Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt following liver transplantation: can outcomes be predicted?

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been fairly effective in managing portal hypertension in the setting of cirrhosis. The aim is to study the safety and efficacy of TIPS in liver transplant (LT) recipients. Fifteen patients underwent TIPS insertion following LT. Indications were refractory ascites (12), hepatic hydrothorax (2), and bleeding esophageal varices (1). Seven patients (46.6%) had complete (C) resolution of ascites, while eight (53.4%) had partial or no (PN) resolution. Portal pressure and portal-right atrial pressure gradients post-TIPS were comparable. Ammonia levels were significantly higher in the PN group. Encephalopathy occurred in two patients (PN group). Four patients required re-transplantation and seven patients expired. The five-yr survival probability was 60.0% for the C group and 66.7% for the PN group. Currently, six patients are alive without clinical evidence of ascites. Two patients are alive but require re-transplantation. TIPS is a safe and effective method to control refractory ascites after LT. Portal pressure changes did not seem to correlate with resolution of ascites. Earlier allograft dysfunction is more likely with PN resolution of ascites after TIPS, and thus early re-transplantation should be considered. Re-transplantation in the context of organ dysfunction and graft failure should be a priority when considering TIPS.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for trauma?

We report a case of successful emergency TIPS placement to control intra-abdominal bleeding after blunt abdominal trauma in a patient with severe cirrhosis and portal hypertension.     

Transjugular liver biopsy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or direct intrahepatic portocaval shunt (DIPS): Is it feasible,effective, and safe?

Purpose

To evaluate our experience with transjugular liver biopsies (TJLB) in patients with previously placed transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or direct intrahepatic portocaval shunt (DIPS).

Liver transplantation for hepatolithiasis: Is terminal hepatolithiasis suitable for liver transplantation?

Hepatolithiasis, originally as oriental cholangiohepatitis, especially prevails in Asia, but globalization and intercontinental migration have also converted the endemic disease dynamics around the world. Characterized by its high incidence of ineffective treatment and recurrence, hepatolithiasis, always, poses a therapeutic challenge to global doctors. Although the improved surgical and non‐surgical techniques have evolved over the past decade, incomplete clearance and recurrence of calculi are always so common and disease‐related mortality from liver failure and concurrent cholangiocarcinoma still exists in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. In the late stage of hepatolithiasis, is it suitable for liver transplantation (LT)? Herein, we propose a comprehensive review and analysis of the LTx currently in potential use to treat hepatolithiasis. In our subjective opinion, and as is objective from the literatures so far, also given the strict indications, LT remains one of the definitive treatments for terminal hepatolithiasis.     

Is a mandatory intensive care unit stay needed after liver transplantation? Feasibility of fast-tracking to the surgical ward after liver transplantation

The continuation of hemodynamic, respiratory, and metabolic support for a variable period after liver transplantation (LT) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is considered routine by many transplant programs. However, some LT recipients may be liberated from mechanical ventilation shortly after the discontinuation of anesthesia. These patients might be appropriately discharged from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) to the surgical ward and bypass the ICU entirely. In 2002, our program started a fast-tracking program: select LT recipients are transferred from the operating room to the PACU for recovery and tracheal extubation with a subsequent transfer to the ward, and the ICU stay is completely eliminated. Between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, 1045 patients underwent LT at our transplant program; 175 patients were excluded from the study. Five hundred twenty-three of the remaining 870 patients (60.10%) were fast-tracked to the surgical ward, and 347 (39.90%) were admitted to the ICU after LT. The failure rate after fast-tracking to the surgical ward was 1.90%. The groups were significantly different with respect to the recipient age, the raw Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at the time of LT, the recipient body mass index (BMI), the retransplantation status, the operative time, the warm ischemia time, and the intraoperative transfusion requirements. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the raw MELD score at the time of LT, the operative time, the intraoperative transfusion requirements, the recipient age, the recipient BMI, and the absence of hepatocellular cancer/cholangiocarcinoma were significant predictors of ICU admission. In conclusion, we are reporting the largest single-center experience demonstrating the feasibility of bypassing an ICU stay after LT.     

Sorafenib for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation?

Background

There are scarce data on the use of sorafenib for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT).

Patients and Methods

Ten patients were treated with sorafenib after OLT following the Italian Drug Agency guidelines: they had well-compensated liver function (Child-Pugh class A in the case of cirrhosis), intermediate-or advanced-stage HCC, good general condition (performance status 0), and not suitable for loco-regional therapies. Patients with HCC recurrence after OLT were treated with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v3.0 with tumor responses evaluated acording to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Select Tumors) criteria.

Results

Median duration of treatment was 10 months (range, 2-18). Seven patients (70%) received an additionally targeted therapy with mTOR inhibitors as part of their immunosuppressive regimen. Most common grade 3 AEs included diarrhea (50%), hand-foot skin reaction (30%), and fatigue (20%). Sorafenib had to be discontinued in 3 patients (30%) due to AEs and 4 additional patients (40%) required a dose adjustment. No deterioration of liver graft function occurred. Three patients (30%) stopped treatment due to radiological progression of HCC, whereas 3 are still using the drug. Median time to progression was 8 months (range, 2-16). Median survival from start of therapy was 18 months (range, 4- 36).

Conclusion

Our preliminary results suggest that sorafenib is a safe effective therapy for recurrent HCC after OLT.     

Split liver transplantation: where? When? How?

Donor scarcity is among the greatest concerns in the transplantation community. Dividing a liver graft theoretically offers a double benefit for candidates on the waiting list. Split liver transplantation entails a higher logistic and technical complexity that is extensively compensated, not only with an increase in the accessibility for child and adult candidates on the liver transplant waiting list, but also acceptable survival results.