Comparison of Cadaveric Kidney Transplantation From In-center and External Center Donors

IntroductionRenal transplantation is the best treatment modality for end-stage renal disease. We investigated the effects of donor source on renal allograft and patient survival in deceased donor transplants.MethodsWe analyzed retrospectively 190 cadaver kidney transplants performed in our center from January 2000 to December 2009. Of these, 136 kidneys were harvested in our transplantation center and 54 were from external donors. Primary outcome of graft survival was assessed with the Kaplan–Meier method and the significance of possible variables was determined with the Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsThere was no difference between groups in the age of donor and recipient, recipient body mass index, duration of dialysis, or panel reactive antibody >30%. Twenty recipients lost their grafts (14 from external donors and 6 from internal donors). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 99.2%, 97.3%, and 95.5% for in-center donors and 98.1%, 88.9%, and 86.2% for external donor transplants (P = .01). There was no difference in patient survival rates between the groups. Acute rejection episodes (hazard ratio [HR], 13.2; P < .001) and external hospital donor (HR, 9.3; P = .008) were independent factors associated with failure. Higher age of recipient was associated with increased patient death rate (HR, 1.2; P = .02).ConclusionGraft survival of cadaveric transplants from in-center donors was better than that of transplants from external center donors. Acute rejection episodes and location of harvest were significant factors for graft survival. Further study is needed to evaluate the effects of center-level factors on allograft outcomes.     

Comparing the Outcomes of Pediatric Liver Transplantation

BackgroundLiver transplantation is a life-saving treatment for end-stage pediatric liver failure. We aimed to present the results of pediatric liver transplants performed in our center in the last 11 years (between 2012 and March 2022) in association with prognostic factors affecting survival.MethodsDemographic characteristics, etiologic reasons, previous operations (Kasai procedure), morbidity, mortality, survival, and bilio-vascular complication rates were determined, and outcomes were evaluated. In the postoperative period, the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay and surgical and other complications were evaluated. Graft and patient survival rates were determined, and univariate and multivariate factors affecting these rates were evaluated.ResultsIn the last 10 years, 229 pediatric liver transplantaion (Pe-LT)/1513 adult liver taransplantation (Ad-LT) (21.35%) were performed in our center. This ratio (Pe-LT/Ad-LT ratio) is 1741/15,886 (10.95%) for our country. A total of 229 liver transplants were performed in 214 pediatric patients. Retransplantation was performed in 15 patients (6.55%). Cadaveric liver transplantation was performed in 9 patients. Graft survival rates were 87%, 83%, 78%, 78%, 78%, and 78% at <30 days, 30 to 90 days, 91 to 364 days, 1 to 3 years, and >3 years, respectively. Patient survival rates for <30 days, 30 to 90 days, 91 to 364 days, 1 to 3 years, and >3 years were 91.5%, 85.7%, 82%, 81.5%, and 81.5%, respectively. Our 5-year survival rates in metabolic diseases and the acute fulminant failure group are 93.8% and 100%, respectively.ConclusionsThe fact that the 1- and 5-year survival rates are the same shows that when patients overcome biliary vascular and infectious problems, their survival is prolonged.     

Septuagenarian Donors and Recipients in Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Brazilian Single Center Experience and Literature Review

BackgroundThe number of elderly patients who have end-stage liver disease and require liver transplantation has dramatically increased. On the other hand, liver grafts from elderly donors have been offered more frequently for transplantation. The present study aims to analyze the results of liver transplants performed with donors and recipients aged ≥70 years.MethodsWe performed a single-center retrospective study of deceased donors liver transplants that involved recipients aged ≥7070 years or recipients who received grafts from donors aged ≥70 years from 2011 to 2021. A literature review on the results of liver transplantation in elderly recipients was also performed.ResultsThirty septuagenarian recipients were included; their overall 1- and 5-years survival was 80% and 76.6%, respectively. The prevalence of recipients aged ≥70 years in our department was 2.65%. Twenty recipients received grafts form septuagenarian donors; their overall 1- and 5-years survival was 75%. The prevalence of donors aged ≥70 years in our department was 1%. In the literature review, 17 articles were analyzed. The 5-years survival of recipients aged ≥70 years ranged from 47.1% to 78.5%.ConclusionsSeptuagenarian recipients and patients who received grafts from elderly brain-dead donors present adequate overall survival after liver transplantation. Optimized donor-recipient matching is paramount for achieving good outcomes. The combination of high-risk donors with septuagenarian recipients should be avoided as well as using grafts of elderly donors that present others risk factors. Thus, the age of the donor or recipient alone cannot be considered an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation.     

Survival After Adult Liver Transplantation Does Not Correlate with Transplant Center Case Volume in the MELD Era

It has been demonstrated that low-volume orthotopic liver transplant centers have poorer outcomes compared to high-volume centers. In light of the recent significant changes in liver transplantation, we performed an analysis of transplant center procedure volume and mortality with data from the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) era. We analyzed 9909 adult liver transplants performed in the United States since the beginning of the MELD allocation system. Transplant centers were categorized by volume of transplants performed per year. Multivariate survival models were constructed with raw survival as the primary endpoint for both high- and low-volume centers. Thirty percent of centers were categorized as low volume (< or =20 liver transplants per year) and 8.2% of all transplants were performed at low-volume centers. The unadjusted raw mortality rate at 1-year post-transplant at high-volume centers (9.5%, 95% CI 9.4-9.5) was significantly lower than the rate at low-volume centers (10.9%, 95% CI 10.4-11.4), p < 0.001. However, after adjusting for disease severity and multiple donor and recipient factors, transplant center volume was no longer a significant predictor of post-transplant survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.22). We conclude that transplant center case volume is no longer a significant predictor of post-transplant survival in the MELD era and factors which are currently unaccounted for in present survival models should be investigated.     

Moderately Macrosteatotic Livers Have Acceptable Long-Term Outcomes but Higher Risk of Immediate Mortality

Background and aimsLiver transplantation is the most effective treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Whether moderately macrosteatotic livers (30%-60%) represent a risk for worsened graft function is controversial. The uncertainty, in large part, is owing to the heterogeneous steatosis grading. Our aim was to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of moderately macrosteatotic allografts that were graded according to a standardized institutional protocol.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of transplants performed between 1994 and 2014. All patients with allografts biopsied pretransplantation were included. Relevant donor and recipient variable were recorded. Moderately macrosteatotic livers were compared with mildly macrosteatotic and nonsteatotic livers. Primary outcomes of interest were patient survival at 90 days, 1 year, and 5 years. Cox regression analyses were carried out to compare survival between the 2 groups.ResultsWe compared 65 allografts with moderate macrosteatosis and 810 with no or mild macrosteatosis. Patients with moderately macrosteatotic allografts were 2.69 times as likely to die within the first 90 days after transplant (75.1% vs 91.6% survival) after adjusting for donor age, donor race, recipient age, recipient race, recipient body mass index, recipient diabetes, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, days on waitlist, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplantation, cold ischemia time. However, for recipients who survive 90 days, moderately macrosteatotic allografts had comparable long-term survival.ConclusionOur study shows that moderate macrosteatosis is a strong predictor of early but not late mortality. Further studies are needed to distinguish the specific cohort of patients for whom moderately macrosteatotic allografts will lead to acceptable outcomes.     

Better Selection Criteria With Prognostic Factors for Liver Transplantation

Background

Liver transplantation has evolved significantly in recent years, with each advancement part of the effort toward increasing patient and graft survival as well as quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic factors and selection criteria for liver transplantation.

Preoperative Alpha-Fetoprotein and Radiological Total Tumor Diameter as Predictors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Liver Transplantation

BackgroundLiver transplantation is a unique treatment opportunity for patients with chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Selection of HCC patients for transplantation was revolutionized by Milan-based criteria, but tumor recurrence and shortage of organs are still a major concern. Nowadays, additional preoperative tumor parameters can help to refine the graft allocation process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value and cut-off points of pretransplant serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels and radiological tumor parameters on liver transplantation outcomes.MethodsThis is a single-team retrospective cohort of 162 consecutive deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT) with pathologically confirmed HCC. Pretransplant serum AFP levels and radiological tumor parameters were retrieved from a preoperative follow-up. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate cut-off points for each outcome. Multivariate Cox regression model was used to assess the predictors of HCC relapse and recipient mortality.ResultsTwelve recipients (7.4%) had HCC recurrence after transplantation, with median survival time of 5.8 months. Pretransplant AFP ≥30 ng/mL (hazard ratio [HR]: 13.84, P = .003) and radiological total tumor diameter (TTD) ≥5 cm (HR: 12.89, P = .005) were independent predictors for HCC relapse. Moreover, pretransplant AFP ≥150 ng/mL was independently associated with recipient mortality (HR: 4.45, P = .003).ConclusionsPretransplant AFP levels and radiological TTD were independently associated with HCC relapse and recipient mortality after DDLT, with different cut-off points predicting different outcomes. These findings may contribute to improving decision-making in the context of liver transplantation for HCC patients.     

Clinical characteristics and survival analysis of liver transplantation in patients with alcoholic liver disease: A single-center retrospective study

ObjectiveBy reviewing the clinical data of liver transplantation in the treatment of alcoholic liver disease in a single center and analyzing the clinical characteristics, the long-term prognosis and main risk factors for early postoperative death were investigated.MethodsThe clinical data of 98 cases of orthotopic liver transplantation performed due to alcoholic liver disease were collected to explore the effect on survival following liver transplants. The patients had been treated in the Organ Transplantation Center of the Tianjin First Central Hospital from November 2011 to November 2020.ResultsThe follow-up duration was 1–108 months. Nine cases died; among these cases, three died during the perioperative period. Univariate analysis revealed that daily ethanol intake, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, and preoperative liver failure were associated with perioperative death, and multivariate analysis revealed that daily ethanol intake was an independent risk factor for perioperative death (P = 0.048 < 0.05); the daily intake of ethanol in the death group was significantly higher than that in the survival group (293 ± 11.5 g vs. 178.3 ± 66.8 g, P = 0.004 < 0.05). Six patients died during long-term follow-up. The one-, five-, and nine-year cumulative survival rates were 96.8%, 92.0%, and 92.0%, respectively. Preoperative liver cancer was the main risk factor for long-term survival (ORR = 2884.3, P = 0.041 < 0.05). The primary cause of death was recurrence of malignant liver tumors, followed by new lung malignancies, intracerebral hemorrhage, and hepatic allograft dysfunction.ConclusionAlcoholic liver disease is a good indication for liver transplantation. Heavy daily drinking before an operation increases the risk of perioperative death. Recurrence of malignant liver tumors is the main risk factor affecting long-term survival.     

Resection vs Transplant Listing for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Intention-to-Treat Analysis

BackgroundLiver transplantation (LT) and liver resection (LR) are curative treatment options for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria. Severe organ shortage dictates the preference for LR. Our aim was to provide an intention-to-treat retrospective comparison of survival between patients who were placed on waiting lists for LT and those who underwent LR.MethodsThe medical records of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria treated by LR or listed for LT between 2007 and 2016 were reviewed. We performed intention-to-treat analyses of overall survival and recurrence.ResultsThere were 54 patients on the waiting list for LT, and 30 of them underwent LR. Thirteen of the 54 patients (24%) were not transplanted because of disease-related mortality or tumor progression. The median waiting time to transplantation was 304 days. The 90-day mortality was higher in transplanted patients (9.8% vs 3.3%, P = .003). Intention-to-treat survival was similar for the LT and LR groups (5-year survival, 47.8% vs 55%, respectively, P = .185). There was a trend toward improved 5-year disease-free survival for listed patients (56.2% vs 26.3% for patients undergoing LR, P = .15).ConclusionIntention-to-treat survival is similar in patients undergoing LR and those on waiting lists for LT. There is a 24% risk to drop from the transplant list. The higher perioperative mortality among patients undergoing LT is balanced by a higher tumor recurrence rate after LR     

Optimizing Survival for Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Report and Current Perspectives

BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading primary liver tumor and a main indication for transplant. Transplant criteria are based on clinicopathologic features, meanwhile adequate downstaging and molecular mechanisms are getting more attention in evolving therapeutic algorithm of HCC. The aim of our study was to overview the results of the Hungarian Liver Transplant Program in the field of HCC and introduce new aspects of personalized treatment options.MethodsWe performed retrospective analysis of survival and tumor recurrence of HCC-associated liver transplant recipients between October 2013 and December 2020. Patients were categorized in Milan criteria (MC), beyond MC but within University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and beyond UCSF criteria groups after pathologic examination of the explanted liver. Demographic data and preoperative locoregional treatments were assessed.ResultsA total of 529 primer liver transplants were performed, 88 because of HCC. A total of 87 patients had underlying cirrhosis because of hepatitis C (54%), alcohol-related liver disease (33.7%), hepatitis B (4.5%), or unknown etiology. A total of 55.6% of the patients had at least one locoregional treatment. A total of 67.4% of the patients were within MC, 5.6% were within UCSF criteria, and 27% were beyond UCSF criteria.The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 80%, 79%, and 75%. The outcome was better in early-stage tumors, but the difference was not significant (P = .745)ConclusionsThe favorable survival in our department legitimates the strict transplant criteria of HCC. Adequate locoregional therapy as downstaging can expand recipient pool. Molecular tumor profiling may lead to personalized treatment of HCC.     

Improved Survival After Live Donor Adult Liver Transplantation (LDALT) Using Right Lobe Grafts: Program Experience and Lessons Learned

We present our program experience with 85 live donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) procedures using right lobe grafts with five simultaneous live donor kidney transplants using different donors performed over a 6-year period. After an "early" 2-year experience of 25 LDALT procedures, program improvements in donor and recipient selection, preoperative imaging, donor and recipient surgical technique and immunosuppressive management significantly reduced operative mortality (16% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.038) and improved patient and graft 1-year survival in recipients during our "later" experience with the next 60 cases (January 2001 and March 2005; patient survival: early 70.8% vs. later 92.7%, p = 0.028; graft survival: Early 64% vs. later 91.1%, p = 0.019, respectively). Overall patient and graft survival were 82% and 80%. There was a trend for less postoperative complications (major and minor) with program experience (early 88% vs. later 66.7%; p = 0.054) but overall morbidity remained at 73.8%. Biliary complications (cholangitis, disruption, leak or stricture) were not influenced by program experience (early 32% vs. later 38%). Liver volume adjusted to 100% of standard liver volume (SLV) within 1 month post-transplant. Despite a high rate of morbidity after LDALT, excellent patient and graft survival can be achieved with program experience.     

Risk Factors for Graft Survival After Liver Transplantation from Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: An Analysis of OPTN/UNOS Data

Due to increasing use of allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, we evaluated DCD liver transplants and impact of recipient and donor factors on graft survival. Liver transplants from DCD donors reported to UNOS were analyzed against donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver transplants performed between 1996 and 2003. We defined a recipient cumulative relative risk (RCRR) using significant risk factors identified from a Cox regression analysis: age; medical condition at transplantation; regraft status; dialysis received and serum creatinine. Graft survival from DCD donors (71% at 1 year and 60% at 3 years) were significantly inferior to DBD donors (80% at 1 year and 72% at 3 years, p < 0.001). Low-risk recipients (RCRR < or = 1.5) with low-risk DCD livers (DWIT < 30 min and CIT < 10 h, n = 226) achieved graft survival rates (81% and 67% at 1 and 3 years, respectively) not significantly different from recipients with DBD allografts (80% and 72% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, log-rank p = 0.23). Liver allografts from DCD donors may be used to increase the cadaveric donor pool, with favorable graft survival rates achieved when low-risk grafts are transplanted in a low-risk setting. Whether transplantation of these organs in low-risk recipients provides a survival benefit compared to the waiting list is unknown.     

Increased living donor volunteer rates with a formal recipient family education program

We have generally encouraged living donation among our kidney recipients. However, an examination of our clinical practice revealed inconsistencies in the depth and content of information transmitted to kidney recipient families regarding living donation. We therefore initiated a structured education program, including an educational video, to ensure that all recipient families would receive a similar exposure to a standard block of information. After the program had been functioning for over a year, we compared the living donor (LD) volunteer rates between the 3-year period before (BEFORE) and the 18 months after (AFTER) initiation of the formal education program. There were 1,363 patients registered on our kidney transplantation waiting list during the 54-month study period (757 white [56%] and 580 black [43%]). We found that 33.4% of the kidney transplant candidates in the period BEFORE the LD education program had at least one potential LD tissue typed, compared with 39.4% in the period AFTER starting the program (P = 0.03). The increase in the proportion of patients with potential donors was greatest among the black (P < 0.05) and elderly (P < 0.01) registrants, which were the groups with the lowest volunteer rates before the program began. Among the registrants with at least one potential donor, the percentage of registrants who ultimately received an LD transplant was highly correlated with the number of donors (R = 0.98). The rate of LD kidney transplantation was significantly higher (P = 0.02) for the patients referred in the period AFTER initiation of the LD education program compared with the period BEFORE the program. The 1- and 3-year graft survival rates for the 170 LD transplants performed in these patients were 96.9% and 93.2%, respectively. These were significantly better than the corresponding 83.9% and 71.4% rates for the 341 kidney transplants from cadaver donors in these registrants (P < 0.001). Black recipients of LD transplants had graft survival rates comparable to whites; the 3-year graft survival rate for LD transplants was 93.9% in whites and 90.6% in blacks (P = NS). We conclude that living kidney donor volunteer rates can be improved by a formal family education program, especially for subgroups of patients with low volunteer rates. A substantial benefit is derived by black patients, who generally experience low graft survival rates with cadaver-donor kidneys. A local formal LD education program is a useful adjunct to national organ donation campaigns.     

Clinical Outcomes in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Single Center Experience in Latin America

BackgroundIn Latin America, few reports are available about the clinical outcomes of living donor kidney transplants (LDKT). We aim to evaluate the main clinical outcomes for LDKT patients in a single center's experience.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 530 LDKT patients who underwent transplantation from August 2008 to December 2020 at Colombiana de Trasplantes. Graft survival censored for death and patient survival were determined up to 5 years post-transplantation by the Kaplan-Meier method. Vascular and urinary complications, readmission, and reintervention rates were documented.ResultsA total of 530 LDKT patients were analyzed. Most of the recipients were men (56%). There were 123 patients (23.2%) with a preemptive transplant. Panel reactive antibody type I and II had higher immunologic risk (>20%) in 15.9% of the patients. The donor mean age was 37.8 ± 11.5 years. Most of the donors were women (52.6%) and related to the recipient (69.1%). Multivariate analysis identified panel reactive antibody type II (P = 0.003), female donor (P = 0.001), surgical reintervention at 30 days post-transplantation (P < .01), and delayed graft function (P < .01) as risk factors for graft loss. The graft survival death-censored rates were 93.7% and 89% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Patient survival rates were 97.0% and 94.1% at 1 and 5 years after transplantation, respectively.ConclusionsThe long-term graft and patient survival rates in our center are comparable to previous reports from other leading centers. The clinical outcomes from a medium-sized center can be noteworthy, although not entirely new.     

Pediatric transplantation: the Hamburg experience

BACKGROUND: Since starting our program in 1989, 455 pediatric orthotopic liver transplantations have been performed using all techniques. In April 2001, we experienced our last in-hospital death of a pediatric liver-transplant recipient. Since then, all our liver-transplant children (n=170) were able to be discharged from the hospital. The aim of this study is to analyze the actual status of pediatric liver transplantation at the University of Hamburg and to find future perspectives to improve the results after pediatric liver transplantation. METHODS: From May 4, 2001 until September 8, 2004, 22 (13%) whole organs, 18 (11%) reduced-size organs, 79 (47%) split organs, and 51 (30%) organs from living donors were transplanted into 142 patients. One hundred forty-one were primary liver transplants, 25 retransplants, 3 third, and 1 fourth liver transplants. Of the 170 orthotopic liver transplantations (OLT), 31 (18%) were highly urgent (United Network of Organ Sharing [UNOS] I). RESULTS: After 170 consecutive pediatric liver transplants, no patients died during the hospital course (100% patient survival<3 months), but overall, 5 (2.9%) recipients died during further follow-up. The 3-month and actual graft survival rates are 93% and 85%, respectively. Twenty (11.8%) children had to undergo retransplantation. However, patient survival was not sustained by longer graft survival. Analyzing our series, we see that graft survival after reduced-size liver transplantation showed a significantly lower rate versus living-donor liver transplantation. CONCLUSION: The learning curve in pediatric liver transplantation has reached a turning point where immediate patient survival is considered the rule. The challenge is to increase graft survival to the same level. The long-term management of the transplant patients, with the aim of avoiding late graft loss and achieving excellent quality of life, will become the center of the debate.     

Analysis of the Liver Transplant Waiting List in Our Center

BackgroundLiver transplantation (LT) is an important treatment for acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Due to the limited supply of livers, there are still thousands of candidates waiting for transplantation in Turkey. We aimed to analyze LT waiting list access by demographics and etiology, particularly the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which has been prioritized for LT in recent years.Materials and MethodsBetween 2011 and 2018, all patients listed for LT in our center were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic features, etiology of liver disease, waiting time, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and survival data were recorded. Differences between the LT group and deceased patients on the waiting list were evaluated.ResultsDuring this period, 266 patients were included in the LT waiting list. Only 119 patients (44.7%) underwent LT (men, 94; women, 25; mean age, 53 years), whereas 103 (38%) died (men, 60; women, 43; mean age, 53 years) in the waiting period. Seventeen patients were status 1A or 1B and of these, 7 patients died from fulminant hepatic failure. MELD score was significantly higher in deceased group (28 ± 7 vs 25 ± 6; P = .014). The frequency of HCC was significantly higher in LT group (29% vs 11%; P = .002). Overall survival of the patients in the waiting list with and without liver transplantation were 63% and 41%, respectively.ConclusionsHCC is one of the leading etiologies that is considered for cadaveric LT from the waiting list in our center. These patients had slightly lower MELD scores compared to deceased patients with shorter waiting times. We recommend early referral and close monitoring of the patients who are LT candidates.     

Immunologic Prognostic Factors of Renal Allograft Survival

IntroductionSuccessful outcome of renal transplantation depends on various factors, of which immunologic is one of the most important. Accumulated experience of a single center, with the same surgical and immunological team contributes significantly to safe conclusions. Purpose of this study was the evaluation of potential factors, in particular immunologic, that influence renal allograft survival.Patients and MethodsDuring the period 1991–2013, 20,784 surgical operations have been performed in our Department of Surgery – Transplant Unit, of which 575 were renal transplantations. We examined donor and recipient demographic factors, immunologic characteristics along with patient and graft survival.ResultsRenal allograft was retrieved from living-related donor in 103 cases and in 472 from cadaveric donor. Donor age was 46.7 ± 18.5 years old and 49.9% (287) were male. Recipient age was 48 ± 12.3 years old and 402 were male. HLA histocompatibility was carefully matched resulting in 85.5% renal transplants with 2–4 HLA mismatches and 93.8% renal transplants with at least one HLA-DR. Renal graft survival the first, fifth and tenth year was 89%, 76%, and 67% and patient survival was respectively 95%, 89% and 83%. Statistical analysis revealed that only donor age influenced renal graft survival (P < .05). HLA mismatches were not correlated with graft survival (log rank P = .495), but identification of panel reactive antibodies (PRA) class I and class II post transplantation had a statistically significant impact on long term renal graft survival (log rank P < .001 and P = .021, accordingly).ConclusionsAnalysis of potential prognostic factor showed that only donor age was correlated with allograft survival. Development of PRA following renal transplantation influenced long term graft survival. Good HLA matching with at least one HLA DR resulted in excellent graft and patient survival.     

Association of preoperative parameters with postoperative mortality and long-term survival after liver transplantation

Background

The ability of Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores to predict recipient survival after liver transplantation is controversial. This analysis aims to identify preoperative parameters that might be associated with early postoperative mortality and long-term survival after liver transplantation.

Methods

We studied a total of 15 parameters, using both univariate and multivariate models, among adults who underwent primary liver transplantation.

Results

A total of 458 primary adult liver transplants were performed. Fifty-seven (12.44%) patients died during the first 3 postoperative months and composed the early mortality group. The remaining 401 patients composed the long-term patient survival group. The parameters that were identified through univariate analysis to be associated with early postoperative mortality were CTP score, MELD score, bilirubin, creatinine, international normalized ratio and warm ischemia time (WIT). In all multivariate models, WIT retained its statistical significance. The 10-year long-term survival was 65%. The parameters that were identified to be independent predictors of long-term survival were the recipient’s sex (improved survival in women, p = 0.005), diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer (p = 0.015) and recipient’s age (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Either CTP or MELD score, in conjunction with WIT, might have a role in predicting early postoperative mortality after liver transplantation, whereas the recipient’s sex and the absence of hepatocellular cancer are associated with improved long-term survival.     

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BackgroundDespite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.MethodWe aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.ResultsA total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.ConclusionPatients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.