Tag Archives: liver transplantation

Alive and well? 10 years after liver transplantation

Posted on by

As survival has improved with liver transplantation (LT), long-term health outcomes have become more important.  Reported 5-year survival rate after pediatric LT in North America is >85%.  More data on long-term health consequences are provided in a review of 167 10-year survivors from a North American Database (Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation –SPLIT) (J Pediatr 2012; 160: 820-6).

Ng VL et al report on frequency of comorbidities as well as quality of life.  Of the 10-year survivors who were included in this study: 85 (50.9%) were transplanted in the first year of life; 69 (41.3%) received transplants between 1-7.9 years.  Biliary atresia accounted for 55.1% of the transplanted cohort; the remainder were due to the following: metabolic liver disease 23 (13.8%), acute liver failure 18 (10.8%), other cholestatic conditions 17 (10.2%), tumor 6 (3.6%), and other 11 (6.6%).

First allograft survival rates were 94% at 1 year and 88% at 10 years.   Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as assessed by the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales revealed lower patient self-reported total scale scores for LT survivors compared with healthy children (77.2 vs 84.9, P<.001).  14% had HRQOL >2 SDs below that of a matched healthy population.  Other specific post-LT morbidities included the following:

  • Impaired linear growth (23% <10th percentile); ongoing steroid therapy was associated with increased risk of poor linear growth.
  • Renal dysfunction (9%) –defined as calculated glomerular filtration rate <90 mL/min/1.73 m2.
  • Hyperlipidemia: 20% with hypercholesterolemia, and 26% with hypertriglyciridemia
  • Lymphoproliferative disease (5%).  EBV seroconversion occurred in 46 (47%) of 97 who had been EBV-negative prior to LT.  25 (15%) developed symptomatic EBV infection.
  • School performance: 32 (23%) had repeated a grade or were held back at least 1 school year.
  • Liver fibrosis: at 10 years, elevated aminotransferases were noted in 11% and increased gamma gluatmyl transpeptidase in 15%.  Previous studies from SPLIT indicate fibrosis is common in long-term survivors even with good clinical outcomes.

Alive and well?  While survival has improved remarkably, better outcomes are still needed.

Related posts:

Picking winners and losers with liver transplantation allocation

Good care 24/7

Big gift, how much risk

Additional references:


  • -Pediatrics 2008; 122: 1128-35.  Outcomes of 461 pediatric LT.
  • -Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2506-13.  Improving long-term outcomes of LT.
  • -Hepatolog 2009; 49: 880-6.  LT-Liver fibrosis at 10 year followup.
  • -JPGN 2008; 47: 165. ~50% below 1.3 SD of adult height. Many show partial catch up growth.
  • -Liver Transplant 2006; 12: 1310. Review article on nutrition for OLTx patient.

Good care 24/7

Posted on by

In hospital settings, there have been concerns about clinical care at night or weekends (see references below).  At least with liver transplantation, 24/7 care appears to be the rule rather than the exception (Liver Transpl 2012; 18: 558-65). 

Using the UNOS database, this study analyzed 94,768 transplants from 1987-2010.  Survival rates at 30, 90, and 365 days for nighttime operations: 96%, 93%, and 86% respectively.  For weekends, the respective rates were 95%, 92%, and 86%.  These rates did not differ from weekday rates.  Graft failure rates were modestly increased for weekend transplants at 365 days (HR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.11) but not for 30 days or 90 days.  In addition, there was no difference in graft failure between nighttime and weekday transplantations.

Additional reference:

  • -Clin Gastroenterol & Hepatol 2009; 7: 296., 303.  n>400,000 discharges.  OR 1.2 for mortality of UGI bleed if on weekend. 
  • NEJM 2001; 345: 663-668.   3,789,917 admissions (in Canada).  Weekend admissions were also associated with significantly higher mortality rates for 23 of the 100 leading causes of death and were not associated with significantly lower mortality rates for any of these conditions.

Picking winners and losers with liver transplantation allocation

Posted on by

From a pediatric hepatology viewpoint, I’ve always been concerned that scoring systems  do not favor children.  More data is now available relevant to this topic:

  • Goldberg et al. Liver Transplantation 2012; 18: 434-43, editorial: 381-83 
  • Sepulveda et al. Liver Transplantation 2012; 18: 413-422, editorial: 389-90

These articles and the editorials look at the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and exceptions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as well as the issue of split livers to expand the donor pool.

The goals of liver transplantation allocation is to distribute livers to  minimize waiting list mortality, to distribute this valuable resource fairly, and to improve long-term outcomes.  How are we doing?

With regard to HCC, the authors indicate that the current policy is increasing the number of individuals transplanted with this indication.  Before MELD, 4.6% of all transplants were for candidates with HCC.  Between 2002-2007, the number increased to 26%.  This has dramatically improved the outcomes in this previously almost universally fatal disease.

But is the priority afforded by MELD priority unfair?  From 2005-2009, Goldberg et al show that the rate of individuals with HCC removed from the waiting list because of death or disease progression was much lower than non-HCC patients: 4.2% vs. 11% (90-day waitlist outcome).  Patients with HCC with exception points were 2.62 times less likely to die by waiting.  Thus, the authors conclude that allocating 22 MELD points to HCC patients greatly overestimates 90-day mortality.  Other conditions that receive 22 MELD points include candidates with hepatopulmonary syndrome, cholangiocarcinoma, cystic fibrosis, familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy, and portopulmonary syndrome.

Sepulveda et al performed a retrospective review of the experience from split liver transplantation in French adults.  In their cohort of 36 patients who received extended right grafts from split livers, there were increased complications.  Only 21 patients had a relatively easy postoperative course.  Six patients required retransplantation.  Overall survival rate was 84.2% and 77.7% at 1 and 5 years.  Complications were related to ischemia of hepatic segment 4.

In the editorial, Riccardo Superina makes several important points:

  • Many centers have equivalent outcomes for whole and split livers; there is likely a learning curve to improve technique.
  • In the U.S., between 2002-2009, only 288 split livers grafts were performed in adults whereas there were >29,000 whole liver transplants performed.
  • In the U.S. children have the highest mortality rates on the waiting list.  In 2008, 18% of children died without a chance for liver transplantation.
  • In France, allocation policy dictates that livers from all donors less than 30 years old should be directed to children first with the stipulation of liver splitting.  If this policy were adopted in US, it could alleviate the organ shortage for children who are currently most disadvantaged by UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) allocation policy.

Related blog posts:

Big gift, how much risk

Sarcopenia, fatigue, and nutrition in chronic liver disease

A liver disease tsunami

Additional references:

  • -Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 1643-48.  HCC patients advantaged with current allocation
  • -Clin Gastro & Hep 2008; 6: 1255. solutble TNF receptor 75 better at predicting mortality risk than MELD>
  • -Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1568. MELD has changed allocation -less-ill patients now getting higher risk organs.
  • -Liver Transplantation 2006; 12: S128-S136. Guidelines for exceptions (increased status)
  • -Liver Transplantation 2006; 12: 12-15, 40-45. 53% of pediatric livers allocated based on other factors (eg. exception, status 1) than PELD score
  • -Gastroenterology 2003;124: 91-96, 251. MELD scores works fairly well in adults; factors in bilirubin, INR, creatinine.

Big gift, how much risk

Posted on by

When an individual is considering donating a part of their liver, it is no exaggeration to say this may be lifesaving.  In pediatric hepatology, live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is frequently considered by desperate parents. The risk of this gift has been poorly understood due to a lack of a LDLT registry.

This month (Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 273-80) better data has emerged.  By combining information from UNOS and the Social Security Death Master File, the authors were able to follow 4111 LDLTs (donors) in the U.S. between 1994 and 2011. Key findings:

  • Seven early deaths (1.7 per 1000)
  • Death rate was not affected by portion of liver donated
  • 11 early catastrophic events: early deaths or acute liver failure (2.9 per 1000)
  • Long term mortality was similar to that for live kidney donors and NHANES III healthy participants over 11 year followup (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1.4% respectively)

Although these data are somewhat reassuring, there is a definite increase in mortality and morbidity among LDLT donors.  An editorial in the same issue (pg 207-09) states that LDLT donors are probably healthier than the general population; up to 65% of donor candidates are rejected during the evaluation process.  As such, when survival at 11 years is similar to NHANES III participants, this indicates the likelihood of a detrimental effect on long-term health. Besides early perioperative deaths, suicide and drug overdoses among donors was significant (n=4) and 4% of donors may develop psychiatric problems.  Specific complications include biliary leaks (9%), bacterial infections (12%), and incisional hernias (6%).

At the same time, the direct benefit of this gift including the potential of saving a loved one cannot be measured.  In addition to avoid a protracted uncertain period on the waiting list for a recipient, a donated liver may help another unidentified individual obtain a deceased donated liver.

Additional references:

-Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 468. Donor morbidity/mortality. n=393. 62% without complications. 3 deaths and significant morbidity.
-Liver Transplantation 2006; 12: 499. Review.
-DDW 2003, T Tran, n=56. only 27% of prospective donors c nl histology.
-NEJM 2003; 348: 818-25. (L & R-Lobe) complications from donating in 449. 6% biliary complications, reop in 4.5%, death 0.2%
-NEJM 2002; 346: 1074-1082. & 1038. R lobe Tx.
-J Pediatr 1999; 134: 280.  Results of LDLT: 92% 1 yr survival; higher biliary complications 19-34%.

Minimizing malnutrition in Biliary Atresia

Posted on by

A retrospective study in Liver Transplantation reviews a single center experience with the use of parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients with end-stage liver disease due to biliary atresia (Liver Transpl 2012; 18: 121-129).  In this study which spanned the past twenty years, 25 PN BA patients were compared to 22 non-PN BA patients –all patients were younger than 36 months.  PN was started when maximal enteral nutrition failed to improve markers of malnutrition (triceps skinfold thickness, & mid-arm circumference).  Among the PN BA patients, there was a higher gastrointestinal bleeding rate and ascites; however, there was no difference in the rates of bacteremia, length of intensive care unit stay after liver transplantation, or patient/graft survival.  The authors speculate that the outcome for the PN BA patients would have been much worse without the PN as malnourished BA patients are at increased risk for graft failure and post-transplant complications.  It is noteworthy that PN patients did have progression of their liver disease that seemed to accelerate with the administration of PN, perhaps due to PN-associated cholestasis.  Specific changes included higher bilirubin levels, lower platelet counts, worsened coagulopathy, and higher calculated PELD scores.

Additional References:

  • Hepatology 2007; 46: 1632-38.  Growth failure and outcomes in infants with BA.
  • J Pediatr 2005; 147: 180-85.  Outcomes of 755 BA patients listed for liver transplantation.