Journal of Hepatology and Gastrointestinal disorders
Open Access

The Role of Machine Perfusion in Reducing Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury during Liver Transplantation

Martin Lewis^{* *}Correspondence: Martin Lewis, Department of Hepatology, University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, Email:

Author info »

About the Study

Liver transplantation is a critical medical procedure addressing end-stage liver disease, liver failure, and certain hepatic malignancies. The process is inherently complex requiring a delicate balance between organ allocations and optimizing transplant outcomes. The challenges stem from a limited supply of donor organs relative to the demand, necessitating efficient and equitable distribution systems. Organ allocation for liver transplantation aims to achieve equity, maximize utility, and ensure timely access for those most in need [1]. The allocation process is initiated by established systems, which depends on clinical indicators to prioritize patients. Key among these indicators is the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, a numerical scale predicting mortality risk in patients with liver disease. MELD scores are calculated based on laboratory values, including bilirubin, creatinine, and International Normalized Ratio (INR), which reflect the severity of liver dysfunction. A higher MELD score correlates with an increased risk of death without transplantation, thereby prioritizing such patients for available organs [2].

Equity is a central principle in organ allocation, necessitating careful consideration of geographical disparities, blood type compatibility, and waiting times. Geographic location plays an important role because livers must be transplanted within a limited time frame after procurement, making proximity between donor and recipient is important. Allocation systems frequently use larger sharing regulations or zone-based regions to alleviate inequities, expanding the range of possible beneficiaries while reducing organ waste [3]. Additionally, blood type compatibility is a required criterion, as mismatched transplants can lead to rejection and adverse outcomes. The dynamics of supply and demand for donor livers further complicate allocation. The scarcity of organs is managed by limited availability of deceased donors and the challenges of increasing live donor participation [4]. Deceased donors are the primary source, and their availability depends on factors such as consent rates, healthcare structure, and organ preservation techniques. Live Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT), though growing in acceptance, requires substantial commitment and entails risks for the donor [5].

Transplant outcomes are influenced by numerous factors, encompassing pre-transplant recipient characteristics, donor quality, surgical expertise, and post-transplant care. Recipient health status at the time of transplantation is a critical determinant, as severely ill patients with high MELD scores are at greater risk of complications [6]. However, timely transplantation for these individuals can significantly improve survival rates. Donor quality, encompassing factors like age, comorbidities, and liver preservation time, also affects graft function and longevity [7]. Advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative management have markedly improved transplant outcomes. Innovations in organ preservation, such as machine perfusion, allow better assessment and optimization of donor livers before transplantation. These technologies reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury, a major concern in transplantation, enhancing graft viability. Similarly, laparoscopic and roboticassisted techniques have refined surgical procedures, reducing complications and promoting quicker recovery [8]. Such developments are complemented by robust post-transplant care, including immunosuppressive therapy and monitoring for rejection, infections, and other complications.

A key component of post-transplant care is immunosuppression, which stops the immune system from rejecting the donated organ. Immunosuppressive medication selection and regimen are customized for each patient, balancing effectiveness and reducing adverse effects. Long-term usage of these drugs may present problems, including an elevated risk of cancer, metabolic diseases, and infections [9]. The objective of ongoing improvements in immunosuppressive techniques is to lower these risks while preserving efficient rejection prevention. The care of infections and illnesses further influences the results. Infections, vascular problems, and biliary strictures are common post-transplant consequences. In order to manage issues, prompt diagnosis and action are necessary, focusing on the value of multidisciplinary care teams [10]. Furthermore, general recovery and graft function may be impacted by underlying diseases like as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. Optimizing long-term health outcomes requires thorough care of these comorbidities.

References

1. Haslewood GA. The biological significance of chemical differences in bile salts. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1964;39(4):537-574.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

2. Hofmann AF, Hagey LR, Krasowski MD. Bile salts of vertebrates: Structural variation and possible evolutionary significance. J Lipid Res. 2010;51(2):226-246.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

3. Wang DQ, Carey MC. Therapeutic uses of animal biles in traditional Chinese medicine: An ethnopharmacological, biophysical chemical and medicinal review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(29):9952-9975.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

4. Frisch K, Alstrup AK. On the evolution of bile salts and the farnesoid X receptor in vertebrates. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2018;91(2):797-813.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

5. Russell DW. The enzymes, regulation, and genetics of bile acid synthesis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2003;72(1):137-174.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

6. Watanabe M, Houten SM, Mataki C, Christoffolete MA, Kim BW, Sato H, et al. Bile acids induce energy expenditure by promoting intracellular thyroid hormone activation. Nature. 2006;439(7075):484-489.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

7. Hofmann AF. Bile acids: trying to understand their chemistry and biology with the hope of helping patients. Hepatology. 2009;49(5):1403-1418.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

8. Bayerdorffer E, Mannes GA, Ochsenkühn T, Dirschedl P, Wiebecke B, Paumgartner G. Unconjugated secondary bile acids in the serum of patients with colorectal adenomas. Gut. 1995;36(2):268-373.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

9. Makishima M, Okamoto AY, Repa JJ, Tu H, Learned RM, Luk A, et al. Identification of a nuclear receptor for bile acids. Science. 1999;284(5418):1362-1365.

   [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]

10. Wang H, Chen J, Hollister K, Sowers LC, Forman BM. Endogenous bile acids are ligands for the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR. Mol Cell. 1999;3(5):543-353.

    [Crossref][Google Scholar][PubMed]