Piggyback or Cava Replacement: Which Implantation Technique Protects Liver Recipients From Acute Kidney Injury and Complications?

The cava-preserving piggyback (PB) technique requires only partial cava clamping during the anhepatic phase in liver transplantation (LT) and, therefore, maintains venous return and may hemodynamically stabilize the recipient. Hence, it is an ongoing debate whether PB implantation is more protective from acute kidney injury (AKI) after LT when compared with a classic cava replacement (CR) technique. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of AKI and other complications after LT comparing both transplant techniques without the use of venovenous bypass. We retrospectively analyzed the adult donation after brain death LT cohort between 2008 and 2016 at our center. Liver and kidney function and general outcomes including complications were assessed. Overall 378 transplantations were analyzed, of which 177 (46.8%) were performed as PB and 201 (53.2%) as CR technique. AKI occurred equally often in both groups. Transient renal replacement therapy was required in 22.6% and 22.4% comparing the PB and CR techniques (P = 0.81). Further outcome parameters including the complication rate were similar in both cohorts. Five-year graft and patient survival were comparable between the groups with 81% and 85%, respectively (P = 0.48; P = 0.58). In conclusion, both liver implantation techniques are equal in terms of kidney function and overall complications following LT.