Search

Robotic surgery is an emerging minimally invasive option for living donor hepatectomy. Currently, there are no studies on the learning curve of robotic donor hepatectomy. Thus, we evaluated the learning curve for robotic donor right hepatectomy (RH). We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive living donors who underwent robotic hepatectomy at two specialized centers between 2016 and 2022. We estimated the number of cases required to achieve stable operating times for robotic donor RH using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The complication rates were similar between the two centers (22.8% vs. 26.7%; p=0.74). Most complications were graded as minor (70.4%). Analysis of the total operative time demonstrated that the learning curves reached a peak at the 17th case in Center 1 and the 9th case in Center 2. The average operation times for cases 1-17 versus 18-99 in Center 1 were 603 versus 438 minutes (p<0.001), and cases 1-9 versus 10-15 in Center 2 were 532 versus 418 minutes (p=0.002). Complication rates were lower after the learning curves were achieved, although this did not reach statistical significance. A comparison of outcomes between centers suggests that a standardized approach to this complex operation can be successfully transferred., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Purpose of Review: Transplant oncology encompasses and utilizes liver transplantation (LT) in combination with other aspects of cancer care to offer improved long-term outcomes for patients with liver cancer, but not all patients have equal access and ability to undergo LT. Social determinants of health may negatively impact a patient's ability to receive liver-related oncologic care, including LT. This review highlights recent work exposing gaps in access to LT, including transplant oncology, and interventions to ameliorate these disparities., Recent Findings: Members of racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous groups, females, socioeconomically disadvantaged persons, and patients from rural areas are less likely to undergo LT. Recent studies have also described programs that have successfully mitigated some of the barriers in access to transplant oncology that these patients experience, including targeted outreach programs and access to virtual healthcare., Summary: Disparities in access to LT for liver cancer are increasingly well described, but additional research is needed to find effective ways to ameliorate these differences., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although Hispanic patients have high rates of end-stage liver disease and liver cancer, for which liver transplantation (LT) offers the best long-term outcomes, they are less likely to receive LT. Studies of end-stage renal disease patients and kidney transplant candidates have shown that targeted, culturally relevant interventions can increase the likelihood of Hispanic patients receiving kidney transplant. However, similar interventions remain largely unstudied in potential LT candidates., Methods: Referrals to a single center in Texas with a large Hispanic patient population were compared before (01/2018-12/2019) and after (7/2021-6/2023) the implementation of a targeted outreach program. Patient progress toward LT, reasons for ineligibility, and differences in insurance were examined between the two eras., Results: A greater proportion of Hispanic patients were referred for LT after the implementation of the outreach program (23.2% vs 26.2%, p = 0.004). Comparing the pre-outreach era to the post-outreach era, more Hispanic patients achieved waitlisting status (61 vs 78, respectively) and received a LT (971 vs 82, respectively). However, the proportion of Hispanic patients undergoing LT dropped from 30.2% to 20.3%. In the post-outreach era, half of the Hispanic patients were unable to get LT for financial reasons (112, 50.5%)., Conclusions: A targeted outreach program for Hispanic patients with end-stage liver disease effectively increased the total number of Hispanic LT referrals and recipients. However, many of the patients who were referred were ineligible for LT, most frequently for financial reasons. These results highlight the need for additional research into the most effective ways to ameliorate financial barriers to LT in this high-need community., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare biliary tract cancer with high mortality rate. Complete resection of the iCCA lesion is the first choice of treatment, with good prognosis after margin-negative resection. Unfortunately, only 12%-40% of patients are eligible for resection at presentation due to cirrhosis, portal hypertension, or large tumor size. Liver transplantation (LT) offers margin-negative iCCA extirpation for patients with unresectable tumors. Initially, iCCA was a contraindication for LT until size-based selection criteria were introduced to identify patients with satisfied post-LT outcomes. Recent studies have shown that tumor biology-based selection can yield high post-LT survival in patients with locally advanced iCCA. Another selection criterion is the tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy. Patients with response to neoadjuvant therapy have better outcomes after LT compared with those without tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy. Another index that helps predict the treatment outcome is the biomarker. Improved survival outcomes have also opened the door for living donor LT for iCCA. Patients undergoing LT for iCCA now have statistically similar survival rates as patients undergoing resection. The combination of surgery and locoregional and systemic therapies improves the prognosis of iCCA patients., Competing Interests: Competing interest R Mark Ghobrial is a member of the advisory board for TransMedics and has received stock in the company. For the rest authors, no benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article., (Copyright © 2023 First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in SARS-CoV-2-test positive potential organ donors. The benefits of life-saving liver transplantation (LT) must be balanced against the potential risk of donor-derived viral transmission. Although emerging evidence suggests that the use of COVID-19-positive donor organs may be safe, granular series thoroughly evaluating safety are still needed. Results of 29 consecutive LTs from COVID-19-positive donors at a single center are presented here., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of LT recipients between April 2020 and December 2022 was conducted. Differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive (n = 29 total; 25 index, 4 redo) and COVID-19-negative (n = 472 total; 454 index, 18 redo) deceased donor liver grafts were compared., Results: COVID-19-positive donors were significantly younger ( P  = 0.04) and had lower kidney donor profile indices ( P  = 0.04) than COVID-19-negative donors. Recipients of COVID-19-positive donor grafts were older ( P  = 0.04) but otherwise similar to recipients of negative donors. Donor SARS-CoV-2 infection status was not associated with a overall survival of recipients (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-5.04; P  = 0.89). There were 3 deaths among recipients of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors. No death seemed virally mediated because there was no qualitative association with peri-LT antispike antibody titers, post-LT prophylaxis, or SARS-CoV-2 variants., Conclusions: The utilization of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors was not associated with a decreased overall survival of recipients. There was no suggestion of viral transmission from donor to recipient. The results from this large single-center study suggest that COVID-19-positive donors may be used safely to expand the deceased donor pool., Competing Interests: R.M.G. is a member of the advisory board for TransMedics and has received stock in the company., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a neoplasm of the biliary tract that has become increasingly prevalent throughout the world. Common risk factors for developing CCA include cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and trematode fluke infestation, although there are no set screening guidelines in high-risk groups. Lesions are typically identified via cross-sectional imaging and/or elevated serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels, often followed by cytology or brushings with fluorescence in situ hybridization for confirmation. Treatments can vary among CCA subtypes but frequently involve systemic therapies such as gemcitabine and cisplatin with durvalumab or pembrolizumab. Targeted therapies may also be effective (eg, ivosidenib, pemigatinib, infigratinib, futibatinib) depending on the molecular alterations present. Resection is the most common surgical treatment for CCA, although liver transplantation is also an option in highly selected patients with liver-limited unresectable disease. Radiotherapy may also be a treatment option, as well as transarterial radioembolization (eg, yttrium-90), which is often utilized in combination with systemic therapy. Although patients with CCA have traditionally had a poor prognosis, recent advances in treatment, including new systemic therapies and increased utilization of liver transplantation, have improved expected survival. This article reviews screening modalities, pros and cons of diagnostic techniques, and therapies that are currently available to treat patients with CCA., (Copyright © 2024, Gastro-Hep Communications, Inc.)

Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with MDR organisms (MDROs)., Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of BSI in the year after several types of SOT, as well as the prevalence of MDRO infections in this population., Methods: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective study of kidney, liver, heart, and multi-organ transplantation patients. We examined BSIs ≤1 year from SOT and classified MDRO phenotypes for Staphylococcus aureus , enterococci, Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida spp. We compared BSI characteristics between SOT types and determined risk factors for 90 day mortality., Results: We included 2293 patients [1251 (54.6%) kidney, 663 (28.9%) liver, 219 (9.6%) heart and 160 (7.0%) multi-organ transplant]. Overall, 8.5% of patients developed a BSI. BSIs were most common after multi-organ (23.1%) and liver (11.3%) transplantation ( P  < 0.001). Among 196 patients with BSI, 323 unique isolates were recovered, 147 (45.5%) of which were MDROs. MDROs were most common after liver transplant (53.4%). The most frequent MDROs were VRE (69.8% of enterococci) and ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (29.2% and 27.2% of Enterobacterales, respectively). Mortality after BSI was 9.7%; VRE was independently associated with mortality (adjusted OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.7-21.3)., Conclusions: BSI incidence after SOT was 8.5%, with a high proportion of MDROs (45.5%), especially after liver transplantation. These data, in conjunction with local antimicrobial resistance patterns and prescribing practices, may help guide empirical antimicrobial selection and stewardship practices after SOT., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Background: The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor., Methods: To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021., Results: Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes., Conclusions: These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Liver retransplantation (reLT) has historically had inferior survival relative to primary liver transplant (LT). To improve outcomes after reLT, researchers have identified factors predicting overall (OS) and/or graft survival (GS) after reLT. This systematic review and random effects meta-analysis sought to summarize this literature to elucidate the strongest independent predictors of post-reLT., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify manuscripts reporting factors affecting survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Papers with overlapping cohorts were excluded., Results: All 25 included studies were retrospective, and 15 (60%) were single-center studies. Patients on pre-transplant ventilation (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.56-6.20; p  = 0.001) and with high serum creatinine (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.87; p  = 0.002) had the highest mortality risk after reLT. Recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor age, and cold ischemia time >12 h also conferred a significant risk of post-reLT death (all p  < 0.05). Factors affecting GS included donor age and retransplant interval (the time between LT and reLT; both p  < 0.05). OS is significantly higher when the retransplant interval is ≤7 days relative to 8-30 days ( p  = 0.04)., Conclusions: The meta-analysis was complicated by papers utilizing non-standardized cut-off values to group variables, which made between-study comparisons difficult. However, it did identify 7 variables that significantly impact survival after reLT, which could stimulate future research into improving post-reLT outcomes., Competing Interests: RMG is a member of the advisory board for TransMedics and has received stock in the company. The author RMG declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Brombosz, Moore, Mobley, Kodali, Saharia, Hobeika, Connor, Victor, Cheah, Simon, Gaber and Ghobrial.)

Combined liver-lung transplantation is an uncommon, although vital, procedure for patients with simultaneous end-stage lung and liver disease. The utility of lung-liver transplant has been questioned because of initial poor survival outcomes, particularly when compared with liver-alone transplant recipients., Methods: A single-center, retrospective review of the medical records of 19 adult lung-liver transplant recipients was conducted, comparing early recipients (2009-2014) with a recent cohort (2015-2021). Patients were also compared with the center's single lung or liver transplant recipients., Results: Recent lung-liver recipients were older ( P = 0.004), had a higher body mass index ( P = 0.03), and were less likely to have ascites ( P = 0.02), reflecting changes in the etiologies of lung and liver disease. Liver cold ischemia time was longer in the modern cohort ( P = 0.004), and patients had a longer posttransplant length of hospitalization ( P = 0.048). Overall survival was not statistically different between the 2 eras studied ( P = 0.61), although 1-y survival was higher in the more recent group (90.9% versus 62.5%). Overall survival after lung-liver transplant was equivalent to lung-alone recipients and was significantly lower than liver-alone recipients (5-y survival: 52%, 51%, and 75%, respectively). Lung-liver recipient mortality was primarily driven by deaths within 6 mo of transplant due to infection and sepsis. Graft failure was not significantly different (liver: P = 0.06; lung: P = 0.74)., Conclusions: The severity of illness in lung-liver recipients combined with the infrequency of the procedure supports its continued use. However, particular attention should be paid to patient selection, immunosuppression, and prophylaxis against infection to ensure proper utilization of scarce donor organs., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a primary epithelial cell malignancy of the liver with rising incidence rate globally. Its insidious presentation, heterogeneous and aggressive biology, and recalcitrance to current therapies results in unacceptably high morbidity and mortality. This has spurred research efforts in the last decade to better characterize it molecularly with translation to improved diagnostic tools and treatments. Much of this has been driven by patient advocacy. This has renewed interest in orthotopic liver transplantation (LT) with adjunctive therapies for iCCA, which was historically disparaged due to poor recipient outcomes and donor organ scarcity. However, the optimal use of LT as a treatment for iCCA care remains unclear. Here, we review the epidemiology of iCCA, the history of LT as a treatment modality, alternative approaches to iCCA local control, the evidence for peri-operative systemic therapies, and the potential roles of biomarkers and targeted agents. In doing so, we hope to prioritize areas for continued research and identify areas where multidisciplinary care can improve outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Connor, Kodali, Abdelrahim, Javle, Brombosz and Ghobrial.)

Background: Maximizing patient and allograft survival after liver transplant (LT) is important from both a patient care and organ utilization perspective. Although individual studies have addressed the effects of short-term post-LT complications on a limited scale, there has not been a systematic review of the literature formally assessing the potential effects of early complications on long-term outcomes., Objectives: To identify whether short-term complications after LT affect allograft and overall survival, to identify short-term complications of particular clinical interest and significance, and to provide recommendations to improve post-LT graft and patient survival., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central., Methods: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel., Results: The literature review and analysis provided show that short-term complications have a large impact on allograft and patient survival after LT. The complications with the strongest effect on survival are acute kidney injury (AKI), biliary complications, and early allograft dysfunction (EAD)., Conclusion: This panel recommends taking measures to reduce the risk and incidence of short-term complications post-LT. Clinicians should pay particular attention to preventing or ameliorating AKI, biliary complications, and EAD (Quality of evidence; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong)., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)