Little is known about hepatic artery (HA) patency and patient clinical course when the nonthrombosed HA has been revised. We undertook this study to evaluate the risk factors in the development of HA stenosis and to assess the impact of HA revision on the outcome. A total of 857 adult consecutive OLT in 780 patients performed over a 6-year period were studied. Patients who underwent revision of their nonthrombosed but stenotic HA were reviewed for patient/graft survival, method of HA revision, incidence of biliary strictures, and long-term HA patency. Overall 39 patients (5%) with 41 allografts underwent HA revision for stenosis. Median time to diagnosis was 100 days posttransplant (range 1-1220 days). HA flow at the time of OLT was found to be the only significant variable of an anastomotic stenosis. No risk factor could be identified for the graft HA stenosis. Treatment methods included resection of the stenotic segment with primary reanastomosis (n = 17), aortohepatic iliac artery graft (n = 11), interposition vein graft (n = 4), vein patch angioplasty (n = 2), interposition artery graft (n = 1), and percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (n = 6). Postrevisional HA patency was demonstrated in 32 (78%) cases. At a median follow-up of 25 months, 26 patients (67%) were asymptomatic with good liver function. Nine patients had developed biliary strictures. Seven patients had undergone retransplantation and 8 patients had died. The actuarial patient and graft survivals at 4 years in the patients with revised HA were 65% and 56%, respectively. HA stenosis requiring revision is an infrequent occurrence after OLT. Long-term patency of the revised HA is good. Revision of the HA may help prevent biliary strictures and allow for good long-term graft function in the majority of patients.

We have described a high incidence of recurrent PSC and CR in patients who received transplants for PSC. Histopathologic analysis suggests that CR and recurrent PSC could represent a spectrum of indistinguishable disease. However, the distinct difference in clinical outcome, as evidenced by an increased repeat transplantation rate and lower graft and patient survival in the CR group, clearly suggests that they are two distinct entities that require very different treatment strategies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract