Objective:
The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons.
Background:
Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking.
Methods:
This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers.
Results:
Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes.
Conclusion:
Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.
ObjectiveExplore the impact of COVID-19 on patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) and on their post-LT course.DesignData from consecutive adult LT candidates with COVID-19 were collected across Europe in a dedicated registry and were analysed.ResultsFrom 21 February to 20 November 2020, 136 adult cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 33 centres in 11 European countries were collected, with 113 having COVID-19. Thirty-seven (37/113, 32.7%) patients died after a median of 18 (10–30) days, with respiratory failure being the major cause (33/37, 89.2%). The 60-day mortality risk did not significantly change between first (35.3%, 95% CI 23.9% to 50.0%) and second (26.0%, 95% CI 16.2% to 40.2%) waves. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed Laboratory Model for End-stage Liver Disease (Lab-MELD) score of ≥15 (Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 15–19, HR 5.46, 95% CI 1.81 to 16.50; MELD score≥20, HR 5.24, 95% CI 1.77 to 15.55) and dyspnoea on presentation (HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 7.51) being the two negative independent factors for mortality. Twenty-six patients underwent an LT after a median time of 78.5 (IQR 44–102) days, and 25 (96%) were alive after a median follow-up of 118 days (IQR 31–170).ConclusionsIncreased mortality in LT candidates with COVID-19 (32.7%), reaching 45% in those with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and Lab-MELD score of ≥15, was observed, with no significant difference between first and second waves of the pandemic. Respiratory failure was the major cause of death. The dismal prognosis of patients with DC supports the adoption of strict preventative measures and the urgent testing of vaccination efficacy in this population. Prior SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection did not affect early post-transplant survival (96%).
Summary
Background
Prophylaxis of HBV recurrence is critical after liver transplantation in HBV patients. Despite new prophylactic schemes, most European LT centres persist on a conservative approach combining hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and nucleos(t)ides analogues (NA).
Aim
This setting prompted the European Liver Intestine Transplantation Association (ELITA) to look for a consensus on the prevention of HBV recurrence.
Methods
Based on a 4‐round Delphi process, ELITA investigated 16 research questions and established 50 recommendations.
Results
Prophylaxis should be driven according to 3 simplified risk groups: Low and high virological risk patients, with undetectable and detectable HBV DNA pre‐LT, respectively, and special populations (HDV, HCC, poorly adherent patients). In low‐risk patients, short‐term (4 weeks) combination of third‐generation NA+ HBIG, or third generation NA monotherapy can be considered as prophylactic options. In high‐risk patients, HBIG can be discontinued once HBV DNA undetectable. Combined therapy for 1 year is advised. HBV‐HCC patients should be treated according to their virological risk. In HDV/HBV patients, indefinite dual prophylaxis remains the gold standard. Full withdrawal of HBV prophylaxis following or not HBV vaccination should only be attempted in the setting of clinical trials. Organs from HBsAg+ve donors may be considered after assessment of risks, benefits, and patient consent. They should not be used if HDV is present. In poorly adherent patients, dual long‐term prophylaxis is recommended. Budget impact analysis should be taken into account to drive prophylactic regimen.
Conclusions
These ELITA recommendations should stimulate a more rational and homogeneous approach to HBV prophylaxis across LT programs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.