Search

Because of underutilization of liver allografts, our center previously showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody-positive/nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative livers when transplanted into HCV nonviremic recipients were safe with a 10% risk of HCV transmission. Herein, we present our single-center prospective experience of using HCV NAT+ liver allografts transplanted into HCV NAT- recipients. An institutional review board-approved matched cohort study was conducted examining post- liver transplantation (LT) outcomes of HCV- patients who received HCV NAT+ organs (treatment group) compared with matched recipients with HCV NAT- organs (matched comparator group) between June 2018 to October 2019. The primary endpoint was success of HCV treatment and elimination of HCV infection. The secondary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival as well as perioperative complications. There were 32 recipients enrolled into each group. Because of 1 death in the index admission, 30/31 patients (97%) were given HCV treatment at a median starting time of 47 days (18-140 days) after LT. A total of 19 (63%) patients achieved sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12). Another 6 patients achieved end-of-treatment response, while 5 remained on therapy and 1 is yet to start treatment. No HCV treatment failure has been noted. There were no differences in 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival, length of hospital stay, biliary or vascular complications, or cytomegalovirus viremia between the 2 groups. In this interim analysis of a matched cohort study, which is the first and largest study to date, the patients who received the HCV NAT+ organs had similar outcomes regarding graft function, patient survival, and post-LT complications.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen transplant volume decrease nationwide, resulting in a 2.2-fold increase in waitlist mortality. In particular, solid organ transplant patients are subjected to increased morbidity and mortality from infection. In the face of these challenges, transplant centers need to develop innovative protocols to ensure high-quality care. Methods A multidisciplinary protocol was developed that included the following: virtual selection meetings, coronavirus disease 2019 negative donors, pretransplant symptom screening, rapid testing on presentation, telehealth follow-up, and weekly community outreach town halls. All orthotopic liver transplants completed between January 2018 and August 2020 were included in the study (n = 344). The cohort was stratified from January 2018 to February 2020 as “pre-COVID-19,” and from March 2020 to August 2020 as “COVID-19.” Patient demographics and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results From March 2020 to August 2020, there was a significant decrease in average monthly referrals for orthotopic liver transplantation (29.8 vs 37.1, P = .01). However, listings (11.0 vs 14.3, P = .09) and transplant volume remained unchanged (12.2 vs 10.6, P = .26). Rapid testing was utilized on arrival for transplant, zero patients tested positively preoperatively, and median time from test result until abdominal incision was 4.5 h [interquartile range, 1.2, 9.2]. Simultaneously, telehealth visits increased rapidly, peaking at 85% of all visits. It is important to note that there was no difference in outcomes between cohorts. Conclusion Orthotopic liver transplant can be accomplished safely and effectively in the COVID-19 era without compromising outcomes through increasing utilization of telehealth, rapid COVID-19 testing, and multidisciplinary protocols for managing immunosuppressed patients.

Traditional piggyback implantation has often been used in liver transplant; however, this technique may be hindered by difficult visualization and postoperative incidences of outflow obstruction. Side-to-side cavocavostomy is an alternative approach, but perioperative outcomes associated with this technique remain largely unknown.In July 2017, side-to-side cavocavostomy was adopted as the standard implantation technique at our institution by all surgeons (n = 4). A prospective cohort of patients undergoing liver transplant with side-to-side cavocavostomy after July 2017 until October 2018 was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant with traditional piggyback previously from January 2016 to October 2018.Of 290 liver transplant patients, 50% (n = 145) underwent side-to-side cavocavostomy, while the remainder underwent traditional piggyback. There were no differences in recipient age, sex, race, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, or donor characteristics between groups. Side-to-side cavocavostomy was associated with decreased mean number intraoperative, red blood cell transfusions (2 vs 5 units), fresh frozen plasma (5 vs 10 units), cell saver (1.0 vs 2.0 L), and rates of temporary abdominal closure (8.3% vs 24.1%) compared with traditional piggyback (all P.05). The side-to-side cavocavostomy group had lesser Rt3s of postoperative transfusion rates of red blood cells (21.4% vs 35.9%; P = .01).Side-to-side cavocavostomy may be superior to traditional piggyback implantation with regard to technical ease and perioperative transfusion requirements. To determine the optimal implantation technique, futures studies should evaluate side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback in a prospective, multicenter, randomized approach.