The Liver Retransplantation Risk Score: a prognostic model for survival after adult liver retransplantation

High-risk combinations of recipient and graft characteristics are poorly defined for liver retransplantation (reLT) in the current era. We aimed to develop a risk model for survival after reLT using data from the European Liver Transplantation Registry, followed by internal and external validation. From 2006 to 2016, 85 067 liver transplants were recorded, including 5581 reLTs (6.6%). The final model included seven predictors of graft survival: recipient age, model for end-stage liver disease score, indication for reLT, recipient hospitalization, time between primary liver transplantation and reLT, donor age, and cold ischemia time. By assigning points to each variable in proportion to their hazard ratio, a simplified risk score was created ranging 0–10. Low-risk (0–3), medium-risk (4–5), and high-risk (6–10) groups were identified with significantly different 5-year survival rates ranging 56.9% (95% CI 52.8–60.7%), 46.3% (95% CI 41.1–51.4%), and 32.1% (95% CI 23.5–41.0%), respectively (P < 0.001). External validation showed that the expected survival rates were closely aligned with the observed mortality probabilities. The Retransplantation Risk Score identifies high-risk combinations of recipient- and graft-related factors prognostic for long-term graft survival after reLT. This tool may serve as a guidance for clinical decision-making on liver acceptance for reLT.     

Malignant hyperthermia 2020

Malignant hyperthermia is defined in the International Classification of Diseases as a progressive life-threatening hyperthermic reaction occurring during general anaesthesia. Malignant hyperthermia has an underlying genetic basis, and genetically susceptible individuals are at risk of developing malignant hyperthermia if they are exposed to any of the potent inhalational anaesthetics or suxamethonium. It can also be described as a malignant hypermetabolic syndrome. There are no specific clinical features of malignant hyperthermia and the condition may prove fatal unless it is recognised in its early stages and treatment is promptly and aggressively implemented. The Association of Anaesthetists has previously produced crisis management guidelines intended to be displayed in all anaesthetic rooms as an aide memoire should a malignant hyperthermia reaction occur. The last iteration was produced in 2011 and since then there have been some developments requiring an update. In these guidelines we will provide background information that has been used in updating the crisis management recommendations but will also provide more detailed guidance on the clinical diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia. The scope of these guidelines is extended to include practical guidance for anaesthetists dealing with a case of suspected malignant hyperthermia once the acute reaction has been reversed. This includes information on care and monitoring during and after the event; appropriate equipment and resuscitative measures within the operating theatre and ICU; the importance of communication and teamwork; guidance on counselling of the patient and their family; and how to make a referral of the patient for confirmation of the diagnosis. We also review which patients presenting for surgery may be at increased risk of developing malignant hyperthermia under anaesthesia and what precautions should be taken during the peri-operative management of the patients.     

Postoperative assessment of nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 after robotic surgical procedures during the pandemic

ObjectivesTo assess potential nosocomial coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) transmission in patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures during the pandemic.Material and methodsProspective study in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology or gynaecology within 2 academic hospitals. Patients underwent local preoperative COVID-19 screening using a symptoms questionnaire. Patients with suspicious screening underwent coronavirus real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and were excluded from robotic surgery if positive. Patients with symptoms postsurgery were systematically tested for coronavirus by RT-PCR. One-month postsurgery, all patients had a telephone consultation to evaluate COVID-19 symptoms.ResultsSixty-eight patients underwent robotic surgery during the study period (median age: 63-years [IQR: 53–70], 1.8 male: female ratio). Oncology was the main indication for robotic surgery (n = 62, 91.2%) and 26 patients (38.2%) received a chest CT-scan prior to surgery. Eleven patients (16.2%) were symptomatic after surgery of whom only 1 tested positive for coronavirus by RT-PCR (1.5%) and was transferred to COVID-19 unit with no life-threatening condition. No attending surgeon was diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study.ConclusionsRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery seemed safe in the era of COVID-19 as long as all recommended precautions are followed. The rate of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission was extremely low despite the fact that we only used RT-PCR testing in symptomatic patients during the preoperative work-up. Larger cohort is needed to validate these results.     

Optimal donation of kidney transplants after controlled circulatory death

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is used for “extended criteria” donors with poorer kidney transplant outcomes. The French cDCD program started in 2015 and is characterized by normothermic regional perfusion, hypothermic machine perfusion, and short cold ischemia time. We compared the outcomes of kidney transplantation from cDCD and brain-dead (DBD) donors, matching cDCD and DBD kidney transplants by propensity scoring for donor and recipient characteristics. The matching process retained 442 of 499 cDCD and 809 of 6185 DBD transplantations. The DGF rate was 20% in cDCD recipients compared with 28% in DBD recipients (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.82). When DBD transplants were ranked by cold ischemia time and machine perfusion use and compared with cDCD transplants, the aRR of DGF was higher for DBD transplants without machine perfusion, regardless of the cold ischemia time (aRR with cold ischemia time <18 h, 1.57; 95% CI 1.20–2.03, vs aRR with cold ischemia time ≥18 h, 1.79; 95% CI 1.31–2.44). The 1-year graft survival rate was similar in both groups. Early outcome was better for kidney transplants from cDCD than from matched DBD transplants with this French protocol.