Efficacy of Nasobiliary Tubes and Biliary Stents in Management of Patients with Bile Leak after Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Bile leak is one of the most common complications of liver transplantation. The treatment options for bile leaks include conservative management, surgical re-intervention, percutaneous drainage and endoscopic drainage. We aimed to perform a systematic review to identify the efficacy of endoscopic treatment in the resolution of post-transplant bile leaks. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed systematic literature search in PubMed, ISI Web of Science, grey literature and relevant references in May 2017. Human studies in English with documented post-liver transplant bile leaks were included. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled efficacy of biliary stents for the resolution of post-transplant bile leaks was 82.43% compared with 87.15% efficacy of nasobiliary tubes. The efficacy of biliary stents was lower for anastomotic leaks (69.23%) compared to T-tube (90.9%) or cut-surface/ cystic duct stump related leaks (92.8%). Similarly, the efficacy of nasobiliary tube was also lower for anastomotic leaks (58.33%) compared to T-tube or cut-surface related leaks (100%). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, the overall efficacy was 82.43% in biliary stent group, and 87.15% in nasobiliary tube group. Both biliary stent and nasobiliary tube were more effective in managing non-anastomotic leaks compared to anastomotic leaks.

Continuing five or more locoregional therapies before living donor salvage liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma is related to poor recurrence-free survival

PURPOSE: This study was designed to analyze factors related to the success of salvage liver transplantation (SLT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While liver resection (LR) is considered the best locoregional therapy in HCC, there is a high recurrence rate. SLT may be the best treatment option when feasible. METHODS: Patients who underwent living donor SLT for recurrent HCC after LR from November 1996 to May 2017 were included. Patient demographic data, clinical and pathologic characteristics, operative data, hospital course, and follow-up data regarding initial LR, locoregional therapy after recurrence and SLT were reviewed. Prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard ratio. RESULTS: Eighty-five of 123 SLT patients were included. Patients who had five or more locoregional therapies prior to SLT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–9.64, P = 0.006), hepatitis B (HR, 9.20; 95% CI, 1.13–74.89; P = 0.04), outside Milan criteria at the time of SLT (HR, 2.66, 95% CI, 1.26–5.63; P = 0.011) and an alpha-fetoprotein level above 1,000 ng/mL at the time of recurrence after initial LR (HR, 6.48; 95% CI, 1.83–22.92; P = 0.004) and at the time of transplantation (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.26–5.63; P = 0.011) were related to significant risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Continuing five or more locoregional therapies for recurrent HCC after LR is related to poor recurrence-free survival after SLT.

Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Bacteremia in 144 Consecutive Living-Donor Liver Transplant Recipients

PURPOSE: Bacteremia is a major infectious complication associated with mortality in liver transplant recipients. The causative organisms and clinical courses differ between medical centers due to variations in regional bacterial epidemiology and posttransplant care. Further, living donors in Korea contribute to 83% of liver transplants, and individualized data are required to improve survival rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 104 subjects who had undergone living-donor liver transplant from 2005 to 2007. RESULTS: Among the 144 consecutive living-donor liver transplant recipients, 24% (34/144) developed bacteremia, 32% (46/144) developed non-bacteremic infections, and 44% (64/144) did not develop any infectious complications. Forty episodes of bacteremia occurred in 34 recipients. The major sources of bacteremia were intravascular catheter (30%; 12/40), biliary tract (30%; 12/40), and abdomen (22.5%; 9/40). Gram-positive cocci were more common (57.5%; 23/40) than Gram-negative rods (32.5 %; 13/40) and fungi (10%; 4/40). The data revealed that the following factors were significantly different between the bacteremia, non-bacteremic infection, and no infection groups: age (p = 0.024), posttransplant hemodialysis (p = 0.002), ICU stay (p = 0.012), posttransplant hospitalization (p < 0.0001), and duration of catheterization (p < 0.0001). The risk factors for bacteremia were older than 55 years (odds ratio, 6.1; p = 0.003), catheterization for more than 22 days (odds ratio, 4.0; p = 0.009), UNOS class IIA (odds ratio, 6.6; p = 0.039), and posttransplant hemodialysis (odds ratio, 23.1; p = 0.001). One-year survival rates in the bacteremic, non-bacteremic infection, and no infection groups were 73.2%, 91.3%, and 93.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Early catheter removal and preservation of renal function should focus for improving survival after transplant.