Increasing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Liver Paired Exchange.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE. RESULTS: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE.

Metabolic Control and "Ideal" Outcomes in Liver Transplantation for Maple Syrup Urine Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes following liver transplantation for maple syrup urine disease by determining attainment and sustainability of metabolic control and apply an "ideal" outcome composite in long-term survivors. STUDY DESIGN: A single center, retrospective review collected clinical data including branched-chain amino acid (leucine, isoleucine, and valine) levels following liver transplant and determined achievement of an ideal long-term outcome profile of a first allograft stable on immunosuppression monotherapy, normal growth, and absence of common transplant-related sequelae. RESULTS: Of 77 patients meeting inclusion criteria identified, 23 were long-term (≥10-year) survivors and were additionally assessed for ideal outcome attainment. Patient and graft survival were 100% and 99%, respectively, and all patients were on an unrestricted protein intake diet. Although significant variation was noted in mean isoleucine (P < .01) and leucine (P < .05) levels postliver transplantation, no difference was seen in valine (P = .29) and overall clinical impact was likely negligible as metabolic stability was achieved and sustained beyond 3 years postliver transplantation and no metabolic crises were identified. Of 23 long-term survivors with available data, 9 (39%) achieved all composite metrics determined to define "ideal" outcomes in pediatric postliver transplantation populations. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant enables long-term metabolic stability for patients with maple syrup urine disease. A combination of experience and improvement in both pre- and postliver transplantation care has enabled excellent survival and minimal comorbidities following transplant.

Adult Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant (LDLT Versus DDLT) at a Single Center: Time to Change Our Paradigm for Liver Transplant.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) at a single center to demonstrate the advantages of LDLT and provide justification for the increased utilization and application of this procedure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LDLT comprises a very small percentage of all liver transplants performed in the United States, this despite its advantages and a shortage of the availability of deceased donor organs. METHODS: A retrospective review of all adult LDLT (n = 245) and DDLT (n = 592) performed at a single center over 10 years (2009-2019), comparing survival outcomes by Kaplan-Meier analysis and comparing other measures of outcome such as recovery times, complications, costs, and resource utilization. RESULTS: Patient survival outcomes were superior in LDLT recipients (3-year 86% vs 80%, P = 0.03). Other outcomes demonstrated shorter length of hospital stay (11 vs 13 days, P = 0.03), less likelihood of intraoperative blood transfusion (52% vs 78%, P < 0.01), and less likelihood of need for posttransplant dialysis (1.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.01). Early reoperation and biliary/vascular complication rates were similar. Hospital costs related to the transplant were 29.5% lower for LDLT. Complications in living donors were acceptable with no early or late deaths, 3-month reoperation rate of 3.1%, and overall complication rate of 19.5%. Given its advantages, we have expanded LDLT-in 2018, LDLT comprised 53.6% of our transplants (national average 4.8%), and our transplant rate increased from 44.8 (rate per 100-person years) in 2015 to 87.5 in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT offers advantages over DDLT including superior outcomes and less resource utilization. The time has come to change the paradigm of how LDLT is utilized in this country.

Evolving Trends in Liver Transplant for Metabolic Liver Disease in the United States.

Indications for liver transplantation (LT) in metabolic disease are evolving. We reviewed the US experience with primary LT for metabolic disease in the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (October 1987 to June 2017) to determine the following: temporal changes in indications, longterm outcomes, and factors predicting survival. Patients were grouped by the presence of structural liver disease (SLD) and whether the defect was confined to the liver. There were 5996 patients who underwent LT for metabolic disease, 2354 (39.3%) being children. LT for metabolic disease increased in children but not in adults. Children experienced a 6-fold increase in LT for metabolic disease without SLD. Indications for LT remained stable in adults. Living donor liver transplantation increased between era 1 and era 3 from 5.6% to 7.6% in children and 0% to 4.5% in adults. Patient and graft survival improved with time. The latest 5-year patient survival rates were 94.5% and 81.5% in children and adults, respectively. Outcomes were worse in adults and in those with extrahepatic disease (P < 0.01), whereas SLD did not affect outcomes. Survival improved with younger age at LT until age <2 years. On multivariate analysis, diagnostic category, inpatient status, age at LT, and transplant era significantly predicted outcomes in all ages with male sex predicting survival in childhood only. Children without structural disease were less likely to die awaiting LT and had improved post-LT survival compared with children with chronic liver disease. In conclusion, LT for metabolic disease is increasingly used for phenotypic correction in children; extrahepatic manifestations significantly impact survival at all ages; where indicated, transplantation should not be unnecessarily delayed; and the development of new allocation models may be required.

Outcomes of Adult Intestinal Transplant Recipients Requiring Dialysis and Renal Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Data on dialysis and renal transplantation (RT) after intestinal transplantation (IT) are sparse. Whether changes in immunosuppression and surgical techniques have modified these outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-eight adult intestinal transplants performed between 1990 and 2014 at the University of Pittsburgh were analyzed for incidence, risk factors and outcomes after dialysis and RT. Cohort was divided into 3 eras based on immunosuppression and surgical technique (1990-1994, 1995-2001, and 2001-2014). Receiving RT, or dialysis for 90 days or longer was considered as end-stage renal disease (ESRD). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 71 (24.7%) patients required dialysis, 38 (13.2%) required long-term dialysis and 17 (6%) received RT after IT. One-, 3-, and 5-year ESRD risk was 2%, 7%, and 14%, respectively. No significant era-based differences were noted. Higher baseline creatinine (hazard ratio [HR], 3.40 per unit increase, P < 0.01) and use of liver containing grafts (HR, 2.01; P = 0.04) had an increased ESRD risk. Median patient survival after dialysis initiation was 6 months, with a 3-year survival of 21%. Any dialysis (HR, 12.74; 95% CI 8.46-19.20; P < 0.01) and ESRD (HR, 9.53; 95% CI, 5.87-15.49; P < 0.01) had higher mortality after adjusting for covariates. For renal after IT, 1- and 3-year kidney and patient survivals were 70% and 49%, respectively. All graft losses were from death with a functioning graft, primarily related to infectious complications (55%). CONCLUSIONS: In intestinal transplant recipients, renal failure requiring dialysis or RT is high and is associated with increased mortality. Additionally, the outcomes for kidney after IT are suboptimal due to death with a functioning graft.

Giant insulinoma: a report of 3 cases and review of the literature.

Insulinoma is a rare pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor that is usually described as benign, sporadic, and very small (<2 cm). However, there have been rare case reports of insulinoma presenting as a giant tumor. We describe 3 cases of giant insulinomas, all of which developed liver metastases. The patients were aged 38, 63, and 67 years. Clinically, all patients presented with Whipple's triad associated with a large mass located in the pancreatic tail. The tumors ranged in size from 10 to 15 cm. On microscopic examination, the tumors were well differentiated with amyloid deposition ranging between 20% and 30%. Immunohistochemically, all 3 tumors showed strong diffuse expression of chromogranin and synaptophysin, whereas they were only focally positive for insulin. One patient developed liver recurrence 3 years after resection of the primary tumor yet remained asymptomatic without treatment. Another patient with liver recurrence underwent right hepatectomy and has been free of disease for 2 years. The third patient died of metastatic disease 13 years after initial surgery. Giant insulinomas are characterized by focal expression of insulin and high rates of liver metastases. Long-term follow-up is mandatory in these patients, as recurrence is expected after primary surgery.