Search

Background. With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet‚ to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods. All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results. A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions. In appropriately selected recipients with grades I–II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

Background. Aorto-hepatic conduits can provide arterial inflow for liver transplants in cases where the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use. Methods. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with an aorto-hepatic conduit between 2000 and 2016 were included. Recipients were divided into 2 groups: those with a supraceliac (SC) aortic conduit (N = 22) and those with an infrarenal (IR) aortic conduit (N = 82). Results. There was no difference in calculated model for end-stage liver disease score between the 2 groups. The SC group received grafts with a higher mean donor risk index (1.69 versus 1.48; P = 0.02). Early allograft dysfunction was 18.2% in the SC group and 29.3% in the IR group (P = 0.30). In the SC group, 10.5% of patients required initiation of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy compared to 12.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.69). No difference in the rate of postoperative acute kidney injury was seen between the 2 groups (P = 0.54). No significant difference in median creatinine at 1 year was seen between the SC (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 1–1.3) and IR (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 0.9–1.5) groups (P = 0.85). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, thrombosis of the aortic conduit occurred in 0% of patients in the SC group and 6.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.24). Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.47). Conclusions. No difference in renal dysfunction as demonstrated by need for post-LT continuous renal replacement therapy, acute kidney injury, or creatinine at 1 year post-LT was seen between SC and IR aortic conduits. A slight trend of higher conduit thrombosis rate was seen with IR compared to SC aortic conduits; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Both SC and IR aortic conduits represent reasonable options when the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use.

Abstract. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies allografts with marginal function soon after liver transplantation (LT) and is associated with poor LT outcomes. The impact of EAD on post-LT renal recovery, however, has not been studied. Data on 69 primary LT recipients (41 with and 28 without history of renal dysfunction) who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for a median (range) of 9 (13-41) days before LT were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was renal nonrecovery defined as RRT requirement 30 days from LT. Early allograft dysfunction developed in 21 (30%) patients, and 22 (32%) patients did not recover renal function. Early allograft dysfunction was more common in the renal nonrecovery group (50% vs 21%, P = 0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that EAD (odds ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.8; P = 0.002) and baseline serum creatinine (odds ratio, 3.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-8.1; P = 0.007) were independently associated with renal nonrecovery. History of renal dysfunction, duration of renal dysfunction, and duration of RRT were not related to renal recovery (P > 0.2 for all). Patients who had EAD and renal nonrecovery had the worst 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival, whereas those without EAD and recovered renal function had the best outcomes (P < 0.001). Post-LT EAD was independently associated with renal nonrecovery in LT recipients on RRT for a short duration before LT. Furthermore, EAD in the setting of renal nonrecovery resulted in the worst long-term survival. Measures to prevent EAD should be undertaken in LT recipients on RRT at time of LT.