Faculty Bibliography

Laparoscopy is currently considered the standard of care for certain procedures such as left-lateral sectionectomies and wedge resections of anterior segments. The role of robotic liver surgery is still under debate, especially with regards to oncological outcomes. The purpose of this review is to describe how the field of robotic liver surgery has expanded, and to identify current limitations and future perspectives of the technology. Available evidences suggest that oncologic results after robotic liver resection are comparable to open and laparoscopic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, with identifiable advantages for cirrhotic patients and patients undergoing repeat resections. Excellent outcomes and optimal patient safety can be only achieved with specific hepato-biliary and general minimally invasive training to overcome the learning curve.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources. METHODS:We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources. RESULTS:Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems. LAY SUMMARY:There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.

The current supply of acceptable donor livers is not sufficient to meet the demands of listed patients awaiting transplantation resulting in thousands of deaths each year. Increased utilization of marginal livers may help alleviate this supply/demand mismatch by expanding the donor liver pool. The current status of liver transplantation using marginal donor grafts and efforts to optimize usage are discussed with attention to elderly donors, steatotic livers, donors after circulatory death, and split liver grafts.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has caused shockwaves throughout the US healthcare system. Nowhere has coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) caused more infections than in New York, where there have been over 26 500 infections. Resources have been appropriately allocated toward combating this outbreak, but where does this leave patients with severe non-COVID-19 diseases? Herein we provide the views of a liver transplant surgeon and transplant hepatologist in New York.

Patients with cirrhosis often have concomitant coronary artery disease and require percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PCI in cirrhotics can be associated with significant risks due to thrombocytopenia, possible coagulopathies, bleeding, and renal failure. Longer term risks of PCI in cirrhotics have not been well studied. Our study seeks to evaluate the 90-day outcomes of PCI in patients with cirrhosis. Patients receiving PCI were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014 and stratified by the presence of co-morbid cirrhosis. The total mortality during index admission and 90-day readmissions as well as the readmissions rate were examined. Adverse events including bleeding, stroke, kidney injury, and vascular complications were also compared. Patients with cirrhosis had a significantly higher number of co-morbidities. The cirrhosis group had a higher overall 90-day mortality (10.3% vs 2.5%, p < 0.01), including during the index hospitalization (7.0% vs 1.8%, p < 0.01), as well as a higher 90-day readmission rate (38.2% vs 20.2%, p < 0.01). Patients with cirrhosis also had higher frequencies of overall 90-day adverse events (44.7% vs 17.7%, p < 0.01), including gastrointestinal bleeding (15.3% vs 2.7%, p < 0.01) and acute kidney injury (28.4% vs 10.1%, p < 0.01). In conclusion, patients with cirrhosis face a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes including mortality, readmissions, and adverse events in the 90 days after hospitalization for PCI compared with the general population.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to determine the rate, predictors, and impact of complete pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, multicenter cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). BACKGROUND:LRT is used to mitigate waitlist dropout for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Degree of tumor necrosis found on explant has been associated with recurrence and overall survival, but has not been evaluated in a large, multicenter study. METHODS:Comparisons were made among patients receiving pre-LT LRT with (n = 802) and without (n = 2637) cPR from the United States Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC), and multivariable predictors of cPR were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS:Of 3439 patients, 802 (23%) had cPR on explant. Compared with patients without cPR, cPR patients were younger; had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, AFP levels, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLR); were more likely to have tumors within Milan criteria and fewer LRT treatments; and had significantly lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidence of post-LT recurrence (1.3%, 3.5%, and 5.2% vs 6.2%, 13.5%, and 16.4%; P < 0.001) and superior overall survival (92%, 84%, and 75% vs 90%, 78%, and 68%; P < 0.001). Multivariable predictors of cPR included age, sex, liver disease diagnosis, MELD, AFP, NLR, radiographic Milan status, and number of LRT treatments (C-statistic 0.67). CONCLUSIONS:For LT recipients with HCC receiving pretransplant LRT, achieving cPR portends significantly lower posttransplant recurrence and superior survival. Factors predicting cPR are identified, which may help prioritize patients and guide LRT strategies to optimize posttransplant cancer outcomes.