Do Older Liver Grafts Have Worse Survival? The Niguarda Experience.

BACKGROUND: Elderly donor livers are thought to be marginal graft. In the present study, we aimed to identify an age threshold to consider a graft as elderly to identify the trend (if any) of the donor age in our series and to identify an efficient allocation criteria for elderly grafts. METHODS: We reviewed in a retrospective manner our series of 1520 liver transplants, comparing graft survival under and over a certain age. On the basis of the results of this analysis, we identified a threshold of 70 years to define a graft as old. The donor age trend analysis showed an increasing rate of transplants from elderly donors. RESULTS: To identify efficient allocation criteria for elderly graft, we stratified the series by the disease of the recipient: 556 patients underwent transplants for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC+ group) and 964 for other diseases (HCC- group). Two hundred twenty-one patients of 556 of the HCC+ group were hepatitis c virus (HCV) negative (HCC+/HCV- group), and 312 of 964 of the HCC- group were HCV positive (HCC-/HCV+). The survival analysis showed no significant differences in comparing the outcome for elderly and young grafts in the HCC+ (P = .135) and HCC- (P = .055) groups. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the survival of old and young livers in the HCC+/HCV- group, the elderly livers appear to have a better outcome (P = .05); on the other hand, the same analysis in the HCC-/HCV+ group shows a worse outcome for old-aged grafts (P = .026). Therefore, the present study suggests that elderly livers should be allocated to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and should be avoided in HCV+ recipients.

Adult living donor liver transplantation with right lobe graft: the venous outflow management in the Milan-Niguarda experience.

In right lobe living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT), reconstruction of middle hepatic vein (MHV) tributaries is often necessary to avoid severe graft congestion. From March 2001, we performed 36 right lobe ALDLT (segments 5, 6, 7, and 8) without MHV and one pediatric transplant (segments 2 and 3). In the presence of MHV tributaries larger than 5 mm, we intraoperatively evaluated the need for reconstruction. At a mean follow-up of 848 days (range=8-2412), 33/37 transplanted patients are alive with overall patient and graft survivals of 89.2% and 83.8%, respectively. Large MHV tributaries (>5 mm) were present in 10 cases, and inferior right hepatic veins (IRHV) draining segment 6 in 11 cases. In 10 cases, we performed an end-to-side anastomosis between the IRHV and the side of the recipient vena cava. In three cases, the MHV tributaries were end-to-end anastomosed to the stump of the recipient MHV. In all other cases, the vein tributaries were not reconstructed. A computed tomography scan performed from 1 to 3 months after surgery did not show any congested area in the liver parenchyma. In our experience, reconstruction of the MHV tributaries was not always necessary when graft-to-recipient weight ratio is >0.8. Pre- and intraoperative evaluation of the segmental branches of the hepatic vein is crucial to decide about reconstructing these collaterals. Anastomosis of V5 or V8 to the stump of the recipient MHV reduces the number of vascular anastomosis and maintains a physiological angle between these collaterals and the caval vein.

Matrix metalloproteinase-1 promoter polymorphism 1G/2G is correlated with colorectal cancer invasiveness.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) is likely to be involved in invasion and metastasis of several tumors by degrading the extracellular matrix. A single guanine insertion polymorphism (2G) in the MMP-1 promoter region creates an Ets binding site causing the elevation of transcriptional level and local expression of MMP-1. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this 2G insertion type polymorphism on invasion and metastasis of colorectal cancer (CRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We genotyped for this 1G/2G polymorphism 60 patients, who were operated on for CRC and followed for 6-30 months (median: 21). A control population of 164 age- and sex-matched tumor-free subjects was also genotyped for the same polymorphism. RESULTS: The proportion of 2G homozygotes was higher in the CRC group than in the controls (P = 0.014; odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.16). The CRC group was divided in a group without metastasis (M-) and a group that had developed metastasis (M+). At the time of diagnosis, 2G homozygotes were more represented in the M+ group than in M- (P = 0.0082; odds ratio, 4.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-15.26). The difference between M- patients and controls did not achieve statistical significance (P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the presence of 2G polymorphism at the MMP-1 promoter region may favor the growth and the metastatic process in CRC patients and could be looked at as a risk factor for a worse prognosis.