Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The diagnostic and therapeutic approach to hilar cholangiocarcinoma and thus the prognosis have changed significantly over the last two decades. Nonetheless, hilar  cholangiocarcinoma  presents a complex surgical challenge.

Objectives: To assess the outcome of the radical approach for the management of types III and IV hilar  cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center study. Preoperative diagnosis was based on ultrasound, computed tomography and selective percutaneous cholangiography without tissue diagnosis. Surgery was radical and included en-bloc liver, extrahepatic biliary tree and hilar lymph nodes resection, followed by biliary reconstruction with hepatico-jejunostomy.

Results: Fifteen patients (mean age 49 years, range 24–72) were managed accordingly. Anatomic classification of the biliary involvement was Bismuth-Corlette type IIIA (n=4), type IIIB (n=3) and type IV (n=8). The surgical procedures performed included four right hepatic lobectomies, five left hepatic lobectomies and six trisegmentectomies (all extended to the caudate lobe). Complete negative resection margins (R0) were accomplished in 12 cases (80%). Regional lymph node metastases were detected in five cases. There were two perioperative mortalities. Long-term follow-up (mean 30 months, range 6–72) revealed local recurrences in two cases, distant metastases in three, and both local and distant in two cases. Eleven patients are alive and 6 are without evidence of disease. The overall 2- and 5-year survival is 78% and 38% respectively.

Conclusions: In selected patients, the aggressive surgical approach to hilar cholangiocarcinoma is justified and can result in long-term survival.
 

Background: Inserting a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt by means of interventional radiology has become the procedure of choice for decompression of portal hypertension. The indications and criteria for patient selection have been expanded and refined accordingly.

Objectives: To review our experience with TIPS[1] and analyze the results with emphasis on patient selection and indication (conventional vs. atypical).

Methods: In this retrospective analysis in a single center all cases were managed by a multidisciplinary team (comprising liver surgery and transplantation, hepatology, imaging, interventional radiology and intensive care).

Results: Between August 2003 and December 2009, 34 patients (mean age 51, range 27–76 years) were treated with TIPS. The cause of portal hypertension was cirrhosis (23 cases), hypercoagulabilty complicated by Budd-Chiari syndrome (n=6), and acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5). Clinical indications for TIPS included treatment or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding (10 cases), refractory ascites (n=18), mesenteric ischemia due to acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5), and acute liver failure (n=1). TIPS was urgent in 18 cases (53%) and elective in 16. Three deaths occurred following urgent TIPS. The overall related complication rate was 32%: transient encephalopathy (6 cases), ischemic hepatitis (n=2), acute renal failure (n=2) and bleeding (n=1). Long-term results of TIPS were defined as good in 25 cases (73%), fair in 4 (12%) and failure in 5 (15%). In three of five patients with mesenteric ischemia following acute portal vein thrombosis, surgery was obviated. Revision of TIPS due to stenosis or thrombosis was needed in 7 cases (20%).

Conclusions: TIPS is safe and effective. While its benefit for patients with portal hypertension is clear, the role of TIPS in treatment of portal-mesenteric venous thrombosis needs further evaluation. Patient selection, establishing the indication and performing TIPS should be done by a multidisciplinary dedicated team.

Background: The model for end-stage liver disease is the best available predictor of waiting list mortality among liver transplant candidates.

Objectives: To validate the applicability of MELD[1] in Israel.

Methods: All candidates awaiting liver transplantation in our institution were followed prospectively since 2002. We measured the concordance (c-statistic) equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in order to assess the predictive power of MELD. Other independent mortality risk factors were identified by a separate multivariate analysis. Mortality rates within different MELD and Child‑Pugh‑Turcotte scores were compared to the original (United States) MELD data.

Results: Of 86 patients listed for transplantation, 40 were transplanted (36 in Israel and 4 abroad). Of the other 46 patients, 24 are alive and still listed, and 22 died (25%, ~7%/year). The area under the ROC[2] curve for MELD score was 0.79 (0.83 USA) compared to a CPT[3] score of 0.71 (O.76 USA). High MELD scores, occurrence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were independent risk factors of mortality. Death rates per mid MELD score (20–29) were significantly higher than the USA results.

Conclusions: MELD is valid in Israel and superior to CPT in predicting waiting list mortality. Although longer waiting time due to organ scarcity is a key factor, death rates in the mid-range (10–29) MELD groups indicate further audit of the care of patients with end‑stage liver disease.

Objective: To present our algorithm of urgent and elective donor selection.

Methods: Urgent selection is expeditious and protocol‑based. Elective selection permits a comprehensive process. Both include medical, psychosocial and surgical-anatomic evaluations. Liver volumes and vascular anatomy are evaluated with computerized tomographic angiography. Informed consent is obtained after painstaking explanations. Independent institutional committees review and approve all cases.

Results: Between July 2003 and June 2004 we evaluated 43 potential live donors for 12 potential recipients (fulminant hepatic failure, n=5; chronic end-stage liver disease, n=6); primary graft non-function, n=1). Thirty-three candidates (76%) were excluded due to blood type incompatibility (n=14, 42%), incompatible anatomy (n=8, 24%) – including problematic volume distribution (n=2) or vascular anatomy (n=6) – psychosocial issues (n=4, 12%), or medical co-morbidity (n=7, 22%). Five recipients (FHF[1], n=4; chronic ESLD[2], n=1) were successfully transplanted from living donors. In the acute setting, two patients (FHF, PGNF[3]) died in the absence of an appropriate donor (cadaveric or living donor). In the elective group, one patient died of unexpected variceal bleeding and one received a cadaveric graft just before the planned living donor transplantation was performed. One candidate was transplanted overseas and two cases are scheduled. The ratio of compatibility for donation was 34% (10/29) for blood type-compatible candidates.

Conclusions: Donor selection for living donor liver transplantation is a complex, labor-intensive multidisciplinary process. Most exclusions are due to blood type incompatibility or anatomic details. Psychosocial aspects of these donations warrant special attention.

___________

[1] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

[2] ESLD = chronic end-stage liver disease

[3] PGNF = primary graft non-function

Background: The prognosis of patients with fulminant hepatic failure without timely liver transplantation is dismal. Given the limited availability of cadaveric organs for urgent transplantation in Israel, adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation may be the only alternative.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with urgent lifesaving LDLT[1] in this unique scenario.

Methods: Three adult patients with FHF[2] (two of unknown etiology, one with paracetamol intoxication) were transferred from other institutions and admitted to our intensive care unit. Initial treatment and monitoring included intracranial pressure monitoring and hepatic dialysis using the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System. Expeditious potential donor selection included medical, psychosocial and surgical evaluation. Liver volume and vascular anatomic compatibility were assessed with computed tomography angiography.

Results: Between July and October 2003 we performed three procedures of urgent adult-to-adult LDLT. The donors (two uncles, one sister) underwent hepatic resection (two right lobes, one left lateral segment) and recovered well. The recipients underwent total hepatectomy with caval preservation, followed by lobar grafting. All recipients recovered and are alive with good liver function and without any neurologic complications.

Conclusions: Urgent adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation can be performed safely and timely as a lifesaving procedure in the setting of comatose patients with FHF.

Background: In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, with both organs coming from the same donor, the addition of a pancreas to the kidney transplant does not jeopardize the kidney allograft outcome despite higher postoperative SPK morbidity. Pancreas allograft outcome has recently improved due to better organ selection and more accurate surgical techniques.

Objective: To demonstrate the positive impact of SPK on kidney allograft outcome versus kidney transplantation alone in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with end-stage renal failure.

Methods: We performed 39 consecutive SPKs in 14 female and 25 male IDDM patients with renal failure after an average waiting time of 9 months. Multi-organ donor age was 30 years (range 12-53). The kidneys were transplanted in the left retroperitoneal iliac fossa following completion of the pancreas transplantation; kidney cold ischemia time was 16±4 hours. Induction anti-rejection therapy was achieved with polyclonal antithymocytic globulin and methylprednisolone, and maintenance immunosuppression by triple drug therapy (prednisone, cyclosporine or tacrolimus, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil). Infection and rejection were closely monitored.

Results: All kidney allografts produced immediate urinary output following SPK. Two renal grafts had mild function impairment due to acute tubular damage but recovered after a short delay. Three patients died from myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event and abdominal sepsis on days 1, 32 and 45 respectively (1 year patient survival 92%). An additional kidney allograft was lost due to a renal artery pseudo-aneurysm requiring nephrectomy on day 26. Nineteen patients (49%) had an early rejection of the kidney that was resistant to pulse-steroid therapy in 6. No kidney graft was lost due to rejection. Patients with acute kidney-pancreas rejection episodes suffered from severe infection, which was the main cause of morbidity with a 55% re-admission rate. Complications of the pancreas allograft included graft pancreatitis and sepsis, leading to a poor kidney outcome with sub-optimal kidney function at 1 year. Kidney graft survival at one year was 89% or 95% after censoring the data for patients who died with functioning grafts.

Conclusions: Eligible IDDM patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy should choose SPK over kidney transplantation alone from either a cadaver or a living source.

__________________________________

SPK= simutaneous pancreas-kidney transplatation

IDDM= insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Background: Over a 12 month period, the Israel Transplant Center doubled the number of donors by assigning a nurse coordinator to each of 22 hospitals around the country and by using kidneys from elderly donors.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of our "marginal donors" policy on the results immediately following transplantation.

Methods: Between October 1997 and September 1998, 140 cadaveric kidney transplantations from 72 donors were performed in Israel. We defined two groups of recipients: patients with immediate graft function and patients with either delayed graft function requiring >1 week of dialysis post-transplant or with primary graft non-function. We compared the following parameters between groups: donor and recipient age and gender, cause of donor’s death, length of stay in the intensive care unit, vasopressor dosage and creatinine levels before harvesting, cold ischemic time, and the number of recipient grafts.

Results: There were 102 recipients (72.8%) with immediate graft function and 38 with either PNF (n=13, 9.3%) or DGF (n=25, 17.9%). On regression analysis, donor age >50 year and retransplantation were significant risk factors for PNF or DGF (odds ratio 4.4 and 2.8, respectively). Of the 56 kidneys from donors >50 years old, 21 (37.5%) developed either PNF (n=9) or DGF (n=12).

Conclusions: We conclude that kidneys from donors over age 50 are at increased risk for graft non-function or delayed function. Better assessment of functional capacity of kidneys from “aged” donors may help to choose appropriate donors from that pool.

________________________________

PNF = primary graft non-function

DGF = delayed graft function