Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
autoimmune hepatitis
alcoholic liver disease
acute liver failure
aspartate aminotransferase
Center of Disease Control and Prevention
calcineurin inhibitor
chronic kidney disease
cytomegalovirus
creatinine
direct-acting antiviral
donation after cardiac death
extended criteria donors
end-stage liver disease
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
hepatitis A virus
hepatitis B immune globulin
hepatitis B virus
hepatocellular carcinoma
hepatitis C virus
hemolysis, elevated liver enzyme levels and low platelet levels
human immunodeficiency virus
hepatopulmonary syndrome
hepatorenal syndrome
histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate
international normalized ratio
liver transplantation
model for end-stage liver disease
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
National Organ Transplant Act of 1984
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
primary sclerosing cholangitis
pediatric end-stages liver disease
parenteral nutrition
primary nonfunction
percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography
posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder
rabbit antithymocyte globulin
radio frequency ablation
Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients
transarterial chemoembolization
total bilirubin
target of rapamycin
ursodeoxycholic acid
University of California, San Francisco
United Network of Organ Sharing
University of Washington
In 2011, an important breakthrough occurred in the long history of liver pathology and liver transplantation (LT). For the first time in over a decade, two new antiviral medications were introduced into the market for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV, genotype 1), telaprevir, and boceprevir. Previous dual therapy with ribavirin and pegylated interferon was no longer the standard of care. This new class of antiviral medication is described as direct-acting antiviral (DAA), protease inhibitors with great efficacy against the HCV virus. As these medications have evolved over the past 5 years, a new paradigm has evolved in the field of liver transplantation. Most patients with HCV can now be cured of the virus. Although HCV cirrhosis continues to account for 40% of all liver transplant patients, this percentage will rapidly decline as an ever increasing number of patients receive effective therapy.
Worldwide, there continues to be growth in LT as more countries are able to develop both deceased and living-donor transplant programs. However, in most developed countries in North America and Europe, the annual number of liver transplants has reached a plateau over the last decade with little change in volume. Still, improvements in the transplant surgical procedure, postoperative management, and immunosuppressive agents result in thousands of lives being saved on a yearly basis. The majority of these patients return to good functional status, including many patients who return to work and to a high level of physical activity. Unfortunately, such progress has inevitably brought about an increased demand for LT, and the shortage of ideal donor organs remains.
Current growth in the field of LT is directly proportional to expansion of the organ donor pool through the use of living donors and the use of non-ideal deceased donors, so-called extended criteria donors (ECD). Indications for LT have expanded to include elderly patients with comorbidities, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and other tumors, and retransplantation in patients with recurrent disease. Current research in the field of LT attempts to provide more donor organs through improvement in organ preservation and procurement techniques, expanded use of ECD organs and living donors, and eventually, the development of an unlimited supply of organs through xenotransplantation. Another impediment in the field of LT is the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs. These powerful agents, although effective at preventing rejection, continue to have major side effects that impact on long-term patient morbidity and mortality. This chapter reviews the history of and current trends in LT, LT recipient selection, organ donor selection, the operative transplant procedure, immunosuppression, and transplant outcomes.
The idea of organ transplantation in the modern era ( Box 37.1 ) began with Dr. Alexis Carrel, who pioneered the concept of sewing two individual blood vessels together with suture to establish alternative vascular flow. As this technique was refined, the possibility of removing an individual organ on a vascular pedicle with reimplantation at a remote site became a reality. It was a natural extension, then, to consider similar connections between the ureter and the bladder, the common bile duct and the intestine, and similar connections for other organs. Contemporaneously, Karl Landsteiner and Peter Medawar performed groundbreaking research of the human immune system including establishment of ABO compatibility and skin allograft rejection. These concepts eventually led to the first kidney transplant, a living donor transplant between identical twins, in the 1950s.
Early 1900s: Alexis Carrel at the University of Lyons develops surgical technique of performing vascular anastomoses.
1906 to 1912: Basic concepts of transplant immunology, including rejection, established by Karl Landsteiner (ABO compatibility) at the University of Vienna and Alexis Carrel (physiologic disturbances of organs caused by biologic factors).
Mid 1940s: Peter Medawar elucidated the pathophysiology of skin allograft rejection at the University of Oxford.
Early 1950s: Successful renal transplantation in humans.
1955: Stuart Welch at Albany Medical College describes auxiliary liver transplantation in dogs.
Late 1950s: Earliest attempts at experimental liver transplantation.
1963: Thomas Starzl attempts first human liver transplant in a child at University of Colorado; the patient does not survive surgery. After two additional unsuccessful attempts by Starzl, and failures in Boston and Paris, worldwide moratorium on liver transplantation, which lasts 3.5 years.
1967: First successful liver transplant by Starzl. Between 1967 and 1979, more than 160 patients undergo liver transplantation at the University of Colorado with marginal success.
1968: The second liver transplant program is established by Roy Calne at the University of Cambridge.
1980: Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA): Provides comprehensive and medically sound basis for determining death in all situations, thus establishing brain death law.
1983: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognizes liver transplantation as a therapeutic modality for end-stage liver disease.
1984: Cyclosporine becomes available as first clinically effective immunosuppressant. National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA): forbids buying and selling of human organs; establishes the organ procurement and transplantation network (OPTN) to administer transplantation in the United States.
1984: First reduced size liver transplant by Henri Bismuth at Paul Brousse Hospital, France.
1988: Rudolf Pichlmayr performs first split-liver transplant at Hannover Medical School, Germany.
1989: Tacrolimus (Prograf, FK 506) introduced as an effective immunosuppressant; early reports suggest improved survival compared with cyclosporine.
1989: First successful left lobe living-donor liver transplant by Dr. Christoph Broelsch at the University of Chicago Medical Center in November 1989 (left lateral segment, mother to child).
1994: First successful right lobe living-donor liver transplant by Dr. Yoshio Yamaoka at Kyoto University, Japan.
2002: Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for allograft allocation instituted.
2011: Introduction of direct-acting antivirals as an effective therapy to cure hepatitis C.
Liver transplantation was first successfully performed in the 1960s by Dr. Thomas Starzl. He worked tirelessly throughout the subsequent two decades to establish this procedure as the standard of care for patients with end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, liver transplantation was a complex surgical procedure undertaken for physiologically decompensated, high-risk patients. Early transplants were marked by massive blood loss, hemodynamic instability, prolonged hospital stays, and predictably poor clinical outcomes. Early survival was measured in months rather than years. The primary causes of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) at that time were alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and hepatitis B (HBV)-related cirrhosis. Growth of liver transplantation was understandably slow.
In 1984, cyclosporine was introduced clinically as an immunosuppressive agent and all clinical solid organ transplant outcomes immediately improved. For the first time, 1-year patient survival after liver transplant was greater than 50% because the risk of rejection could be reliably managed in most patients. Critical care management improved, along with advances in surgical technique and immunosuppression, throughout the 1980s and 1990s. One-year survival rates improved to above 80%. With improved outcomes, competition for scarce donor liver allografts increased. The United States Congress passed important federal laws facilitating organ donation and procurement, as well as allocation and distribution. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) strictly forbid the buying and selling of human organs, created the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), and established a Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to follow outcomes. The OPTN is administered through the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) which maintains the national organ waiting list, facilitates organ distribution and transplantation (including computerized donor-recipient matching), and monitors member centers for compliance with OPTN policies.
Another critical law passed at this time was the Uniform Determination of Death Act . This established a legal definition of death through one of two mechanisms: (1) permanent cessation of function of the cardiopulmonary system, or (2) irreversible loss of brain function. Before the establishment of a legal definition of brain death, all deceased donor organs were procured only after cessation of cardiopulmonary function. This subjected all donor organs to a period of warm ischemia time, as the initiation of organ procurement could not occur until the declaration of cardiac death. This necessary period between the declaration of death and the initiation of procurement frequently resulted in irreversible injury to the donor organs that had a direct impact on clinical transplant outcomes. With the legal establishment of brain death, the potential donor could be declared legally dead with a completely intact, and clinically stable, cardiopulmonary system. Organ procurement from a donor who has been declared brain dead permits rapid exsanguination and cooling of the organs with no warm ischemia time, which improves initial and long-term function of the graft. The legislation to establish a definition for brain death has been critical to the growth of transplantation and today, 96% of all deceased donors have been declared brain dead at the time of organ procurement.
These legislative mandates had a direct impact on the ability of transplant physicians to improve clinical outcomes and save lives. Private and governmental payers accepted liver transplantation as an indicated procedure for the treatment of ESLD and established reimbursement mechanisms. With adoption of these measures, there was a dramatic increase in the number of patients listed for transplantation. Broad public media campaigns were initiated to encourage organ donation to supply the burgeoning need for this resource ( Fig. 37.1 ). Soon the demand for donor organs outstripped the need, and living donor liver transplantation began to grow. The definition of an acceptable deceased donor was expanded to include liver allografts from the elderly, the obese, those with known traumatic liver injury, and patients with known exposure to infectious diseases. More recently, the use of donors who have already experienced cardiac death has started to increase. Today, the bulk of research in clinical liver transplantation centers on expanding the use of available organ donors and improving immunosuppressive agents.
In 2015, there were 119 US liver transplant centers that performed 10 or more LTs, with a total LT volume of 7127. There were 19 centers that performed more than 100 liver transplants. Organ donor types were composed of 95% deceased donors and 5% living donors. There were 648 livers that were donated and procured for transplantation but were unable to be transplanted. Pediatric LT recipients (younger than 18 years) comprise 8% and 16% of deceased and living donor transplants, respectively. Overall adult LT outcomes include graft survival of 88% and 82% at 1 year, and 70% and 73% at 5 years, for deceased and living donors, respectively ( Table 37.1 ). Among pediatric patients, 64% receive a whole liver graft, whereas 36% receive a partial liver graft. Eleven percent of pediatric recipients receive a living donor graft, and these living donor grafts have better long-term survival. Five-year survival is 73%, 75%, and 77% for patients age younger than 1 year, 1 to 5 years, and 5 to 17 years respectively ( Table 37.2 ). Recent long-term studies have demonstrated a 5% to 10% decrease in patient survival for recipients with HCV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at 3 to 5 years posttransplant, although this will change with the advent of effective anti-HCV therapy. Overall, LT patients enjoy a good quality of life. Many patients return to work, and survival more than 20 years is not uncommon. Many female recipients have reported successful pregnancies, although not without risk of graft injury or loss. Future quality of life research will center on the minimization of immunosuppression related complications, which remain common.
Time from Transplantation | Deceased Donor | Living Donor |
---|---|---|
90 days | 93% | 85% |
1 year | 88% | 82% |
3 years | 76% | 81% |
5 years | 70% | 73% |
10 years | 55% | 55% |
Deceased Donors | Brain Death | Cardiac Death |
---|---|---|
1 year | 87% | 78% |
3 years | 76% | 70% |
5 years | 70% | 66% |
HCV | Alcohol | Cholestatic | |
---|---|---|---|
1 year | 84% | 87% | 87% |
3 years | 72% | 77% | 84% |
5 years | 67% | 71% | 78% |
<65 Years | 65 and Older | |
---|---|---|
1 year | 87% | 87% |
3 years | 76% | 73% |
5 years | 72% | 67% |
Living Donors | HCV | Alcohol | Cholestatic |
---|---|---|---|
1 year | 83% | 88% | 86% |
3 years | 75% | 78% | 82% |
5 years | 67% | 73% | 78% |
MELD<20 | MELD>20 | |
---|---|---|
1 year | 85% | 82% |
3 years | 78% | 71% |
5 years | 74% | 66% |
Transplant Type | |
---|---|
Whole liver | 64% |
Partial liver | 36% |
Donor Type | |
---|---|
Deceased | 89% |
Living | 11% |
Survival | ||
---|---|---|
Time from Transplantation | Deceased Donor | Living Donor |
6 months | 93% | 93% |
1 year | 88% | 93% |
3 years | 82% | 85% |
5 years | 80% | 84% |
10 years | 68% | 81% |
Recipient Age (deceased donor) | |||
---|---|---|---|
<1 Year | 1–5 Years | 6–17 Years | |
1 year | 82% | 84% | 87% |
3 years | 75% | 77% | 81% |
5 years | 73% | 75% | 77% |
The leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States is hepatitis C–related cirrhosis ( Box 37.2 ). HCV infects 1.5% of the US population and leads to chronic hepatitis in 65% to 85% of carriers, 15% to 25% of whom develop cirrhosis. Since the introduction of direct-acting antiviral therapy, more than 250,000 people have undergone treatment for this disease in the United States. The new therapy has transformed the disease. The virus is readily cleared in a large percentage of patients, taking an oral medication only, with few side effects. Aggressive screening measures are being implemented among the at-risk population to identify infected individuals, and to begin therapy before they develop chronic liver disease. These new medications have been proven effective in eradication of the virus, with individualized therapies used for different genotypes and based on resistance to previous treatment attempts.
Primary biliary cholangitis
Sclerosing cholangitis
Secondary biliary cirrhosis
Biliary atresia
Cystic fibrosis
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis D
Autoimmune chronic active hepatitis
Cryptogenic cirrhosis
Chronic drug toxicity or toxin exposure
Alcoholic cirrhosis
Budd-Chiari syndrome
Polycystic liver disease
Hemochromatosis
Wilson disease
Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency
Glycogen storage disease
Tyrosinemia
Familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy
Type 1 hyperoxaluria
Familial homozygous hypercholesterolemia
Other metabolic disorders treatable by liver replacement.
Acute viral hepatitis
Drug toxicity
Toxin exposure
Wilson disease
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Cholangiocarcinoma
Metastatic carcinoid or neuroendocrine tumors
HCV transmission is primarily through intravenous drug use and sexual contact. There are several HCV subtypes that have variable response to treatment. HCV genotype 1 accounts for approximately 70% of all infections and has the highest rate of progression to cirrhosis with the poorest response to treatment. HCV accounts for 40% of all liver transplants and is usually the result of a chronic and insidious disease progression over a 20- to 30-year period from the initial infection. There are a large percentage of transplant recipients who are infected with hepatitis C virus and carry additional diagnoses including alcoholic liver disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and HCC. Data assessing the impact of hepatitis C combined with other disease processes injurious to the liver are incomplete and extrapolation regarding long-term disease progression has not been defined. Clinically, however, hepatitis C–infected patients with an extensive history of alcohol abuse appear to progress at a more rapid rate to ESLD.
HCV recurrence postliver transplant was previously universal and led to chronic damage to the liver allograft in the majority of patients. Now, a large percentage of patients with HCV cirrhosis arrive to transplant already cured of their HCV. Although long-term outcomes for this population are not yet available, it is expected that they will mirror those for non-HCV patients. Early clinical experience suggests that clearance of HCV in the cirrhotic patient tends to stabilize or improve the patient’s clinical status. Thus, treatment may result in delay, or complete avoidance, of liver transplantation. Use of HCV-infected organ donors in HCV-infected transplant recipients has been common practice for many years, with good long-term outcomes. Now, use of these HCV-infected donors is more problematic. There are fewer recipients able to accept these donors. Now, many centers are recommending that their high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score patients not be treated for HCV, undergo LT first, and then receive therapy to cure their HCV after the transplant.
Hepatitis B is the most common cause of liver cirrhosis worldwide and affects an estimated 400 million persons. Although hepatitis B (HBV) infection was previously a major cause of ESLD in the Western world, its prevalence has decreased dramatically with the development of an effective vaccine that is now administered to all children at infancy in many countries. There remains a high prevalence of HBV infection in Asia and Africa, where immunization is not yet widely available. In these areas, HBV remains the leading cause of ESLD, and the development of HCC with chronic HBV hepatitis is common. Posttransplant HBV recurrence was 80% with frequent progression to early graft failure, retransplantation, and death. However, the development of effective antiviral therapies, including hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIg) and lamivudine, has resulted in graft survival results similar to patients with nonviral liver disease and low rates of posttransplant recurrence. Acute hepatitis B infection can lead to acute liver failure in 1% to 4% of infected patients, but these patients can achieve reasonable survival results with transplantation and appropriate follow-up therapy.
Hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection is unusual in the United States and Europe but, in rare cases, can lead to acute liver failure. In general, HAV infection is self-limited and causes an acute illness that does not lead to chronic liver disease. In countries with poor sanitation and dense population, HAV accounts for 10% of cases of acute liver failure. Older patients (over age 40) and those with underlying liver disease (related to chronic HCV infection or alcoholic liver disease) are at increased risk of HAV-related acute liver failure.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has grown at a rapid rate in Western countries in recent years as the general population has experienced an epidemic of obesity. Obesity is defined as a body mass index of 30 or higher. The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically. More than 65% of the US population is considered to be overweight, with 35% being obese. More than 5% of the population is affected by NAFLD. Currently in the United States, HCV, NAFLD, and ALD comprise the top three indications for liver transplantation. However, although the prevalence of HCV- and ALD-related cirrhosis has stabilized or decreased, NAFLD-related cirrhosis continues to increase yearly and affect persons at younger and younger ages. It is now thought that NAFLD is the primary cause of cirrhosis in many patients previously diagnosed with cryptogenic cirrhosis. Extrapolation of current trends, including a cure for HCV, have led researchers to predict that NAFLD as a cause of cirrhosis will surpass HCV-cirrhosis as the primary indication for liver transplantation in the next 10 years. Posttransplant recurrence of NAFLD is common. The prevalence of moderate steatosis at 1-year posttransplant is 15% in patients with HCV or ALD but 60% in patients transplanted for NAFLD.
Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is the third leading indication for LT in the United States and is also a leading cause worldwide. The time interval from the onset of alcohol abuse to ESLD is variable and depends upon average daily consumption, alcohol-free intervals, comorbid diseases, and genetic predisposition. According to recent national surveys reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of the adult US population drank alcohol in the past 30 days. Approximately 5% of the total population drank heavily, whereas 15% of the population binge drank. The US prevalence of ALD is reported at 0.75%, and excessive alcohol use is the third leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year.
Approximately 20% of liver transplant recipients have a history of ALD. There is a sizeable percentage of patients with HCV infection who also have ALD. Combining ALD with any other primary liver disease may result in a synergistic effect with more rapid progression to end-stage liver disease. Most US centers require a confirmed period of alcohol abstinence of 6 to 12 months before listing for liver transplantation. This abstinence period often includes a required period of intensive outpatient addiction-related therapy as well as random alcohol and drug screening. Posttransplant alcohol recidivism is a major concern as alcohol intake posttransplant can be particularly toxic to the transplant liver and can lead to rapid hepatic decompensation and death depending on total intake. Alcohol recidivism varies widely posttransplant, but most centers quote a 10% to 20% rate within 5 years. Many of these patients have additional addiction issues and require ongoing support and therapy related to the use of both legal and illegal addictive substances. In spite of these statistics, posttransplant survival for patients with ALD is excellent with results equivalent to those for patients with nonviral liver disease undergoing transplantation.
Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a chronic, inflammatory liver condition associated with autoantibodies that incite an interface hepatitis. This process can result in both acute liver failure and chronic liver disease. The prevalence is highest in young females (70%) and the disease typically responds to immunosuppressive therapy. Patients progress to LT when their condition becomes decompensated. Unfortunately, a clinical marker for onset of AIH has not been identified and its exact cause is unknown. As such, the diagnosis is one of exclusion in which other diseases have been ruled out and the patient fits with a set of clinical, histologic, and laboratory parameters. These patients typically do well with the transplant procedure because they tend to be young and otherwise well compensated. Disease recurrence and liver allograft failure is common, however, as the hyperactive immune system leads to high rates of acute and chronic allograft rejection and difficulty in modulating immunosuppression. Of note, de novo AIH can occur in patients who underwent liver transplantation for another primary disease process.
Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease resulting from injury to septal and lobular bile ducts. The disease tends to affect middle-aged females, is thought to be immune-mediated, and affects 0.1% of the population in the United States. The primary treatment for PBC is ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), which prolongs transplant-free survival and prevents disease-associated complications such as esophageal varices and severe pruritus. No current studies provide evidence, however, that available medical therapy ultimately precludes the need for transplantation or prolongs transplant-free survival. A significant number of these patients, therefore, do progress to transplantation which prolongs their survival when compared with the natural history of the disease. PBC can recur posttransplant and the incidence may be as high as 10% to 20% at 5 years. Posttransplant survival for PBC patients is among the highest of all liver transplant recipients, exceeding 90% at 1 year and 80% at 3 years.
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the bile ducts of the liver, which leads to loss of ducts and duct strictures. PSC more commonly affects males, and 70% of patients with PSC also have inflammatory bowel disease (primarily ulcerative colitis). Current medical therapy has little impact on the progression of this disease, and the inability of the liver to excrete bile leads to cirrhosis and chronic cholangitis and the need for LT. Importantly, patients with PSC carry an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma, which occurs in 10% to 20% of cases. Predictive factors for cholangiocarcinoma are inadequate, which results in PSC patients undergoing frequent screening with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to obtain bile duct brushings for pathologic review. Patients with PSC carry a higher risk of liver rejection and are often placed on a more aggressive immunosuppression regimen posttransplant.
The transplant procedure for PSC has historically required the use of Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy to avoid use of the remaining posthepatectomy bile duct for a duct-to-duct anastomosis. This duct was felt to be at risk for stricture that could compromise the transplant liver. However, with the increasing safety and utility of ERCP, some centers are now connecting the transplant common bile duct to the native bile duct, if it is normal in appearance. The duct-to-duct anastomosis permits ongoing posttransplant ERCP surveillance of the native duct, which remains at risk for cholangiocarcinoma. This surveillance is not possible with the alternative duct reconstruction. Although overall posttransplant survival is excellent, PSC can recur posttransplant. The diagnosis of posttransplant PSC is complicated. There is a high rate of biliary complications that exist for any liver transplant and these must be ruled out before entertaining a diagnosis of posttransplant PSC. Common transplant issues that affect the biliary system include technical issues (stenosis), poor arterial flow, donation after cardiac death donor, an episode of profound hypotension, or severe preservation injury or ABO incompatibility.
Early experience with LT for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) resulted in a high rate of HCC recurrence and patient death. Recurrence frequently occurred within 2 years of transplantation and was localized to the transplant liver. Use of donor liver allografts in these patients was questioned. In 1989, the US Department of Health and Human Services decided that the presence of HCC was a contraindication to liver transplantation. During that time, outcomes for liver transplantation continued to improve, resulting in an increasing demand for the procedure. Liver transplant waitlist times increased to well over 1 year, and it was impractical to pursue liver transplantation in patients with HCC. Often, the tumor burden would progress and exclude this option. As alternative treatment for these patients, several modalities were studied and showed promise in reducing tumor size and slowing tumor progression. Procedures such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), ethanol injection, cryosurgery, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were increasingly used.
Eventually, scoring systems were developed to prioritize patients with liver cirrhosis and HCC; select patients have been found to have survival similar to that for other LT patients when falling within these established criteria. It was soon proven that liver transplantation is the most effective treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), addressing not only the primary tumor, but also the “at-risk” liver that remains highly susceptible to the development of additional tumors. Optimal outcomes are seen in patients who have a solitary tumor less than 5 cm in diameter, or three or fewer tumors, with no tumor greater than 3 cm in diameter (Milan criteria). The Milan criteria are the most commonly used parameters today, although the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria are more liberal and have been shown to have similar results ( Table 37.3 ). In 2015, 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival for transplanted patients who had HCC at the time of transplant was 88%, 77%, and 70%, respectively. These outcomes compare favorably with all patients undergoing LT, and transplant is clearly the best therapeutic option for patients with HCC that is multifocal or is greater than 2 cm in size.
Single Tumor | Multiple Tumors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Staging System | Maximum Diameter | Maximum Number | Largest Tumor Size | Total Tumor Size |
Milan criteria | 5.0 cm | 3 | 3.0 cm | Not applicable |
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria | 6.5 cm | 3 | 4.5 cm | 8.0 cm |
Patients who fall outside of the Milan or UCSF criteria may be denied transplantation. Recent progress has been made in downsizing HCC to decrease total tumor volume, which may permit individual patients to undergo LT at certain centers. Patients may be outside of acceptable criteria because of either too many discrete tumors (ie, multifocal HCC, four or more tumors) or a single tumor which is too large (>5cm). LT is denied in these patients because of published reports describing shorter survival rates in patients with larger or more numerous tumors. The biology of such tumors is difficult to predict. Multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma is very difficult to control with nontransplant liver directed therapies, including newer chemoembolization techniques and RFA, whereas single large tumors often respond well to these treatments. The estimated survival for patients with multifocal disease who do not undergo transplantation is 9 to 12 months. An important factor that contributes to HCC recurrence and patient survival posttransplant is the amount of time that an individual awaits liver transplantation. Research addressing transplant outcomes in patients with HCC are subject to the confounding factor of the time period between the diagnosis of HCC, and definitive therapy for the HCC (ie, LT). The longer the HCC is present, the higher the risk of spread and subsequent recurrence. In recent years, several liver transplant centers have significantly decreased the median wait time to transplant through the use of ECD liver allografts and living partial liver donors. At centers with a very short wait time to transplant, there is likely a decreased risk of HCC recurrence. Use of broader criteria for acceptable tumor characteristics at these centers may result in acceptable posttransplant survival.
Acute liver failure (ALF) is a consequence of severe liver damage from a nonchronic process that results in encephalopathy and cerebral edema, acute renal failure, coagulopathy, and physiologic disturbances of blood glucose and acid-base status. Depending on the amount of hepatic damage present, patients with ALF have the potential for complete recovery with return to normal liver function. Unfortunately, many affected persons progress to massive, nonreversible end-organ damage requiring liver transplantation. The primary cause of death in these critically ill patients is brain herniation related to severe cerebral edema and multiorgan failure related to severe acidosis. Patients who do recover may have persistent neurologic damage, and many have persistent renal failure which recovers over weeks’ to months’ time either with liver regeneration or LT. ALF accounts for 10% of all liver transplants in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
The most common etiology of ALF in Western countries is acetaminophen toxicity, most frequently related to an intentional overdose, although unintentional overdoses are common. Another important etiology is drug toxicity related to other agents such as methotrexate, antituberculosis drugs, and anticonvulsants. Unintentional overdoses commonly occur when a combination of a hepatotoxic prescribed drug is combined with a high level of over-the-counter acetaminophen. In patients with moderate to heavy daily alcohol use, acute liver failure may occur when this alcohol use is combined with otherwise acceptable levels of one or two other hepatotoxic drugs over several consecutive days or weeks. Other causes of acute liver failure are much less common. Any virus that impacts the liver can give rise to acute liver failure. Other infrequently seen acute immunologic or metabolic processes can lead to ALF including autoimmune hepatitis, Wilson disease, acute fatty liver of pregnancy and the HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzyme levels, and low platelet levels) syndrome, acute Budd-Chiari syndrome, massive hepatic ischemia, and ingestion of Amanita phalloides .
The decision to transplant a patient with ALF is a critical juncture in clinical management. Patients who recover with supportive care only can have no long-term sequelae and resume all normal life activities. Transplanted patients can also experience a full recovery, although they will require lifelong immunosuppression, with its associated risks. Various prognostic criteria have been developed to assist the clinician in this critical decision and generally use clinical and laboratory data such as systemic pH, severity of coagulopathy, severity of encephalopathy, period from onset of jaundice to onset of encephalopathy, serum bilirubin, factor V levels, percent necrosis on liver biopsy, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) score, and MELD score. Patients who do undergo transplantation have a decreased survival when compared with those patients undergoing LT for chronic liver disease. However, most of the decrease in survival for ALF occurs in the first 3 months posttransplant in which many deaths occur in relation to the acute illness and transplant procedure.
The primary indication for LT in children is hepatic failure ( Box 37.3 ). Hepatic failure can result from a chronic primary disease process, such as biliary atresia, alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency, progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis, PSC, or AIH. LT may also be indicated in children with a nonprogressive primary liver disease in which the symptoms or morbidity of the disease outweigh the risks of transplantation. Examples of these diseases include Alagille syndrome and inborn errors of metabolism. Cystic fibrosis is an example of secondary liver disease in which the primary disease process is systemic but results in life-threatening liver dysfunction. The decision to perform LT in a child without end-stage liver failure can result from debilitating symptoms such as pruritus, which leads to chronic skin lesions, malnutrition and growth failure, or fatigue that impedes the ability to participate in school.
Biliary atresia
Alagille syndrome
Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis
Giant cell hepatitis or neonatal hepatitis of unknown etiology
Chronic parenteral nutrition therapy related to intestinal failure
Acute and subacute hepatic failure
Hepatotoxins
Acute Wilson disease
Autoimmune liver disease
Chronic hepatitis B or C
Polycystic liver disease
Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency
Tyrosinemia Type 1
Wilson disease
Neonatal hemochromatosis
Glycogen storage disease Type 1
Cystic fibrosis
Inborn errors of metabolism
Crigler-Najjar Syndrome Type I
Ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency
Maple syrup liver disease (MSUD)
Familial hypercholesterolemia
Hepatoblastoma
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here