Conventional versus piggyback technique of caval implantation; without extra-corporeal veno-venous bypass. A comparative study

Abstract

Conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (CON-LT) involves resection of recipient cava, usually with extra-corporeal circulation (veno-venous bypass, VVB), while in the piggyback technique (PC-LT) the cava is preserved. Along with a temporary portacaval shunt (TPCS), better haemodynamic maintenance is purported with PC-LT. A prospective, consecutive series of 384 primary transplants (2000-2003) were analysed, 138 CON-LT (with VVB) and 246 PC-LT (54 without TPCS). Patient/donor characteristics were similar in the two groups. PC-LT required less usage of fresh-frozen plasma and platelets, intensive care stay, number of patients requiring ventilation after day 1 and total days spent on ventilator. The results were not different when comparing, total operating and warm ischaemia time (WIT), red cell usage, requirement for renal support, day 3 serum creatinine and total hospital stay. TPCS had no impact on outcome other than WIT (P = 0.02). Three patients in PC-LT group (three of 246;1.2%) developed caval outflow obstruction (P = 0.02). There was no difference in short- or long-term graft or patient survival. PC-LT has an advantage over CON-LT unsing VVB with respect to intraoperative blood product usage, postoperative ventilation requirement and ITU stay. VVB is no longer required and TPCS may be used selectively in adult transplantation.