Search

Background: Immediate postoperative extubation (IPE) can reduce perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS), however it is performed variably after liver transplant across institutions and has historically excluded high-risk recipients from consideration. In late 2012, we planned and implemented a single academic institution structured quality improvement (QI) initiative to standardize perioperative care of liver transplant recipients without exceptions. We hypothesized that such an approach would lead to a sustained increase in IPE after primary (PAC) and delayed abdominal closure (DAC)., Methods: We retrospectively studied 591 patients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent liver transplant after initiative implementation. We evaluated trends in incidence of IPE versus delayed extubation (DE), and reintubation, LOS, and mortality., Results: Overall, 476/591 (80.5%) recipients underwent PAC (278 IPE, 198 DE) and 115/591 (19.5%) experienced DAC (39 IPE, 76 DE). When comparing data from 2013 to data from 2018, the incidence of IPE increased from 9/67 (13.4%) to 78/90 (86.7%) after PAC and from 1/12 (8.3%) to 16/23 (69.6%) after DAC. For the same years, the incidence of IPE after PAC for recipients with MELD scores ≥30 increased from 0/19 (0%) to 12/17 (70.6%), for recipients who underwent simultaneous liver-kidney transplant increased from 1/8 (12.5%) to 4/5 (80.0%), and for recipients who received massive transfusion (>10 units of packed red blood cells) increased from 0/17 (0%) to 10/13 (76.9%). Reintubation for respiratory considerations <48 h after IPE occurred in 3/278 (1.1%) after PAC and 1/39 (2.6%) after DAC. IPE was associated with decreased intensive care unit (HR of discharge: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.33; P < 0.001) and hospital LOS (HR of discharge: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.76; P < 0.001) but demonstrated no association with mortality., Conclusion: A structured QI initiative led to sustained high rates of IPE and reduced LOS in all liver transplant recipients, including those classified as high risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no funding disclosures to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We describe a complex case of liver transplant in a 70-year-old male patient with no known history of coronary artery disease, normal preoperative left ventricular function, and negative preoperative cardiac workup who developed progressive intra-operative left ventricular myocardial dysfunction secondary to class I acute myocardial infarction, ultimately requiring intraoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion to optimize myocardial perfusion. Management of myocardial ischemia was complicated by bleeding in the setting of coagulopathy necessitating correction. Once hemostasis was achieved, the patient immediately underwent coronary angiography and bare metal stent placement in the mid-left anterior descending coronary artery for an acute plaque rupture.

Background: Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes., Methods: We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression., Results: DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56)., Conclusions: Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Optimization of maintenance immunosuppression (mIS) regimens in the transplant recipient requires a balance between sufficient potency to prevent rejection and avoidance of excessive immunosuppression to prevent toxicities and complications. The optimal regimen after simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation remains unclear, but small single-center reports have shown success with steroid-sparing regimens. We studied 4184 adult SLK recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, from March 1, 2002, to February 28, 2017, on tacrolimus-based regimens at 1 year post-transplant. We determined the association between mIS regimen and mortality and graft failure using Cox proportional hazard models. The use of steroid-sparing regimens increased post-transplant, from 16.1% at discharge to 88.0% at 5 years. Using multi-level logistic regression modeling, we found center-level variation to be the major contributor to choice of mIS regimen (ICC 44.5%; 95% CI: 36.2%-53.0%). In multivariate analysis, use of a steroid-sparing regimen at 1 year was associated with a 21% decreased risk of mortality compared to steroid-containing regimens (aHR 0.79, P = .01) and 20% decreased risk of liver graft failure (aHR 0.80, P = .01), without differences in kidney graft loss risk (aHR 0.92, P = .6). Among SLK recipients, the use of a steroid-sparing regimen appears to be safe and effective without adverse effects on patient or graft survival., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To determine if the association of frailty and waitlist mortality varies by candidate age., Background: Frailty, a construct developed in geriatrics, is a state of decreased physiologic reserve, and is associated with mortality while awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, older candidates have high comorbidity burden and less physiologic reserve, so the relationship between frailty and waitlist mortality may vary by candidate age., Methods: We studied adults listed for LT at 2 transplant centers. The liver frailty index (grip strength, chair stands, balance) was measured at evaluation, with frailty defined as liver frailty index  ≥ 4.5. We compared the prevalence of frailty in older (≥65 yr) and younger (18-64 yr) candidates. We studied the association between frailty, age, interaction between the 2, and waitlist mortality using competing risks regression adjusted for sex, BMI, and MELDNa., Results: Among 882 LT candidates, 16.6% were ≥ 65 years. Older candidates were more likely to be frail (33.3% vs 21.7%, P = 0.002). Older age [adjusted subhazard ratio (aSHR): 2.16, 95% CI: 1.51-3.09, P < 0.001] and frailty (aSHR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.38-2.67, P < 0.001) were independently associated with higher risk of waitlist mortality. However, the association between waitlist mortality and frailty did not vary by candidate age (aSHR of frailty for younger patients: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.28-2.80, P = 0.001; aSHR of frailty for older patients: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.07-3.67, P = 0.03; P interaction = 0.9)., Conclusions: Older candidates experienced higher rates of frailty than younger candidates. However, regardless of age, frailty was associated with nearly 2-fold increased risk of waitlist mortality. Our data support the applicability of the frailty concept to the whole LT population and can guide the development of prehabilitation programs targeting frailty in LT patients of all ages.

Background: Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes in kidney transplantation. Given these adverse outcomes, we sought to determine the incidence, unique risk factors, and posttransplant outcomes for simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplant recipients developing DGF., Methods: We studied 6214 adult SLK recipients from March 2002 to February 2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We determined associations between risk factors and DGF using Poisson multivariate regression and between DGF and graft failure and mortality using Cox proportional hazard analysis., Results: The overall rate of DGF was 21.8%. Risk factors for DGF in the hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipient population included pretransplant dialysis (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 3.26, P = 0.004), donor body mass index (aIRR 1.25 per 5 kg/m, P = 0.01), and transplantation with a donation after circulatory death (aIRR 5.38, P = 0.001) or imported donor organ (regional share aIRR 1.69, P = 0.03; national share aIRR 4.82, P < 0.001). DGF was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in kidney graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.63, P < 0.001), 1.6-fold increase in liver graft failure (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001), and 1.6-fold increase in mortality (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In HCV-negative SLK recipients, recipient pretransplant dialysis and components of kidney graft quality comprise significant risk factors for DGF. Regardless of HCV status, DGF is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes. Understanding these risk factors during clinical decision-making may improve prevention of DGF and may represent an opportunity to improve posttransplant outcomes.

Background: Six-month sobriety before transplantation for alcoholic liver disease is typically required but poorly supported by data. We initiated a pilot program after a report of liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis (SAH) in which the 6-month rule was waived. We previously reported early outcomes; we now provide longer follow-up in the largest cohort of early liver transplantation for SAH in the literature to date., Study Design: Forty-six carefully selected patients with SAH underwent liver transplantation from October 2012 through July 2017; none had been abstinent for 6 months. We also examined 34 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis who received liver transplants under standard protocols with at least 6 months sobriety. We identified patient characteristics and primary outcomes of patient and graft survival, as well as alcohol recidivism. Secondary outcomes included post-transplantation infection, malignancy, and rejection., Results: Compared with patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, SAH patients were younger and with shorter drinking history and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at listing and at transplantation. Of these patients, 46% received preoperative steroids; all were nonresponders by Lille score. At a median follow-up time of 532 days (interquartile range 281 to 998 days), there were no significant differences between groups by log-rank testing of Kaplan-Meier estimates for patient and graft survival or alcohol recidivism., Conclusions: In the largest cohort of patients reported, outcomes after liver transplantation for SAH had excellent 1-year outcomes, similar to those seen in patients who received transplants with 6 months of sobriety. Recidivism was similar in the 2 groups. Early liver transplantation for SAH represents life-saving therapy for patients with otherwise high mortality, calling into question the utility of the 6-month rule in predicting outcomes in patients receiving transplants for alcoholic liver disease., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)