99mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy and volume metrics before liver preparation: correlations and discrepancies in non-cirrhotic patients

International audienceBackground: Accurate identification of insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) is required to select patients for liver preparation and limit the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). The objective of this study was to investigate the correlations and discrepancies between the most-commonly used FLR volume metrics and 99mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS).Methods: In 101 non-cirrhotic patients who underwent HBS before major hepatectomy, we retrospectively analyzed the correlations and discrepancies between FLR function and FLR volume metrics: actual percentage (FLRV%), standardized to body surface area (FLRV%BSA) and weight (FLRV%weight), and FLR to body weight ratio (FLRV-BWR).Results: Among 67 patients with FLR function ≥2.69%/min/m2, PHLF was observed in none and 13 patients according to respectively 50-50 and ISGLS criteria. FLRV%, FLRV%BSA, FLRV%weight and FLRV-BWR significantly correlated with FLR function (P<0.001), with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.680, 0.704, 0.698, and 0.711, respectively. No difference was observed between the areas under the curve of FLRV%, FLRV%BSA, FLRV%weight and FLR-BWR (all P=ns). Overall, the percentages of patients misclassified by FLRV%, FLRV%BSA, FLRV%weight (thresholds: 30%) and FLR-BWR (threshold: 0.5) versus FLR function (threshold: 2.69%/min/m2) were 23.8% (95% CI: 15.9-33.3%), 18.8% (95% CI: 11.7-27.8%), 17.8% (95% CI: 11-26.7%), and 31.7% (95% CI: 22.8-41.7%), respectively. FLR volume metrics wrongly classified 1-13.9% of patients with sufficient FLR function (i.e., ≥2.69%/min/m2), and 9.9-30.7% of patients with insufficient FLR function. FLRV-BWR was the most and the least reliable measure to identify patients with sufficient and insufficient FLR function, respectively.Conclusions: Despite significant correlations, the discrepancy rates between FLR volume and function metrics speaks in favor of implementing 99mTc-mebrofenin HBS in the work-up before liver preparation

Liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy: future liver remnant volumetric and functional changes

Background: We previously showed that embolization of portal inflow and hepatic vein (HV) outflow (liver venous deprivation, LVD) promotes future liver remnant (FLR) volume (FLR-V) and function (FLR-F) gain. Here, we compared FLR-V and FLR-F changes after portal vein embolization (PVE) and LVD. Methods: This study included all patients referred for liver preparation before major hepatectomy over 26 months. Exclusion criteria were: unavailable baseline/follow-up imaging, cirrhosis, Klatskin tumor, two-stage hepatectomy. 99mTc-mebrofenin SPECT-CT was performed at baseline and at day 7, 14 and 21 after PVE or LVD. FLR-V and FLR-F variations were compared using multivariate generalized linear mixed models (joint modelling) with/without missing data imputation. Results: Baseline FLR-F was lower in the LVD (n=29) than PVE group (n=22) (P<0.001). Technical success was 100% in both groups without any major complication. Changes in FLR-V at day 14 and 21 (+14.2% vs. +50%, P=0.002; and +18.6% vs. +52.6%, P=0.001), and in FLR-F at day 7, 14 and 21 (+23.1% vs. +54.3%, P=0.02; +17.6% vs. +56.1%, P=0.006; and +29.8% vs. +63.9%, P<0.001) differed between PVE and LVD group. LVD (P=0.009), age (P=0.027) and baseline FLR-V (P=0.001) independently predicted FLR-V variations, whereas only LVD (P=0.01) predicted FLR-F changes. After missing data handling, LVD remained an independent predictor of FLR-V and FLR-F variations. Conclusions: LVD is safe and provides greater FLR-V and FLR-F increase than PVE. These results are now evaluated in the HYPERLIV-01 multicenter randomized trial

Liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy: future liver remnant volumetric and functional changes

International audienceBackground: We previously showed that embolization of portal inflow and hepatic vein (HV) outflow (liver venous deprivation, LVD) promotes future liver remnant (FLR) volume (FLR-V) and function (FLR-F) gain. Here, we compared FLR-V and FLR-F changes after portal vein embolization (PVE) and LVD.Methods: This study included all patients referred for liver preparation before major hepatectomy over 26 months. Exclusion criteria were: unavailable baseline/follow-up imaging, cirrhosis, Klatskin tumor, two-stage hepatectomy. 99mTc-mebrofenin SPECT-CT was performed at baseline and at day 7, 14 and 21 after PVE or LVD. FLR-V and FLR-F variations were compared using multivariate generalized linear mixed models (joint modelling) with/without missing data imputation.Results: Baseline FLR-F was lower in the LVD (n=29) than PVE group (n=22) (P<0.001). Technical success was 100% in both groups without any major complication. Changes in FLR-V at day 14 and 21 (+14.2% vs. +50%, P=0.002; and +18.6% vs. +52.6%, P=0.001), and in FLR-F at day 7, 14 and 21 (+23.1% vs. +54.3%, P=0.02; +17.6% vs. +56.1%, P=0.006; and +29.8% vs. +63.9%, P<0.001) differed between PVE and LVD group. LVD (P=0.009), age (P=0.027) and baseline FLR-V (P=0.001) independently predicted FLR-V variations, whereas only LVD (P=0.01) predicted FLR-F changes. After missing data handling, LVD remained an independent predictor of FLR-V and FLR-F variations.Conclusions: LVD is safe and provides greater FLR-V and FLR-F increase than PVE. These results are now evaluated in the HYPERLIV-01 multicenter randomized trial

Liver transplantation in the most severely ill cirrhotic patients: A multicenter study in acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3

International audienceBACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplantation (LT) for the most severely ill patients with cirrhosis, with multiple organ dysfunction (accurately assessed by the acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF] classification) remains controversial. We aimed to report the results of LT in patients with ACLF grade 3 and to compare these patients to non-transplanted patients with cirrhosis and multiple organ dysfunction as well as to patients transplanted with lower ACLF grade. METHODS: All patients with ACLF-3 transplanted in three liver intensive care units (ICUs) were retrospectively included. Each patient with ACLF-3 was matched to a) non-transplanted patients hospitalized in the ICU with multiple organ dysfunction, or b) control patients transplanted with each of the lower ACLF grades (three groups). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included. These severely ill patients were transplanted following management to stabilize their condition with a median of nine days after admission (progression of mean organ failure from 4.03 to 3.67, p=0.009). One-year survival of transplanted patients with ACLF-3 was higher than that of non-transplanted controls: 83.9 vs. 7.9%, p\textless0.0001. This high survival rate was not different from that of matched control patients with no ACLF (90%), ACLF-1 (82.3%) or ACLF-2 (86.2%). However, a higher rate of complications was observed (100 vs. 51.2 vs. 76.5 vs. 74.3%, respectively), with a longer hospital stay. The notion of a "transplantation window" is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: LT strongly influences the survival of patients with cirrhosis and ACLF-3 with a 1-year survival similar to that of patients with a lower grade of ACLF. A rapid decision-making process is needed because of the short "transplantation window" suggesting that patients with ACLF-3 should be rapidly referred to a specific liver ICU. Lay summary: Liver transplantation improves survival of patients with very severe cirrhosis. These patients must be carefully monitored and managed in a specialized unit. The decision to transplant a patient must be quick to avoid a high risk of mortality