David C. Mulligan

ASTS recommended practice guidelines for controlled donation after cardiac death organ procurement and transplantation

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) champions efforts to increase organ donation. Controlled donation after cardiac death (DCD) offers the family and the patient with a hopeless prognosis the option to donate when brain death criteria will not be met. Although DCD is increasing, this endeavor is still in the midst of development. DCD protocols, recovery techniques and organ acceptance criteria vary among organ procurement organizations and transplant centers. Growing enthusiasm for DCD has been tempered by the decreased yield of transplantable organs and less favorable posttransplant outcomes compared with donation after brain death. Logistics and ethics relevant to DCD engender discussion and debate among lay and medical communities. Regulatory oversight of the mandate to increase DCD and a recent lawsuit involving professional behavior during an attempted DCD have fueled scrutiny of this activity. Within this setting, the ASTS Council sought best‐practice guidelines for controlled DCD organ donation and transplantation. The proposed guidelines are evidence based when possible. They cover many aspects of DCD kidney, liver and pancreas transplantation, including donor characteristics, consent, withdrawal of ventilatory support, operative technique, ischemia times, machine perfusion, recipient considerations and biliary issues. DCD organ transplantation involves unique challenges that these recommendations seek to address.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: The MELD impact

The new allocation policy of the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) based on the model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) gives candidates with stage T1 or stage T2 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a priority MELD score beyond their degree of hepatic decompensation. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the new allocation policy on HCC candidates before and after the institution of MELD. The UNOS database was reviewed for all HCC candidates listed between July 1999 and July 2002. The candidates were grouped by two time periods, based on the date of implementation of new allocation policy of February 27, 2002. Pre‐MELD candidates were listed for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) before February 27,2002, and post‐MELD candidates were listed after February 27, 2002. Candidates were compared by incidence of DDLT, time to DDLT, and dropout rate from the waiting list because of clinical deterioration or death, and survival while waiting and after DDLT. Incidence rates calculated for pre‐MELD and post‐MELD periods were expressed in person years. During the study, 2,074 HCC candidates were listed for DDLT in the UNOS database. The DDLT incidence rate was 0.439 transplant/person years pre‐MELD and 1.454 transplant/person years post‐MELD (P < 0.001). The time to DDLT was 2.28 years pre‐MELD and 0.69 years post‐MELD (P < 0.001). The 5‐month dropout rate was 16.5% pre‐MELD and 8.5% post‐MELD (P < 0.001). The 5‐month waiting‐list survival was 90.3% pre‐MELD and 95.7% post‐MELD (P < 0.001). The 5‐month survival after DDLT was similar for both time periods. The new allocation policy has led to an increased incidence rate of DDLT in HCC candidates. Furthermore, the 5‐month dropout rate has decreased significantly. In addition, 5‐month survival while waiting has increased in the post‐MELD period. Thus, the new MELD‐based allocation policy has benefited HCC candidates. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:36–41.)

Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation with combination of pegylated interferon α2b and ribavirin: An open-label series

Background. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is universal. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RIB) in the treatment of post-OLT HCV recurrence. Methods. Thirty-seven patients with recurrent HCV after OLT were screened and began treatment. Nineteen patients have completed therapy. PEG-IFN was started at a dose of 0.5 &mgr;g/kg per week and titrated toward a maximum dose of 1.5 &mgr;g/kg per week. RIB was started at a dose of 400 mg per day and titrated toward a maximum of 1000 mg per day, as tolerated. Therapy continued for 1 year after HCV replication was undetectable by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and was discontinued if there was no virologic clearance at 48 weeks. Results. Twelve patients (63%) completed the combination regimen. Therapy was discontinued in seven (37%) patients. Seven patients (37%) had undetectable viral load at the end of treatment. Of those, five patients (26%) had sustained viral response 6 months after discontinuation of therapy. Five patients (26%) had no virologic response. Necro-inflammatory score declined from 5.22 to 2.89 (P =0.05) in nonresponders versus 6.8 to 2.6 (P <0.01) in responders. Fibrosis stage did not change in either group. Genotype 1-infected patients had a lower likelihood of attaining end of treatment or sustained viral response (P <0.05 for both). Conclusions. Post-OLT HCV recurrence can be safely treated with PEG-IFN and RIB. Bone marrow toxicity, depression, and rejection are limiting factors that require aggressive management. There was short-term histologic benefit to the use of this regimen, even in those patients without viral clearance.

Endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures after living donor liver transplantation: outcomes after maximal stent therapy

BACKGROUND The optimal endoscopic treatment for anastomotic biliary strictures after deceased donor liver transplantation is undefined. Endoscopic therapy with conventional methods of biliary dilation and stent placement has been successful but often requires prolonged therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine the outcomes of an aggressive endoscopic approach that uses endoscopic dilation followed by maximal stent placement. SETTING Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS Of 176 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantation between June 1999 and July 2004, 25 were diagnosed with anastomotic biliary strictures. INTERVENTIONS Patients were treated endoscopically with a combined technique of balloon dilation and maximal stent placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Treatment outcomes, including bile-duct patency, a need for surgical intervention, morbidity, and mortality, were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS Endoscopic dilation followed by maximal stent placement was performed until resolution of strictures in 22 of 25 patients (88% immediate success on intent-to-treat analysis). Persistent resolution of strictures was achieved in 18 of these 22 patients. Re-treatment was successful in 2 of 4 patients with recurrent strictures. Overall, 20 of 22 patients who completed endoscopic therapy (91%) avoided surgical intervention. Median duration of endoscopic treatment was 4.6 months. Patients with early onset strictures required a significantly shorter duration of endoscopic therapy (3 vs 9 months; P<.01). Multiple stent placement was not technically difficult, and no major complications were encountered. CONCLUSIONS Aggressive endoscopic therapy with combined biliary dilation and maximal stent placement allows resolution of anastomotic biliary strictures after deceased donor liver transplantation in a relatively short period, with sustained success and minimal complications.

Nucleic acid testing (NAT) of organ donors: is the 'best' test the right test? A consensus conference report.

Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for HIV, HBV and HCV shortens the time between infection and detection by available testing. A group of experts was selected to develop recommendations for the use of NAT in the HIV/HBV/HCV screening of potential organ donors. The rapid turnaround times needed for donor testing and the risk of death while awaiting transplantation make organ donor screening different from screening blood‐or tissue donors. In donors with no identified risk factors, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine NAT, as the benefits of NAT may not outweigh the disadvantages of NAT especially when false‐positive results can lead to loss of donor organs. For donors with identified behavioral risk factors, NAT should be considered to reduce the risk of transmission and increase organ utilization. Informed consent balancing the risks of donor‐derived infection against the risk of remaining on the waiting list should be obtained at the time of candidate listing and again at the time of organ offer. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal prospective screening of organ donors for HIV, HCV and HBV using current NAT platforms. Further study of viral screening modalities may reduce disease transmission risk without excessive donor loss.

A randomized, prospective, double-blinded evaluation of selective bowel decontamination in liver transplantation.

Background. Bacterial infection is a frequent, morbid, and mortal complication of liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination (SBD) has been reported to reduce the rate of bacterial infection after liver transplantation in uncontrolled trials, but benefits of this intervention have been less clear in controlled studies. Methods. Eighty candidates for liver transplantation were randomly assigned in a double-blinded fashion to an SBD regimen consisting of gentamicin 80 mg+polymyxin E 100 mg+nystatin 2 million units (37 patients) or to nystatin alone (43 patients). Both treatments were administered orally in 10 ml (increasing to 20 ml, according to predefined criteria), four times daily, through day 21 after transplantation. Anal fecal swab cultures were performed on days 0, 4, 7, and 21. Rates of infection, death, and charges for medical care were assessed from day 0 through day 60. Results. More than 85% of patients in both treatment groups began study treatment more than 3 days before transplantation. Rates of infection (32.4 vs. 27.9%), death (5.4 vs. 4.7%), or charges for medical care (median

A randomized, multicenter study comparing steroid-free immunosuppression and standard immunosuppression for liver transplant recipients with chronic hepatitis C

194,000 vs.

Natural History of Post-Liver Transplantation Hepatitis C: A Review of Factors That May Influence Its Course

163,000) were not reduced in patients assigned to SBD. On days 0, 4, 7, and 21, growth of aerobic gram-negative flora in fecal cultures of patients assigned to SBD was significantly less than that of patients taking nystatin alone; growth of aerobic gram-positive flora, anaerobes, and yeast was not significantly different. Conclusion. Routine use of SBD in patients undergoing liver transplantation is not associated with significant benefit.

Management of the critically ill patient with cirrhosis: A multidisciplinary perspective.

This randomized, prospective, multicenter trial compared the safety and efficacy of steroid‐free immunosuppression (IS) to the safety and efficacy of 2 standard IS regimens in patients undergoing transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The outcome measures were acute cellular rejection (ACR), severe HCV recurrence, and survival. The patients were randomized (1:1:2) to tacrolimus (TAC) and corticosteroids (arm 1; n = 77), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC, and corticosteroids (arm 2; n = 72), or MMF, TAC, and daclizumab induction with no corticosteroids (arm 3; n = 146). In all, 295 HCV RNA–positive subjects were enrolled. At 2 years, there were no differences in ACR, HCV recurrence (biochemical evidence), patient survival, or graft survival rates. The side effects of IS did not differ, although there was a trend toward less diabetes in the steroid‐free group. Liver biopsy samples revealed no significant differences in the proportions of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3 with advanced HCV recurrence (ie, an inflammation grade ≥ 3 and/or a fibrosis stage ≥ 2) in years 1 (48.2%, 50.4%, and 43.0%, respectively) and 2 (69.5%, 75.9%, and 68.1%, respectively). Although we have found that steroid‐free IS is safe and effective for liver transplant recipients with chronic HCV, steroid sparing has no clear advantage in comparison with traditional IS. Liver Transpl, 2011.

Impact of Subclinical Inflammation on the Development of Interstitial Fibrosis and Tubular Atrophy in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Our aim was to assess long‐term survival in patients transplanted for HCV‐related end‐stage liver disease (ESLD) and evaluate potentially modifiable predictors of survival. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult liver transplants (LT) at our institution for HCV‐related ESLD since the programs inception. Pertinent demographic, clinical, and biochemical information was retrieved from electronic medical records and histological data from 990 per‐protocol liver biopsies were collected. Three hundred eighty LT were performed at our institution during the study period, 206 patients were transplanted for HCV‐related ESLD; 6 died within 30 days of transplantation and were not included. The remaining 200 recipients (DDLT 168 LDLT 32) constituted the evaluable population. The demographics were as follows: 150 males, median age 53 years; median donor age 39 years; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 26%. Overall 1‐, 5‐, and 7‐year survival: 95%, 81%, and 79%; median survival 43 months, mortality 15%. Significant HCV recurrence (HAI ≥6 and/or fibrosis ≥2) was present in 49%, “early recurrence” (within 1 year of LT) in 30.5% and biopsy‐proven acute rejection was present in 27%. Factors with a significant negative impact on patient survival included: fibrosis stage ≥2 at 12‐month biopsy, advanced donor age, history of HCC and early acute rejection. Survival was similar regardless of the donor type (DDLT vs. LDLT). Early and aggressive HCV recurrence has a very heavy toll on patient survival. Prompt recognition and treatment of “rapid fibrosers” may impart benefit. As has been described before, avoidance of rejection and selection of young donors for HCV‐positive recipients will also improve survival in this population. On the basis of our findings, LDLT is a good option for HCV‐positive recipients. Liver Transpl 15:1872–1881, 2009.