Risk factors in liver retransplantation: a single-center experience

Liver retransplantation (Re-OLT) is one of the most debated issues in medicine over the past decade. Re-OLT, currently is accepted for patients with irreversible failure of a hepatic graft caused by primary nonfunction (PNF), hyperacute/chronic rejection, or hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT); whereas it is still controversial for patients with recurrent viral disease, in particular hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis. Patient and graft survival rates are lower than those observed after primary liver transplantation (OLT). The aim of the present study was to analyze the risk factors that adversely affect survival after Re-OLT in a single center. Medical data were collected for 23 patients who underwent Re-OLT from November 2002 to December 2008 including six men and seven women of mean age of 51.3 years. The most frequent indications for Re-OLT were: PNF (69.5%; 16/23), HCV recurrence (8.6%; 2/23), or HAT (8.6%; 2/23). Mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at Re-OLT was 27.7 (range = 9-40). After a mean follow-up of 37.4 ± 30 (standard deviation) months, 43% (10/23) of patients had died, including 70% within the first 2 months after Re-OLT. Sepsis represented the commonest cause of death (40%). Re-OLT was performed for PNF among 90% of succumbing patients. As regards dead patients, 4/10 were HCV⁺ whose causes of death were sepsis (n = 2), alcoholic cirrhosis (n = 2), and undetermined (n = 1). Comparing patients who died after liver Re-OLT versus alive patients, we did not find any significant difference in terms of mean MELD (28.6 vs 27; P = NS), MELD > 25 (60% vs 61.5%, P = NS), donor age > 60 years (30% vs 15.3%, P = NS), HCV⁺ (40% vs 62%, P = NS), or time interval from OLT to Re-OLT (12.2 vs 777.7 days, P = NS). Patient survivals after Re-OLT were 67% at 3 years and 50% at 5 years, which were lower than those of first transplantations, as reported by other European and International Centers. Forty percent of deaths after Re-OLT occurred among HCV⁺ recipients, but for reasons unrelated to HCV infection.     

Cardiac retransplantation: a 15-year single-center clinical experience

BACKGROUND: Cardiac retransplantation is a controversial therapy because of the shortage of donor hearts. We retrospectively reviewed the short-term and long-term outcomes after cardiac retransplantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight cases (18 males, 7 females; mean age, 50.3 +/- 13.5 years) underwent cardiac retransplantation: 25 first retransplantations and 3 second retransplantations. The indications for retransplantation were primary graft failure (PGF) in 11 patients (39.3%), intractable acute cardiac rejection (IACR) in 4 patients (14.3%), and coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in 13 patients (46.4%). The patients had been supported as follows: prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB; n = 3), intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP; n = 1), intravenous inotropic support (n = 7), extracorporeal membranoxygenator (ECMO; n = 3), ventricular assist device (VAD; n = 4), and no inotropic support (n = 10). There were 8 deaths within 30 days after retransplantation (28.6%). The overall 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 46.4%, 40.6%, 32.5%, and 32.5%, respectively. Acute cardiac rejection was the most common cause of death (43.8%). Thirty-day and 1-year survival rates of IACR, PGF, and CAV were 50.0%/0%, 63.6%/45.5%, and 84.6%/68.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival after retransplantation was acceptable for patients with CAV and PGF; however, we must select patients for retransplantation carefully if the indication is IACR, because of the poor outcome.     

Long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the long-term outcome of patients undergoing hepatic retransplantation at their institution. Donor, operative, and recipient factors impacting on outcome as well as parameters of patient resource utilization were examined. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hepatic retransplantation provides the only available option for liver transplant recipients in whom an existing graft has failed. However, such patients are known to exhibit patient and graft survival after retransplantation that is inferior to that expected using the same organs in naiive recipients. The critical shortage of donor organs and resultant prolonged patient waiting periods before transplantation prompted the authors to evaluate the results of a liberal policy of retransplantation and to examine the factors contributing to the inferior outcome observed in retransplanted patients. METHODS: A total of 2053 liver transplants were performed at the UCLA Medical Center during a 13-year period from February 1, 1984, to October 1, 1996. A total of 356 retransplants were performed in 299 patients (retransplant rate = 17%). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with survival. Additionally, a case-control comparison was performed between the last 150 retransplanted patients and 150 primarily transplanted patients who were matched for age and United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) status. Differences between these groups in donor, operative, and recipient variables were studied for their correlation with patient survival. Days of hospital and intensive care unit stay, and hospital charges incurred during the transplant admissions were compared for retransplanted patients and control patients. RESULTS: Survival of retransplanted patients at 1, 5, and 10 years was 62%, 47%, and 45%, respectively. This survival is significantly less than that seen in patients undergoing primary hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (83%, 74%, and 68%). A number of variables proved to have a significant impact on outcome including recipient age group, interval to retransplantation, total number of grafts, and recipient UNOS status. Recipient primary diagnosis, cause for retransplantation, and whether the patient was retransplanted before or after June 1, 1992, did not reach statistical significance as factors influencing survival. In the case-control comparison, the authors found that of the more than 25 variables studied, only preoperative ventilator status showed both a significant difference between control patients and retransplanted patients and also was a factor predictive of survival in retransplanted patients. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated total hospitalization charges more than 170% of those by control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic retransplantation, although life-saving in almost 50% of patients with a failing liver allograft, is costly and uses scarce donor organs inefficiently. The data presented define patient characteristics and preoperative variables that impact patient outcome and should assist in the rational application of retransplantation.     

Penetrating cardiac injuries: twenty-year experience

Analysis of 228 patients who sustained penetrating cardiac injuries (1963-1983) reveals that among patients who arrived with vital signs, survival was 73 per cent as opposed to 29 per cent of patients who arrived in extremis; and delay in thoracotomy contributed to an increased mortality among patients in profound shock who failed to respond promptly to volume expansion and agonal patients who were transported to the operating room for thoracotomy. An increasing incidence of gunshot wounds and a greater frequency of patients presenting in extremis was noted in the latter years of the study as compared with the earlier period. Our data indicate that there is an increasing need for emergency room thoracotomy in the management of cardiac injuries. Urban trauma centers should be equipped for major procedures in the emergency room and, ideally, should have operating rooms in this area.     

Long-term social outcome after pediatric kidney transplantation: a single-center experience

Clinical and Experimental Nephrology - Patient and graft survival rates after pediatric kidney transplantation have improved recently. Therefore, the quality of life or social outcome after kidney...     

Long-term patient and graft survival in the eurotransplant senior program: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND: The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) was launched in 1999, targeted to increase the supply of donor kidneys to the elderly. This program requires local allocation of kidneys from cadaveric donors >65 years to recipients >65 years. METHODS: Of all patients >65 years who received a kidney transplant in 1999-2002 at our center, 59 patients were transplanted through the ESP protocol (ESP group), and 44 patients received a transplant from a younger donor (EuroTransplant Kidney Allocation System, ETKAS group). Recipients were followed for up to 5.3 years using the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality and allograft loss. RESULTS: Age, sex, and comorbid conditions did not differ by group. Donor age was higher (69 vs. 36 years; P < 0.001) and cold ischemia time shorter in the ESP group (10 vs. 15 hr; P < 0.001). Number of HLA mismatches was greater in the ESP group (3.8 vs. 3.0; P = 0.003). ESP patients were more likely to receive induction therapy and less likely to receive cyclosporine A. Primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, operative mortality, rate of acute rejection episodes, and length of stay did not differ by group. Although serum creatinine at discharge was higher in ESP patients (1.7 vs. 1.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001), 4-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31-1.49) and graft loss (HR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.29-1.28) tended to be less. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term patient and graft survival were comparable between elderly patients who received their organ via the ESP and the regular ETKAS algorithm.     

Cardiac retransplantation: is it justified in times of critical donor organ shortage? Long-term single-center experience

Objective: Survival after heart transplantation has improved significantly over the last decades. There are a growing number of patients that require cardiac retransplantation because of chronic allograft dysfunction. With regard to the critical shortage of cardiac allograft donors the decision to offer repeat heart transplantation must be carefully considered. Methods: Since 1983 a total of 807 heart transplantations have been performed at our institution. Among them 41 patients received cardiac retransplantation, 18 patients because of acute graft failure and 23 because of chronic graft failure. Data were analyzed for demographics, morbidity and risk factors for mortality. The acute and chronic retransplant group was compared to those patients undergoing primary transplantation. Results: The mean interval between primary transplantation and retransplantation was 1.9 days in the acute and 6.7 years in the chronic retransplant group. Mean follow-up was 6.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar in the primary and retransplant group. Actuarial survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years after primary cardiac transplantation compared to retransplantation were 83, 78, 72 and 64% vs 53, 50, 47 and 36%, respectively (p < 0.001). Early mortality after acute retransplantation was significantly higher compared to late retransplantation (10/18, 55.6% vs 4/23, 17.4%, p = 0.011). Major causes of death were acute and chronic rejection, infection and sepsis. Conclusions: Cardiac retransplantation is associated with lower survival rates compared to primary transplantation. However, results after retransplantation in chronic graft failure are significantly better compared to acute graft failure. Therefore, we consider cardiac retransplantation in chronic graft failure a justified therapeutic option. In contrast, patients with acute graft failure seem to be inappropriate candidates for cardiac retransplantation.     

A single-center experience of late retransplantation of the liver

Liver retransplantation is considered to carry a higher risk than primary transplantation. However, there are an increasing number of retransplant candidates, especially owing to late graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyze a single-center experience in late liver retransplantation. The overall rate of primary retransplantation was 11.4% (28 re-OLT out of 245 primary OLT); the 14 (52%) who underwent retransplantation at more than 3 months after the first transplant were analyzed by a medical record review. Causes of primary graft failure leading to retransplantation were chronic hepatic artery thombosis in five cases (36%); recurrent HCV cirrhosis in four cases (29%); chronic rejection in two cases (14%); veno-occlusive disease; hepatic vein thrombosis or idiopathic graft failure in one case each (7%). UNOS status at re-OLT was always 2A, all patients were hospitalized; three were intensive care unit bound. ICU and total hospital stay had been 7 +/- 5 and 28 +/- 16 days, respectively. One- and 2-year patient and graft survivals were 84% and 62% and 67% and 67%, respectively. Death occurred in four patients. Two out of the three recovered in ICU at the time of retransplantation, at a median interval of 15 +/- 9 days after retransplantation. The survival rate after late retransplantation is improving, and this option should be considered to be a efficient way to save lives, especially by defining the optimal timing for retransplantation.     

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after early versus late liver retransplantation: a single-center experience

Background

As the survival of patients after liver transplantation (LT) improves, the requirement of liver retransplantation (reLT) for late graft failure has grown. Although some have reported that the short-term outcome of late reLT was comparable with that of early reLT, it remains unknown whether long-term survival of late reLT is inferior to that of early reLT patients.

Materials and methods

We reviewed early (<6 mo after primary LT) and late (≥6 mo after primary LT) reLT cases performed between January 2000 and December 2010.

Results

Sixteen early and 32 late reLT cases were analyzed. There was no significant difference regarding the number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplantation between the groups, whereas operative time was significantly longer in the late reLT cases. Graft loss within 3 mo after early and late reLT was 18.6% and 15.6%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates after 1, 3, 5, and 10 y in the late reLT group were 80.6%, 73.3%, 73.3%, and 67.7% and 80.7%, 69.1%, 63.3%, and 54.3%, respectively, whereas those in the early reLT group were 75.0%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 64.3% and 81.3%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival rates between the groups (P = 0.91 and 0.91, respectively).

Conclusions

Acceptable short- and long-term survival were provided in early and late reLT. The time between the primary LT and reLT does not seem to play significant role in the prognosis of reLT in the long term.     

Liver retransplantation for primary nonfunction: analysis of a 20-year single-center experience.

Initial graft function following liver transplantation is a major determinant of postoperative survival and morbidity. Primary graft nonfunction (PNF) is uncommon; however, it is one of the most serious and life-threatening conditions in the immediate postoperative period. The risk factors associated with PNF and short-term outcome have been previously reported, but there are no reports of long-term follow-up after retransplant for PNF. At our institution, 52 liver transplants had PNF (2.22%) among 2,341 orthotopic liver transplants in 2,130 patients from 1984 to 2003. PNF occurred more often in the retransplant setting. Female donors, donor age, donor days in the intensive care unit, cold ischemia time, and operating room time were significant factors for PNF. Patient as well as graft survival of retransplant for PNF was not different compared to retransplant for other causes. However, PNF for a second or third transplant did not demonstrate long-term survival, and hospital mortality was 57%. In conclusion, retransplant for PNF in the initial transplant can achieve relatively good long-term survival; however, if another transplant is needed in the setting of a second PNF, the third retransplant should probably not be done due to poor expected outcome.     

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.     

再次肝移植单中心16例分析

目的 研究再次肝移植术的手术适应证、临床效果和预后.方法 回顾性分析2004年4月至2013年4月我中心进行的612例肝移植临床资料.结果 共有16例再次肝移植,再次肝移植率2.61％(16/612).两次移植间隔时间(即首次移植物存活时间)为(16.2±18.3)个月(10 d至64个月,中位时间9.5个月).再次肝移植后总体病死率50％(8/16),围手术期病死率18.75％(3/16);再次移植物存活时间为(37.4±34.3)个月(3d至94个月,中位时间39.5个月);受者平均生存时间(53.6±33.9)个月(10 d至94个月,中位时间57个月),5年总体生存率48.3％.结论 对于肝移植术后常规方法难以治疗的严重并发症,再次肝移植是合理、必要和可行的救治手段.再次肝移植在首次移植6个月后进行,有利于降低再次肝移植的围手术期病死率.     

Long-term experiences on cardiac retransplantation in adults

Background: It remains disputed whether cardiac retransplantation should be performed. This study aimed to evaluate our long-term experiences on cardiac retransplantation in adults. Patients and methods: Between March 1989 and December 2004, 2% (28/1290) of cardiac retransplantations were performed. Results: The reasons for cardiac retransplantation were cardiac allograft vasculopathy (n = 13; 47%), primary graft failure (n = 11; 39%), and refractory acute rejection (n = 4; 14%). The 30-day mortality risk was 29% (acute rejection: 50%; primary graft failure: 36%; cardiac allograft vasculopathy: 15%, p = 0.324), compared to 8.5% for primary cardiac transplantation (p < 0.001). The causes of early death were acute rejection (n = 3; 37%), multiorgan failure (n = 3; 37%), primary graft failure (n = 1; 13%), and right ventricular failure (n = 1; 13%). The late mortality rate was 96/1000 patient-years. The causes of late death were acute rejection (n = 4; 50%), cardiac allograft vasculopathy (n = 2; 25%), multiorgan failure (n = 1; 13%), and infection (n = 1; 13%). The 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival was respectively 78, 68, 54, and 38% (primary cardiac transplantation), and 46, 41, 32, and 32% (cardiac retransplantation) (p = 0.003). The short-term survival for cardiac retransplantation due to cardiac allograft vasculopathy was likely better than primary graft failure and refractory acute rejection (p = 0.09). Conclusion: The overall outcomes of cardiac retransplantation are significantly inferior to primary cardiac transplantation. Cardiac retransplantation should be only performed for selected patients.     

Long-term pancreatic allograft survival after renal retransplantation in prior simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients

Over a 23-year period, our center performed 82 renal retransplants in prior simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients with functioning pancreatic allografts. All patients were insulin-independent at retransplantation. We aimed to quantify the risk of returning to insulin therapy and to identify factors that predispose patients to pancreatic allograft failure after renal retransplantation. Among these 82 patients, pancreatic allograft survival after renal retransplantation was 78%, 49% and 40% at 1, 5 and 10 years. When analyzing risk factors, we unexpectedly found no clear relationship between the cause of primary renal allograft failure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting C-peptide level at retransplant and subsequent pancreatic allograft failure. An elevated HbA1c in the month after renal retransplant correlated with subsequent pancreatic graft loss and patients experiencing pancreatic graft loss were more likely to subsequently lose their renal retransplant. Although it is difficult to prospectively identify those patients who will return to insulin therapy after repeat renal transplantation, the relatively high frequency of this event mandates that this risk be conveyed to patients. Nonetheless, the survival benefit associated with renal retransplantation justifies pursuing retransplantation in this population.     

A single-center experience of retransplantation for liver transplant recipients with a failing graft

With the accumulation of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) recipients, an increased number of patients with graft failure need retransplantation (re-OLT). This study was undertaken to examine our clinical experience of re-OLT for patients with poor graft function after primary transplantation at a single center. We analyzed retrospectively, the clinical data of 32 re-OLTs in 31 patients at our center from January 2004 to February 2007, including indications and causes of death, timing of retransplantation, and surgical techniques. The indications included bile leak (2 cases), biliary stricture (16 cases), recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (5 cases), hepatic artery stenosis (4 cases), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) (2 cases), and hepatitis B recurrence (3 cases). The rate of re-OLT was 4.29%. All patients underwent modified piggyback liver transplantations with cadaveric allografts. No intraoperative mortality and acute rejection occurred. Overall, 17 of 31 patients (54.8%) died after re-OLT with survival times ranging from 2 weeks to 28 months. Another 14 patients were cured with survival times of 4 to 32 months. The perioperative mortality rate of patients who underwent re-OLT between 8 and 30 days after their initial transplantation was highest (66.7%). The most common cause of death after re-OLT was sepsis (47.1%), multiple-organ failure (17.6%), and recurrence of HCC (17.6%), whereas the majority of deaths posttransplantation were sepsis-related (54%) within 1 year. Re-OLT is the only therapeutic option for a failing liver graft. Proper indications and optimal operative time, advanced surgical procedures, reasonable individual immunosuppression regimens, and effective perioperative anti-infection treatments contribute to the improved survival of patients after re-OLT.     

The outcomes of pediatric liver retransplantation from a living donor: a 17-year single-center experience

Purpose

Liver retransplantation is the only therapeutic option for patients with graft failure after liver transplantation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of pediatric retransplantation from living donor at a single center.

Methods

Between December 1998 to August 2015, retransplantation from a living donor was performed for 14 children (<18 years of age) at Kumamoto University Hospital. The characteristics of the retransplantation recipient and the clinicopathological factors between primary transplantation and retransplantation were analyzed to detect the prognostic factors.

Results

In retransplantation, the operative time was longer and the amount of blood loss was greater in comparison to primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates from the date of retransplantation were 85.7, 85.7, and 78.6%, respectively. The rates of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation, bile leakage and postoperative bleeding after retransplantation were higher than after primary transplantation. Among the three patients who died after retransplantation, the operative time, the rate of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation and the incidence of gastrointestinal complications were higher in comparison to the surviving patients.

Conclusion

Pediatric retransplantation from a living donor is an acceptable procedure that could save the lives of recipients with failing allografts when organs from deceased donors are scarce. To ensure good results, it is essential to make an appropriate assessment of the cardiopulmonary function and the infectious state of the patients before Re-LDLT.

     

Liver retransplantation: a single-center outcome and financial analysis

Retransplantation of the liver (re-OLTx) accounts for approximately 10% of all liver transplants in the United States. The decision to offer a patient a second liver transplant has significant financial, ethical, and outcome implications. This large, single-center experience describes some outcome and financial data to consider when making this decision. One thousand three liver transplants were performed in 921 patients at our center. Patients were divided into adult and pediatric groups, and further by whether they received a single transplant or more than one. Overall survival, variation in survival by timing of re-OLTx, and survival in adults with hepatitis C were investigated, as were hospital charges and cost of re-OLTx. Adults, but not children, had a significant decrement in survival following a second transplant. Second transplants more than double the cost of the initial transplant, but there is a significantly higher cost associated with early retransplantation compared to the cost associated with late retransplantation (costs of first and second transplants included in both cases). This difference is due to a longer length of stay and associated cost in the ICU. Adult patients retransplanted early have the same overall survival compared to those done late. The sample size of the adult HCV re-OLTx population was too small to reach statistical significance despite their observed poorer outcome.