Search

Introduction: Too small or too big liver grafts for recipient's size has detrimental effects on transplant outcomes. Research Questions: The purpose was to correlate donor-recipient body surface area ratio or body surface area index with recipient survival, graft survival, hepatic artery or portal vein, or vena cava thrombosis. High and low body surface area index cut-off points were determined. Design: There were 11,245 adult recipients of first deceased donor whole liver-only grafts performed in the UK from January 2000 until June 2020. The transplants were grouped according to the body surface area index and compared to complications, graft and recipient survival. Results: The body surface area index ranged from 0.491 to 1.691 with a median of 0.988. The body surface area index > 1.3 was associated with a higher rate of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months (5.5%). This risk was higher than size-matched transplants (OR: 2.878, 95% CI: 1.292-6.409, P = 0.01). Overall graft survival was worse in transplants with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 (HR: 1.254, 95% CI: 1.051-1.497, P = 0.012) or body surface area index > 1.4 (HR: 3.704, 95% CI: 2.029-6.762, P < 0.001) than those with intermediate values. The graft survival rates were reduced by 2% for cases with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 but were decreased by 20% for cases with body surface area index > 1.4. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap internal validation. No statistically significant differences were detected for hepatic artery thrombosis, occlusion of hepatic veins/inferior vena cava or recipient survival. Conclusions: Donor-recipient size mismatch affects the rates of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months and overall graft survival in deceased-donor liver transplants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the results of a national survey and snapshot audit conducted in the UK to assess the current nutritional practices after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) surgery. The study found that there is significant variation in perioperative nutritional practices and opinions among clinicians. Less than half of the centers had a written protocol for feeding patients after PD, and there was uncertainty regarding the safety of early oral feeding and the use of different nutritional interventions. The study highlights the need for further research and clinical trials to improve the nutritional management of PD patients. [Extracted from the article]

Background-Conventional orthotopic liver transplant includes resection of the recipient's native liver, together with the retrohepatic inferior vena cava, whereas with the piggyback technique, the recipient's vena cava is preserved and the donor's vena cava is anastomosed with the recipient's hepatic veins. So the caval flow is maintained during explantation, but on the other hand, the cava must be dissected completely from the liver, prolonging hepatic excision. Objective-To compare outcomes of conventional versus piggyback techniques. Primary outcomes were serious adverse events or complications, and secondary outcomes were graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, days in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, and days spent receiving mechanical ventilation. Materials and Methods-From January 3, 2007, to December 31, 2008, 120 liver transplant patients were divided into 2 groups: conventional (n = 93) and piggyback (n = 27). Results-Intraoperative and postoperative complications, graft survival for 3 and 12 months, quality of life, and hospital stay did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, the stay in the intensive care unit (median, 2 vs 3 days; range, 1-101 vs 1-60 days) and the number of days on ventilatory support (median, 1 vs 2 days; range, 0-41 vs 1-60 days) were notably lower in the conventional group. Conclusion-The conventional liver transplant technique had significantly better results than the piggyback technique in terms of length of stay in the intensive care unit and duration of mechanical ventilation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Hepatic lymph node involvement is generally considered a contraindication for liver resection performed for colorectal liver metastases. However, some advocate hepatic lymphadenectomy in the presence of macroscopic involvement and others routine lymphadenectomy. The aim of this review is to assess the role of lymphadenectomy in resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Methods. Medline, Embase and Central databases were searched using a formal search strategy. Trials with survival data with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were considered for inclusion. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman. Results. A total of 4230 references were identified. Ten reports of nine studies including 926 patients qualified for the review. The prevalence of nodal metastases after routine lymphadenectomy was 16.3%. The overall 3-year and 5-year survival rates in node-positive patients were 9/151 (11.3%) and 2/137 (1.5%), respectively, compared to 3-year and 5-year survival rates of 424/787 (53.9%) and 246/767 (32.1%) in node-negative patients. The odds ratios for 3-year and 5-year survivals in node positive disease compared to node-negative disease were 0.12 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.24) and 0.08 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.22). There was no randomized controlled trial which assessed the survival benefit of routine or "selective" lymphadenectomy. Conclusion. Currently, there is no evidence of survival benefit for routine or selective lymphadenectomy. Survival rates are low in patients with positive lymph nodes draining the liver irrespective of whether they are detected by routine lymphadenectomy or by macroscopic involvement. Further trials in this patient group are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Annotated clinical samples taken from patients are a foundation of translational medical research and give mechanistic insight into drug trials. Prior research by the Tissue Directory and Coordination Centre (TDCC) indicated that researchers, particularly those in industry, face many barriers in accessing patient samples. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic to the UK produced an immediate and extreme shockwave, which impacted on the ability to undertake all crucial translational research. As a national coordination centre, the TDCC is tasked with improving efficiency in the biobanking sector. Thus, we took responsibility to identify and coordinate UK tissue sample collection organisations (biobanks) able to collect COVID-19-related samples for researchers between March and September 2020., Findings: Almost a third of UK biobanks were closed during the first wave of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. Of the remainder, 43% had limited capabilities while 26% maintained normal activity. Of the nationally prioritised COVID-19 interventional studies, just three of the five that responded to questioning were collecting human samples. Of the 41 requests for COVID-19 samples received by the TDCC, only four could be fulfilled due to a lack of UK coordinated strategy. Meanwhile, in the background there are numerous reports that sample collections in the UK remain largely underutilised., Conclusion: The response to a pandemic demands high level co-ordinated research responses to reduce mortality. Our study highlights the lack of efficiency and coordination between human sample collections and clinical trials across the UK. UK sample access is not working for researchers, clinicians or patients. A radical change is required in the strategy for sample collection and distribution to maximise this valuable resource of human-donated samples., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery., Primary Objectives: To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis., Secondary Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting., Ethics and Dissemination: This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019130504., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The clinical practice of the clinicians in the project: TM, MM, MS, OA and SO may be altered by the findings of the review., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction and Objectives: Graft failure and postoperative mortality are the most serious complications after liver transplantation. The aim of this study is to establish a prognostic scoring system to predict graft and patient survival based on serum transaminases levels that are routinely used during the postoperative period in human cadaveric liver transplants., Patients and Methods: Postoperative graft failure and patient mortality after liver transplant were analyzed from a consecutive series of 1299 patients undergoing cadaveric liver transplantation. This was correlated with serum liver function tests and the rate of reduction in transaminase levels over the first postoperative week. A cut-off transaminase level correlating with graft and patient survival was calculated and incorporated into a scoring system., Results: Aspartate-aminotransferase (AST) on postoperative day one showed significant correlation with early graft failure for levels above 723U/dl and early postoperative mortality for levels above 750U/dl. AST reduction rate (day 1 to 3) greater than 1.8 correlated with reduced graft failure and greater than 2 with mortality. Alanine-aminotransferase (ALT) reduction in the first 48h post transplantation also correlated with outcomes., Conclusion: A scoring system with these three variables allowed us to classify our patients into three groups of risk for early graft failure and mortality., (Copyright © 2019 Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There is a mismatch between research questions considered important by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed in many fields of medicine. The non-alcohol-related liver and gallbladder disorders priority setting partnership was established to identify the top research priorities in the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of gallbladder disorders and liver disorders not covered by the James-Lind Alliance (JLA) alcohol-related liver disease priority setting partnership., Design: The methods broadly followed the principles of the JLA guidebook. The one major deviation from the JLA methodology was the final step of identifying priorities: instead of prioritisation by group discussions at a consensus workshop involving stakeholders, the prioritisation was achieved by a modified Delphi consensus process., Results: A total of 428 unique valid diagnostic or treatment research questions were identified. A literature review established that none of these questions were considered 'answered' that is, high-quality systematic reviews suggest that further research is not required on the topic. The Delphi panel achieved consensus (at least 80% Delphi panel members agreed) that a research question was a top research priority for six questions. Four additional research questions with highest proportion of Delphi panel members ranking the question as highly important were added to constitute the top 10 research priorities., Conclusions: A priority setting process involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals has been used to identify the top 10priority areas for research related to liver and gallbladder disorders. Basic, translational, clinical and public health research are required to address these uncertainties., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The decisions made by healthcare professionals involved in the research prioritisation process might have been influenced by their professional interests, in addition to their own, or family member’s experience of health conditions. Decisions made by patients and carers in the research prioritisation process might have been influenced by their particular experiences, health needs and interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. A prospective randomised trial is required to define the efficacy of resection vs ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases., Methods: Design and setting: This is a multicentre, open, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial design with internal pilot and will be performed in tertiary liver centres in UK and The Netherlands., Participants: Eligible patients will be those with colorectal liver metastases at high surgical risk because of their age, co-morbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation., Intervention: Thermal ablation as per local policy., Control: Surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. Co-interventions: Further chemotherapy will be offered to patients as per current practice. Outcomes Pilot study: Same as main study and in addition patients and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment., Primary Outcome: Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years post randomisation., Secondary Outcomes: Overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, DFS measured from end of intervention., Follow-Up: 24 months from randomisation; five-year follow-up for overall survival., Sample Size: 330 patients to demonstrate non-inferiority of thermal ablation., Discussion: This trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for high-risk people with colorectal liver metastases, and guide the optimal treatment for these patients., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN52040363 . Registered on 9 March 2016.