Prospective imaging study evaluates rPSC incidence and outcomes in liver transplant recipients, suggesting early detection opportunities.
The true incidence and early course of recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis (rPSC) after liver transplantation (LT) remain uncertain, largely because most studies rely on clinical/biochemical features which trigger imaging. We prospectively evaluated rPSC incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in all adult PSC transplant recipients (January 2017 - September 2024) using a predefined magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) surveillance protocol at 1 and 3 years. rPSC was diagnosed by Mayo criteria, and advanced rPSC was defined by therapeutic endoscopic intervention, retransplantation, or death. Among 119 recipients, 105 were eligible for follow-up and 102 completed at least the first scheduled MRCP. Recurrent disease occurred in 50 of 102 recipients (49.0%), including 31 (30.4%) already detected at the first imaging. During a median follow-up of 56 months, advanced rPSC developed in 15/102 patients (14.7%). Ulcerative colitis, de novo post-transplant inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and post-transplant IBD flare were associated with recurrence. Independent predictors of advanced recurrence were male sex, cytomegalovirus viremia, and lower donor body mass index, whereas cytomegalovirus donor-recipient mismatch was protective. Cytomegalovirus viremia was observed in 9 of 102 patients. Kaplan–Meier analyses showed faster progression to advanced recurrence in patients with cytomegalovirus viremia than in cytomegalovirus-negative recipients. Protocol-driven MRCP surveillance demonstrates that rPSC is frequent and often detectable early after liver transplantation, identifying a potential therapeutic window before clinical manifestations occur. Distinct risk profiles may suggest two phenotypes: an IBD-driven and a cytomegalovirus-associated form.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: