Influence of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion on tumor recurrence after deceased donor liver transplantation: a large nationwide cohort study.
{"title":"Influence of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion on tumor recurrence after deceased donor liver transplantation: a large nationwide cohort study.","authors":"Mengfan Yang, Xuyong Wei, Wenzhi Shu, Xiangyu Zhai, Zhisheng Zhou, Jinzhen Cai, Jiayin Yang, Bin Jin, Shusen Zheng, Xiao Xu","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000001683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The practice of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) during deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can potentially reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. However, implementing IBSA remains debatable due to concerns about its possible detrimental effects on oncologic recurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study retrospectively enrolled nationwide recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation for HCC between 2015 and 2020. The focus was on comparing the cumulative recurrence rate and the recurrence-free survival rate. Propensity score matching was conducted repeatedly for further subgroup comparison. Recipients were categorized based on the Milan criteria, macrovascular invasion, and pretransplant α-Fetoprotein (AFP) level to identify subgroups at risk of HCC recurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6196 and 329 patients were enrolled in the non-IBSA and IBSA groups in this study. Multivariable competing risk regression analysis identified IBSA as independent risk factors for HCC recurrence ( P <0.05). Postmatching, the cumulative recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival rate revealed no significant difference in the IBSA group and non-IBSA group (22.4 vs. 16.5%, P =0.12; 60.3 vs. 60.9%, P =0.74). Recipients beyond Milan criteria had higher, albeit not significant, risk of HCC recurrence if receiving IBSA (33.4 vs. 22.5%, P =0.14). For recipients with macrovascular invasion, the risk of HCC recurrence has no significant difference between the two groups (32.2 vs. 21.3%, P =0.231). For recipients with an AFP level <20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was comparable in the IBSA group and the non-IBSA group (12.8 vs. 18.7%, P =0.99). Recipients with an AFP level ≥20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was significantly higher in the IBSA group. For those with an AFP level ≥400 ng/ml, the impact of IBSA on the cumulative recurrence rate was even more pronounced (49.8 vs. 21.9%, P =0.011).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IBSA does not appear to be associated with worse outcomes for recipients with HCC exceeding the Milan criteria or with macrovascular invasion. IBSA could be confidently applied for recipients with a pretransplant AFP level <20 ng/ml. For recipients with AFP levels ≥20 ng/ml, undertaking IBSA would increase the risk of HCC recurrence.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"5652-5661"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392187/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001683","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: The practice of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) during deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can potentially reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. However, implementing IBSA remains debatable due to concerns about its possible detrimental effects on oncologic recurrence.
Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled nationwide recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation for HCC between 2015 and 2020. The focus was on comparing the cumulative recurrence rate and the recurrence-free survival rate. Propensity score matching was conducted repeatedly for further subgroup comparison. Recipients were categorized based on the Milan criteria, macrovascular invasion, and pretransplant α-Fetoprotein (AFP) level to identify subgroups at risk of HCC recurrence.
Results: A total of 6196 and 329 patients were enrolled in the non-IBSA and IBSA groups in this study. Multivariable competing risk regression analysis identified IBSA as independent risk factors for HCC recurrence ( P <0.05). Postmatching, the cumulative recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival rate revealed no significant difference in the IBSA group and non-IBSA group (22.4 vs. 16.5%, P =0.12; 60.3 vs. 60.9%, P =0.74). Recipients beyond Milan criteria had higher, albeit not significant, risk of HCC recurrence if receiving IBSA (33.4 vs. 22.5%, P =0.14). For recipients with macrovascular invasion, the risk of HCC recurrence has no significant difference between the two groups (32.2 vs. 21.3%, P =0.231). For recipients with an AFP level <20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was comparable in the IBSA group and the non-IBSA group (12.8 vs. 18.7%, P =0.99). Recipients with an AFP level ≥20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was significantly higher in the IBSA group. For those with an AFP level ≥400 ng/ml, the impact of IBSA on the cumulative recurrence rate was even more pronounced (49.8 vs. 21.9%, P =0.011).
Conclusions: IBSA does not appear to be associated with worse outcomes for recipients with HCC exceeding the Milan criteria or with macrovascular invasion. IBSA could be confidently applied for recipients with a pretransplant AFP level <20 ng/ml. For recipients with AFP levels ≥20 ng/ml, undertaking IBSA would increase the risk of HCC recurrence.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.