Liver Transplantation最新文献

In the United States, the discrepancy between organ availability and need has persisted despite changes in allocation, innovations in preservation, and policy initiatives. Living donor liver transplant remains an underutilized means of improving access to timely liver transplantation and decreasing waitlist mortality. Liver paired exchange (LPE) represents an opportunity to overcome living donor liver transplant pair incompatibility due to size, anatomy, or blood type. LPE was adopted as a strategy to augment access to liver transplantation at our institution. Specific educational materials, consent forms, and selection processes were developed to facilitate LPE. From 2019 through October 2023, our center performed 11 LPEs, resulting in 23 living donor liver transplant pairs. The series included several types of LPE: those combining complementary incompatible pairs, the inclusion of compatible pairs to overcome incompatibility, and the use of altruistic nondirected donors to initiate chains. These exchanges facilitated transplantation for 23 recipients, including 1 pediatric patient. LPE improved access to liver transplantation at our institution. The ethical application of LPE includes tailored patient education, assessment and disclosure of exchange balance, mitigation of risk, and maximization of benefit for donors and recipients.

To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.

Acute allograft rejection is a well-known complication of liver transplantation (LT). The incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute rejection have not been well described in Australia. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT at a single center between 2010 and 2020. Donor and recipient data at the time of LT and recipient outcomes were collected from a prospective LT database. Liver biopsy reports were reviewed, and only a graft's first instance of biopsy-proven acute rejection was analyzed. During the study period, 796 liver transplants were performed in 770 patients. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 34.9% of transplants. There were no significant changes in the incidence of rejection over time (linear trend p =0.11). The median time to the first episode of rejection was 71 days after LT: 2.2% hyperacute, 50.4% early (≤90 d), and 47.5% late rejection (>90 d). Independent risk factors for rejection were younger recipient age at transplant (aHR 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00, p =0.01), and ABO-incompatible grafts (aHR 2.55 vs. ABO-compatible, 95% CI: 1.27-5.09, p <0.01) while simultaneous multiorgan transplants were protective (aHR 0.21 vs. LT only, 95% CI: 0.08-0.58, p <0.01). Development of acute rejection (both early and late) was independently associated with significantly reduced graft (aHR 3.13, 95% CI: 2.21-4.42, p <0.001) and patient survival (aHR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.35-4.98, p <0.001). In this 11-year Australian study, acute LT rejection occurred in 35%, with independent risk factors of younger recipient age and ABO-incompatible transplant, while having a simultaneous multiorgan transplant was protective. Acute rejection was independently associated with reduced graft and patient survival after adjustment for other factors.