22 August 2016: Articles
Fibrosing Cholestatic Hepatitis in a Complicated Case of an Adult Recipient After Liver Transplantation: Diagnostic Findings and Therapeutic Dilemma
Unusual clinical course, Challenging differential diagnosis, Unusual setting of medical care, Educational Purpose (only if useful for a systematic review or synthesis)
Tomohide Hori ABDEFG , Yasuharu Onishi DF , Hideya Kamei DF , Nobuhiko Kurata DF , Masatoshi Ishigami D , Yoji Ishizu D , Yasuhiro Ogura DFDOI: 10.12659/AJCR.898427
Am J Case Rep 2016; 17:597-604
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C recurrence is a serious matter after liver transplantation (LT). Approximately 10% of hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive recipients develop fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH). FCH rapidly results in graft loss. Currently, direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective and safe for hepatitis C, even after LT. However, only a few cases of successfully treated FCH after LT have been reported. We present FCH in a complicated case with sepsis and portal flow obstruction after LT.
CASE REPORT: A 66-year-old man underwent cadaveric LT. Liver function disorders were observed from post-operative day (POD) 22. Sepsis repeated on POD 38, 74, and 101. Steroid pulse therapy was given from POD 40 to 54. The infectious focus was surgically removed on POD 89. Interventional radiology for portal venous obstruction was completed on POD 96. To make a real-time diagnosis and to investigate the graft condition, repeat liver needle biopsies (LNBs) were taken. Although there was a combined impact of sepsis, portal flow decrease, and recurrent hepatitis C on graft failure, it was interesting that recurrent hepatitis C was consistently detectable from the first LNB. HCV-ribonucleic acid increased on POD 68. Liver function disorders peaked on POD 71 and 72. Jaundice peaked on POD 82. DAA induction was regrettably delayed because of a reluctance to introduce DAAs under conditions of graft dysfunction. DAAs were administered after hospital discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: A real-time and precise diagnosis based on histopathological examination and viral measurement is important for FCH treatment. Well-considered therapy with DAAs should be aggressively introduced for potentially fatal FCH after LT.
Keywords: Cholestasis, Intrahepatic - surgery, Hepatitis C, Chronic - therapy, Liver Cirrhosis - surgery, Liver Transplantation - adverse effects
Background
Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause of death from liver disease and the leading indication for adult liver transplantation (LT) [1,2]. Reinfection of the allograft with HCV is inevitable in HCV-positive LT recipients, and hepatitis C occurs in 95% of LT recipients [1]. Recurrent hepatitis C is a cause of considerable morbidity and/or mortality [1,2].
Fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) is rapidly progressive, and is an often fatal form of hepatitis B or C infection [1,2]. Approximately 10% of HCV-positive recipients will develop FCH after LT [1–3]. FCH is clinically characterized as marked jaundice with cholestatic hepatic dysfunction and high titers of viremia [1,2]. Pathologically, FCH manifests as marked hepatocyte swelling, cholestasis, periportal peritrabecular fibrosis with mild inflammation [1,2]. This progressive form of hepatitis C infection usually involves acute liver failure and rapidly results in graft loss [1–3].
A therapeutic goal of chronic HCV infection is a sustained virologic response (SVR) [4]. Historically, treatments for recurrent hepatitis C have been limited by their low rate of success and high rate of side effects [1,2]. Previous standard treatment for recurrent hepatitis C was combination therapy with pegylated interferon (IFN) and ribavirin, though this treatment induced a high rate of side effects, with a SVR rate of approximately 30% [1,2]. Currently, therapeutic strategies against HCV have dramatically improved with the recent availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) [1,2,4]. Carefully selected combinations of DAAs are effective and safe even for patients with decompensated cirrhosis or LT recipients [4]. DAAs have become the standard care in the pre-transplant setting [1,2], and moreover, have an expanding role for post-transplant recipients [1,2,4].
In 1964, Child and Turcotte published a classification to assess the operative risk in cirrhotic patients who recovered from variceal bleeding, and who were undergoing portosystemic shunt surgery. They considered five variables selected by clinical experience: ascites, encephalopathy, nutritional status, and serum levels of bilirubin and albumin, classifying patients as class A, B, or C in relation to best (A), moderate (B), or worst (C) prognosis [5]. In 1973, Pugh et al. used a modified version of this classification for patients undergoing surgical transection for esophageal varices. They replaced nutritional status with prothrombin time and assigned a score ranging from 1 to 3 for each variable [6]. Some DAAs should not be used in patients with Child C cirrhosis and/or severe renal impairment [4].
However, even though DAAs are currently available, only a few cases of successfully treated FCH after LT have been reported [7–11]. Here, we reported a case of successful treatment of potentially fatal FCH in a complicated case of an adult recipient after LT. Recipients usually show complicated clinical courses after LT. We report our diagnostic histopathological findings, and discussed the therapeutic dilemma in a case of potentially fatal FCH after LT.
Case Report
We present a complicated case of potentially fatal FCH after cadaveric LT. A 66-year-old man suffered from advanced liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension, caused by HCV (genotype Ib). He had a history of IFN therapy, but his response to IFN was poor. Imaging studies revealed venous thromboses in the portal venous (PV) trunk and splenic vein (SPV), and these showed confluence. The score of model for end-stage of liver disease was 11 points. He underwent deceased-donor LT. The donor’s age was young and the graft weight was sufficient. The graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 2.10. Ischemic preservation including cold storage was 559 minutes. The operative time was 618 minutes, and blood loss was significant (22,185 mL). The anhepatic phase was 282 minutes. Portal venous reconstruction is summarized in Figure 1. Portal inflow was performed by venous graft interposition from the recipient’s gastro-colic trunk (GCT) to graft portal trunk, using a venous graft of the donor’s iliac vein. We performed a branch-patch anastomosis for hepatic arterial reconstruction, an end-to-end biliary anastomosis, and a piggy-back technique employed for the cava. The patient left the intensive care unit (ICU) at post-operative day (POD) 4, and an early post-operative course was uneventful. Thereafter, he developed repeated sepsis, portal inflow obstruction, and potentially fatal FCH. The clinical course is summarized in Figure 2. In this case, tacrolimus, methylprednisolone (MP), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisolone (PSL) were used. The trough level of tacrolimus is shown in Figure 2. To make a real-time diagnosis and investigate graft condition, the patient received a liver needle biopsy (LNB) at POD 22, 64, 71, 82, 89, 96, and 179. Histopathological findings are summarized in Figures 3 and 4. Cytomegalovirus infection was observed at POD 22, and ganciclovir was given for 14 days. LNB was performed at POD 22 because disorders in conventional liver function tests were observed (Figure 3A). Tacrolimus was switched to a sustained-release agent from POD 31 onwards. On POD 38, sepsis occurred because of
Discussion
High viral loads in the first three months after LT have been associated with the severity of recurrent hepatitis C [12], and the level of HCV-RNA at two weeks after LT is considered an important risk factor for FCH C after LT [12]. From the viewpoint of hepatitis recurrence, several donor factors, especially donor graft steatosis and older donor age, have been associated with an earlier and more severe recurrence of hepatitis C [1,13]. Our case had no risk factors from the deceased donor.
To overcome the inevitable insufficiency of allograft size during adult living-donor LT, we intentionally establish PV pressure (PVP) under 15 mm Hg [14]. However, in this case, we did not perform PVP vigilance, because a deceased donor provided a whole liver allograft, and the actual graft volume was sufficient. From the viewpoint of recurrent hepatitis C, hepatic venous portal pressure gradients are good predictors of clinical decompensation due to recurrent hepatitis C [15]. The PVP value during LT might have been an informative predictor in our case, if PVP had been measured.
Corticosteroid usage has also been reported to have an important role in recurrent hepatitis C [16,17]. Treatment of both acute cellular rejection with multiple boluses of corticosteroids and rapid tapering of steroids have been linked to recurrent disease [16,17]. From a retrospective viewpoint, in this case, we performed SPT with rapid tapering, and thereafter, recurrent hepatitis C appeared to worsen. SPT was employed to control ARDS caused by sepsis, however, SPT might have triggered FCH. Some DAAs should not be used in patients with Child C cirrhosis and/or severe renal impairment [4]. In our case, based on the results of genotype and resistance-associated variants, daclatasvir and asunaprevir were considered suitable treatments. Cirrhosis with a Child-Pugh score of B or C contraindicates the use of these drugs because of side effects. When there is a decision against using DAAs for FCH, allograft dysfunction may be severe if based on the Child-Pugh score.
Child-Pugh score is useful to predict the outcome of surgery in cirrhotic patients, and to stratify patients on the waiting list for LT [18]. Then, a simple question arises. Even if serum ALT levels and the METAVIR system for histologic findings in chronic hepatitis C are used in transplanted allografts [19,20], is an assessment of the Child-Pugh score necessary even in allograft dysfunction after LT? In our case, the actual biochemical data were AST of 157 U/L, ALT of 311 U/L, GGT of 269 U/L, and T-Bil of 19.2 mg/dL. Even though the Child-Pugh scoring system is useful for assessing liver cirrhosis, it is not suitable for evaluating allograft dysfunction after LT. Retrospectively, we regret the delay in a decision to use DAA in this case. The last few years have seen an increase in the introduction of DAAs [1,2]. Carefully considered DAA induction provides hope for the development of new protocols that are safer and more effective, even in post-transplant situations.
Diagnosis of FCH is made based on histopathological assessment, with biopsy [1,2,21]. Definitive diagnosis of FCH after LT is made upon the fulfillment of all of the following criteria [1,22]: 1) more than 1 month after LT; 2) serum level of T-Bil >6 mg/dL; 3) serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and GGT >5 times the upper limit of normal range; 4) the presence of characteristic histopathology on LNB (ballooning of hepatocytes, absence of inflammation, and cholangiocellular proliferation without bile duct loss); 5) very high serum levels of HCV-RNA; and 6) absence of surgical biliary complications and absence of evidence of hepatic artery thrombosis.
Although there was a combined impact of sepsis, portal flow decrease, and recurrent hepatitis C on graft failure in our case, it is interesting that histopathological findings of recurrent hepatitis C were consistently detectable from the first LNB. Although FCH is a rare variant of viral hepatitis, it should be emphasized that a prompt diagnosis is important for the management of adult recipients after LT [1,2,23,24]. Histopathological examination and HCV-RNA measurement should be performed in the event of unexplained laboratory findings and/or intractable ascites [1,2]. A real-time LNB is required, and histopathological findings should be carefully assessed for a precise diagnosis.
Conclusions
A real-time and precise diagnosis based on histopathological examination and viral measurement is indispensable for the adequate treatment of FCH. We conclude that well-considered DAA therapy should be aggressively introduced for FCH in LT recipients, and that they might improve the clinical course of potentially fatal FCH.
References:
1.. Jimenez-Perez M, Gonzalez-Grande R, Rando-Munoz FJ, Management of recurrent hepatitis C virus after liver transplantation: World J Gastroenterol, 2014; 20; 16409-17, pmid: 25469009
2.. Xiao SY, Lu L, Wang HL, Fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis: Clinicopathologic spectrum, diagnosis and pathogenesis: Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2008; 1; 396-402, pmid: 18787628
3.. Berenguer M, Aguilera V, Prieto M, Effect of calcineurin inhibitors on survival and histologic disease severity in HCV-infected liver transplant recipients: Liver Transpl, 2006; 12; 762-67, pmid: 16528713
4.. Cholongitas E, Pipili C, Papatheodoridis G, Interferon-free regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus in liver transplant candidates or recipients: World J Gastroenterol, 2015; 21; 9526-33, pmid: 26327760
5.. Child C, Turcotte J, The liver and portal hypertension: Surgery and Portal Hypertension, 1964; 50-58, Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders
6.. Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices: Br J Surg, 1973; 60; 646-49, pmid: 4541913
7.. Forns X, Charlton M, Denning J, Sofosbuvir compassionate use program for patients with severe recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Hepatology, 2015; 61; 1485-94, pmid: 25557906
8.. Delabaudiere C, Lavayssière L, Dörr G, Successful treatment of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis with pegylated interferon, ribavirin and sofosbuvir after a combined kidney-liver transplantation: Transpl Int, 2015; 28; 255-58, pmid: 25159822
9.. Al Nahdi N, Ford JA, Greanya ED, First successful treatment of post-liver transplant hepatitis C fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis with boceprevir, peginterferon and ribavirin in a pre-transplant null responder: Ann Hepatol, 2013; 12; 156-60, pmid: 23293209
10.. Saab S, Jimenez M, Bau S, Treating fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis C with sofosbuvir and ribavirin: A matched analysis: Clin Transplant, 2015; 29; 813-19, pmid: 26147216
11.. Leroy V, Dumortier J, Coilly A, Efficacy of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir in patients with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015; 13; 1993-2001, pmid: 26044317
12.. Graziadei IW, Zoller HM, Schloegl A, Early viral load and recipient interleukin-28B rs12979860 genotype are predictors of the progression of hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Liver Transpl, 2012; 18; 671-79, pmid: 22298465
13.. Subramanian V, Seetharam AB, Vachharajani N, Donor graft steatosis influences immunity to hepatitis C virus and allograft outcome after liver transplantation: Transplantation, 2011; 92; 1259-68, pmid: 22011763
14.. Ogura Y, Hori T, El Moghazy WM, Portal pressure <15 mm Hg is a key for successful adult living donor liver transplantation utilizing smaller grafts than before: Liver Transpl, 2010; 16; 718-28, pmid: 20517905
15.. Blasco A, Forns X, Carrion JA, Hepatic venous pressure gradient identifies patients at risk of severe hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: Hepatology, 2006; 43; 492-99, pmid: 16496308
16.. Neumann UP, Berg T, Bahra M, Long-term outcome of liver transplants for chronic hepatitis C: A 10-year follow-up: Transplantation, 2004; 77; 226-31, pmid: 14742986
17.. Berenguer M, Ferrell L, Watson J, HCV-related fibrosis progression following liver transplantation: Increase in recent years: J Hepatol, 2000; 32; 673-84, pmid: 10782918
18.. Benedeto-Stojanov D, Nagorni A, Bjelakovic G, The model for the end-stage liver disease and Child-Pugh score in predicting prognosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal variceal bleeding: Vojnosanit Pregl, 2009; 66; 724-28, pmid: 19877551
19.. Pradat P, Alberti A, Poynard T, Predictive value of ALT levels for histologic findings in chronic hepatitis C: A European collaborative study: Hepatology, 2002; 36; 973-77, pmid: 12297846
20.. , Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group: Hepatology, 1994; 20; 15-20, pmid: 8020885
21.. Rodriguez-Luna H, Vargas HE, Management of hepatitis C virus infection in the setting of liver transplantation: Liver Transpl, 2005; 11; 479-89, pmid: 15838917
22.. Wiesner RH, Sorrell M, Villamil F, Report of the first International Liver Transplantation Society expert panel consensus conference on liver transplantation and hepatitis C: Liver Transpl, 2003; 9; S1-9, pmid: 14586888
23.. Lock J, Reinhold T, Bloch A, The cost of graft failure and other severe complications after liver transplantation – experience from a German Transplant Center: Ann Transplant, 2010; 15; 11-18, pmid: 20877261
24.. Yataco M, Bonatti H, Machicao V, Long term survival and complications after liver transplantation in patients with chronic hepatitis B: Ann Transplant, 2010; 15; 27-34, pmid: 20657516
In Press
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.949976
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950290
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950607
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950985
Most Viewed Current Articles
07 Dec 2021 : Case report
17,691,734
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934347
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934347
06 Dec 2021 : Case report
164,491
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934406
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934406
21 Jun 2024 : Case report
113,090
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report
59,175
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133






