion, patient and graft survival rates for SLT in high-MELD adult patients are comparable to the same for WLT.     

Predictors of survival after In vivo split liver transplantation: analysis of 110 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors that influence patient survival after in vivo split liver transplantation (SLT). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Split liver transplantation is effective in expanding the donor pool, and its use reduces the number of deaths in patients awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation. Early SLTs were associated with poor outcomes, and acceptance of the technique has been slow. A better understanding of the factors that influence patient and graft survival would be useful in widening the application of SLT. METHODS: During a 3.5-year period, 55 right and 55 left lateral in vivo split grafts were transplanted in 102 pediatric and adult recipients. The authors' in vivo split technique has been previously described. Median follow-up was 14.5 months. Recipient, donor, and surgical variables were analyzed for their effect on patient survival after SLT. RESULTS: Overall survival rates of patients who received an SLT were not significantly different from those of patients who received whole organ transplants. Survival of left lateral segment recipients, at median follow-up time, was 76% versus 80% in patients receiving a trisegment. Fifty of 102 patients (49%) were high-risk urgent recipients (United Network for Organ Sharing [UNOS] status 1 and 2A) and 52 (51%) were nonurgent recipients (UNOS status 2B, 3). High-risk recipients had a survival rate significantly lower than that of nonurgent recipients. By univariate comparison, two variables-UNOS status and number of transplants per patient-were significantly associated with an increased risk of death. Preoperative recipient mechanical ventilation, preoperative prothrombin time, donor sodium level, donor length of hospital stay, and warm ischemia time approached significance. The type of graft (right vs. left) did not reduce the survival rate after transplantation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified UNOS status and length of donor hospital stay as independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patient survival of in vivo SLT is not significantly different from that of whole-organ orthotopic liver transplantation. The variables affecting outcome of in vivo SLT are similar to those in whole-organ transplantation. in vivo SLT should be widely applied to expand a severely depleted donor pool.     

Long-term outcome of split liver transplantation using right extended grafts in adulthood: A matched pair analysis

OBJECTIVE: Shortage of suitable organs led to the development of alternative techniques in liver transplantation. Split liver transplantation (SLT) is well established in pediatric patients. SLT is not completely accepted in adult recipients due to potential increased risk of complications. Despite satisfying results of short-term outcome, there is a leak on information of the long-term outcome. Therefore, we compared the outcome after transplantation of the right extended liver lobe with whole liver transplantation (WLT) using a matched pair's analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the period of January 1993 to February 2005, 70 SLT recipients were matched with 70 WLT recipients of whole livers. Matching criteria were: 1) indication for transplantation, 2) United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status, 3) recipient age, 4) donor age, 5) cold ischemic time, and 6) year of transplantation. The outcome was analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 36 months. The 2- and 5-year patient survival rates after SLT and WLT were 86.3% and 82.6%, and 78.4% and 75.6%, respectively (log rank, P = 0.2127). Two- and 5-year graft survival rates were 77.3% and 77.3% after SLT and 71.9% and 65.8% after WLT, respectively (log rank, P = 0.3822). The total biliary complication rate was 11.4% in the SLT group versus 10.0% in the WLT group in the short-term course, while it was 8.5% after SLT and 10.0% after WLT in the long-term course. We did not observe significant differences between the groups in term of short- and long-term morbidity. CONCLUSION: Transplantation of the right extended lobe deriving from left lateral splitting of deceased donor livers is followed by the same long-term patient and graft survival, which is known from WLT. There were no differences in the complication rates even in long-term outcome implementing that SLT does not put the adult recipient to an increased early and late risk. Transplantation of the extended right liver lobe provides a safe and efficient procedure in adult patients to expand the number of available grafts.     

Survival Benefit-Based Deceased-Donor Liver Allocation

Currently, patients awaiting deceased-donor liver transplantation are prioritized by medical urgency. Specifically, wait-listed chronic liver failure patients are sequenced in decreasing order of Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. To maximize lifetime gained through liver transplantation, posttransplant survival should be considered in prioritizing liver waiting list candidates. We evaluate a survival benefit based system for allocating deceased-donor livers to chronic liver failure patients. Under the proposed system, at the time of offer, the transplant survival benefit score would be computed for each patient active on the waiting list. The proposed score is based on the difference in 5-year mean lifetime (with vs. without a liver transplant) and accounts for patient and donor characteristics. The rank correlation between benefit score and MELD score is 0.67. There is great overlap in the distribution of benefit scores across MELD categories, since waiting list mortality is significantly affected by several factors. Simulation results indicate that over 2000 life-years would be saved per year if benefit-based allocation was implemented. The shortage of donor livers increases the need to maximize the life-saving capacity of procured livers. Allocation of deceased-donor livers to chronic liver failure patients would be improved by prioritizing patients by transplant survival benefit.     

Comparison of hepatitis C histological recurrence rates and patient survival between split and deceased donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists as to whether there is an increased severity or frequency of recurrent hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection in recipients of adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) grafts. We sought to examine the time to histological recurrence and survival in HCV (+) patients who underwent split liver transplantation (SLT), which is technically similar to what occurs in the LDLT procedure. METHODS: Twenty four HCV (+) adult recipients were identified through the UNOS database as having had SLT procedures at three centers: Mount Sinai Medical Center, University of Chicago, and University of California at Los Angeles. Of these, 17 patients with comprehensive data were matched to 32 HCV (+) patients who underwent whole deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) during the same time period. Outcome and time to initial HCV recurrence as documented by liver biopsy were assessed. Liver biopsy was performed when clinically indicated. RESULTS: Patients who had SLT were significantly older (P=.01). There was no difference in number of rejection episodes (P=.40). Fifteen of 17 SLT (88%) versus 24/32 DDLT (75%) patients had documented HCV recurrence by biopsy (P=.46). The time to median cumulative incidence of recurrence of HCV post-liver transplantation was 12.6 months (SLT) versus 39.8 months (DDLT) patients. There was no difference in survival between SLT and DDLT patients (47 vs 70 months, P=.62) nor in cumulative incidence of histological HCV recurrence at 1, 2, and 3 years (P=.198, .919, and .806, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the cumulative incidence of histological recurrence of HCV post-liver transplant or in survival between recipients of deceased donor and split liver transplants.     

Long-term results of in situ split-liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Split-liver transplantation (SLT) offers immediate expansion of the cadaver donor pool. The principal beneficiaries have been adult and pediatric recipients with excellent outcomes. This study analyzed a single-center experience of adult to adult in situ SLT in adult recipients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen consecutive adult-to-adult in situ SLT have been performed at our institution since 1998. The extended right lobe comprising segment 1 was transplanted in to adult patients, the left lateral segment, for pediatric transplants. RESULTS: Donors of SLT were significantly younger (P = .03) than those of whole liver transplants. Survival rates of patients receiving a split liver were 83%, 73%, and 73% at 1, 3, and 5 years after the transplant respectively and grafts of 73%, 73%, and 73% for SLT and 76%, 70%, and 66% for whole liver transplants (P = .44). The rate of biliary complication after SLT was 21%, which was comparable to that after whole organ transplantation (17%). The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis and primary nonfunction was not significantly different between split liver and whole organ transplantation performed during the same time period (7% versus 4.6% P = .67 and 7% versus 2.6% P = .32, respectively). CONCLUSION: This limited single-center experience confirmed that both early and long-term results of SLT are comparable to those of traditional whole liver organ transplantation.     

The Survival Benefit of Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation as a Function of Candidate Disease Severity and Donor Quality

The survival benefit of liver transplantation depends on candidate disease severity, as measured by MELD score. However, donor liver quality may also affect survival benefit. Using US data from the SRTR on 28 165 adult liver transplant candidates wait-listed between 2001 and 2005, we estimated survival benefit according to cross-classifications of candidate MELD score and deceased donor risk index (DRI) using sequential stratification. Covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for each liver transplant recipient at a given MELD with an organ of a given DRI, comparing posttransplant mortality to continued wait-listing with possible later transplantation using a lower-DRI organ. High-DRI organs were more often transplanted into lower-MELD recipients and vice versa. Compared to waiting for a lower-DRI organ, the lowest-MELD category recipients (MELD 6–8) who received high-DRI organs experienced significantly higher mortality (HR = 3.70; p < 0.0005). All recipients with MELD ≥20 had a significant survival benefit from transplantation, regardless of DRI. Transplantation of high-DRI organs is effective for high but not low-MELD candidates. Pairing of high-DRI livers with lower-MELD candidates fails to maximize survival benefit and may deny lifesaving organs to high-MELD candidates who are at high risk of death without transplantation.     

Early Liver Transplantation for Patients With Acute Alcoholic Hepatitis: Public Views and the Effects on Organ Donation

Patients with severe acute alcoholic hepatitis may not survive to fulfill the standard 6 months of abstinence and counseling prior to transplantation. A prospective study demonstrated that early liver transplantation in such patients improved 2 year survival from 23% to 71% and only 3 of 26 patients returned to drinking after 1140 days; graft function was unaffected. Nonetheless, this treatment protocol may raise public concerns and affect organ donation rates. A total of 503 participants took a survey made available at an online crowdsourcing marketplace. The survey measured attitudes on liver transplantation generally and early transplantation for this patient population, in addition to measuring responses to nine vignettes describing fictional candidates. The majority of respondents (81.5%, n = 410) was at least neutral toward early transplantation for these patients; only a minority (26.3%) indicated that transplantation in any vignette would make them hesitant to donate their organs. Middle‐aged patients with good social support and financial stability were viewed most favorably (p < 0.001). Age was considered the most important selection factor and financial stability the least important factor (each p < 0.001). Results indicate early transplantation for carefully selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis may not be as controversial to the public as previously thought.     

Liver progenitor cells activated after 30% small-for-size liver transplantation in rats: a preliminary study

AIM: To explore whether liver progenitor cells were activated after 30% small-for-size liver transplantation in rats. METHODS: 200 rats were arranged in three groups: 70% partial hepatectomy (PH), whole liver transplantation (WLT), and 30% liver transplantation (SLT) group. On days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 after operation, 6 rats were sacrificed in each group at each time. One week survivals were analyzed; while liver injury and regeneration index were estimated by serum ALT AST, H&E staining and proliferating cell nuclear antigen index. The oval cell markers, including CD90 and OV6, were detected in liver sections by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The 50% survival rate of the SLT group was significantly lower than those of the PH and the WLT groups. At each time after operation, the serum ALT and AST were much higher in the SLT group. Compared with the PH group on days 1, 2, and 3 postoperatively, the PCNA indices were lower among the SLT group. OV-6 positive and CD90 positive cells were detected in the SLT group from day 2 postoperatively. These progenitor cells were first dispersed in the liver but restricted to the periportal region over the following days. CONCLUSION: Liver progenitor cell activation after SLT may be related to the liver dysfunction caused by a small-for-size graft.     

The Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation

Demand for liver transplantation continues to exceed donor organ supply. Comparing recipient survival to that of comparable candidates without a transplant can improve understanding of transplant survival benefit. Waiting list and post-transplant mortality was studied among a cohort of 12 996 adult patients placed on the waiting list between 2001 and 2003. Time-dependent Cox regression models were fitted to determine relative mortality rates for candidates and recipients. Overall, deceased donor transplant recipients had a 79% lower mortality risk than candidates (HR = 0.21; p < 0.001). At Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 18-20, mortality risk was 38% lower (p < 0.01) among recipients compared to candidates. Survival benefit increased with increasing MELD score; at the maximum score of 40, recipient mortality risk was 96% lower than that for candidates (p < 0.001). In contrast, at lower MELD scores, recipient mortality risk during the first post-transplant year was much higher than for candidates (HR = 3.64 at MELD 6-11, HR = 2.35 at MELD 12-14; both p < 0.001). Liver transplant survival benefit at 1 year is concentrated among patients at higher risk of pre-transplant death. Futile transplants among severely ill patients are not identified under current practice. With 1 year post-transplant follow-up, patients at lower risk of pre-transplant death do not have a demonstrable survival benefit from liver transplant.     

Split-Liver Transplantation: Results of Statewide Usage of the Right Trisegmental Graft

Split-liver transplantation (SLT) effectively expands the cadaveric donor pool for children. The remaining right trisegmental (RTS) graft can be transplanted into adults. Limited information exists regarding the outcomes of RTS allografts. Sixty-five RTS graft recipients from five adult transplant programs in Texas were identified. Donor and recipient information were analyzed retrospectively. Most livers (75%) were originally allocated to pediatric recipients. Liver splitting occurred via the in situ (72%) and ex situ (28%) techniques. Arterial reconstruction of RTS grafts was common (52%). Patient and graft survival at 3 months were comparable for the in situ and ex situ techniques (p = 0.2). Cox regression showed only in situ splitting to be a predictor of outcome longer than 3 months posttransplant. Sharing of grafts between centers was frequent (37% of total). One-year patient and allograft survival (87.1% and 85.4%) were excellent with no cases of primary nonfunction. SLT consistently generates two functional liver allografts with excellent recipient survival. In situ splitting of the liver is the preferred technique. Decreased survival is observed with RTS graft use in higher risk recipients. Broader application of SLT with increased sharing is feasible and safely expands the number of liver allografts that can be transplanted.     

Impact of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation on Waiting Time Survival in Candidates Listed for Liver Transplantation

Studies comparing adult living donor liver transplantation to deceased donor liver transplantation have focused on post-transplant survival. Our aim was to focus on the impact of living donor liver transplant on waiting time mortality and overall mortality. We analyzed the affect of living donor liver transplantation on waiting time mortality and overall mortality (from listing until last follow up) in a cohort of 116 transplant candidates. Fifty-eight candidates who had individuals present as potential living donors (volunteer group) were matched by MELD score to 58 liver transplant candidates who did not have individuals present as a potential living donor (no volunteer group). Twenty-seven percent of candidates in the no volunteer group and 62% of candidates in the volunteer group underwent liver transplantation, p = 0.0003. One-year waiting list mortality for the volunteer group and no volunteer group was 10% and 20%, respectively, p = 0.03. Patient survival from the time of listing to last follow up was similar between the two groups. In our study group, living donor liver transplantation is associated with a higher rate of liver transplantation and lower waiting time mortality. In the era of living donor liver transplantation, estimates of patient survival should incorporate waiting time mortality.     

Frequency of whole‐organ in lieu of split‐liver transplantation over the last decade: Children experienced increased wait time and death

Organ shortage is a barrier to liver transplantation (LT). Split LT (SLT) increases organ utilization, saving 2 recipients. A simulation of Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing data (2007‐2017) was performed to identify whole‐organ LT grafts (WLT) that met the criteria for being splittable to 2 recipients. Waitlist consequences presented. Deceased donor (DD) livers transplanted as whole organs were evaluated for suitability to split. Of these DD organs, we identified the adolescent and adult recipients of WLT who were suitable for SLT. Pediatric candidates suitable to share the SLT were ascertained from DD match‐run lists, and 1342 splittable DD organs were identified; 438 WLT recipients met the criteria for accepting a SLT. Review of the 438 DD match‐run lists identified 420 children next on the list suitable for SLT. Three hundred thirty‐three children (79%) underwent LT, but had longer wait‐times compared to 591 actual pediatric SLT recipients (median 147 days vs 44 days, P  < 0.001). Thirty‐three of 420 children died on waitlist after a mean 206 days (standard deviation 317). Sharing organs suitable for splitting increases the number of LT, saving more lives. With careful patient selection, SLT will not be a disadvantage to the adult recipients. With a children‐first allocation scheme, SLT will naturally increase the number of allografts because adult organs are too large for small children.     

Split liver transplantation and risk to the adult recipient: analysis using matched pairs

BACKGROUND: The technique of liver splitting is an effective way of increasing the donor pool and reducing pediatric waiting list mortality. But the procedure is still not fully accepted because of concerns that it may cause complications in adult recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty-nine adult recipients of primary extended right split liver transplantations (SLTs) were matched to recipients of whole liver transplantations (WLTs) according to the following criteria: 1) United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status, 2) donor age, 3) recipient age, 4) total cold ischemic time, 5) indication for liver transplantation, 6) Child-Pugh class, and 7) year of transplantation. A WLT-recipient match was identified in 40 adult recipients of primary SLT. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of the recipients in our study were highly urgent cases (UNOS 1), and 85% were UNOS status 3-4. The 3- and 12-month patient survival rates after SLT and WLT were 82.5% and 77.1%, and 92.5% and 87.5%, respectively (log rank p = 0.358). The 3- and 12-month graft survival rates showed no significant difference in either group (80% and 74% in SLT and 87.5% and 77.4% in WLT [log rank p = 0.887]). The rates of primary nonfunction, primary poor function, biliary and vascular complications, intra- and postoperative blood transfusion, and intensive care stay were comparable for SLT and WLT. CONCLUSIONS: SLT, using the extended right hepatic lobe, does not notably differ from WLT with regard to initial graft function, postoperative complications, or patient and graft survival. Based on this, the liver can be considered a paired organ, and mandatory splitting of good-quality livers can be recommended.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Salvage Liver Transplantation Versus Primary Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis

Background

Salvage liver transplantation (SLT) has been performed for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or deterioration of liver function after primary liver resection. However, the survival outcomes and recurrence rates of SLT versus primary liver transplantation (PLT) for HCC remain controversial. Here we sought to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after SLT and PLT, by conducting a quantitative meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on SLT and PLT. Perioperative and long-term outcomes constituted the end points. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either fixed-effects or random-effects model.

Results

A total of 1508 patients from 14 studies were included. Although SLT spent more operative time than SLT (WMD: 28.69min; 95% CI: 11.30–46.08; P = .001), the two groups had no significant differences in the postoperative morbidity, perioperative mortality and length of postoperative hospital stay. No significant difference was observed between two groups for long-term outcomes of overall survival. Although 5-year disease-free survival was inferior in SLT, 1- and 3-year disease-free survivals were similar. After stratifying the various studies by Milan criteria, no difference was seen in 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates between two groups who meet Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation.

Conclusions

The current study demonstrates SLT for recurrent HCC is feasible and it can achieve the same short- and long-term outcomes as PLT. Therefore, SLT may be accepted as the treatment of choice for patients with recurrent HCC.     

Split liver transplantation: an overview

Liver transplantation (OLT) has become the only treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver diseases. Establishment of standard liver transplantation technique, development of better immunosuppressive medications and accumulated experience using them safely, and improvement of intensive care and anesthesia played major role to have current 88%-90% 1-year survival after liver transplantation. As liver transplantations became more successful with the growing experience and development in the field, the increased demand for liver allografts could not match the available supply of donor organs. As a result of this imbalance, each year nearly 3000 patients die in the United States awaiting liver transplantation on the national waiting list. Split liver transplantation (SLT) has been perceived as an important strategy to increase the supply of liver grafts by creating 2 transplants from 1 allograft. The bipartition of a whole liver also carries utmost importance by increasing the available grafts for the pediatric patients, where size-matched whole liver allografts are scarce, leading increased incidence of waiting list mortality in this group.In the common approach of the split liver procedure, liver is divided into a left lateral segment graft (LLS) to be transplanted to a child and a right extended liver lobe graft for an adult recipient. In a technically more challenging variant of this procedure, the principle is to split the liver into 2 hemigrafts and use the left side for a small adult or a teenager and the right for a medium-sized adult patient.Donor selection for splitting, technical expertise in both OLT and hepatobiliary surgery, logistics to decrease total ischemia time, and manpower of the transplantation team are important factors for successful outcomes after SLT. The liver can be split on the back table (ex situ) or in the donor hospital before the donor cross-clamp using in situ splitting technique, which was developed directly from living donor liver transplantation. The most important advantage of in situ splitting is to decrease the total ischemia time and increased the possibility of inter-center sharing. The in situ technique of splitting has other advantages, including evaluation of the viability of segment IV in case of LLS splitting and better control of bleeding from cut surface upon reperfusion on the recipient. Recipient selection for split liver grafts is also crucial for success after SLT.In this review, we aim to summarize the advances that have occurred in SLT. We also discuss anatomic and technical aspects, including both approaches to SLT, which is now considered by many centers to be a routine operation.     

Liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease

Alcoholic cirrhosis is a major public health issue in France. The prevalence of alcoholic cirrhosis and the number of potential candidates for liver transplantation is unknown but certainly underestimated. Despite physicians' ethical reserves concerning this self-inflicted disease and the public's misgivings, liver transplantation for alcoholic cirrhosis can provide survival rates comparable with those observed for other chronic liver diseases. in this indication, liver transplantation if often associated with a low risk of acute rejection and a high rate cancer of the upper respiratory and digestive tracts. The risk of recurrent alcoholism after liver transplantation is also a major problem. Its prevalence varies from 10 to 50%, depending on the assessment criteria, and the rate recurrent risk for the liver graft (alcohol intake>40 g/d) is to the order of 10%. These figures illustrate the importance of careful management and support for these patients. At least 6 months weaning from alcohol is a commonly accepted selection criterion for transplantation candidates. Criteria for liver transplantation generally include patients aged under 65 years, weaned for more than 6 months, with Child C cirrhosis or less, uncontrollable digestive tract hemorrhage, spontaneous severe infection, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatopulmonary syndrome, or multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma if the largest nodule measures less than 3 cm. Acute alcoholic hepatitis is a severe disease, fatal in 50% of the cases, and resistant tot corticosteroid therapy. Liver transplantation in this subpopulation of often young patient who have not achieved weaning merits further evaluation.     

Split and whole liver transplantation outcomes: a comparative cohort study.

A specific split liver transplantation (SLT) program has been pursued in the North Italian Transplant program (NITp) since November 1997. After 5 yr, 1,449 liver transplants were performed in 7 transplant centers, using 1,304 cadaveric donors. Whole liver transplantation (WLT) and SLT were performed in 1,126 and 323 cases, respectively. SLTs were performed in situ as 147 left lateral segments (LLS), 154 right trisegment liver (RTL) grafts, and 22 modified split livers (MSL), used for couples of adult recipients. After a median posttransplant follow-up of 22 months, SLTs achieved a 3-yr patient and graft survival not significantly different from the entire series of transplants (79.4 and 72.2% vs. 80.6 and 74.9%, respectively). Recipients receiving a WLT or a LLS showed significantly better outcomes than patients receiving RTL and MSL (P < 0.03 for patients and P < 0.04 for graft survival). At the multivariate analysis, donor age of >60 yr, RTL transplant, <50 annual transplants volume, urgent transplantation (United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status I and IIA), ischemia time of >7 hours, and retransplantation were factors independently related to graft failure and to significantly worst patient survival. Right grafts procured from RTL and either split procured as MSL had a similar outcome of marginal whole livers. In conclusion, in 5 yr, the increased number of pediatric transplants due to split liver donation reduced to 3% the in-list children mortality, and a decrease in the adult patient dropout rate from 27.2 to 16.2% was observed. Such results justify a more widespread adoption of SLT protocols, organizational difficulties not being a limit for the application of such technique.     

Liver Transplantation for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis After Liver Resection: University of Bologna Experience

Liver resection (LR) for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with preserved liver function, employing liver transplantation (LT) as a salvage procedure (SLT) in the event of HCC recurrence, is a debated strategy.
From 1996 to 2005, we treated 227 cirrhotic patients with HCC transplantable: 80 LRs and 147 LTs of 293 listed for transplantation. Among 80 patients eligible for transplantation who underwent LR, 39 (49%) developed HCC recurrence and 12/39 (31%) of these patients presented HCC recurrence outside Milan criteria. Only 10 of the 39 patients underwent LT, a transplantation rate of 26% of patients with HCC recurrence.
According to intention-to-treat analysis of transplantable HCC patients who underwent LR (n = 80), compared to all those listed for transplantation (n = 293), 5-year overall survival was 66% in the LR group versus 58% in patients listed for LT, respectively (p = NS); 5-year disease-free survival was 41% in the LR group versus 54% in patients listed for LT (p = NS).
Comparable 5-year overall (62% vs. 73%, p = NS) and disease-free (48% vs. 71%, p = NS) survival rates were obtained for SLT and primary LT for HCC, respectively.
LR is a valid treatment for small HCC and in the event of recurrence, SLT is a safe and effective procedure.