Which cava anastomotic techniques are optimal regarding immediate and short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation: A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

• Published in: Clinical transplantation 2022-10, Vol.36 (10), p.e14681-n/a
• Main Authors: Shaker, Tamer M., Eason, James D., Davidson, Brian R., Barth, Rolf N., Pirenne, Jacques, Imventarza, Oscar, Spiro, Michael, Raptis, Dimitri Aristotle, Fung, John
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anastomosis, Surgical - methods; caval replacement; cavocavostomy; Humans; Kava; liver transplantation; Liver Transplantation - methods; piggyback technique; Portacaval Shunt, Surgical; renal function; Retrospective Studies; Review; temporary portocaval shunt; Vena Cava, Inferior - surgery; venovenous bypass
• ISSN: 0902-0063; 1399-0012
• DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14681

Background It has long been debated whether cava anastomosis should be performed with the piggyback technique or cava replacement, with or without veno‐venous bypass (VVB), with or without temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) in the setting of liver transplantation. Objectives To identify whether different cava anastomotic techniques and other maneuvers benefit the recipient regarding short‐term outcomes and to provide international expert panel recommendations. Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021240979). Results Of 3205 records screened, 307 publications underwent full‐text assessment for eligibility and 47 were included in qualitative synthesis. Four studies were randomized control trials. Eighteen studies were comparative. The remaining 25 were single‐center retrospective noncomparative studies. Conclusion Based on existing data and expert opinion, the panel cannot recommend one cava reconstruction technique over another, rather the surgical approach should be based on surgeon preference and center dependent, with special consideration toward patient circumstances (Quality of evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). The panel recommends against routine use of vevo‐venous bypass (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) and against the routine use of temporary porto‐caval shunt (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong).