Safety and use of late-turndown liver allografts to increase rate of transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The demand for liver transplants (LT) in the United States far surpasses the availability of allografts. New allocation schemes have resulted in occasional difficulties with allograft placement and increased intraoperative turndowns. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes related to use of late-turndown liver allografts. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data of LTs at a single center from July 2019 to July 2023 was performed. Late-turndown placement was defined as an open offer 6 h prior to donation, intraoperative turndown by primary center, or post-cross-clamp turndown. RESULTS: Of 565 LTs, 25.1% (n = 142) received a late-turndown liver allograft. There were no significant differences in recipient age, gender, BMI, or race (all p > 0.05), but MELD was lower for the late-turndown LT recipient group (median 15 vs 21, p < 0.001). No difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival was noted on logistic regression, and no difference in patient or graft survival was noted on Cox proportional hazard regression. Late-turndown utilization increased during the study from 17.2% to 25.8%, and median waitlist time decreased from 77 days in 2019 to 18 days in 2023 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of late-turndown livers has increased and can increase transplant rates without compromising post-transplant outcomes with appropriate selection.

Disparities Associated with Decision to Undergo Oncologic Surgery: A Prospective Mixed-Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Underrepresented minority patients with surgical malignancies experience disparities in outcomes. The impact of provider-based factors, including communication, trust, and cultural competency, on outcomes is not well understood. This study examines modifiable provider-based barriers to care experienced by patients with surgical malignancies. METHODS: A parallel, prospective, mixed-methods study enrolled patients with lung or gastrointestinal malignancies undergoing surgical consultation. Surveys assessed patients' social needs and patient-physician relationship. Semi-structured interviews ascertained patient experiences and were iteratively analyzed, identifying key themes. RESULTS: The cohort included 24 patients (age 62 years; 63% White and 38% Black/African American). The most common cancers were lung (n = 18, 75%) and gastroesophageal (n = 3, 13%). Survey results indicated that food insecurity (n = 5, 21%), lack of reliable transportation (n = 4, 17%), and housing instability (n = 2, 8%) were common. Lack of trust in their physician (n = 3, 13%) and their physician's treatment recommendation (n = 3, 13%) were identified. Patients reported a lack of empathy (n = 3, 13%), lack of cultural competence (n = 3, 13%), and inadequate communication (n = 2, 8%) from physicians. Qualitative analysis identified five major themes regarding the decision to undergo surgery: communication, trust, health literacy, patient fears, and decision-making strategies. Five patients (21%) declined the recommended surgery and were more likely Black (100% vs. 21%), lower income (100% vs. 16%), and reported poor patient-physician relationship (40% vs. 5%; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with declining recommended cancer surgery were underrepresented minority race and poor patient-physician relationships. Interventions are needed to improve these barriers to care and racial disparities.

Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes.

Importance: A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level. Objective: To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Center volume, changes in cost. Results: A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Expanding MELD exceptions for colorectal liver metastasis: data and policy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While liver transplant for unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) has been demonstrated to be a promising treatment in selected patients, the typically low MELD score of these patients and lack of exception points may lead to challenges in receiving a deceased donor liver for transplant. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have shown improved outcomes in select patients with CRLM who undergo liver transplant, and several trials are ongoing and will conclude in the next several years. MELD exception points have recently been proposed in qualifying patients with CRLM to help this group obtain more timely quality allografts. Under the current proposal, patients with CRLM would receive a score of the median MELD at transplant (MMaT) for their center minus 20 with a minimum score of 15 in cases where MMaT minus 20 would be less than 15. This would allow them to receive transplants faster without competing unnecessarily with those with greater medical need. SUMMARY: Giving MELD exception points to patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases in need of transplant may decrease time on the waitlist and improve outcomes for these patients.

Sex Disparities in Academic Productivity and Rank Among Abdominal Transplant Faculty in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in academic rank and productivity among members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional, focusing on current board-certified abdominal transplant surgeons in the United States. Demographic factors such as sex, region, and faculty rank were collected from institutional websites. Academic metrics, including H-index, total publications, and relative citation ratio, were collected from Scopus and iCite. RESULTS: We identified 536 surgeon members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons with an academic institution. The majority were men (83%). Men were in practice longer than women (17.9 ± 11 vs 11.7 ± 9 years, P < .0001) and had higher academic metrics, including H-index (25.6 ± 20 vs16.4 ± 14, P < .0001) and total publications (110 ± 145 vs 58.8 ± 69, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in faculty appointments by sex (P < .05), with men showing evidence of increased academic advancement. After adjusting for academic rank, PhD status, and location of medical school and residency, women remained associated with a lower H-index on multivariate analysis (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Sex disparities in academic rank and achievement are present among transplant surgical faculty in the United States, and future efforts are needed to promote sex equity in transplant surgery academia.

Defining the operative time threshold for safety in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a safe and efficacious procedure in appropriately selected patients, though frequently with increased operative times compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, patients who underwent elective, low-risk, RPDs and OPDs in the NSQIP database were isolated. The operative time threshold (OTT) for safety in RPD patients was estimated by identifying the operative time at which complication rates for RPD patients exceeded the complication rate of the benchmark OPD control. RESULTS: Of 6270 patients identified, 939 (15%) underwent RPD and 5331 (85%) underwent OPD. The incidence of major morbidity or mortality for the OPD cohort was 35.1%. The OTT was identified as 7.7 h. Patients whose RPDs were above the OTT experienced a higher incidence of major morbidity (42.5% vs. 35.0%, p < 0.01) and 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.03) than the OPD cohort. Preoperative obstructive jaundice (OR: 1.47, [95% CI: 1.08-2.01]) and pancreatic duct size <3 mm (OR: 2.44, [95% CI: 1.47-4.06]) and 3-6 mm (OR: 2.15, [95% CI: 1.31-3.52]) were risk factors for prolonged RPDs on multivariable regression. CONCLUSION: The operative time threshold for safety, identified at 7.7 h, should be used to improve patient selection for RPDs and as a competency-based quality benchmark.

Portable hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion for organ preservation in liver transplantation: A randomized, open-label, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In liver transplantation, cold preservation induces ischemia, resulting in significant reperfusion injury. Hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HMP-O 2 ) has shown benefits compared to static cold storage (SCS) by limiting ischemia-reperfusion injury. This study reports outcomes using a novel portable HMP-O 2 device in the first US randomized control trial. APPROACH AND RESULTS: The PILOT trial (NCT03484455) was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, with participants randomized to HMP-O 2 or SCS. HMP-O 2 livers were preserved using the Lifeport Liver Transporter and Vasosol perfusion solution. The primary outcome was early allograft dysfunction. Noninferiority margin was 7.5%. From April 3, 2019, to July 12, 2022, 179 patients were randomized to HMP-O 2 (n=90) or SCS (n=89). The per-protocol cohort included 63 HMP-O 2 and 73 SCS. Early allograft dysfunction occurred in 11.1% HMP-O 2 (N=7) and 16.4% SCS (N=12). The risk difference between HMP-O 2 and SCS was -5.33% (one-sided 95% upper confidence limit of 5.81%), establishing noninferiority. The risk of graft failure as predicted by Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplant score at seven days (L-GrAFT 7 ) was lower with HMP-O 2 [median (IQR) 3.4% (2.4-6.5) vs. 4.5% (2.9-9.4), p =0.024]. Primary nonfunction occurred in 2.2% of all SCS (n=3, p =0.10). Biliary strictures occurred in 16.4% SCS (n=12) and 6.3% (n=4) HMP-O 2 ( p =0.18). Nonanastomotic biliary strictures occurred only in SCS (n=4). CONCLUSIONS: HMP-O 2 demonstrates safety and noninferior efficacy for liver graft preservation in comparison to SCS. Early allograft failure by L-GrAFT 7 was lower in HMP-O 2 , suggesting improved early clinical function. Recipients of HMP-O 2 livers also demonstrated a lower incidence of primary nonfunction and biliary strictures, although this difference did not reach significance.

Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Utilization and Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy (JT) tubes are often utilized as an adjunct to optimize nutrition for successful esophagectomy; however, their utility has come into question. The aim of this study was to evaluate utilization and outcomes associated with JTs in a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent elective esophagectomy. JT utilization was assessed between 2010 and 2019. Post-operative outcomes were compared between those with and without a JT on patients with esophagectomy-specific outcomes (2016-2019), with results validated using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on key clinicopathologic factors, including tumor stage. RESULTS: Of the 10,117 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy over the past decade, 53.0% had a JT placed concurrently and 47.0% did not. Utilization of JTs decreased over time, accounting for 60.0% of cases in 2010 compared to 41.7% in 2019 (m = - 2.14 95%CI: [- 1.49]-[- 2.80], p < 0.01). Patients who underwent JT had more composite wound complications (17.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of all-cause morbidity (40.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.01). Following PSM, 1007 pairs were identified. Analysis of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a higher rate of superficial skin infections (6.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.01) in the JT group. However, length of stay, reoperation, readmission, anastomotic leak, composite wound complications, all-cause morbidity, and mortality rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, feeding jejunostomy tubes were utilized less frequently over the past decade. Similar perioperative outcomes among matched patients support the safety of esophagectomy without an adjunct feeding jejunostomy tube.

Liver Transplantation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Is It Appropriate?

Colorectal cancer with liver metastases is a condition with significant morbidity and mortality that affects many people around the world. Many treatments exist to target liver metastases, including surgical resection, chemotherapy, nonsurgical liver-directed therapies, and liver transplantation. The field of transplant oncology is emerging as a promising alternative to palliative chemotherapy alone in appropriately selected patients. Though few clinical trials have been completed to evaluate safety of liver transplant for colorectal cancer metastases, there are several ongoing trials to hopefully make transplant a viable option for more patients with limited options.

Long-term follow-up of temporary abdominal closure in complex abdomens during liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Temporary abdominal closure is commonly employed in liver transplantation when patient factors make primary fascial closure challenging. However, there is minimal data evaluating long-term survival and patient outcomes after temporary abdominal closure. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing liver transplantation from January 2013 through December 2017 was performed with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were characterized as either requiring temporary abdominal closure or immediate primary fascial closure at the time of liver transplantation. RESULTS: Of 422 patients who underwent 436 liver transplantations, 17.2% (n = 75) required temporary abdominal closure, whereas 82.8% (n = 361) underwent primary fascial closure. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores preoperatively (27 [22-36] vs 23 [20-28], P = .0002), had higher rates of dialysis preoperatively (28.0% vs 12.5%, P = .0007), and were more likely to be hospitalized within 90 days of liver transplantation (64.0% vs 47.5%, P = .0093). On univariable analysis, survival at 1 year was different between the groups (90.9% surviving at 1 year for primary fascial closure versus 82.7% for temporary abdominal closure, P = .0356); however, there was no significant difference in survival at 5 years (83.7% vs 76.0%, P = .11). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in survival after adjusting for multiple factors. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure were more likely to have longer hospital stays (median 16 days [9.75-29.5] vs 8 days [6-14], P < .0001), more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (45.3% vs 32.2%, P = .03), and less likely to be discharged home (36.5% vs 74.2%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary abdominal closure after liver transplantation appears safe and has similar outcomes to primary fascial closure, though it is used more commonly in complex patients.

Social media and academic surgical research dissemination.

Academic research dissemination has evolved tremendously throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. With the advent of new technology and remote communication, the fast and efficient sharing of ideas has spread worldwide and has been appropriately embraced by academic surgical researchers. The use of social media by surgeons has expanded our ability to share hypotheses and published works that lead to higher degrees of collaboration than previously possible. The strengths of social media use for research dissemination in surgery include immediate collaboration on a global scale, faster dissemination of results previously hindered by the publishing process, open peer review from a wider audience, and enhancing the experience of academic meetings. However, social media use for research dissemination is not perfect and is hindered by lack of author verification, public misinterpretation, and lack of standardized enforceable professional guidelines. To combat these potential pitfalls, surgical societies should prioritize specific and intervenable guidelines for surgeons regarding the appropriate use of social media for research dissemination.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downstaging disease burden to fit within transplant criteria. Outcomes in this setting include patients who had successful transplants without complications to patients who suffered severe complications, including fatal hepatic necrosis and graft failure requiring re-transplant. Some authors suggest having a period of three months between checkpoint inhibition and transplant may help mitigate adverse effects. In the post-LT setting, there are few treatment options if there is a recurrence of disease, which forces treatment teams to reconsider checkpoint inhibitors. Again, a longer period of time between transplant and checkpoint inhibition may reduce risk of rejection. Case reports of patients treated with ICIs post-transplant utilized either nivolumab or pembrolizumab. As combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is a relatively new treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are only three reported cases using this combination in the post-LT setting. While there were no cases of rejection, all three cases had progression of disease. As immunotherapy joins transplantation as a mainstay of treatment for HCC, it remains unclear how to best navigate when the treatment course involves both immune activation and immunosuppression. Case Description: Patients who had an LT and were treated with ICIs (pre or post LT) at the University of Cincinnati were included in this retrospective chart review. Conclusions: Fatal rejection remains a significant risk even 4 years after LT. Neoadjuvant ICIs also pose a risk for acute cellular rejection; however, this may not always be clinically significant. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) may be an additional, previously unreported risk of ICIs in the setting of LT. Prospective studies are needed to understand benefits and risks of checkpoint inhibitors in the LT setting.