Modified Charlson comorbidity index as a survival prediction tool for older patients after liver transplantation

Purpose@#An increasing number of older patients now undergo liver transplantation (LT). Although the overall outcomes in older patients are not different from those of younger patients, there is no tool to predict LT prognosis in older patients.We hypothesized that a modified Charlson comorbidity index (mCCI) and 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) can predict outcomes in older patients after LT. @*Methods@#This retrospective study included 155 patients (aged >65 years) who underwent LT at Seoul National University Hospital. The recipients were subcategorized into 2 groups based on the mCCI score and mFI-5: the low (0–1) and high (2–5) mCCI groups, and low (≤0.4) and high (>0.4) mFI-5 groups. The independent effect of each variable on post-LT survival was determined using the mCCI subgroup, age at transplantation, sex, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and mFI-5 subgroup. @*Results@#The high-mCCI group (41 patients) showed significantly lower 1- and 3-month and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival than the low-mCCI group. Using the Cox regression model, the mCCI, sex, and MELD score remained significant. The mFI-5 was not a significant factor to predict patients’ survival. @*Conclusion@#The mCCI and MELD scores could be used to predict post-LT survival in older patients.

Long-term outcomes of liver transplantation using grafts from donors with active hepatitis B virus replication: a multicenter cohort study

Purpose@#Liver grafts from donors with HBV infection contributed to expanding the donor pool under the hepatitis B immunoglobulin and antiviral agents (nucleos(t)ide analogues) in the HBV-endemic area. We report long-term outcomes of liver transplantations (LTs) using grafts from donors with active or chronic HBV infection. @*Methods@#Overall, 2,260 LTs performed in 3 major hospitals in Seoul from January 2000 to April 2019 were assessed for inclusion. Twenty-six grafts (1.2%) were obtained from HBsAg (+), HBeAb (+), or HBcAb (+) donors, and recipient outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. Donor and recipient demographics and transplantation outcomes were analyzed. @*Results@#Sixteen deceased donor LTs were performed using active HBsAg (+) grafts. Ten other LTs were sourced from 10 living donors. There was no significant difference in survival in patients who received deceased donor LTs compared with that in those who underwent LT with non–hepatitis virus-infected grafts. Fourteen patients who were followed up for >5 years were stable, and no difference in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate was observed 5 years after transplantation between transplants from donors with and those without HBV. @*Conclusion@#Considering long-term outcomes, liver grafts from donors with active HBV replication can be safely used for LT.

Pure laparoscopic versus open right donor hepatectomy including the middle hepatic vein: a comparison of outcomes and safety

Purpose@#Analyses on pure laparoscopy in donor hepatectomies, including the middle hepatic vein (MHV), are still scarce. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of donor right hepatectomy, including the MHV, when performed laparoscopically with conventional open surgery. @*Methods@#Data from living donors who underwent donor right hepatectomy between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) with MHV inclusion (PLDRHM) group were compared with the conventional open donor right hepatectomy with MHV inclusion (CDRHM) group and the PLDRH without MHV inclusion [PLDRHM(–)] group. @*Results@#Compared to the CDRHM group, the PLDRHM group had a longer bench time (P < 0.001) and higher Δ%,calculated as [(preoperative value – postoperative value)/preoperative value] × 100, of AST (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001), and total bilirubin (P = 0.023), but shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004) and a lower rate of complications (P = 0.005). Compared to the PLDRHM(–) group, the PLDRHM group had fewer male donors (P < 0.001) and a lower body mass index (P < 0.001), estimated total liver volume (P < 0.001), and real graft weight (P < 0.001). Results of laboratory changes, hospital stays, and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups. @*Conclusion@#PLDRH with the inclusion of the MHV in selected donors and recipients is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic surgery, with favorable complication rates compared to CDRHM and PLDRHM(–).

Impact of tumor size on hepatectomy outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide propensity score matching analysis

Purpose@#The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to tumor size using a large, nationwide cancer registry-based cohort and propensity score matching. @*Methods@#From 2008 to 2015, a total of 12,139 patients were diagnosed with liver cancer and registered in the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry. Patients without distant metastasis who underwent hepatectomy as a primary treatment were selected. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the small (<5 cm), large (≥5 cm and <10 cm), and huge (≥10 cm) groups. @*Results@#Overall, 265 patients in the small and large groups were compared, and 64 patients each in the large and huge groups were compared. The overall and progression-free survival rates were significantly lower in the large group than in the small group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Overall survival tended to be poorer in the huge group than in the large group (P = 0.051). The progression-free survival rate was significantly lower in the huge group than in the large group (P = 0.002). @*Conclusion@#Although primary liver resection can be considered even in patients with huge HCC, greater caution with careful screening for recurrence is needed.