No abstract

No abstract

Anxiety and depression are common in the setting of IBD and are strongly associated with surgical history, disease complications (including extra-intestinal manifestations), smoking, and female gender. Inflammatory bowel disease patients with A&D are also more likely to require therapy and to utilize healthcare resources. This study refines our understanding of A&D development and its impact in IBD and provides additional considerations for management in this setting.

Although the well‐accepted lower limit of the graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio (GRWR) for successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains 0.80%, many believe grafts with lower GRWR may suffice with portal inflow modulation (PIM), resulting in equally good recipient outcomes. This study was done to evaluate the outcomes of LDLT with small‐for‐size grafts (GRWR <0.80%). Of 1321 consecutive adult LDLTs from January 2012 to December 2017, 287 (21.7%) had GRWR <0.80%. PIM was performed (hemiportocaval shunt [HPCS], n = 109; splenic artery ligation [SAL], n = 14) in 42.9% patients. No PIM was done if portal pressure (PP) in the dissection phase was <16 mm Hg. Mean age of the cohort was 49.3 ± 9.1 years. Median Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score was 14, and the lowest GRWR was 0.54%. A total of 72 recipients had a GRWR <0.70%, of whom 58 underwent HPCS (1 of whom underwent HPCS + SAL) and 14 underwent no PIM, whereas 215 had GRWR between 0.70% and 0.79%, of whom 51 and 14 underwent HPCS and SAL, respectively. During the same period, 1034 had GRWR ≥0.80% and did not undergo PIM. Small‐for‐size syndrome developed in 2.8% patients. Three patients needed shunt closure at 1 and 4 weeks and 60 months. The 1‐year patient survival rates were comparable. In conclusion, with PIM protocol that optimizes postperfusion PP, low‐GRWR grafts can be used for appropriately selected LDLT recipients with acceptable outcomes.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common viral infection in liver transplant recipients, affecting post-transplant patients and graft survival. Recent advances in diagnosis and management of CMV have led to marked reduction in incidence, severity, and its associated morbidity and mortality. CMV DNA assay is the most commonly used laboratory parameter to diagnose and monitor CMV infection. Current evidence suggests that both pre-emptive and universal prophylaxis approaches are equally justified in liver transplant recipients. Intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir are the most commonly used drugs for treatment of CMV disease. Most of the centre use valganciclovir prophylaxis for prevention of CMV disease in liver trasplant recipient. The aim of this article is to review the current standard of care for diagnosis and management of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients.

Donor safety is utmost important in Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Small for size syndrome in some recipients with left lobe donors led to the evolution of right lobe LDLT. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of large series of right lobe (RL) donor hepatectomies and compare outcomes with left lobe (LL) and left lateral segment (LLS) donations. A consecutive cohort of 726 donors from January 2011 to January 2014 were studied; RL (n = 641, 88.3%), LL (n = 36, 4.9%) or LLS (n = 49, 6.8%) depending on the type of donation. The mean age was 34.6 ± 10 years. The overall complication rate was 22.3%. Most were Clavien grade I and II. Clavien grade IIIa, IIIb, IV and V were noted in 4.2% donors. The incidence of these major complications were comparable among RL (n = 28, 4.2%), LL (n = 1, 2.7%) and LLS (n = 2, 4.08%) (P = 0.89). Bile leak was seen in 20 donors (2.7%) and 13 were managed conservatively with prolonged or additional intra-abdominal drainage. Seven underwent re-exploration for bile leak. In centres experienced in right lobe LDLT, morbidity after RL donation is similar to that of LL donation; and with adequate GRWR, same 1-year recipient outcomes.

In countries where deceased organ donation is scarce, there is a big gap between demand and supply of organs and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) plays an important role in meeting this unmet need. This study was conducted to analyze the effect of pretransplant Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score on outcomes following LDLT. The outcome of 1000 patients who underwent LDLT from July 2010 to March 2015 was analyzed retrospectively. Patients were grouped into low MELD<25 and high MELD ≥25 score to compare short-term outcomes. Cumulative overall survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. A total of 849 recipients were in low MELD group (Mean MELD=16.90±9.2) and 151 were in high MELD group (Mean MELD=28.77±7.2). No significant difference in etiology of CLD was observed between groups except for a higher prevalence of hepatitis C virus (29.6% vs 19.9%, P=.01) in low MELD patients. No significant difference was observed in 1-year survival (88.5% vs 84.1%, P=.12) between the groups. The multivariate analysis showed that pretransplant MELD score does not predict survival of recipients. Pretransplant high MELD score does not adversely affect outcomes after LDLT. In view of shortage of deceased organs, LDLT can be a good option in high MELD recipients.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome characterized by acute decompensation of previously diagnosed or undiagnosed liver disease with organ failure(s) with high short-term mortality. This study was conducted to report the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in ACLF and assess the survival benefit of liver transplantation (LT) in these patients. It was a retrospective study of 218 ACLF patients on the basis of European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)-chronic liver failure criteria from January 2014 through November 2017. Patients were considered for LDLT if there was no improvement on standard medical therapy for 5-10 days. Prior to LDLT, active sepsis was excluded/treated, and renal, circulatory, and respiratory failures were improved to the greatest extent possible. The mean age was 42.9 years, and 181 patients were male. Sepsis was the most common acute precipitating event followed by alcohol. Of the patients, 35 (16.1%), 66 (30.3%), and 117 (53.7%) were classified into ACLF grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Although 80% of the ACLF 1 group and 72.7% of the ACLF 2 group underwent LDLT, only 35% of the ACLF 3 group could undergo LDLT. The circulatory and respiratory failures at admission were significantly higher in the nontransplant group with poor subsequent response to standard medical therapy, exclusion from LDLT, and poor outcomes. None of the patients on high support for circulatory and respiratory failure underwent LDLT. Posttransplant survival at 1 year was comparable among different grades of ACLF (92.9%, 85.4%, and 75.6%; P = 0.15). Among patients in the ACLF 3 group, survival at 90 days was extremely poor in those who could not undergo LDLT (5.9% versus 78%; P < 0.001). In conclusion, LDLT results in good survival with acceptable post-LT morbidity in patients with ACLF. YaDav et aL.Renal 63 (28.9) Brain 39 (17.9) Circulation 48 (22.0) Respiration 39 (17.9) Organ failure at 7 days after admission Liver 177 (81.2) Coagulation 112 (51.4) Renal 50 (22.9) Brain 37 (17.0) Circulation 71 (32.6) Respiration 72 (33.0) NOTE: Data are given as n (%) and mean ± SD. Liver transpLantation, vol. 25, no. 3, 2019 YaDav et aL.