Search

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) associated with portal hypertension [portopulmonary hypertension (PPHTN)] occurs in 2% to 10% of patients with advanced liver disease and carries a very poor prognosis without treatment. Most hepatic transplantation centers consider moderate to severe PPHTN to be a contraindication to liver transplantation because of the high rate of perioperative complications. We present 3 patients with PPHTN who were managed with intravenous prostacyclin therapy followed by living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). These individuals demonstrated subsequent resolution of their pulmonary hypertension and were weaned off all PAH-specific medical therapy. We present their demographics, clinical courses, and hemodynamics. We discuss the potential indications for LDLT and risks with respect to this patient population. Limitations of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system and outcome data for this patient population are reviewed. Future studies should be directed toward better defining indications for LDLT in patients with PPHTN, improving medicosurgical management, and assessing long-term outcomes.

A national conference was held to better characterize the long-term outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to assess whether it is justified to continue the policy of assigning increased priority for candidates with early-stage HCC on the transplant waiting list in the United States. The objectives of the conference were to address specific HCC issues as they relate to liver allocation, develop a standardized pathology report form for the assessment of the explanted liver, develop more specific imaging criteria for HCC designed to qualify LT candidates for automatic Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points without the need for biopsy, and develop a standardized pretransplant imaging report form for the assessment of patients with liver lesions. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that the allocation policy should result in similar risks of removal from the waiting list and similar transplant rates for HCC and non-HCC candidates. In addition, the allocation policy should select HCC candidates so that there are similar posttransplant outcomes for HCC and non-HCC recipients. There was a general consensus for the development of a calculated continuous HCC priority score for ranking HCC candidates on the list that would incorporate the calculated MELD score, alpha-fetoprotein, tumor size, and rate of tumor growth. Only candidates with at least stage T2 tumors would receive additional HCC priority points.

Because of organ shortage and a constant imbalance between available organs and candidates for liver transplantation, expanded criteria donors are needed. Experience shows that there are wide variations in the definitions, selection criteria, and use of expanded criteria donors according to different geographic areas and different centers. Overall, selection criteria for donors have tended to be relaxed in recent years. Consensus recommendations are needed. This article reports the conclusions of a consensus meeting held in Paris in March 2007 with the contribution of experts from Europe, the United States, and Asia. Definitions of expanded criteria donors with respect to donor variables (including age, liver function tests, steatosis, infections, malignancies, and heart-beating versus non-heart-beating, among others) are proposed. It is emphasized that donor quality represents a continuum of risk rather than "good or bad." A distinction is made between donor factors that generate increased risk of graft failure and factors independent of graft function, such as transmissible infectious disease or donor-derived malignancy, that may preclude a good outcome. Updated data concerning the risks associated with different donor variables in different recipient populations are given. Recommendations on how to safely expand donor selection criteria are proposed.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been proposed to have immunomodulatory effects in transplant recipients and may promote herpesvirus reactivation. To assess this, we compared the incidence of herpesvirus reactivation in HCV-positive and HCV-negative liver transplant recipients. Quantitative viral load testing was performed at regular intervals posttransplantation for cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human herpesviruses (HHV) 6, 7, and 8, and varicella zoster virus (VZV) in 177 liver transplant patients who were HCV-positive (n = 60) or HCV-negative (n = 117). The incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, and the peak CMV viral load was not significantly different in HCV-positive vs. HCV-negative patients. Similarly, no differences in HHV-6 or EBV reactivation were observed. HHV-8 or VZV viremia was not detected in any patient in the study. A lower incidence of HHV-7 infection occurred in HCV-positive patients vs. HCV-negative patients (47.6% vs. 72.7%; P = 0.006). In conclusion, these results suggest that HCV infection does not appear to promote herpesvirus reactivation after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 13:1422–1427, 2007. © 2007 AASLD.

Everolimus is a macrolide immunosuppressive agent with known consistent absorption. In this double-blind study, we examined the safety and tolerability of everolimus vs. placebo in de novo liver transplant recipients. One hundred and nineteen liver allograft recipients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: everolimus 0.5 mg bid, everolimus 1.0 mg bid, everolimus 2 mg bid, or placebo. Patients received oral cyclosporine to achieve a target trough level of 150-400 ng/mL in combination with prednisone. Primary and secondary endpoints of safety, tolerability, and efficacy were determined at 12 months, and patients were followed through 36 months. There was a trend toward fewer treated acute rejections in the everolimus group than in the placebo group: everolimus 0.5 mg: 39.3%; everolimus 1.0 mg: 30.0%; everolimus 2 mg: 29.0%; placebo: 40.0% (P = not significant). Adverse events were higher in everolimus-treated patients especially at the 4-mg/day dose, but there was no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia or leukopenia between all groups and renal function as determined by serum creatinine, and creatinine clearance remained stable to 36 months in everolimus-treated patients. Mean cholesterol and triglycerides increased from baseline in all treatment groups, and maximum levels were seen at 6 months. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that everolimus in combination with oral cyclosporine had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, paving the way for additional studies in this transplant indication.

Richard B. Freeman Jr., Robert G. Gish, Ann Harper, Gary L. Davis, John Vierling, Leslie Lieblein, Goran Klintmalm, Jamie Blazek, Robert Hunter, and Jeffrey Punch Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Tufts–New England Medical Center, Boston, MA; Departments of Medicine and Transplantation and the Division of Hepatology and Complex GI, Physicians Foundation, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA; United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA; Baylor Regional Transplant Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Ochsner Multi-Organ Transplant Center, New Orleans, LA; and Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Assignment of liver allocation priority for hepatocellular carcinoma is predicated on accurate imaging staging. We analyzed radiographically defined stage (radiologic stage [RS]) at listing and most recent extension and pathologic stage (PS) data from 789 liver transplant recipients for whom no pretransplant ablative treatment was given. There were no predetermined imaging or pathological protocols in this retrospective analysis of wait list data. Seventy-two (9.1%), 690 (87.5%), and 27 (3.4%) were listed as stage 1, 2 and >2, respectively. Computed tomography (CT) scan alone (46.4%), magnetic resonance image scan alone (37.1%), ultrasound alone (1.3%), and multiple imaging studies (15.2%) were used with no difference in time to transplant for listing or most recent scan among the recipient groups. Overall accuracy (RS = PS) was 44.1% and was not different if original listing RS or most recent RS was used for comparison with PS. No one type of imaging technique had superior accuracy (P = 0.13); however, CT scan used alone or in combination compared to not being used at all, had higher odds of being accurate (odds ratio [OR] 1.38 [1.03-1.84], P = 0.031). In addition, imaging done less than 90 days before transplant had higher odds of being accurate (OR 1.49 [1.06-2.08], P = 0.019) as did RS = 2 or 3 (OR 5.56 [2.70-11.11], P < 0.0001). We observed considerable variation in RS accuracy among the United Network for Organ Sharing and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network regions that is unexplained. In conclusion, current imaging requirements for RS prior to liver transplantation are unacceptably inaccurate. Future policy should require more accurate modalities or combinations of techniques. Liver Transpl 12:1504-1511, 2006. © 2006 AASLD.

With improved cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis, CMV disease after liver transplantation has decreased dramatically, and patient and graft survival have improved. We examined the impact of CMV prophylaxis on biopsy proven rejection after orthotopic liver transplantation by analyzing data on 192 liver recipients over 5 years (1994-1999). Risk factors assessed for biopsy proven rejection including donor and recipient age, CMV serostatus; CMV prophylaxis; immunosuppression; bacteremia and blood product use were examined over a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for rejection showed that bacteremia (HR 3.57, 95% CI 1.39-9.36, P=0.008), donor age (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36, per 10 year increase, P=0.004), and use of cyclosporine as initial immunosuppression compared to tacrolimus (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.27-3.09, P=0.003) were associated with increased risk; ganciclovir prophylaxis for 3 months (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79, P=0.003) and recipient age (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63-0.96, for each 10 year increase, P=0.03) were associated with decreased risk. We conclude that, the use of CMV prophylaxis with ganciclovir significantly reduces the incidence of biopsy proven rejection in liver transplant recipients.

The shortage of donor organs highlights the need to better identify patients most likely to benefit from hepatic transplantation. Reduced aerobic capacity (decreased peak oxygen consumption [VO(2)] during symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing) is frequently present in cirrhosis. Peak VO(2) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing may predict short-term outcome after hepatic transplantation. Symptom-limited testing was performed on a cycle ergometer (continuous ramp protocol) and VO(2) determined using a metabolic cart. One hundred fifty-six patients were tested; 59 subsequently underwent hepatic transplantation. Results showed that survivors and nonsurvivors were similar in age, duration of liver disease, Child-Pugh score, MELD score, resting cardiovascular function, pulmonary function, and gas exchange. The 6 (10.2%) patients dying within 100 days of transplantation were more likely to have reduced aerobic capacity (peak VO(2)

Expanded criteria donor (ECD) liver grafts have a higher likelihood of primary graft failure (PGF) compared with standard criteria donor (SCD) grafts. Given a choice between an available ECD graft versus waiting for an SCD graft that may not always become available, what should liver transplant candidates do? The study's aim was to estimate 1-year survival comparing immediate ECD liver grafting with waiting for an SCD organ. Using UNOS data, published literature estimates, and expert opinion, we constructed a Markov decision analytic model to estimate survival while waiting for an SCD transplant and survival with immediate ECD transplant. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying model parameters individually and simultaneously with a second-order Monte Carlo simulation. For all patients with MELD scores >20, survival was higher with immediate ECD transplant despite the additional increased risk for PGF. Survival was better with an immediate ECD transplant unless the probability of PGF exceeded 23%, 72%, and 88% for recipients with MELD scores of 11–20, 21–25, and 26–30 respectively. For patients with MELD scores >30, the survival benefit with the immediate ECD strategy persisted at even higher rates of PGF. In conclusion, our results suggest that, despite the higher risk for PGF, transplantation with an available ECD graft should be preferred over waiting for an SCD organ for patients with advanced MELD scores. At less advanced MELD scores, the survival benefit depends on the risk of PGF associated with the ECD organ. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:1468–1475.)

A national conference was held to review and assess data gathered since implementation of MELD and PELD and determine future directions. The objectives of the conference were to review the current system of liver allocation with a critical analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Conference participants used an evidence-based approach to consider whether predicted outcome after transplantation should influence allocation, to discuss the concept of minimal listing score, to revisit current and potential expansion of exception criteria, and to determine whether specific scores should be used for automatic removal of patients on the waiting list. After review of data from the first 18 months since implementation, association and society leaders, and surgeons and hepatologists with wide regional representation were invited to participate in small group discussions focusing on each of the main objectives. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that MELD has had a successful initial implementation, meeting the goal of providing a system of allocation that emphasizes the urgency of the candidate while diminishing the reliance on waiting time, and that it has proven to be a powerful tool for auditing the liver allocation system. It was also agreed that the data regarding the accuracy of PELD as a predictor of pretransplant mortality were less conclusive and that PELD should be considered in isolation. Recommendations for the transplant community, based on the analysis of the MELD data, were discussed and are presented in the summary document.

Key points 1. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) system can be used to assess recipient pre-transplant risks and help select appropriate candidates for the adult to adult living donation liver transplant procedure. 2. Selection of candidates for the adult to adult living donation liver transplant procedure requires assessment of candidate risk of death without a transplant, risk of death with a transplant, and donor risk of death. 3. Understanding of the risks involved allows for development of clinical decision models to inform the risk benefit analyses. 4. MELD provides a useful, objective, and universal tool for clinicians around the world to estimate risks for clinical decision making in all forms of liver transplantation.

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation jointly sponsored a conference in Crystal City, Virginia, on March 28th and 29th, 2001, to explore mechanisms for maximizing the cadaver-organ donor pool. Participants from transplantation medicine, surgery, organ procurement organizations, the general public, and government convened to address expanding utilization of each organ type. The committee assigned to review liver organ utilization identified multiple practices that could expand the potential donor pool including non-heart beating donors, marginal grafts, efficient allocation of cadaver organs, and wider application of split-liver transplantation. This article details the data reviewed by the liver committee and their recommendations on policy development for the expanded application of split-liver transplantation.

Skin cancer is a well-recognized long-term complication of transplantation and immunosuppression. Although risk factors for the development of skin cancer in the general population are well defined, risk factors for the development of these lesions have not been identified clearly in the liver transplant population. We surveyed 151 liver transplant (LTx) recipients for risk factors associated with cutaneous malignancies in the general population. Variables included were: demographics, primary liver disease, severity of disease at LTx, immunosuppression history, complexion, hair color, eye color, tanning profile, number of moles, occupational history, sun exposure history, sunburn history, family history of skin cancer, and any history of removed skin lesions. All skin cancers were confirmed histologically. There were 86 documented skin cancers in 34 patients: 56 squamous cell, 23 basal cell and 7 melanomas. Median follow-up was 1490 days. In a univariate analysis, age, male gender, red hair, brown eyes, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), primary biliary cirrhosis (protective), cyclosporine, number of second degree sunburns, and frequent lifetime sun exposure were associated with the development of new skin cancers. In a multivariate model, age, male gender, red hair, brown eyes, PSC, and cyclosporine remain the strongest predictors. The incidence of skin cancer after liver transplantation is underestimated. In particular, there is a higher incidence of squamous cell carcinoma compared with the general population. Recipients with identified risk factors may be candidates for prophylactic treatment and should be followed more intensively after liver transplantation.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine suggested that instituting a continuous disease severity score that de-emphasizes waiting time could improve the allocation of cadaveric livers for transplantation. This report describes the development and initial implementation of this new plan. The goal was to develop a continuous disease severity scale that uses objective, readily available variables to predict mortality risk in patients with end-stage liver disease and reduce the emphasis on waiting time. Mechanisms were also developed for inclusion of good transplant candidates who do not have high risk of death but for whom transplantation may be urgent. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) scores were selected as the basis for the new allocation policy because of their high degree of accuracy for predicting death in patients having a variety of liver disease etiologies and across a broad spectrum of liver disease severity. Except for the most urgent patients, all patients will be ranked continuously under the new policy by their MELD/PELD score. Waiting time is used only to prioritize patients with identical MELD/PELD scores. Patients who are not well served by the MELD/PELD scores can be prioritized through a regionalized peer review system. This new liver allocation plan is based on more objective, verifiable measures of disease severity with minimal emphasis on waiting time. Application of such risk models provides an evidenced-based approach on which to base further refinements and improve the model.

For several years, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Liver and Intestinal Transplantation Committee has been examining effects of changes and proposed changes to the liver allocation system. The Institute of Medicine recently recommended that the size of liver distribution units be increased to improve the organ distribution system. Methods to achieve this and the potential impact on patients and transplant centers of such a change are evaluated in this study. In hypothetical scenarios, we combined geographically contiguous organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in seven different configurations to increase the size of liver distribution units to cover populations greater than 9 million persons. Using the UNOS Liver Allocation Model (ULAM), we examined the effect of 17 different organ allocation sequences in these proposed realignments and compared them with those predicted by ULAM for the current liver distribution system by using the following primary outcome variables: number of primary liver transplantations performed, total number of deaths, and total number of life-years saved. Every proposed new liver distribution unit plan resulted in fewer primary transplantations. Many policies increased the total number of deaths and reduced total life-years saved compared with the current system. Most of the proposed plans reduced interregional variation compared with the current plan, but no one plan consistently reduced variation for all outcome variables, and all reductions in variations were relatively small. All new liver distribution unit plans led to significant shifts in the number of transplantations performed in individual OPOs compared with the current system. The ULAM predicts that changing liver distribution units to larger geographic areas has little positive impact on overall results of liver transplantation in the United States compared with the current plan. Enlarging liver distribution units likely will result in significant shifts in organs across current OPO boundaries, which will have a significant impact on the activity of many transplant centers.

Allocation of cadaveric livers to patients based on such objective medical urgency data as the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score may not benefit patients with small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). To ensure that these patients have a fair opportunity of receiving a cadaveric organ, the risk for death caused by HCC and tumor progression beyond 5 cm should be considered. Using a Markov model, two hypothetical cohorts of patients with small hepatomas were assumed to have either (1) Gompertzian tumor growth, in which initial exponential growth decreases as tumor size increases; or (2) rapid exponential growth. The model tracked the number of patients who either died or had tumor progression beyond 5 cm. These results were used to back-calculate an equivalent MELD score for patients with small HCCs. All probabilities in the model were varied simultaneously using a Monte Carlo simulation. The Gompertzian growth model predicted that patients with a 1- and 4-cm tumor have 1-year progression-free survival rates of 70% (HCC-specific MELD score 6) and 66% (HCC-specific MELD score 8), respectively. When assuming rapid exponential growth, patients with a 1- and 4-cm tumor have progression-free survival rates of 69% (HCC-specific MELD score 6) and 12% (HCC-specific MELD score 24), respectively. Our model predicted that the risk for death caused by HCC or tumor progression beyond 5 cm should increase with larger initial tumor size in patients with small hepatomas. To ensure that these patients have a fair opportunity to receive a cadaveric organ, HCC-specific scores predicted by our model could be added to MELD scores of patients with HCC.

Infection after liver transplantation (LT) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The risk of infection after LT is highest in those who are most immunosuppressed, but to date, no standard blood marker of one's degree of immunosuppression or risk index has been established. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretransplant lymphopenia (absolute lymphocyte count

Acute hepatic allograft rejection occurs in approximately 50% to 60% of the patients undergoing liver transplantation. In this study, we compared the rate of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients randomized in a double-blind comparative study to treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (AZA), both in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Five hundred sixty-five primary liver transplant recipients were randomly assigned to treatment with MMF, 1 g twice daily intravenously followed by 1.5 g twice daily orally (n = 278), or AZA, 1.0 to 2.0 mg/kg/d intravenously followed by oral administration (n = 287), in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year, and efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat methods. Acute rejection was defined according to the Banff histological criteria. The two study groups were balanced for demographic and clinical baseline characteristics. The incidence of acute rejection or graft loss was 47.7% in the AZA patients and 38.5% in the MMF patients (P

Liver allocation remains problematic because current policy prioritizes status 2B or 3 patients by waiting time rather than medical urgency. On February 21, 2000, we implemented a variance to the United Network for Organ Sharing liver allocation policy that redefined status 2A by much more rigid, definable criteria and prioritized status 2B patients by using a continuous medical urgency score based on the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and other medical conditions. In this system, waiting time is used only to differentiate status 2B candidates with equal medical urgency scores. Comparing the 6-month period (period 1; n = 67) before implementation of this system to the 6-month period after implementation (period 2; n = 75), there was a significant reduction in the number of transplantations performed for patients listed as status 2A (46.3% to 14.7%; P = .002) and an increase in the number of patients listed as status 2B who received transplants (44.8% to 70.7%; P = .10). Most dramatically, there was a 37.1% reduction in overall deaths on the waiting list from 94 deaths in period 1 to 62 deaths in period 2 ( P = .005), with the most significant reduction for patients removed from this list at status 2B (52 v 18 patients; P = .04). There were 3 postoperative deaths in each period, with only 1 graft lost in period 2. Status 2B patients with the greatest degree of medical urgency received transplants without multiple peer reviews requesting elevation to 2A status. We conclude that a continuous medical urgency score system allocates donor livers much more fairly to those in medical need and reduces waiting list mortality without sacrificing efficacy.( Liver Transpl 2001;7:173-178 .)

Factors associated with the risk for mortality once placed on the liver transplant waiting list and how this risk relates to center-specific waiting time and transplant activity have not been adequately evaluated. We performed this study to determine the association between center-specific waiting time and waiting list mortality among liver transplant candidates stratified by medical urgency at the time of registration. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate 2-year mortality risk for a cohort of 16,414 registrants added to the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997. After controlling for confounding variables, we calculated the mortality risk for centers, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and states. The relation between center-specific waiting list mortality risk and median waiting time or transplant activity was determined by linear regression. In multivariate analyses, higher initial medical urgency status (relative risk [RR] = 12.8;P < .001), increasing age (P < .001), black ethnicity (RR = 1.29; P < .001), history of previous transplant (RR = 1.2; P = .009), certain liver diagnoses, and smaller center size (RR = 1.39; P = .008) were associated with significantly increased waiting list mortality. Candidates with blood type A (RR = 0.87; P < .001) and those with cholestatic cirrhosis as the primary diagnosis (RR = 0.73; P < 0.001) had a reduced risk for dying. There were significant variations in 2-year waiting list mortality risk among centers, OPOs, and states. However, when stratified by medical urgency status at waiting list entry, center-specific waiting time and transplantation rates accounted for almost none of the center-specific waiting list mortality. Although there are variations in waiting list mortality risk among centers, OPOs, and states, there is very little relation between center-specific waiting list mortality and center-specific median waiting time or center-specific transplantation rates when stratified by medical urgency. Waiting time and center transplant rates should not influence liver allocation policy. (Liver Transpl 2000;6:543-552.)