Vena cava replacement and major hepatectomy for liver tumors: international multicenter retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Involvement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and hepatic veins (HV) has been considered a relative contraindication to hepatic resection for primary and metastatic liver tumors. However, patients affected by tumors extending to the IVC have limited therapeutic options and suffer worsening of quality of life due to IVC compression. METHODS: Cases of primary and metastatic liver tumors with vena cava infiltration from 10 international centers were collected (7 European, 1 US, 2 Brazilian, 1 Indian) were collected. Inclusion criteria for the study were major liver resection with concomitant vena cava replacement. Clinical data and short-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: 36 cases were finally included in the study. Median tumor max size was 98 mm (range: 25-250). A biliary reconstruction was necessary in 28% of cases, while a vascular reconstruction other than vena cava in 34% of cases. Median operative time was 462 min (range: 230-750), with 750 median ml of estimated blood loss and a median of one pRBC transfused intraoperatively (range: 0-27). Median ICU stay was 4 days (range: 1-30) with overall in-hospital stay of 15 days (range: 3-46), post-operative CCI score of 20.9 (range: 0-100), 12% incidence of PHLF grade B-C. Five patients died in a 90-days interval from surgery, 1 due to heart failure, 1 due to septic shock and 3 due to multiorgan failure. With a median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11-37), the estimated five-years overall survival was 48% (95% CI: 27%-66%), and five-year cumulative incidence of tumor recurrence was 55% (95% CI: 33%-73%). CONCLUSIONS: Major liver resections with vena cava replacement can be performed with satisfactory results in expert HPB centers. This surgical strategy represents a feasible alternative for otherwise unresectable lesions and is associated with favorable prognosis compared to non-operative management, especially in patients affected by intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Urinary CXCL10 specifically relates to HLA-DQ eplet mismatch load in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Urinary CXCL10 (uCXCL10) is associated with graft inflammation and graft survival, but the factors related to its excretion are not well known. HLA molecular matching at epitope level allow estimating the "dissimilarity" between donor and recipient HLA more precisely, being better related to further transplant outcomes. The relationship between uCXCL10 and HLA molecular mismatch has not been previously explored. METHODS: HLA class I and class II typing of some 65 recipients and their donors was retrospectively performed by high resolution sequence-specific-primer (Life Technologies, Brown Deer, WI). The HLA-Matchmaker 3.1 software was used to assess eplet matching. Urine samples collected on the day of the 1-year surveillance biopsy were available of these 65 patients. uCXCL10 was measured using a commercial enzyme-linked immunoassay kit. RESULTS: 1-year uCXCL10 was independently associated with HLA-DQB1 eplet mismatch load (ß 0.300, 95%CI 0.010-0.058, p = 0.006). Kidney transplant recipients with a HLA-DQB1 eplet mismatch load >3 showed higher values of uCXCL10 at 1-year (p = 0.018) than those with ≤3. Patients with a HLA-DQB1 eplet mismatch load >3 with subclinical AbMR had significantly higher levels of the logarithm of 1-year uCXCL10 (No AbMR 0.88, IQR 0.37; AbMR 1.38, IQR 0.34, p = 0.002) than those without AbMR. CONCLUSIONS: uCXCL10 specifically relates to HLA-DQ eplet mismatch load. This relationship can partly explain the previously reported association between uCXCL10 excretion and graft inflammation. An adequate evaluation of any potential non-invasive biomarker, such as uCXCL10, must take into account the HLA molecular mismatch.

Review: Ischemia Reperfusion Injury-A Translational Perspective in Organ Transplantation.

Thanks to the development of new, more potent and selective immunosuppressive drugs together with advances in surgical techniques, organ transplantation has emerged from an experimental surgery over fifty years ago to being the treatment of choice for many end-stage organ diseases, with over 139,000 organ transplants performed worldwide in 2019. Inherent to the transplantation procedure is the fact that the donor organ is subjected to blood flow cessation and ischemia during harvesting, which is followed by preservation and reperfusion of the organ once transplanted into the recipient. Consequently, ischemia/reperfusion induces a significant injury to the graft with activation of the immune response in the recipient and deleterious effect on the graft. The purpose of this review is to discuss and shed new light on the pathways involved in ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) that act at different stages during the donation process, surgery, and immediate post-transplant period. Here, we present strategies that combine various treatments targeted at different mechanistic pathways during several time points to prevent graft loss secondary to the inflammation caused by IRI.