Macrosteatotic and nonmacrosteatotic grafts respond differently to intermittent hepatic inflow occlusion: Comparison of recipient survival

Abstract

Intermittent hepatic inflow occlusion (IHIO) during liver graft procurement is known to confer protection against graft ischemia/reperfusion injury and thus may benefit the recipient's outcome. We evaluated whether the protective effect of IHIO differs with the presence of macrosteatosis (MaS) and with an increase or decrease in the cumulative occlusion time. The subgroup of 188 recipients who received grafts with MaS was divided into 3 groups according to the number of total IHIO rounds during graft procurement: no IHIO, n = 70; 1 to 2 rounds of IHIO, n = 50; and ≥3 rounds of IHIO, n = 68. Likewise, the subgroup of 200 recipients who received grafts without MaS was divided into 3 groups: no IHIO, n = 108; 1 to 2 rounds of IHIO, n = 40; and ≥3 rounds of IHIO, n = 52. The Cox model was applied to evaluate the association between the number of total IHIO rounds and recipient survival separately in the subgroup of MaS recipients and the subgroup of non-MaS recipients. Analyzed covariables included the etiology, Milan criteria, transfusion, immunosuppression, and others. In the subgroup of MaS recipients, 1 to 2 rounds of IHIO were favorably associated with recipient survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10-0.80; P = 0.03 after Bonferroni correction], whereas ≥3 rounds of IHIO were not associated with recipient survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.25-1.23). In the subgroup of non-MaS recipients, neither 1 to 2 rounds of IHIO (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.30-1.61) nor ≥3 rounds of IHIO (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.42-1.96) were associated with recipient survival. In conclusion, 1 to 2 rounds of IHIO may be used for the procurement of MaS grafts with potential benefit for recipient survival, whereas IHIO has a limited impact on recipient survival regardless of the cumulative occlusion time when it is used for non-MaS grafts.