Liver Retransplant Research Articles

First series of Living Donor Liver Retransplants from India: Challenges and Outcomes

BackgroundThere is paucity of Indian data on long term survival after living donor liver transplant (LDLT) or the need for retransplant. In this article, we report the first series of retransplants from India with focus on indications, technical challenges and results. MethodsRetrospective study on 29 patients undergoing a liver retransplant (re-LT) was analysed with respect to survival outcomes and post operative complications. Patients were divided into early and late retransplant groups based on whether re-LT was performed within or beyond 30 days of primary transplant. ResultsLiver retransplant was performed in 29 (0.81%) patients out of a total of 3563 liver transplants ( 28 living donor and 1 deceased donor liver transplant). The primary transplant was a LDLT in 27 (93%) patients. Retransplant was performed at a median of 26 days after the first transplant. Re-LT was performed early (within 30 days) in 17 (59%) patients and late (beyond 30 days) in 12 (41%). Hepatic artery thrombosis (53%) and early graft dysfunction (47%) were the indications for early retransplant while biliary complications (50%) and chronic rejection (33%) were primary indications for late retransplant. Post retransplant complications occurred in 22 (75%) patients, the commonest being gram negative bacterial sepsis.The 30-day mortality following retransplant was 27% (8 of 29). The primary cause of mortality was gram negative septicemia. The mortality in the late retransplant group (2, 16.6%) was lower compared to the early retransplant group (6,35%). ConclusionRe-transplant using living donors is a viable option in properly selected patients with prior LDLT.

A single center analysis of long-term outcomes and survival related risk factors in liver retransplantation.

Liver retransplant is the only option to save a patient with liver graft failure. However, it is controversial due to its poor survival outcome compared to primary transplantation. Insufficient deceased organ donation in Taiwan leads to high waitlist mortality. Hence, living-donor grafts offer a valuable alternative for retransplantation. This study aims to analyze the single center's outcome in living donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT) and deceased donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT) as well as the survival related confounding risk factors. This is a single center retrospective study including 32 adults who underwent liver retransplantation (re-LT) from June 2002 to April 2020. The cohort was divided into a re-LDLT and a re-DDLT group and survival outcomes were analyzed. Patient outcomes over different periods, the effect of timing on survival, and multivariate analysis for risk factors were also demonstrated. Of the 32 retransplantations, the re-LDLT group (n=11) received grafts from younger donors (31.3 vs. 43.75 years, P=0.016), with lower graft weights (688 vs. 1,457.2 g, P<0.001) and shorter cold ischemia time (CIT) (45 vs. 313 min, P<0.001). The 5-year survival was significantly better in the re-LDLT group than in the re-DDLT group (100% vs. 70.8%, P=0.02). This difference was adjusted when only retransplantation after 2010 was analyzed. Further analysis showed that the timing of retransplantation (early vs. late) did not affect patient survival. Multivariate analysis revealed that prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT) and intraoperative blood transfusion were related to poor long-term survival. Retransplantation with living donor graft demonstrated good long-term outcomes with acceptable complications to both recipient and donor. It may serve as a choice in areas lacking deceased donors. The timing of retransplantation did not affect the long-term survival. Further effort should be made to reduce WIT and massive blood transfusion as they contributed to poor survival after retransplantation.

Indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers.

retransplantation is the only viable treatment for patients with irreversible graft loss. The objective of this study was to analyze the indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers. a total of 66 patients who underwent liver retransplantation from September 1991 to December 2021 were included in the study. A retrospective analysis was performed evaluating patients demographic, clinical, primary diagnosis, indications for and time interval to retransplantation, complications and patient survival. from a total of 1293 primary liver transplants performed, 70 required one or more liver retransplant. The main indication for primary transplant was hepatitis C cirrhosis (21,2%). Hepatic artery thrombosis was the main cause of retransplantation (60,6%), with almost half (46,9%) of retransplants having occurred within 30 days from initial procedure. The average survival time after a repeat liver transplant, was 89,1 months, with confidence interval from 54 to 124,2. The 1-,5- and 10- year survival rate following liver retransplant were 48,4%, 38% and 30,1%, respectively. Male gender, primary non function as the cause for retransplant, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with higher mortality. operative mortality and morbidity rates of liver retransplantation are higher than those of the first transplantation. Male gender, primary non function, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with less favorable outcomes.

Liver retransplants using living donors: An approach for management

Background and aimsMany centers do not offer living donor transplants for patients in need of a liver retransplant. We aimed to study our liver retransplant outcomes using living donors and compared them with those of retransplants performed using deceased donors. MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzed all retransplants performed at our center between 2009 and 2023, and outcomes of living donor retransplants were compared with deceased donor retransplants using standard statistical tests. ResultsBetween January 2009 and March 2023, a total of 77 retransplants, 60 with deceased donors and 17 with living donors, were performed. Important demographic differences between the two groups included a higher model for end-stage liver disease score in the deceased donor group (32.1 ± 6.1 vs. 19.4 ± 5.7, P < 0.001) and a higher number of early retransplants (within 3 months of the initial transplant), which accounted for 35% of deceased donor transplants but 0 of living donor transplants (P < 0.01). Overall, the patient and graft survival rates were comparable between the two groups. The patient survival rates at 1 and 3 years after transplant were 73% and 67% in the deceased donor group and 84% and 73% in the living donor group, respectively (P = 0.57). The hospital length of stay and blood product use were both better in the living donor group. Biliary complications did not show significant different between the two groups (P = 0.33). ConclusionsLiving donors can provide acceptable outcomes for those in need of a retransplant, with results comparable to those seen with deceased donors. A systematic approach to the patient in the pre-, peri-, and post-transplantation period is important in these complicated cases.

Mortality and Morbidity Among Adult Liver Retransplant Recipients.

Liver transplantation (LT) is life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver failure with up to 20% of patients suffering graft failure following primary transplantation. Retransplantation (ReLT) remains the only definitive treatment for irreversible graft failure. We aimed to explore the postoperative outcomes following liver ReLT. Patients who had received a liver transplant between 2003 and 2016 were retrospectively identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTRs). Patients were stratified based on previous liver transplant history. The primary outcomes of this study were 5-year postoperative mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay following LT. 60,554 (96%) recipients were first LT recipients and 2524 (4%) were ReLT recipients. Compared with first LT, ReLT recipients had significantly higher rates of mortality (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.76-2.12), overall morbidity (OR 1.80, 95%CI 1.65-1.96), and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.52-1.81) on multivariate analysis. Morbidity including cardiovascular (CVD) complications (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.08-1.60), graft failure (OR 2.18, 95%CI 1.84-2.57), infection (OR 2.13, 95%CI 1.82-2.50), and hemorrhage (OR 2.67, 95%CI 2.00-3.61) were significantly greater in ReLT recipients. Compared to first LT, ReLT patients had a significant increase in overall 5-year mortality (p < 0.001), 5-year mortality due to CVD complications (p < 0.001), infection (p = 0.009), but not graft failure (p = 0.3543). ReLT is associated with higher rates of 5-year mortality, overall morbidity, CVD morbidity, infection, and graft failure. Higher 5-year mortality in ReLT is due to CVD and infections. These results could be used in preoperative patient assessment and prognostic counseling for ReLT.

The Evolution of Redo Liver Transplantation Over 35 Years: Analysis of 654 Consecutive Adult Liver Retransplants at a Single Center.

To examine liver retransplantation (ReLT) over 35 years at a single center. Despite the durability of liver transplantation (LT), graft failure affects up to 40% of LT recipients. All adult ReLTs from 1984 to 2021 were analyzed. Comparisons were made between ReLTs in the pre versus post-model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) eras and between ReLTs and primary-LTs in the modern era. Multivariate analysis was used for prognostic modeling. Six hundred fifty-four ReLTs were performed in 590 recipients. There were 372 pre-MELD ReLTs and 282 post-MELD ReLTs. Of the ReLT recipients, 89% had one previous LT, whereas 11% had ≥2. Primary nonfunction was the most common indication in the pre-MELD era (33%) versus recurrent disease (24%) in the post-MELD era. Post-MELD ReLT recipients were older (53 vs 48, P = 0.001), had higher MELD scores (35 vs 31, P = 0.01), and had more comorbidities. However, post-MELD ReLT patients had superior 1, 5, and 10-year survival compared with pre-MELD ReLT (75%, 60%, and 43% vs 53%, 43%, and 35%, respectively, P < 0.001) and lower in-hospital mortality and rejection rates. Notably, in the post-MELD era, the MELD score did not affect survival. We identified the following risk factors for early mortality (≤12 months after ReLT): coronary artery disease, obesity, ventilatory support, older recipient age, and longer pre-ReLT hospital stay. This represents the largest single-center ReLT report to date. Despite the increased acuity and complexity of ReLT patients, post-MELD era outcomes have improved. With careful patient selection, these results support the efficacy and survival benefit of ReLT in an acuity-based allocation environment.

Effects of the implementation of acuity circle policy on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of liver re-transplantation.

Acuity circle (AC) policy implementation improved the waitlist outcomes for certain liver transplant (LT)-candidates. The impact of the policy implementation for liver retransplant (reLT) candidates is unknown. Using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) data from January, 2018 to September, 2021, we investigated the effect of the AC policy on waitlist and post-LT outcomes among patients who had previously received a LT. Patients were categorized by relisting date: Pre-AC (Era 1: January 1, 2018-February 3, 2020; n=750); and Post-AC (Era 2: February 4, 2020-June 30, 2021; n=556). Patient and donor characteristics, as well as on-waitlist and post-reLT outcomes were compared across eras. In Era 2, the probability of transplant within 90days overall and among patients relisted>14days from initial transplant (late relisting) were significantly higher compared to Era 1 (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.18-1.64, p<.001; sHR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88, p=.001, respectively). However, there was no difference by era among patients relisted ≤14days from initial transplant (early relisting; sHR 1.21, 95% CI .93-1.57, p=.15). Likewise, among early relisting patients, risks for 180-day graft loss and mortality were significantly higher in Era 2 versus Era 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 5.77, 95% CI 1.71-19.51, p=.004; and aHR 8.22, 95% CI 1.85-36.59, p=.005, respectively); for late relisting patients, risks for these outcomes were similar across eras. Our results show that the implementation of AC policy has improved transplant rates and reduced waiting time for reLT candidates listed>14days from initial transplant. However, the impact upon early relisting patients may be mixed.

Utilization and outcomes of rescue hepatectomy among U.S. liver retransplant candidates.

The frequency and outcomes of anhepatic patients listed for transplantation in the United States have not been studied. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) records anhepatic status for patients listed as Status 1A for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) or primary non-function (PNF). Using the UNOS database from 2005 to 2020, demographics and waitlist outcomes of anhepatic candidates relisted as Status 1A for HAT or PNF were assessed. Among 1364 adult Status 1A patients relisted for PNF or HAT across 120 distinct transplant centres, 75 (5.5%) patients were anhepatic and 1289 (94.5%) were non-anhepatic. A substantial number of centres (n=51) had experience with ≥1 anhepatic patient relisted for either PNF or HAT, with individual centre rates ranging from 0% to 11.4%. Waitlist mortality was more than twice as high for anhepatic patients: 42.5%versus 17.0% non-anhepatic patients (p<.001). The post-transplant outcomes of anhepatic patients were markedly inferior to non-anhepatic patients. For example, 41.9% of anhepatic patients died during the index admission versus 23.4% of the non-anhepatic group (p=.006). Patient survival for the anhepatic and non-anhepatic groups was 48.3%versus 66.2% at 1-year and 29.3%versus 46.2% at 5-years, respectively (log-rank test for overall survival p=.014). Rescue hepatectomy after initial liver transplantation is not only associated with high waitlist mortality, but also markedly worse post-transplant outcomes. With less than half of anhepatic patients surviving to the first year post-LT, further research is warranted to better delineate which patients should be considered for rescue hepatectomy.

Isolated Hepatic Chronic Ductopenic Rejection Requiring Liver Retransplant in the Absence of Kidney Graft Rejection After Combined Liver-Kidney Transplant: A Case Report

The liver is considered the most immunotolerant organ among all solid-organ transplants. Liver transplant recipients have a lower incidence of rejection and better outcomes after episodes of rejection, with spontaneous operational tolerance developing in up to 20%. In multiorgan transplants, a protective effect of the liver allograft on simultaneously transplanted organs from the same donor has been demonstrated. We describe an unusual case of isolated liver allograft rejection in a patient with polycystic liver and kidney disease who received a combined liver-kidney transplant from the same donor. After initial discharge from the hospital, our patient had 2 episodes of biopsy-proven late acute cellular rejections, despite higher levels of immunosuppression required for her kidney allograft, which were addressed with pulsed steroid therapy. She had no evidence of ischemic cholangiopathy on imaging. Later, a subsequent liver biopsy demonstrated features consistent with chronic ductopenic rejection. She was eventually listed for liver retransplant and has recently received a second liver transplant while continuing to have no concerns with her kidney allograft function. Examination of the explanted liver confirmed graft loss from chronic ductopenic rejection. The exact reasons why our patient developed acute graft rejection progressing to chronic end-stage rejection of the liver allograft despite not developing graft rejection in the kidney allograft from the same donor remains elusive. Our experience demonstrates that graft tolerance in multiorgan transplant recipients can be organ specific and despite the belief of "immunologic privilege," isolated liver allograft rejection can occur in multiorgan transplant, resulting in graft loss.

Perioperative Management of Liver Retransplant in an Adult With a History of TRMU Alteration

Dysfunction of oxidative phosphorylation and the mitochondrial respiratory chain leads to a heterogeneous group of pathogenic mitochondrial variations. The TRMU gene codes for transfer RNA 5- methylaminomethyl-2-thiouridylate methyltransferase and is essential for posttranscriptional modification of the mitochondrial transfer RNA, and alterations in the TRMU gene can lead to infantile liver failure at approximately 6 months of age. Orthotopic liver transplant is a curative option. We present a case of a patient with TRMU alteration who underwent liver transplant at 11 months of age to treat infantile end- stage liver disease. The patient had liver failure due to long-standing allograft rejection and required another liver transplant at age 24 years, and here we discuss the perioperative care of this patient. Coordination of the care team to prevent rhabdomyolysis or alternative negative catabolic effects was the cornerstone of management in addition to evaluation of unusual electrocardiographic findings in the immediate postoperative period. Although the patient's postoperative course was complicated by repair of a bile leak, liver retransplant successfully restored the patient's preoperative quality of life.

Outcomes of Adult Liver Retransplantation: A Canadian National Database Analysis.

Background Liver retransplantation remains as the only treatment for graft failure. This investigation aims to assess the incidence, post‐transplant outcomes, and risk factors in liver retransplantation recipients in Canada. Materials and Methods The Canadian Organ Replacement Register was used to obtain and analyse data on all adult liver retransplant recipients, matched donors, transplant-specific variables, and post‐transplant outcomes from January 2000 to December 2018. Results 377 (6.5%) patients underwent liver retransplantation. Autoimmune liver disease and hepatitis C virus (HCV) were the most common underlying diagnoses. Graft failure was 7.9% and 12.5%, and overall survival was 77.1% and 65.6% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. In contrast to recipients receiving their first graft transplant, the retransplantation group had a significantly higher incidence of graft failure (p < 0.001) and lower overall survival (p < 0.001). The graft failure and patient survival rates were comparable between second transplant and repeat retransplant recipients. Furthermore, there were no differences in graft failure and patient survival when stratified according to time to retransplantation. Recipient and donor age (HR = 1.12, p=0.011; HR = 1.09, p=0.008), recipient HCV status (HR = 1.81, p=0.014), and donor cytomegalovirus status (HR = 4.10, p=0.006) were predictors of patient mortality. Conclusion This analysis of liver retransplantation demonstrates that this is a safe treatment for early and late graft failure. Furthermore, even in patients requiring more than two grafts, similar outcomes to initial retransplantation can be achieved with careful selection.

Steroid-Resistant Rejection in Liver Transplant: A Single-Center Study for Risk Factor and Second-Line Treatment

Steroid-resistant rejection (SRR) in liver transplant occurs in about 10% of T cell-mediated rejection; prognosis of SRR is known to be worse than steroid-sensitive rejection (SSR). Only a few studies describe treatment methods or features for SRR, and there is no clear consensus yet. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to describe the difference between SSR and SRR and to compare the effect of the SRR treatment method performed our institution. This study is a 10-year, retrospective cohort study at Seoul St Mary's Hospital; clinical data were collected from January 2008 to December 2017. Of 663 cases, 154 patients (23.3%) underwent steroid pulse therapy for rejection; we excluded 30 patients who did not undergo liver biopsy. A total of 124 patients (18.7%) with biopsy-proven rejection were analyzed for this study. Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, cold ischemia time, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection showed a statistically significant difference in 2 groups. Multivariate analysis was performed on risk factors of SRR at first rejection. CMV infection and total bilirubin at first rejection and numbers of rejection were significant results. Both overall survival and allograft survival rate of SSR are higher than SRR (P < .001). Of second-line treatment patients, 13 patients (54.2%) recovered, and 11 patients (45.8%) failed to recover. Survival was the highest in patients using antithymocyte globulin and in patients with liver retransplant. When the first rejection in liver transplant occurs, patients with high bilirubin level ​​and previous CMV infections are more likely to have SRR, so if they do not respond to steroid pulse therapy for the first time, either using antithymocyte globulin or liver retransplant preparation should be considered.

Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Model to Estimate Early Allograft Failure Among Patients Requiring Early Liver Retransplant

Expansion of donor acceptance criteria for liver transplant increased the risk for early allograft failure (EAF), and although 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, platelet, and international normalized ratio kinetics, was developed from a single-center database gathered from 2002 to 2015. To develop and validate a simplified comprehensive model estimating at day 10 after liver transplant the EAF risk at day 90 (the Early Allograft Failure Simplified Estimation [EASE] score) and, secondarily, to identify early those patients with unsustainable EAF risk who are suitable for retransplant. This multicenter cohort study was designed to develop a score capturing a continuum from normal graft function to nonfunction after transplant. Both parenchymal and vascular factors, which provide an indication to list for retransplant, were included among the EAF determinants. The L-GrAFT kinetic approach was adopted and modified with fewer data entries and novel variables. The population included 1609 patients in Italy for the derivation set and 538 patients in the UK for the validation set; all were patients who underwent transplant in 2016 and 2017. Early allograft failure was defined as graft failure (codified by retransplant or death) for any reason within 90 days after transplant. At day 90 after transplant, the incidence of EAF was 110 of 1609 patients (6.8%) in the derivation set and 41 of 538 patients (7.6%) in the external validation set. Median (interquartile range) ages were 57 (51-62) years in the derivation data set and 56 (49-62) years in the validation data set. The EASE score was developed through 17 entries derived from 8 variables, including the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, blood transfusion, early thrombosis of hepatic vessels, and kinetic parameters of transaminases, platelet count, and bilirubin. Donor parameters (age, donation after cardiac death, and machine perfusion) were not associated with EAF risk. Results were adjusted for transplant center volume. In receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the EASE score outperformed L-GrAFT, Model for Early Allograft Function, Early Allograft Dysfunction, Eurotransplant Donor Risk Index, donor age × Model for End-stage Liver Disease, and Donor Risk Index scores, estimating day 90 EAF in 87% (95% CI, 83%-91%) of cases in both the derivation data set and the internal validation data set. Patients could be stratified in 5 classes, with those in the highest class exhibiting unsustainable EAF risk. This study found that the developed EASE score reliably estimated EAF risk. Knowledge of contributing factors may help clinicians to mitigate risk factors and guide them through the challenging clinical decision to allocate patients to early liver retransplant. The EASE score may be used in translational research across transplant centers.

Macrosteatotic Allografts and Obese Recipients Have Nearly Equal Negative Impact on Liver Transplant Survival.

Our aim was to evaluate liver transplant outcomes involving donors with high macrosteatosis grafts in the obese modern liver transplant recipient population. A high-steatosis graft was defined as donor graft macrosteatosis ≥30% on biopsy. Recipient obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) >35 adjusted for ascites. Raw and adjusted recipient liver transplant survival were evaluated and compared between 4 cohorts: (1) high-steatosis graft in high-BMI recipient; (2) low-steatosis graft in high-BMI recipient; (3) high-steatosis graft in normal-BMI recipient; and (4) low-steatosis graft in normal-BMI recipient. After adjustment for multiple factors, recipient high-BMI remained an independent predictor of posttransplant mortality at 30 days (P < 0.0001) and persisted at 1 year (P = 0.009). A high-steatosis graft was the strongest independent predictor of mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio 2.05, 1.66-2.53; P < 0.0001) and that effect was diminished but persistent at 1 year (1.27, 1.10-1.46; P = 0.001). Recipient high-BMI and a high-steatosis graft are both significant independent and equally powerful predictors of mortality after modern liver transplant. High-steatosis grafts transplanted into obese recipients have the highest mortality. The increase in mortality associated with a high-steatosis graft into a normal-BMI recipient is similar in magnitude to a low-steatosis graft placed into a high-BMI recipient.

The impact of public health service increased risk donors in pediatric liver transplantation.

Many transplant programs are reluctant to use organs from deceased donors designated as "PHS increased risk" due to misconceptions regarding the quality of those organs. This study evaluated the impact of PHS increased risk donors on patient and allograft survival in pediatric patients undergoing liver transplantation. Retrospective analysis of the UNOS database from January 2005 through September 2017 revealed 5615 pediatric patients who underwent isolated liver transplantation; of these, 5057 patients received primary isolated liver transplants and 558 patients received isolated liver retransplants. PHS increased risk organs were used in 6.7% and 5.4% of the children receiving primary isolated and retransplant livers, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics determined the relative risk of PHS status on allograft and patient survival. Sicker children (those in ICU [P<.001] and on life support [P=.04]) were more likely to receive PHS increased risk donor organs. There were no differences in overall patient (P=.61) or allograft (P=.68) survival between pediatric patients receiving PHS positive vs PHS negative deceased donor organs; adjusted models also demonstrated no statistically significant differences in patient or allograft survival. Excellent patient and allograft survival can be accomplished with PHS increased risk organs.

OR46 Effect of autoantibodies on long-term survival of liver re-transplant

OR46 Effect of autoantibodies on long-term survival of liver re-transplant

Defining a Liver Transplant Benefit Threshold for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium Score.

The benefits of transplant are shown as the difference in survival posttransplant versus that shown if the patient had remained on the wait list. Serum sodium was added to improve prediction. We sought to revisit the question of which Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score threshold corresponded to a predicted benefit of liver transplant. Data on adult patients (≥ 18 years old) were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry (date range of June 18, 2013 to December 2016). Exclusion criteria were individuals listed for multiple organs or liver retransplant, patients who eventually underwent living-donor liver transplant, and patients with MELD score < 12. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to determine a time-dependent covariate for undergoing transplant with either MELD or MELD-sodium scores to describe the variability in estimated transplant benefit within 6 months of listing. Our study included 14 352 patients. There were 902 patients with MELD score of 39 to 40 (6.3%) and 931 patients with MELD-Na score of 39 to 40 (6.5%). Using the original MELD score, we found that 90% of the cohort could derive benefit from transplant compared with 83% when MELD-Na was used. We found that 13% of patients had a predicted transplant benefit when determined using either MELD or MELD-Na but not both. The threshold for transplant benefit was 16 and 17 using MELD and MELD-Na, respectively. Transition to MELD-Na did not define a more precise range at which patients benefited from transplant, and a similar percentage of patients was expected to derive benefit. Future revisions of donor liver allocation may allow better discrimination of expected transplant benefits among candidates currently assigned a high priority for donor livers.

Azole resistance and cyp51A mutation screening in Aspergillus fumigatus in Mexico.

Fungicide exposure in the environment has driven the emergence of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus worldwide. A screening test allows identification of resistant isolates. We screened clinical samples for azole-resistant Aspergillus through azole-containing agar plates and identified mutations in the cyp51A gene of A. fumigatus. Aspergillus isolates from clinical samples collected in a tertiary care centre from 2014 to 2017 were screened for azole resistance. Samples were subcultured in azole-containing agar plates. Isolates with a positive screening test were subject to DNA extraction, DNA amplification and sequencing of the cyp51A gene (coding and promoter regions). Clinical data were obtained from medical records. We screened 43 Aspergillus isolates from 39 patients for azole resistance. Three isolates from three patients grew on azole-containing agar plates: two A. fumigatus and one Aspergillus flavus. PCR analysis and cyp51A sequencing identified the TR34/L98H mutation in both A. fumigatus isolates. The prevalence of cyp51A mutations among A. fumigatus was 8.3% (2/24). Both patients with TR34/L98H mutants were azole naive and presented with invasive aspergillosis; one had multiple myeloma and the other was a liver retransplant recipient. They suffered progressive disease and failed voriconazole therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of azole-resistant A. fumigatus with the TR34/L98H mutation in two azole-naive patients with refractory invasive aspergillosis in Mexico.

Retransplant of the Liver: 12-Year Experience of the Shiraz Organs Transplantation Center.

Liver transplant is the most effective treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, hepatic malignancy, and acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary liver transplant, retransplant of the liver remains the only option. Here, we report the past 12-year experience of the Shiraz Transplant Center regarding liver retransplant. This is a retrospective cohort study of a 12-year period (2004-2015) of the Shiraz Center in Iran. Of the 3107 patients who had a liver transplant during the study period, 58 retransplants were performed (1.86%) in 57 patients. The leading cause of retransplant was primary nonfunction in 24 patients (41.4% of retransplant cases and 0.77% of all liver transplant cases). The second leading cause of retransplant was vascular complications in 25 patients (23 with hepatic artery thrombosis and 2 with portal vein thrombosis), accounting for 43.1% of retransplant cases and 0.80% of all liver transplant cases. In addition, 5 patients (8.6%) had retransplant for rejection, which accounted for 0.16% of all liver transplant cases. Four patients with retransplant (6.9%) had recurrence of primary disease, which accounted for 0.12% of all liver transplant cases. Most liver retransplants occurred early (≤ 30 days after primary transplant) at the Shiraz Transplant Center. Five-year survival rate after retransplant was 35%, and retransplant for hepatic artery thrombosis was more common in children. Because most patients required retransplants in the early period after primary transplant, the decision for retransplant must be considered carefully with full multidisciplinary evaluation and only in skilled hands. Retransplant in subgroups of patients with little chance of a successful outcome should be avoided.

Retransplant Due to Fulminant Hepatic Failure From Hepatitis E Virus: A Case Report

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) usually causes self-limiting acute liver infections from fecal or oral transmission, though other routes of infection exist (vertical transmission, blood transfusion, zoonosis). It may give rise to fulminant hepatic failure in 1% of cases. Cases have recently been reported of chronic infection evolving to cirrhosis in immunosuppressed patients, such as those with a liver or kidney transplant. Nonetheless, development of acute liver failure in these patients is exceptional, with few cases published. We present a case of acute liver failure due to HEV in a liver transplant patient who required a liver retransplant 9 years after receiving the original transplant.