Sequential Versus Contemporaneous Portal and Arterial Reperfusion During Liver Transplantation

Abstract

Although sequential portal and arterial revascularization (SPAr) is the most common method of graft reperfusion at liver transplantation (OLT), contemporaneous portal and hepatic artery revascularization (CPAr) has been used to reduce arterial ischemia to the bile ducts. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare SPAr (group 1; n = 19) versus CPAr (group 2; n = 21) among 40 consecutive OLT from heart-beating donors. There were no differences in the demographics characteristics, Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores, indication for OLT and donor parameters between the groups. OLT was performed using the piggyback technique. The biliary anastomosis was performed in all cases by a duct-to-duct technique with a T-tube in 32% versus 29% of cases without a T tube ( P = .83). In the CPAr group, the liver was reperfused simultaneously via the portal vein and hepatic artery. CPAr showed a longer warm ischemia (66 ± 8 vs 37 ± 7 minutes; P < .001), while SPAr had a longer arterial ischemia 103 ± 42 vs 66 ± 8 minutes ( P = .0004). Recovery of graft function was similar. There was no primary nonfunction and delayed graft function occurred among 10% versus 9%. Liver function tests were similar between the two groups up to 90 days case of follow-up- One-year graft and patient survivals were, respectively, 89% and 95% versus 94% and 100% ( P = .29). At a median follow-up of 13 ± 6 versus 14 ± 7 months, biliary complications included anastomotic stenoses in 15% versus 19% ( P = .78) and intrahepatic non-anastomotic biliary strictures in 26% versus none ( P = .01) for SPAr and CPAr, respectively. CPAr was safe and feasible, reducing the incidence of intrahepatic biliary strictures by decreasing the duration of arterial ischemia to the intrahepatic bile ducts.