Search

Background & Aims: Portosystemic encephalopathy (PSE) is a major complication of trans-jugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) placement. Most devices are self-expandable polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent grafts (PTFE-SGs) that are dilated to their nominal diameter (8 or 10 mm). We investigated whether PTFE-SGs dilated to a smaller caliber (under-dilated TIPS) reduce PSE yet maintain clinical and hemodynamic efficacy. We also studied whether under-dilated TIPS self-expand to nominal diameter over time. Methods: We performed a prospective, non-randomized study of 42 unselected patients with cirrhosis who received under-dilated TIPS (7 and 6 mm) and 53 patients who received PTFE-SGs of 8 mm or more (controls) at referral centers in Italy. After completion of this study, dilation to 6 mm became the standard and 47 patients were included in a validation study. All patients were followed for 6 months; Doppler ultrasonography was performed 2 weeks and 3 months after TIPS placement and every 6 months thereafter. Stability of PTFE-SG diameter was evaluated by computed tomography analysis of 226 patients with cirrhosis whose stent grafts increased to 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 mm. The primary outcomes were incidence of at least 1 episode of PSE grade 2 or higher during follow up, incidence of recurrent variceal hemorrhage or ascites, incidence of shunt dysfunction requiring TIPS recanalization, and reduction in porto-caval pressure gradient. Results: PSE developed in a significantly lower proportion of patients with under-dilated TIPS (27%) than controls (54%) during the first year after the procedure (P =.015), but the proportions of patients with recurrent variceal hemorrhage or ascites did not differ significantly between groups. No TIPS occlusions were observed. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. In an analysis of self-expansion of stent grafts, during a mean follow-up period of 252 days after placement, none of the PTFE-SGs self-expanded to t

Background: We evaluated trends and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) recipients with/without HIV infection. Methods: LT recipients between 2008 and 2015 from the United Network for Organ Sharing and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and European Liver Transplant Registry were included. Trends and characteristics related to survival among LT recipients with HIV infection were determined. Results: Among 73 206 LT patients, 658 (0.9%) were HIV-infected. The proportion of LT HIV-infected did not change over time (P-trend = 0.16). Hepatitis C virus (HCV) as indication for LT decreased significantly for HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected patients (P-trends = 0.008 and <0.001). Three-year cumulative graft survival in LT recipients with and without HIV infection was 64.4% and 77.3%, respectively (P < 0.001), with improvements over time for both, but with HIV-infected patients having greater improvements (P-trends = 0.02 and 0.03). Adjusted risk of graft loss was 41% higher in HIV-infected versus HIV-uninfected (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.41; P < 0.001). Among HIV-infected, model of end-stage liver disease (aHR, 1.04; P < 0.001), body mass index <21 kg/m (aHR, 1.61; P = 0.006), and HCV (aHR, 1.83; P < 0.001) were associated with graft loss, whereas more recent period of LT 2012-2015 (aHR, 0.58; P = 0.001) and donor with anoxic cause of death (aHR, 0.51; P = 0.007) were associated with lower risk of graft loss. Conclusions: Patients with HIV infection account for only 1% of LTs in United States and Europe, with fewer LT for HCV disease over time. A static rate of LT among HIV-infected patients may reflect improvements in cirrhosis management and/or persistent barriers to LT. Graft and patient survival among HIV-infected LT recipients have shown improvement over time.

Despite gaining wide consensus in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been poorly investigated for its role in the setting of salvage liver transplantation (SLT). A multicenter retrospective analysis was carried out in 6 Italian centers on 211 patients with HCC who were initially resected with open (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and eventually wait-listed for SLT. The secondary endpoint was identification of risk factors for posttransplant death and tumor recurrence. The enrolled patients included 211 HCC patients resected with open surgery (n = 167) versus MILS (n = 44) and wait-listed for SLT between January 2007 and December 2017. We analyzed the intention-to-treat survival of these patients. MILS was the most important protective factor for the composite risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.63; P = 0.003). MILS was also the only independent protective factor for the risk of post-SLT patient death (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P = 0.04). After propensity score matching, MILS was the only independent protective factor against the risk of delisting, posttransplant death, and HCC recurrence (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.75; P = 0.02). On the basis of the current analysis, MILS seems protective over open surgery for the risk of delisting, posttransplant patient death, and tumor recurrence. Larger prospective studies balancing liver function and tumor stage are strongly favored to better clarify the beneficial effect of MILS for HCC patients eventually referred to SLT.

The safety of minimally invasive procedures during COVID pandemic remains hotly debated, especially in a country, like Italy, where minimally invasive techniques have progressively and pervasively entered clinical practice, in both the hepatobiliary and pancreatic community. A nationwide snapshot of the management of HPB minimally invasive surgery activity during COVID-19 pandemic is provided: a survey was developed and conducted within AICEP (Italian Association of HepatoBilioPancreatic Surgeons) with the final aim of conveying the experience, knowledge, and opinions into a unitary report enabling more efficient crisis management. Results from the survey (81 respondents) show that, in Italian hospitals, minimally invasive surgery maintains its role despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with the registered reduction of cases being proportional to the overall reduction of the HPB surgical activity. Respondents agree that the switch from minimally invasive to open technique can be considered as a valid option for cases with a high technical complexity. Several issues merit specific attention: screening for virus positivity should be universally performed; only expert surgical teams should operate on positive patients and specific technical measures to lower the biological risk of contamination during surgery must be followed. Future studies specifically designed to establish the true risks in minimally invasive surgery are suggested. Furthermore, a standard and univocal process of prioritization of patients from Regional Healthcare Systems is advisable.

Background: Surgical outcomes may be associated with hospital volume and the influence of volume on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not known. Methods: Patients entered into the prospective registry of the Italian Group of MILS from 2014 to 2018 were considered. Only centres with an accrual period of at least 12 months and stable MILS activity during the enrolment period were included. Case volume was defined by the mean number of minimally invasive liver resections performed per month (MILS/month). Results: A total of 2225 MILS operations were undertaken by 46 centres; nine centres performed more than two MILS/month (1376 patients) and 37 centres carried out two or fewer MILS/month (849 patients). The proportion of resections of anterolateral segments decreased with case volume, whereas that of major hepatectomies increased. Left lateral sectionectomies and resections of anterolateral segments had similar outcome in the two groups. Resections of posterosuperior segments and major hepatectomies had higher overall and severe morbidity rates in centres performing two or fewer MILS/month than in those undertaking a larger number (posterosuperior segments resections: overall morbidity 30·4 versus 18·7 per cent respectively, and severe morbidity 9·9 versus 4·0 per cent; left hepatectomy: 46 versus 22 per cent, and 19 versus 5 per cent; right hepatectomy: 42 versus 34 per cent, and 25 versus 15 per cent). Conclusion: A volume–outcome association existed for minimally invasive hepatectomy. Complex and major resections may be best managed in high-volume centres.

Background: This study aimed to assess the best achievable outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) after risk adjustment based on surgical technical difficulty using a national registry. Methods: LLRs registered in the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery registry from November 2014 to March 2018 were considered. Benchmarks were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABCTM). LLRs at each centre were divided into three clusters (groups I, II and III) based on the Kawaguchi classification. ABCs for overall and major morbidity were calculated in each cluster. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for overall and major morbidity. Significant variables were used in further risk adjustment. Results: A total of 1752 of 2263 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 1096 (62·6 per cent) in group I, 435 (24·8 per cent) in group II and 221 (12·6 per cent) in group III. The ABCs for overall morbidity (7·8, 14·2 and 26·4 per cent for grades I, II and II respectively) and major morbidity (1·4, 2·2 and 5·7 per cent) increased with the difficulty of LLR. Multivariable analysis showed an increased risk of overall morbidity associated with multiple LLRs (odds ratio (OR) 1·35), simultaneous intestinal resection (OR 3·76) and cirrhosis (OR 1·83), and an increased risk of major morbidity with intestinal resection (OR 4·61). ABCs for overall and major morbidity were 14·4 and 3·2 per cent respectively for multiple LLRs, 30 and 11·1 per cent for intestinal resection, and 14·9 and 4·8 per cent for cirrhosis. Conclusion: Overall morbidity benchmarks for LLR ranged from 7·8 to 26·4 per cent, and those for major morbidity from 1·4 to 5·7 per cent, depending on complexity. Benchmark values should be adjusted according to multiple LLRs or simultaneous intestinal resection and cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND Expansion of donor acceptance criteria for liver transplantation increased the risk for early allograft failure (EAF). Though EAF prediction is pivotal to optimize transplant outcomes, there is no consensus on specific EAF indicators or timing to evaluate EAF. Recently, the Liver Graft Assessment following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) algorithm, based on aspartate transaminase, bilirubin, platelets, and INR kinetics, has been developed from a single-center database gathered from 2002 to 2015. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a simplified comprehensive model estimating the EAF risk at day 10 after liver transplantation (the Early Allograft failure Simplified Estimation, EASE score), and, secondarily, to early identify patients with unsustainable EAF risk, suitable for re-transplant. DESIGN This multicenter study was designed to elaborate a score catching the continuum from normal graft function to non-function after transplant. We included among EAF determinants both parenchymal and vascular factors, which provide an indication to list for re-transplant. The L-GrAFT kinetic approach was adopted and modified with less data-entries and novel variables. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03858088. SETTING The patient population included 1,609 Italian patients in the derivation set and 570 UK patients in the validation set, all transplanted in 2016 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME and MEASURE EAF was defined as graft failure (codified by re-transplant or death) for any reason within day 90 after transplant. RESULTS The EAF incidence was 6.8%. The EASE score was developed through 17 entries derived from 8 variables: MELD, blood transfusions, early thrombosis of hepatic vessels, kinetic parameters of transaminases, platelets and bilirubin. Donor parameters (age, DCD, machine perfusion) were not predictive. Results were adjusted for Center-volume. At ROC curve analysis, the EASE score outperformed L-GrAFT, MEAF, EAD, ET-DRI, DMELD, and DRI scores, predicting day-90 E

Liver Transplant Programs in Italy have faced a sequela of management and clinical decisionmaking problems due to the high incidence in some regions of the country of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The Italian Society for Organ Transplantation (SITO) and the Board of Liver Transplant Program Directors issued a survey to assess the initial impact of this pandemic event on the routine activity of 22 Italian Liver Transplant Programs. One hundred percent of participants completed the survey within a few days. The analysis is presented dividing the centers in two macro-areas: north-central Italy and south-central Italy. The reason for this is that the two areas had a different incidence of the infection and because they have distinctive rates of cadaveric donation. Overall, all centers remained open although a reduction in the activity was noted. Transplant Programs reduced their outpatient activity both in terms of pre-transplant evaluation (68% of the centers) and transplant recipient follow-up (100%); a reduction in transplant activity was observed in the first two weeks of March only in the north-central macro area (23 LTs vs 39 in 2018 and 60 in 2019); overall, SARS-CoV-2 infection was registered for 24 liver transplant recipients and 37 health care providers in liver transplant units. In the perspective of the increasing magnitude of the epidemic, more data will be required to define appropriate strategies for the increasingly complex management of liver transplant patients.