Search

Summary Livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an increasingly more common source of organs for transplantation. While there are few high‐level studies in the field of DCD liver transplantation, clinical practice has undergone progressive changes during the past decade, in particular due to mounting use of postmortem normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). In Spain, uncontrolled DCD has been performed since the late 1980s/early 1990s, while controlled DCD was implemented nationally in 2012. Since 2012, the rise in DCD liver transplant activity in Spain has been considerable, and the great majority of DCD livers transplanted in Spain today are recovered with NRP. A panel of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society was convened in 2018 to evaluate current evidence and accumulated experience in DCD liver transplantation, in particular addressing issues related to DCD liver evaluation, acceptance criteria, and recovery as well as recipient selection and postoperative management. This panel has created a series of consensus statements for the standard of practice in Spain and has published these statements with the hope they might help guide other groups interested in implementing new forms of DCD liver transplantation and/or introducing NRP into their clinical practices.

Introduction: a survey on peri-operative nutritional support in pancreatic and biliary surgery among Spanish hospitals in 2007 showed that few surgical groups followed the 2006 ESPEN guidelines. Ten years later we sent a questionnaire to check the current situation. Methods: a questionnaire with 21 items sent to 38 centers, related to fasting time before and after surgery, nutritional screening use and type, time and type of peri-operative nutritional support, and number of procedures. Results: thirty-four institutions responded. The median number of pancreatic resections (head/total) was 29.5 (95% CI: 23.0-35; range, 5-68) (total, 1002); of surgeries for biliary malignancies (non-pancreatic), 9.8 (95% CI: 7.3-12.4; range, 2-30); and of main biliary resections for benign conditions, 10.4 (95% CI: 7.6-13.3; range, 2-33). Before surgery, only 41.2% of the sites used nutritional support (< 50% used any nutritional screening procedure). The mean duration of preoperative fasting for solid foods was 9.3 h (range, 6-24 h); it was 6.6 h for liquids (range, 2-12). Following pancreatic surgery, 29.4% tried to use early oral feeding, but 88.2% of the surveyed teams used some nutritional support; 26.5% of respondents used TPN in 100% of cases. Different percentages of TPN and EN were used in the other centers. In malignant biliary surgery, 22.6% used TPN always, and EN in 19.3% of cases. Conclusions: TPN is the commonest nutrition approach after pancreatic head surgery. Only 29.4% of the units used early oral feeding, and 32.3% used EN; 22.6% used TPN regularly after surgery for malignant biliary tumours. The 2006 ESPEN guideline recommendations are not regularly followed 12 years after their publication in our country., Introducción: realizamos una encuesta sobre soporte nutricional perioperatorio en cirugía pancreática y biliar en hospitales españoles en 2007, que mostró que pocos grupos quirúrgicos seguían las guías de ESPEN 2006. Diez años después enviamos un cuestionario para comprobar la situación actual. Métodos: treinta y ocho centros recibieron un cuestionario con 21 preguntas sobre tiempo de ayunas antes y después de la cirugía, cribado nutricional, duración y tipo de soporte nutricional perioperatorio, y número de procedimientos. Resultados: respondieron 34 grupos. La mediana de pancreatectomías (cabeza/total) fue de 29,5 (IC 95 %: 23,0-35; rango, 5-68) (total, 1002), la de cirugías biliares malignas de 9,8 (IC 95 %: 7,3-12,4; rango, 2-30) y la de resecciones biliares por patología benigna de 10,4 (IC 95 %: 7,6-13,3; rango, 2-33). Solo el 41,2 % de los grupos utilizaban soporte nutricional antes de la cirugía (< 50 % habian efectuado un cribado nutricional). El tiempo medio de ayuno preoperatorio para sólidos fue de 9,3 h (rango, 6-24 h), y de 6,6 h para líquidos (rango, 2-12). Tras la pancreatectomía, el 29,4 % habían intentado administrar una dieta oral precoz, pero el 88,2 % de los grupos usaron algún tipo de soporte nutricional y el 26,5 % usaron NP en el 100 % de los casos. Los demás grupos usaron diferentes porcentajes de NP y NE en sus casos. En la cirugía biliar maligna, el 22,6 % utilizaron NP siempre y NE en el 19,3 % de los casos. Conclusiones: la NP es el soporte nutricional más utilizado tras la cirugía de cabeza pancreática. Solo el 29,4 % de las unidades usan nutrición oral precoz y el 32,3 % emplean la NE tras este tipo de cirugía. El 22,6 % de las instituciones usan NP habitualmente tras la cirugía de tumores biliares malignos. Las guías ESPEN 2006 no se siguen de forma habitual en nuestro país tras más de 10 años desde su publicación.

In this randomized clinical trial comparing micafungin 100 mg with standard-care antifungal prophylaxis (fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, or caspofungin) in high-risk liver transplant patients, micafungin 100 mg was noninferior and had a better kidney safety profile., Background. Invasive fungal infection (IFI) following liver transplant is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Antifungal prophylaxis is rational for liver transplant patients at high IFI risk. Methods. In this open-label, noninferiority study, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous micafungin 100 mg or center-specific standard care (fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, or caspofungin) posttransplant. The primary endpoint was clinical success (absence of a proven/probable IFI and no need for additional antifungals) at end of prophylaxis (EOP). Noninferiority (10% margin) of micafungin vs standard care was assessed in the per protocol and full analysis sets. Safety assessments included adverse events and liver and kidney function tests. Results. The full analysis set comprised 344 patients (172 micafungin; 172 standard care). Mean age was 51.2 years; 48.0% had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥20. At EOP (mean treatment duration, 17 days), clinical success was 98.6% for micafungin and 99.3% for standard care (Δ standard care – micafungin [95% confidence interval], 0.7% [−2.7% to 4.4%]) in the per protocol set and 96.5% and 93.6%, respectively (−2.9% [−8.0% to 1.9%]), in the full analysis set. Incidences of drug-related adverse events for micafungin and standard care were 11.6% and 16.3%, leading to discontinuation in 6.4% and 11.6% of cases, respectively. At EOP, liver function tests were similar but creatinine clearance was higher in micafungin- vs standard care–treated patients. Conclusions. Micafungin was noninferior to standard care as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant patients at high risk for IFI. Adverse event profiles and liver function at EOP were similar, although kidney function was better with micafungin. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01058174.