From large-for-size to large-for-flow: A paradigm shift in liver transplantation
- PMID: 37039739
- DOI: 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000150
From large-for-size to large-for-flow: A paradigm shift in liver transplantation
Abstract
Liver graft-recipient matching remains challenging, and both morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics have been shown to be relevant indicators of post-transplant outcomes. However, no combined analysis is available to date. To study the impact of both morphologic and hemodynamic characteristics of liver grafts on transplantation outcomes, we retrospectively evaluated all consecutive 257 liver transplantations with prospective hemodynamic measurements from 2017 to 2020 in a single-center perspective. First, a morphologic analysis compared recipients with or without large-for-size (LFS), defined by a graft/recipient weight ratio >2.5% and excluding extreme LFS. Second, a hemodynamic analysis compared recipients with or without low portal flow (LPF; <80 mL/min per 100 g of liver tissue). Third, an outcome analysis combining LPF and LFS was performed, focusing on liver graft-related morbidity (LGRM), graft and patient survival. LGRM was a composite endpoint, including primary nonfunction, high-risk L-Graft7 category, and portal vein thrombosis. Morphologic analysis showed that LFS (n=33; 12.9%) was not associated with an increased LGRM (12.1% vs 9.4%; p =0.61) or impaired graft and patient survival. However, the hemodynamic analysis showed that LPF (n=43; 16.8%) was associated with a higher LGRM (20.9% vs 7.5%, p = 0.007) and a significantly impaired 90-day graft and patient survival. Multivariable analysis identified LPF but not LFS as an independent risk factor for LGRM (OR: 2.8%; CI:1.088-7.413; and p = 0.03), 90-day (HR: 4%; CI: 1.411-11.551; and p = 0 .01), and 1-year patient survival. LPF is a significant predictor of post-liver transplantation morbi-mortality, independent of LFS when defined as a morphologic metric alone. Consequently, we propose the novel concept of large-for-flow, which may guide graft selection and improve perioperative management of LPF.
Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
References
-
- Li JJ, Zu CH, Li SP, Gao W, Shen ZY, Cai JZ. Effect of graft size matching on pediatric living-donor liver transplantation at a single center. Clin Transplant. 2018;32:e13160.
-
- Addeo P, Noblet V, Naegel B, Bachellier P. Large-for-size orthotopic liver transplantation: a systematic review of definitions, outcomes, and solutions. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24:1192–200.
-
- Fukazawa K, Yamada Y, Nishida S, Hibi T, Arheart KL, Pretto EA. Determination of the safe range of graft size mismatch using body surface area index in deceased liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2013;26:724–33.
-
- Asencio JM, Vaquero J, Olmedilla L, García Sabrido JL. ‘Small-for-flow’ syndrome: shifting the ‘size’ paradigm. Med Hypotheses. 2013;80:573–7.
-
- Nair A, Sasaki K, Diago Uso T, D’Amico G, Eghtesad B, Aucejo F, et al. The prognostic utility of intraoperative allograft vascular inflow measurements in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2022;28:65–74.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
