Early hepatic artery thrombosis treatments and outcomes: aorto-hepatic arterial conduit interposition or revision of anastomosis?

Abstract

Abstract Background Hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) is one of the critical conditions after an orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) and leads to severe problems if not corrected promptly. However, multiple treatments have been proposed for HAT, in which surgical revascularization with either auto-hepatic conduit interposition (AHCI) or revision of the anastomosis is more familiar indeed indicated for some patients and in specific situations. In this study, we want to evaluate the success and outcomes of treating early HAT (E-HAT), which defines HAT within 30 days after OLT with either of the surgical revascularization techniques. Method In this retrospective study, we collected information from the medical records of patients who underwent either of the surgical revascularization procedures for E-HAT after OLT. Patients who needed early retransplantation (RT) or died without surgical intervention for E-HAT were excluded. Demographic data, OLT surgery information, and data regarding E-HAT were gathered. The study outcomes were secondary management for E-HAT in case of improper inflow, biliary complications (BC), RT, and death. Results A total of 37 adult patients with E-HAT after OLT included in this study. These E-HATs were diagnosed within a mean of 4.6 ± 3.6 days after OLT. Two patients had their HA revised for the initial management of E-HAT; however, it changed to AHCI intraoperatively and finally needed RT. Two and nine patients from the AHCI and revision groups had re-thrombosis (12.5% vs. 47.3%, respectively, p = 0.03). RT was used to manage rethrombosis in all patients of AHCI and two patients of the revision group (22.2%). In comparison to the AHCI, revision group had statistically insignificant higher rates of BC (47.4% vs. 31.2%); however, RT for nonvascular etiologies (12.5% vs. 5.3%) and death (12.5% vs. 10.5%) were nonsignificantly higher in AHCI group. All patients with more than one HA exploration who were in the revision group had BC; however, 28.5% of patients with just one HA exploration experienced BC (p < 0.001). Conclusion Arterial conduit interposition seems a better approach for the initial management of E-HAT in comparison to revision of the HA anastomosis due to the lower risk of re-thrombosis and the number of HA explorations; indeed, BC, RT, and death remain because they are somewhat related to the ischemic event of E-HAT than to a surgical treatment itself.