Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Purpose: To evaluate the outcome of liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure. Patients and methods: From November 1991 to December 2007, 517 patients underwent liver transplantation at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong. Among them, 149 had acute-on-chronic liver failure as defined in the recent Asian Pacific Association for the Study of Liver Consensus Meeting. Their clinical data were reviewed and their survival outcomes were compared with those of patients who underwent liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure and for cirrhosis only in the same period. Results: The patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure included 50 patients having acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B and 99 cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration. Their median model for end-stage liver disease scores were 35 and 37, respectively. Preoperative infection (35%), hepatorenal syndrome (38%), and respiratory failure (28.8%) were common. One hundred and three patients received living donor liver grafts and 46 patients received deceased donor liver grafts. The hospital mortality rate was 4.7%. The 5-year survival rates were 93.2% for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B and 90.5% for cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration. The results were similar to those of the patients with fulminant hepatic failure (n = 37) and the patients having cirrhosis only (n = 301). Conclusions: Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure is life-saving, and the survival rates it attains are similar to those attained by transplantation for other liver conditions.published_or_final_versionSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 201

Lessons Learned From One Hundred Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplants

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the first 100 adult right lobe living donor liver transplants (LDLT) in a single center to determine whether the results have improved with technical modifications and better experience. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Right lobe LDLT has been increasingly performed for adults with end-stage liver disease. Numerous modifications in technique have been introduced, and a learning curve is likely in view of its complexity. METHODS: One hundred consecutive adult right lobe LDLTs performed between May 1996 and May 2002 were retrospectively studied by comparing the first 50 (group 1) with the last 50 cases (group 2). The median follow-up was 37 (27 to 79) months for group 1 and 15 (7 to 27) months for group 2. RESULTS: The characteristics of donors and liver grafts were similar. In group 2, fewer recipients were intensive care unit (ICU)-bound or had hepatorenal syndrome before transplantation, and there was a lower disease severity as shown by a lower Child-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Significant improvements were found in the operation time, blood loss, ICU stay, and postoperative complication rate of the donors and in the operation time, transfusion requirements, number of reoperations, ICU stay, and hospital stay of the recipients in group 2. The hospital mortality rate of recipients was reduced from 16% to 0% (P = 0.006). Graft survival rates at 12 months and 24 months were improved from 80% and 74%, respectively, in group 1 to 100% and 96%, respectively, in group 2 (P = 0.002). After adjusting for differences in recipient risk factors (ICU-bound, hepatorenal syndrome, Child-Pugh score, and MELD score) in a multivariate Cox model, recipients in group 2 had significantly lower risk of graft loss (relative risk compared with group 1, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.66; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There is a learning curve in adult right lobe LDLT. The results have significantly improved with technical refinement and better experience

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field