(a)

	mTOR inhibitor	HAT (%)	Portal vein thrombosis (%)
De novo dosing
Levy et al. Liver Transpl. 2006; 12: 1640–8 [52]	EVR	Placebo: 3.3, EVR 1, 2, and 4 mg/day: 0, 3.3, and 3.2, respectively
Chinnakotla et al. Liver Transpl. 2009; 15: 1834–42 [55]	SRL	1.65 versus 0 (SRL versus TAC, P = NS)	1.65 versus 0.94 (SRL versus TAC, P = NS)
Molinari et al. Transpl Intl. 2010; 23: 155–68 [53]	SRL	1.2 versus 5.8 (SRL versus CNI, P = 0.004)	0.8 versus 1.8 (SRL versus CNI, P = NS)
Dunkelberg et al. Liver Transpl. 2003; 9: 463–8 [61]	SRL	Hepatic artery complications: 5.3 versus 8.3 (SRL versus controls, P = NS)
Wiesner et al. Am J Transplant. 2002; 2 (s3): 464 (Abstract 1294) [44]	SRL	8.1 versus 3.8 and 9.0 versus 3.8 (SRL + CsA + CS versus TAC + CS, 2 and 6 months after transplant, P = NS for both timepoints)
Zimmerman et al. Liver Transpl. 2008; 14: 633–8 [15]	SRL	2.2 versus 1.9 (SRL versus CNI)	0 versus 0
Early conversion (≤3 months after conversion)
De Simone et al. Am J Transplant. 2012; 12: 3008–20 [87]	EVR	0.4 versus 0.4 compared to 1.9 in all patients during the prerandomization run-in phase (EVR + TAC-RD versus EVR + TAC-WD)
Masetti et al. Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 2252–62 [89]	EVR	Hepatic artery stenosis/thrombosis: 1.9 versus 15.4 (EVR versus CsA, P = 0.04)
McKenna et al. Am J Transplant. 2011; 11: 2379–87 [57]	SRL	1.2 versus 5.6 (SRL versus SRL-free, P = 0.02)
Rogers et al. Clin Transplant. 2009; 23: 887–96 [48]	SRL	7 versus 11 (SRL versus CNI, P = NS)	0 versus 8 (P = 0.02)
Schleicher et al. Transplant Proc. 2010; 42: 2572–5 [49]	SRL	0
Late conversion (>3 months after conversion)
Abdelmalek et al. Am J Transplant. 2012; 12: 694–705 [45]	SRL	0.25 versus 0 (SRL versus CNI, P = NS)

P values are included where available.

CNI: calcineurin inhibitor; CsA: cyclosporine A; EVR: everolimus; HAT: hepatic artery thrombosis; NS: nonsignificant; SRL: sirolimus; TAC: tacrolimus; TAC-RD: reduced-dose tacrolimus (C0: 3–5 ng/mL); TAC-WD: tacrolimus withdrawn.