Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation with ABO-Incompatible Grafts: A German Single Center Experience

Adult living donor liver transplantations (ALDLTs) across the ABO blood group barrier have been reported in Asia, North Americas, and Europe, but not yet in Germany. Several strategies have been established to overcome the detrimental effects that are attached with such a disparity between donor and host, but no gold standard has yet emerged. Here, we present the first experiences with three ABO-incompatible adult living donor liver transplantations in Germany applying different immunosuppressive strategies. Four patient-donor couples were considered for ABO-incompatible ALDLT. In these patients, resident ABO blood group antibodies (isoagglutinins) were depleted by plasmapheresis or immunoadsorption and replenishment was inhibited by splenectomy and/or B-cell-targeted immunosuppression. Despite different treatments ALDLT could safely be performed in three patients and all patients had good initial graft function without signs for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Two patients had long-term graft survival with stable graft function. We thus propose the feasibility of ABO-incompatible ALDLT with these protocols and advocate further expansion of ABO incompatible ALDLT in multicenter trials to improve efficacy and safety

Hepatocellular carcinoma progression during bridging before liver transplantation

Background Recipient selection for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is based primarily on criteria affecting the chance of long-term success. Here, the relationship between pretransplant bridging therapy and long-term survival was investigated in a subgroup analysis of the SiLVER Study. Methods Response to bridging, as defined by comparison of imaging at the time of listing and post-transplant pathology report, was categorized into controlled versus progressive disease (more than 20 per cent tumour growth or development of new lesions). Results Of 525 patients with HCC who had liver transplantation, 350 recipients underwent pretransplant bridging therapy. Tumour progression despite bridging was an independent risk factor affecting overall survival (hazard ratio 1.80; P = 0.005). For patients within the Milan criteria (MC) at listing, mean overall survival was longer for those with controlled versus progressive disease (6.8 versus 5.8 years; P < 0.001). Importantly, patients with HCCs outside the MC that were downsized to within the MC before liver transplantation had poor outcomes compared with patients who never exceeded the MC (mean overall survival 6.2 versus 6.6 years respectively; P = 0.030). Conclusion Patients with HCCs within the MC that did not show tumour progression under locoregional therapy had the best outcomes after liver transplantation. Downstaging into the limits of the MC did not improve the probability of survival. Prognostic factors determining the long-term success of liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are still under discussion. A subgroup analysis of the SiLVER trial showed that disease control under bridging therapy is strongly associated with improved prognosis in terms of overall survival. However, in tumours exceeding the limits of the Milan criteria, downstaging did not restore the probability of survival compared with that of patients within the Milan criteria

Benefits and barriers to accreditation of HPB center and fellowship programs in Europe:a strength-weakness-opportunity-and-threats (SWOT) analysis by an E-AHPBA-ESSO-UEMS ad hoc working committee

Background: Training in HPB surgery lacks uniformity across regions covered by the E-AHPBA. Accreditation has been in place for centers and fellowship programs, but with low uptake. The decision whether to continue, change or cease such accreditation is being discussed. Thus, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted. Methods: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study among stakeholders in E-AHPBA, ESSO and UEMS under the E-AHPBA executive council was founded, ensuring representation by gender and geographic distribution. Results: Responses were collected from across E-AHPBA regions, with response from 15 of 24 subchapters. The most frequent and recurring themes are presented in a SWOT matrix which allows for paired evaluations of factors deemed to be helpful (Strengths and Opportunities), those that are harmful (Weaknesses and Threats). Conclusion: This study identified both helpful and harmful effects to an accreditation process of HPB centers or HPB fellowship training across the E-AHPBA membership region. Formal accreditation of centers is not within the scope, nor jurisdiction nor financial capacity for E-AHPBA in the current situation. A strong interest in formal HPB training should be capitalized into E-AHPBA strategic planning towards a structured accreditation system for HPB fellowship programs or HPB training tracks.</p

Evidence-Based Medicine in Daily Surgical Decision Making: A Survey-Based Comparison between the UK and Germany

Background: Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons. Results: A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany). Conclusion: The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future

Immediate and long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of surgical services

Background The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. Methods This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID‐19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. Results Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross‐cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. Conclusion Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.publishedVersio

Safety and feasibility of third-party multipotent adult progenitor cells for immunomodulation therapy after liver transplantation--a phase I study (MISOT-I)

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for many end-stage liver diseases. However, the life-long immunosuppression needed to prevent graft rejection causes clinically significant side effects. Cellular immunomodulatory therapies may allow the dose of immunosuppressive drugs to be reduced. In the current protocol, we propose to complement immunosuppressive pharmacotherapy with third-party multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs), a culture-selected population of adult adherent stem cells derived from bone marrow that has been shown to display potent immunomodulatory and regenerative properties. In animal models, MAPCs reduce the need for pharmacological immunosuppression after experimental solid organ transplantation and regenerate damaged organs. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this phase I, single-arm, single-center safety and feasibility study (n=3-24) will receive 2 doses of third-party MAPCs after liver transplantation, on days 1 and 3, in addition to a calcineurin-inhibitor-free "bottom-up" immunosuppressive regimen with Basiliximab, mycophenolic acid, and steroids. The study objective is to evaluate the safety and clinical feasibility of MAPC administration in this patient cohort. The primary endpoint of the study is safety, assessed by standardized dose-limiting toxicity events. One secondary endpoint is the time until first biopsy-proven acute rejection, in order to collect first evidence of efficacy. Dose escalation (150, 300, 450, and 600 million MAPCs) will be done according to a 3 + 3 classical escalation design (4 groups of 3-6 patients each). DISCUSSION: If MAPCs are safe for patients undergoing liver transplantation in this study, a phase II/III trial will be conducted to assess their clinical efficacy

HCC recurrence in HCV‐infected patients after liver transplantation: SiLVER Study reveals benefits of sirolimus in combination with CNIs – a post‐hoc analysis

Factors affecting outcomes in liver transplant (LTx) recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection include the choice of immunosuppression. Here, we analyzed the HCV+ subgroup of patients from the randomized controlled, international SiLVER Study. We performed a post hoc analysis of 166 HCV+ SiLVER Study patients regarding HCC outcome after LTx. Control patients (group A: n = 88) received mTOR inhibitor (mTORi)-free, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based versus sirolimus-based immunosuppression (group B: n = 78). We found no significant difference regarding HCV-RNA titers between group A and B. Since no effect in group B could be due to variable sirolimus dosing, we split group B into patients receiving sirolimus-based immunosuppression + CNIs for >50% (B1; n = 44) or <50% (B2; n = 34) of the time. While there remained no difference in HCV-RNA titer between groups, HCC recurrence-free survival in group B1 (81.8%) was markedly better versus both group A (62.7%; P = 0.0136) and group B2 (64.7%; P = 0.0326); Interestingly, further subgroup analysis revealed an increase (P = 0.0012) in liver enzyme values in group B2. Taken together, in HCV-infected patients with HCC and LTx, mTORi immunosuppression + CNIs yields excellent outcomes. Unexpectedly, higher levels of liver inflammation and poorer outcomes occur with mTORi monotherapy in the HCV+ subgroup

Sarcopenia predicts reduced liver growth and reduced resectability in patients undergoing portal vein embolization before liver resection - A DRAGON collaborative analysis of 306 patients

Background: After portal vein embolization (PVE) 30% fail to achieve liver resection. Malnutrition is a modifiable risk factor and can be assessed by radiological indices. This study investigates, if sarcopenia affects resectability and kinetic growth rate (KGR) after PVE. Methods: A retrospective study was performed of the outcome of PVE at 8 centres of the DRAGON collaborative from 2010 to 2019. All malignant tumour types were included. Sarcopenia was defined using gender, body mass and skeletal muscle index. First imaging after PVE was used for liver volumetry. Primary and secondary endpoints were resectability and KGR. Risk factors impacting liver growth were assessed in a multivariable analysis. Results: Eight centres identified 368 patients undergoing PVE. 62 patients (17%) had to be excluded due to unavailability of data. Among the 306 included patients, 112 (37%) were non-sarcopenic and 194 (63%) were sarcopenic. Sarcopenic patients had a 21% lower resectability rate (87% vs. 66%, p &lt; 0.001) and a 23% reduced KGR (p = 0.02) after PVE. In a multivariable model dichotomized for KGR ≥2.3% standardized FLR (sFLR)/week, only sarcopenia and sFLR before embolization correlated with KGR. Conclusion: In this largest study of risk factors, sarcopenia was associated with reduced resectability and KGR in patients undergoing PVE.</p

A toolbox for a structured risk-based prehabilitation program in major surgical oncology

Prehabilitation is a multimodal concept to improve functional capability prior to surgery, so that the patients’ resilience is strengthened to withstand any peri- and postoperative comorbidity. It covers physical activities, nutrition, and psychosocial wellbeing. The literature is heterogeneous in outcomes and definitions. In this scoping review, class 1 and 2 evidence was included to identify seven main aspects of prehabilitation for the treatment pathway: (i) risk assessment, (ii) FITT (frequency, interventions, time, type of exercise) principles of prehabilitation exercise, (iii) outcome measures, (iv) nutrition, (v) patient blood management, (vi) mental wellbeing, and (vii) economic potential. Recommendations include the risk of tumor progression due to delay of surgery. Patients undergoing prehabilitation should perceive risk assessment by structured, quantifiable, and validated tools like Risk Analysis Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), American Society of Anesthesiology Score, or Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group scoring. Assessments should be repeated to quantify its effects. The most common types of exercise include breathing exercises and moderate- to high-intensity interval protocols. The program should have a duration of 3–6 weeks with 3–4 exercises per week that take 30–60 min. The 6-Minute Walking Testing is a valid and resource-saving tool to assess changes in aerobic capacity. Long-term assessment should include standardized outcome measurements (overall survival, 90-day survival, Dindo–Clavien/CCI®) to monitor the potential of up to 50% less morbidity. Finally, individual cost-revenue assessment can help assess health economics, confirming the hypothetic saving of $8 for treatment for$1 spent for prehabilitation. These recommendations should serve as a toolbox to generate hypotheses, discussion, and systematic approaches to develop clinical prehabilitation standards

Study Protocol: A Pilot Study to Determine the Safety and Efficacy of Induction-Therapy, De Novo MPA and Delayed mTOR-Inhibition in Liver Transplant Recipients with Impaired Renal Function. PATRON-Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients undergoing liver transplantation with preexisting renal dysfunction are prone to further renal impairment with the early postoperative use of Calcineurin-inhibitors. However, there is only little scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of de novo CNI free "bottom-up" regimens in patients with impaired renal function undergoing liver transplantation. This is a single-center study pilot-study (<b>PATRON07</b>) investigating safety and efficacy of CNI-free, "bottom-up" immunosuppressive (IS) strategy in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with renal impairment prior to LT.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients older than 18 years with renal impairment at the time of liver transplantation eGFR < 50 ml/min and/or serum creatinine levels > 1.5 mg/dL will be included. Patients in will receive a CNI-free combination therapy (basiliximab, MMF, steroids and delayed Sirolimus). Primary endpoint is the incidence of steroid resistant acute rejection within the first 30 days after LT. The study is designed as prospective two-step trial requiring a maximum of 29 patients. In the first step, 9 patients will be included. If 8 or more patients show no signs of biopsy proven steroid resistant rejection, additional 20 patients will be included. If in the second step a total of 27 or more patients reach the primary endpoint the regimen is regarded to be safe and efficient.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If a CNI-free-"bottom-up" IS strategy is safe and effective, this may be an innovative concept in contrast to classic top-down strategies that could improve the patient short and long-time renal function as well as overall complications and survival after LT. The results of <b>PATRON07 </b>may be the basis for a large multicenter RCT investigating the new "bottom-up" immunosuppressive strategy in patients with poor renal function prior to LT.</p> <p><url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</url>-identifier: NCT00604357</p