Improvement in survival associated with adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

To measure and define the best achievable outcome after major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND

No reference values are available on outcomes after major hepatectomies. Analysis in living liver donors, with safety as the highest priority, offers the opportunity to define outcome benchmarks as the best possible results.

METHODS

Outcome analyses of 5202 hemi-hepatectomies from living donors (LDs) from 12 high-volume centers worldwide were performed for a 10-year period. Endpoints, calculated at discharge, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), and liver failure according to different definitions. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of median morbidity values to represent the best achievable results at 3 month postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients were young (34 ± [9] years), predominantly male (65%) and healthy. Surgery lasted 7 ± [2] hours; 2% needed blood transfusions. Mean hospital stay was 11.7± [5] days. 12% of patients developed at least 1 complication, of which 3.8% were major events (≥grade III, including 1 death), mostly related to biliary/bleeding events, and were twice higher after right hepatectomy. The incidence of postoperative liver failure was low. Within 3-month follow-up, benchmark values for overall complication were ≤31 %, for minor/major complications ≤23% and ≤9%, respectively, and a CCI ≤33 in LDs with complications. Centers having performed ≥100 hepatectomies had significantly lower rates for overall (10.2% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and major (3% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001) complications and overall CCI (2.1 vs 8.5, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The thorough outcome analysis of healthy LDs may serve as a reference for evaluating surgical performance in patients undergoing major liver resection across centers and different patient populations. Further benchmark studies are needed to develop risk-adjusted comparisons of surgical outcomes.

When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors

Outcomes of retransplantation after initial living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand the indications, timing, and outcomes of retransplantation after initial LDLT when compared to after initial deceased donor transplantation (DDLT). From 2002 to 2013, 209 retransplant recipients after initial LDLT and 2893 after initial DDLT were identified in Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable logistic models evaluated the association between initial transplant type and 1-year mortality. The most frequent reason for early graft failure (≤14 days) in LDLT recipients was vascular thrombosis (63.6%) versus primary graft failure in initial DDLT recipients (59.1%). LDLT recipients were more often acutely and/or critically ill with a greater proportion of Status 1 (42.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (52.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.001) recipients at the time of retransplantation. There was no difference in adjusted 1-year mortality between retransplant recipients after initial LDLT versus DDLT (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.08). The proportion of recipients who ultimately required retransplantation for a third time was not different between the two groups (4.8%). Retransplantation outcomes after LDLT are not different from other retransplant procedures, despite recipients having greater acuity of illness and different indications.

Is there a standard for surgical therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma in healthy and cirrhotic liver? A comparison of eight guidelines

Background and aims

Liver resection (LR) and transplantation are the most reliable treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aim was to compare different guidelines regarding indication for resection and transplantation because of HCC with and without underlying cirrhosis.

Methods

We compared the following guidelines published after 1 January 2010: American (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)), Spanish (Sociedad Espanola de Oncologia Medica (SEOM)), European (European Association for the study of liver-European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EASL-EORTC) and European Society for Medical Oncology-European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESMO-ESDO)), Asian (Asian Pacific Association for the Study of Liver (APASL)), Japanese (Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH)), Italian (Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM)) and German (S3) guidelines.

Results

All guidelines recommend resection as therapy of choice in healthy liver. Guidelines based on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system recommend resection for single HCC<2 cm and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis and for HCC≤5 cm with normal bilirubin and portal pressure, whereas transplantation is recommended for multiple tumours between Milan criteria and for single tumours ≤5 cm and advanced liver dysfunction. Patients with HCC and Child-Pugh C cirrhosis are not candidates for transplantation. JSH guidelines recommend LR for patients with Child-Pugh A/B with HCC without tumour size restriction; APASL guidelines in general exclude patients with Child-Pugh A from transplantation. In patients with Child-Pugh B, transplantation is the second-line therapy, if resection is not possible for patients within Milan criteria. German and Italian guidelines recommend transplantation for all patients within Milan criteria.

Conclusions

Whereas resection is the standard therapy of HCC in healthy liver, a standard regarding the indication for LR and transplantation for HCC in cirrhotic liver does not exist, although nearly all guidelines claim to be evidence based. Surprisingly, despite European guidelines, Germany and Italy use their own national guidelines which partially differ from the European. Possible solutions of the problems are discussed.

Drug Metabolism, Drug Interactions, and Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Living Donor Liver Transplant Patients

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) fills a critically needed gap in the number of livers available for transplant. However, little is known about the functional recovery of the liver in the donor and in the recipient after surgery. Given that both donor and recipients are treated with several drugs, it is important to characterize the time course of recovery of hepatic synthetic, metabolic, and excretory function in these patients. In the absence of data from LDLT, information on the effect of liver disease on the pharmacokinetics of medications can be used as guidance for drug dosing in LDLT patients.

Underutilization of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Bias against MELD 20 and Higher

Background and Aims: Utilization of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and its relationship with recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) needs further evaluation in the United States (U.S.). We evaluated the association between recipient MELD score at the time of surgery and survival following LDLT. Methods: All U.S. adult LDLT recipients with MELD < 25 were evaluated using the 1995-2012 United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Survival following LDLT was stratified into three MELD categories (MELD < 15 vs. MELD 15-19 vs. MELD 20-24) and evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, 2,258 patients underwent LDLT. Compared to patients with MELD < 15, overall 5-year survival following LDLT was similar among patients with MELD 15-19 (80.9% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.77) and MELD 20-24 (81.2% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.73). When compared to patients with MELD < 15, there was no significant difference in long-term post-LDLT survival among those with MELD 15-19 (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45, p = 0.45) and a non-significant trend towards lower survival in patients with MELD 20-24 (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.91-1.81, p = 0.16). Only 14% of LDLTs were performed in patients with MELD 20-24 and the remaining 86% in patients with MELD < 20. Conclusion: LDLT is underutilized in patients with MELD 20 and higher.

Longterm clinical and radiological follow-up of living liver donors

Although short-term risks of living donor hepatectomy have been well defined, little is known about the longterm impact. We aimed to perform a systematic follow-up to screen for unanticipated health consequences of liver donation. All donors who were more than 1 year from donation were invited for a systematic evaluation including physical and laboratory assessment, quality of life questionnaire, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Those unable to return were offered the questionnaire and laboratory assessment at home. Out of our total of 97 donors, 45 returned for a full assessment and 23 completed labs and survey locally (total n = 68; 70%) after a median of 5.5 years (1.5-10.9 years) after donation. The only laboratory abnormality was a significant decrease in platelet count (median 198 ×10(9) /L versus 224 ×10(9) /L before donation; P < 0.001), whereas 93% of patients were still above normal limits. No late biliary strictures or other structural abnormalities were found on MRI/MRCP. Liver regeneration was complete. Spleen volume did significantly increase (median 278 cm(3) versus 230 cm(3) before donation; P < 0.001) without resulting in lowered platelets (P = 0.73). The most common complaints were persistent incisional numbness and changed bowel habits. Seven donors (11%) reported problems obtaining insurance. The vast majority (97%) would have donated again. In conclusion, longterm outcome following liver donation appears satisfactory. None of our donors have developed occult biliary strictures, failure of regeneration, abnormal liver function, or other important health consequences after a median of 5.5 years from surgery. These findings can be used when counseling potential donors in the future. Liver Transplantation 22 934-942 2016 AASLD.

Diaphragmatic Hernia After Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: Proposal for a Screening Protocol

BACKGROUND

Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) is increasingly being used to improve access to liver transplantation for those with end-stage liver disease. Although recipient outcomes are equivalent, donor complication rates range from 10% to 41%. A rare, but potentially serious complication is occurrence of a diaphragmatic hernia (DH), of which 9 cases have been reported so far in the literature. The purpose of this work was to review the clinical impact of DH post-LDH, including risk factors (RF) in hope of mitigating impact.

METHODS

A literature review was performed identifying all previous reports of post-operative DH in living liver donors. Demographic and outcome data were gathered to help identify RF. We also report 2 cases from our own institution.

RESULTS

Reported incidences range from 0.6% to 2.3%, of which the majority are delayed (≥19 months). Obstruction or intestinal strangulation was present in 45%, 60% of whom required an intestinal resection. The most common RF was right lobe donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative DH is a rare but serious complication of LDH. The major RFs are right lobe donation and potentially conditions resulting in increased intraabdominal pressure. Diaphragmatic hernia frequently lead to intestinal obstruction and strangulation and should be repaired when identified. The implementation of a screening protocol for early identification could lead to repair before the development of complications. We propose the addition of screening chest x-ray to follow-up protocols to aid in the identification and subsequent repair of postoperative DH. Such a practice could hopefully reduce the clinical impact of this complication.

Selection and Postoperative Care of the Living Donor

Live organ donors typically consult their primary care providers when considering live donation and then return for follow-up after surgery and for ongoing primary care. Live liver and kidney transplants are performed routinely as a method to shorten the waiting time for a recipient, provide a healthy organ for transplant, and increase recipient survival. Careful medical and psychosocial evaluation of the potential donor is imperative to minimize harm. This evaluation must be performed by an experienced live donor medical team. Routine health care with careful attention to weight maintenance, cardiovascular health, and prevention of diabetes and hypertension is paramount.

Living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) accounts for a small volume of the transplants in the USA. Due to the current liver allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), LDLT has a unique role in providing life-saving transplantation for patients with low MELD scores and significant complications from portal hypertension, as well as select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Donor safety is paramount and has been a topic of much discussion in the transplant community as well as the general media. The donor risk appears to be low overall, with a favorable long-term quality of life. The latest trend has been a gradual shift from right-lobe grafts to left-lobe grafts to reduce donor risk, provided that the left lobe can provide adequate liver volume for the recipient.

Middle Hepatic Vein Tributary Reconstruction of a Right Hepatic Graft in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Case Report

In adult living donor (right liver) lobe transplantations (LDLT), the removal of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) with the graft and reconstruction carried out in the donor are of great importance. Here a 44-year-old male patient with hepatitis B-related end-stage liver failure is reported of whom his 34-year-old brother was evaluated as a donor candidate. At routine preoperative screening tests, neither the patient nor the donor candidate was found to have any pathological findings that might interfere with the transplantation. The donor candidate was assessed using multislice computed tomography for a standard liver volume measurement and anatomical structure evaluation and extended right hepatectomy including MHV was planned. MHV of the donor removed together with the graft was reconstructed to the common orifice of MHV-left hepatic vein using a cryopreserved aortic graft. In conclusion, if the MHV is removed with the graft in adult LDLT, appropriate reconstruction in the donor is also an important issue. Reconstruction carried out without creating tension and folding in the right hepatic vein is crucial for avoiding congestion and of great importance for the prevention of graft dysfunction.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: A comprehensive review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rapidly becoming one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide. With a rising rate, it is a prominent source of mortality. Patients with advanced fibrosis, predominantly cirrhosis and hepatitis B are predisposed to developing HCC. Individuals with chronic hepatitis B and C infections are most commonly afflicted. Different therapeutic options, including liver resection, transplantation, systemic and local therapy, must be tailored to each patient. Liver transplantation offers leading results to achieve a cure. The Milan criteria is acknowledged as the model to classify the individuals that meet requirements to undergo transplantation. Mean survival remains suboptimal because of long waiting times and limited donor organ resources. Recent debates involve expansion of these criteria to create options for patients with HCC to increase overall survival.

Comparing 10-yr renal outcomes in deceased donor and living donor liver transplants

Few studies have explored whether the type of LT, deceased donor LT (DDLT) or living donor LT (LDLT), impacts long-term renal outcomes. We performed a retrospective analysis of 220 LT recipients at our institution to study their renal outcomes at 10 yr. Exclusion criteria were age ≤ 18 yr, graft survival ≤ 6 months, and multiorgan transplants; 108 DDLTs and 62 LDLTs were eligible. At baseline, DDLTs had a lower eGFR than LDLTs and 10.2% of DDLTs were on dialysis as compared to 0% of LDLTs. At 10 yr, seven DDLT and three LDLT recipients required dialysis or renal transplant (p = 0.75). In recipients with graft survival >6 months, DDLTs had a slower decline in eGFR as compared to LDLTs (p < 0.01). Among LDLTs, the decline in eGFR continued over the entire 10-yr period, whereas among DDLTs, the decline in eGFR slowed significantly after six months (p = 0.01). This difference between the two groups was not seen among patients in the highest quartile of baseline eGFR. Patient survival and graft survival were similar. In conclusion, the incidence of end-stage renal disease was similar in both DDLT and LDLT patients, but LDLT recipients seem to have a more sustained decline in eGFR when compared with DDLT recipients.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

The Risk of End-Stage Renal Disease Among Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients in the United States

Since initiation of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based allocation for liver transplantation, the risk of posttransplant end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has increased. Recent US data have demonstrated comparable, if not superior survival, among recipients of living donor liver transplants (LDLT) when compared to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. However, little is known about the incidence of ESRD post-LDLT. We analyzed linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and US Renal Data System (USRDS) data of first-time liver-alone transplant recipients from February 27, 2002 to March 1, 2011, and restricted the cohort to recipients with a laboratory MELD score ≤25 not on dialysis prior to transplantation, in order to evaluate the incidence of ESRD post-LDLT, and to compare the incidence among LDLT versus DDLT recipients. There were 28 707 DDLT and 1917 LDLT recipients included in the analyses. The 1-, 3- and 5-year unadjusted risk of ESRD was 1.7%, 2.9% and 3.4% in LDLT recipients, compared with 1.5%, 3.0% and 4.8% in DDLT recipients (p > 0.05), respectively. In multivariable competing risk Cox regression models, there was no association between receiving an LDLT and risk of ESRD (sub-hazard ratio: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.77-1.26, p = 0.92). In conclusion, the incidence of ESRD post-LDLT in the United States is low, and there are no significant differences among LDLT and DDLT recipients with MELD scores ≤25 at transplantation.

Living Donor Hepatectomy: Is it Safe?

Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) is high risk to a healthy donor and remains controversial. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN), conversely, is a common practice. The objective is to examine the outcomes of LDH and compare this risk profile to LDN. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for hepatectomies and nephrectomies from 1998 to 2011. LDH or LDN were identified by donor ICD-9 codes. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complications. Bivariate analysis compared nondonor hepatectomy or nondonor nephrectomy (NDN). Multivariate analyses adjusted for baseline organ disease, malignancy, or benign lesions. There were 430 LDH and 9211 nondonor hepatectomy. In-hospital mortality was 0 and 6 per cent, respectively ( P < 0.001); complications 4 and 33 per cent ( P < 0.001). LDH had fewer complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.15 (0.08–0.26)]. There were 15,631 LDN and 117,966 NDN. Mortality rates were 0.8 per cent LDN and 1.8 per cent NDN ( P < 0.001). Complications were 1 and 21 per cent ( P < 0.001). LDN had fewer complications [OR 0.06 (0.05–0.08)] and better survival [OR 0.32 (0.18–0.58)]. Complication rates were higher in LDH than LDN (4% vs 1%, P < 0.001), but survival was similar (0% vs 0.8% mortality, P = 0.06). In conclusion, morbidity and mortality rates of LDH are significantly lower than hepatectomy for other disease. This study suggests that the risk profile of LDH is comparable with the widely accepted LDN.

Informed consent for live liver donors: A qualitative, prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) poses serious health risks and no direct health benefits to donors. Ensuring live donors' autonomy through informed consent is critical. We assessed live liver donors' (LD) comprehension, information needs, risk perceptions, and demographics.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were prospectively conducted with LDs after completing donor evaluation and informed consent at our transplant center. Likert scales measured informed consent domains. Open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty LDs participated (100% participation rate). Although 90% of LDs reported being informed about donation 'a great deal', only 66% reported understanding information about donation 'a great deal.' Many (40%) reported difficulty understanding medical terminology. Information LDs most desired to feel comfortable with their decision included: incidence and type of donor complications (67%), description of donation procedure (57%), and the process of donor preparation (43%). Most (83%) LDs rated risks to themselves as 'not at all' to 'somewhat' risky, and minimized these risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LDs perceived that they were adequately informed, their actual comprehension about donation was inadequate. Findings suggest the value of informed consent for preparation for the procedure and potential periprocedural risks rather than for decision-making. More comprehensible information disclosure may optimize informed consent.

Spectrum of biliary complications following live donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the optimal treatment for many patients with advanced liver disease, including decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and acute liver failure. Organ shortage is the main determinant of death on the waiting list and hence living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) assumes importance. Biliary complications are the most common post operative morbidity after LDLT and occur due to anatomical and technical reasons. They include biliary leaks, strictures and cast formation and occur in the recipient as well as the donor. The types of biliary complications after LDLT along with their etiology, presenting features, diagnosis and endoscopic and surgical management are discussed.

Liver Transplantation for Patients with Cholestatic Liver Diseases

Background

Cholestatic liver diseases (CD) account for 11% of all liver transplantations (LT) in the Eurotransplant region. Despite the excellent long-term outcome that is considerably superior to all other indications for LT, transplant surgeons and physicians face nowadays – in the era of MELD (Model of End-Stage Liver Disease)-based allocation, organ shortage, and extended allocation policies – more and more challenges in this patient cohort, especially since there is no curative medical treatment for these entities.

Methods

Based on a literature review and personal experience in liver transplantation for CD, we show the status quo of indication, allocation, and outcome as well as potential strategies to overcome long waiting times and organ shortage.

Results

Concerning graft and patient survival, CD remain the ‘best indications’ for LT. Since the implementation of MELD-based allocation results in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) could be preserved on good levels only by the implementation and revision of standard exceptions. Recurrence of PSC after LT remains a challenge for transplant surgeons and physicians. New data has kindled a debate on biliary reconstruction in LT for PSC. Promising data on living donor LT motivate to push the boundaries in this direction.

Conclusion

CD are excellent indications for liver transplantation since excellent long-term outcomes are achievable when the transplant is performed at the right time. The decisions concerning evaluation, listing, and allocation should be made by an interdisciplinary team of gastroenterologists and transplant surgeons.

Major complications of adult right lobe living liver donors

BACKGROUND

The right lobe of the liver is generally preferred for living donor liver transplantation in adult patients with end-stage liver disease. It is important to know the preoperative factors relating to the major postoperative complications. We therefore evaluated the possible risk factors for predicting postoperative complications in right lobe liver donors.

METHODS

Data from 378 donors who had undergone right lobe hepatectomy at our center were evaluated retrospectively. The factors we evaluated included donor age, gender, body mass index (BMI), remnant liver volume, operation time, history of previous abdominal surgery, inclusion of the middle hepatic vein and variations in the portal and bile systems.

RESULTS

Of the 378 donors, 219 were male and 159 female. None of the donors died, but 124 (32.8%) donors experienced complications including major complications (Clavien scores III and IV) in 27 (7.1%). Univariate analysis showed that complications were significantly associated with male gender and higher BMI (P<0.05), but not with donor age, remnant liver volume, operation time, graft with middle hepatic vein, variations in the portal and bile systems and previous abdominal surgery (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that major complications were significantly associated with male gender (P=0.005) and higher BMI (P=0.029). Moreover, the Chi-square test showed that there were significant relationships between major complications and male gender (P=0.010, X2=6.614, df=1) and BMI >25 kg/m2 (P=0.031, X2=8.562, df=1). Of the 96 male donors with BMI >25 kg/m2, 14 (14.6%) with major complications had significantly smaller mean remnant liver volume than those (82, 85.4%) without major complications (32.50%+/-4.45% vs 34.63%+/-3.11%, P=0.029).

CONCLUSION

Male donors with BMI >25 kg/m2 and a remnant liver volume ≤32.50% had a significantly increased risk for major complications.

Changes in liver and spleen volumes after living liver donation: a report from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL)

Previous reports have drawn attention to persistently decreased platelet counts among liver donors. We hypothesized an etiologic association between altered platelet counts and postdonation splenomegaly and sought to explore this relationship. This study analyzed de-identified computed tomography/magnetic resonance scans of 388 donors from 9 Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study centers read at a central computational image analysis laboratory. Resulting liver and spleen volumes were correlated with time-matched clinical laboratory values. Predonation liver volumes varied 2-fold in healthy subjects, even when they were normalized by the body surface area (BSA; range = 522-1887 cc/m(2) , n = 346). At month 3 (M3), postdonation liver volumes were, on average, 79% of predonation volumes [interquartile range (IQR) = 73%-86%, n = 165] and approached 88% at year 1 (Y1; IQR = 80%-93%, n = 75). The mean spleen volume before donation was 245 cc (n = 346). Spleen volumes greater than 100% of the predonation volume occurred in 92% of donors at M3 (n = 165) and in 88% at Y1 after donation (n = 75). We sought to develop a standard spleen volume (SSV) model to predict normal spleen volumes in donors before donation and found that decreased platelet counts, a younger age, a higher predonation liver volume, higher hemoglobin levels, and a higher BSA predicted a larger spleen volume (n = 344, R(2)  = 0.52). When this was applied to postdonation values, some large volumes were underpredicted by the SSV model. Models developed on the basis of the reduced sample of postdonation volumes yielded smaller underpredictions. These findings confirm previous observations of thrombocytopenia being associated with splenomegaly after donation. The results of the SSV model suggest that the biology of this phenomenon is complex. This merits further long-term mechanistic studies of liver donors with an investigation of the role of other factors such as thrombopoietin and exposure to viral infections to better understand the evolution of the spleen volume after liver donation.

Challenges to liver transplantation and strategies to improve outcomes

Liver transplantation (LT) is a highly successful treatment for many patients with nonmalignant and malignant liver diseases. However, there is a worldwide shortage of available organs; many patients deteriorate or die while on waiting lists. We review the important clinical challenges to LT and the best use of the scarce organs. We focus on changes in indications for LT and discuss scoring systems to best match donors with recipients and optimize outcomes, particularly for the sickest patients. We also cover controversial guidelines for the use of LT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Strategies to increase the number of functional donor organs involve techniques to perfuse the organs before implantation. Partial LT (living donor and split liver transplantation) techniques might help to overcome organ shortages, and we discuss small-for-size syndrome. Many new developments could increase the success of this procedure, which is already one of the major achievements in medicine during the second part of the 20th century.

Liver transplantation for the referring physician

Liver transplantation has become the treatment of choice for nearly all causes of end-stage liver disease, fulminant liver failure, and selected primary hepatic malignancies. The demand for liver transplantation has persistently outmatched the availability of donor organs leading to the development of novel strategies to expand the donor pool. The authors review the process of liver transplant evaluation, methods used to address the donor shortage, and disease-specific outcomes and challenges and discuss posttransplant care.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS).

RESULTS

Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%,

MCS

10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

Low-volume deceased donor liver transplantation alongside a strong living donor liver transplantation service

BACKGROUND

At our center, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the main workload supported by a strong, mature service. Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is performed but in small volume. This study aimed to review the results of a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service.

METHODS

Consecutive DDLTs for adults performed from 1991 to 2009 were reviewed. The 1st to the 50th DDLTs were categorized as Era I cases, and the rest were Era II cases. The outcomes of the DDLTs were analyzed and compared with those achieved overseas.

RESULTS

Eras I and II consisted of 59 and 183 DDLTs, respectively. All donors were brain-dead and heart-beating with a median age of 49 years (range 7-76 years). Among the 242 DDLTS, 30.2 % were on a high-urgency basis and 15.3 % were for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients had a median model for end-stage liver disease score of 21 (range 6-40), and most (67.8 %) were hepatitis B virus carriers. Before transplantation, 16.1 % of the patients were in the intensive care unit and 30.2 % were in the hospital. The hospital mortality rate dropped from 13.6 % (8/59) during Era I to 3.8 % (7/183) during Era II (p = 0.012). For Era I, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 84.7, 79.7, and 76.3 %, respectively, which improved to 92.9, 89.0 and 87.2 % for Era II (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The recipient survival of this series compares favorably with contemporary series. It is shown that a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service can have excellent results.

Superior survival using living donors and donor-recipient matching using a novel living donor risk index

The deceased-donor organ supply in the U.S. has not been able to keep pace with the increasing demand for liver transplantation. We examined national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) data from 2002-2012 to assess whether living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has surpassed deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) as a superior method of transplantation, and used donor and recipient characteristics to develop a risk score to optimize donor and recipient selection for LDLT. From 2002-2012, there were 2,103 LDLTs and 46,674 DDLTs that met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted 3-year graft survival for DDLTs was 75.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.1-76.0%) compared with 78.9% (95% CI: 76.9-80.8%; P<0.001) for LDLTs that were performed at experienced centers (>15 LDLTs), with substantial improvement in LDLT graft survival over time. In multivariate models, LDLT recipients transplanted at experienced centers with either autoimmune hepatitis or cholestatic liver disease had significantly lower risks of graft failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.84 and HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63-0.92, respectively). An LDLT risk score that included both donor and recipient variables facilitated stratification of LDLT recipients into high, intermediate, and low-risk groups, with predicted 3-year graft survival ranging from >87% in the lowest risk group to <74% in the highest risk group.

CONCLUSION

Current posttransplant outcomes for LDLT are equivalent, if not superior, to DDLT when performed at experienced centers. An LDLT risk score can be used to optimize LDLT outcomes and provides objective selection criteria for donor selection in LDLT.

Comparing living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation: A matched national analysis from 2007 to 2012

A complete evaluation of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States has been difficult because of the persistent low volume and the lack of adequate comparisons with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Recent reports have suggested outcomes equivalent to those for DDLT, but these studies did not adjust for differences in recipient selection. From a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified 14,282 patients at 62 centers who underwent DDLT from 2007 to 2012 and 715 patients at 35 centers who underwent LDLT during the same period. Then, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching for 708 LDLT recipients based on age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and pretransplant patient status. The median follow-up was 2 years. Compared with DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients were more likely to be white (84.5% versus 72.2%) and female (41.1% versus 31.7%), to have lower MELD scores (15 versus 19), and to be classified preoperatively as independent (65.3% versus 46.7%) and not hospitalized (91.3% versus 78.4%). The posttransplant length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, costs, and survival were similar between the groups, but LDLT recipients were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (44.9% versus 37.1%, P = 0.001). After matching, the difference in 30-day readmission rates persisted (45.1% versus 33.8%, P = 0.001), but there were no differences in the LOS, costs, patient survival, or graft survival. This national report shows that LDLT is associated with higher readmission rates in comparison with DDLT, but the results are comparable for other key patient metrics.

Balanced approach can help initial outcomes: analysis of initial 50 cases of a new liver transplantation program in East Asia

Purpose

To evaluate patient triage pattern and outcomes according to types of liver transplantation as part of a new liver transplant program developed in an East Asian country with a limited number of deceased donors.

Methods

Medical records of initial 50 liver transplantations were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

Twenty-nine patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and 21 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Mean model for end-stage liver disease scores of recipients of DDLT and LDLT were 24.9 ± 11.6 and 13.1 ± 5.4, respectively (P < 0.0001). Twenty-eight patients had HCCs and 17 of them (60.7%) underwent LDLT, which was 80.9% of LDLTs. There were 2 cases of perioperative mortality; each was from DDLT and LDLT, respectively. Median follow-up was 18 months. Overall patient and graft survival rates at 6 months, 1 and 2 years were 95.7%, 93.4%, and 89.8%, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival between DDLT and LDLT. Overall recurrence-free survival rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients at 6 month, 1, and 2 years were 96.3%, 96.3%, and 90.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival between DDLT and LDLT.

Conclusion

As a new liver transplant program with limited resource and waiting list, patients with critical condition could undergo DDLT whereas relatively stable patients with HCCs were mostly directed to LDLT. We recommend a balanced approach between DDLT and LDLT for initiating liver transplant programs.

Overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment option for patients with irrevocable acute or chronic liver failure. In the last four decades, liver transplantation has developed from an experimental approach with a very high mortality to an almost routine procedure with good short- and long-term survival rates. Here, we present an up-to-date overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation. It is shown how the evaluation of a candidate and finally listing for transplantation has to be performed in a multidisciplinary setting. Meticulous listing, timing, and organ allocation are the crucial factors to achieve an optimal outcome for the individual patient on the one hand, and reasonably using the limited deceased donor pool on the other hand. Living-donor liver transplantation is demanding but necessarily increasing. Because patients after liver transplantation need lifelong aftercare, it is important for primary care clinicians to understand the basic medical problems and risks.

Living-donor or deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatic carcinoma: A case-matched comparison

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatic carcinoma.

METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2010, 257 patients with pathologically confirmed hepatic carcinoma met the eligibility criteria of the study. Forty patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) constituted the LDLT group, and deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) was performed in 217 patients. Patients in the LDLT group were randomly matched (1:2) to patients who underwent DDLT using a multivariate case-matched method, so 40 patients in the LDLT group and 80 patients in the DDLT group were enrolled into the study. We compared the two groups in terms of clinicopathological characteristics, postoperative complications, long-term cumulative survival and relapse-free survival outcomes. The modified Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications was used to evaluate the severity of perioperative complications. Furthermore, we determined the difference in the overall biliary complication rates in the perioperative and follow-up periods between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

RESULTS: The clinicopathological characteristics of the enrolled patients were comparable between the two groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer (553 min vs 445 min, P < 0.001) in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. Estimated blood loss (1188 mL vs 1035 mL, P = 0.055) and the proportion of patients with intraoperative transfusion (60.0% vs 43.8%, P = 0.093) were slightly but not significantly greater in the LDLT group. In contrast to DDLT, LDLT was associated with a lower rate of perioperative grade II complications (45.0% vs 65.0%, P = 0.036) but a higher risk of overall biliary complications (27.5% vs 7.5%, P = 0.003). Nonetheless, 21 patients (52.5%) in the LDLT group and 46 patients (57.5%) in the DDLT group experienced perioperative complications, and overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.603). No significant difference was observed in 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs 66.6%, P = 0.372) or relapse-free survival (72.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.749) between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

CONCLUSION: Although biliary complications were more common in the LDLT group, this group did not show any inferiority in long-term overall survival or relapse-free survival compared with DDLT.

Hepatitis C disease severity in living versus deceased donor liver transplant recipients: an extended observation study

Donor factors influence hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease severity in liver transplant (LT) recipients. Living donors, because they are typically young and have short cold ischemic times, may be advantageous for HCV-infected patients. Among HCV-infected patients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) surviving >90 days and followed for a median 4.7 years, advanced fibrosis (Ishak stage ≥3) and graft loss were determined. The 5-year cumulative risk of advanced fibrosis was 44% and 37% in living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) patients (P = 0.16), respectively. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activity at LT (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.38 for doubling of AST, P = 0.005) and biliary strictures (HR = 2.68, P = 0.0001) were associated with advanced fibrosis, but LDLT was not (HR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.69, P = 0.63). The 5-year unadjusted patient and graft survival probabilities were 79% and 78% in LDLT, and 77% and 75% in DDLT (P = 0.43 and 0.32), with 27% and 20% of LDLT and DDLT graft losses due to HCV (P = 0.45). Biliary strictures (HR = 2.25, P = 0.0006), creatinine at LT (HR = 1.74 for doubling of creatinine, P = 0.0004), and AST at LT (HR = 1.36 for doubling of AST, P = 0.004) were associated with graft loss, but LDLT was not (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.49-1.18, P = 0.23).

CONCLUSION

Donor type does not affect the probability of advanced fibrosis or patient and graft survival in HCV-infected recipients. Thus, while LDLT offers the advantage of shorter wait times, there is no apparent benefit for HCV disease progression. Biliary strictures have a negative effect on HCV fibrosis severity and graft survival, and a high AST at LT may be an important predictor of fibrosis risk post-LT.

Operative outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) because of the increasing number of patients waiting for liver transplantation (LT). However, whether it can achieve operative outcomes similar to those achieved with DDLT for adult patients remains controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the operative outcomes of LDLT and DDLT recipients. A literature search was performed to identify clinical controlled studies comparing LDLT and DDLT that were published before October 2013. Four perioperative outcomes [duration of the recipient operation (DRO), red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement, length of the hospital stay, and cold ischemia time (CIT)] and 5 postoperative complication outcomes (biliary complications, vascular complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, perioperative death, and retransplantation) were the main outcomes assessed. Nineteen studies with a total of 5450 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with DDLT, LDLT was associated with a significantly longer DRO and a shorter CIT. We found that biliary complications [odds ratio (OR) = 3.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.97-4.81, P < 0.001], vascular complications (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.32-3.54, P = 0.002), and retransplantation (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.09-2.83, P = 0.02) occurred more frequently for LDLT recipients, and the subgroup analysis indicated that the biliary complication rate decreased dramatically with greater LDLT experience. No significant difference was observed in RBC transfusion requirements, the lengths of hospital stays, intra-abdominal bleeding rates, or perioperative mortality between LDLT and DDLT recipients. In conclusion, LDLT is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications after transplantation. A reduction of postoperative complication rates can be achieved as centers gain greater experience with LDLT. However, LDLT is still an excellent alternative to DDLT because it facilitates access to LT.

Live liver donation, ethics and practitioners: 'I am between the two and if I do not feel comfortable about this situation, I cannot proceed'

This paper discusses the views of 17 healthcare practitioners involved with transplantation on the ethics of live liver donations (LLDs). Donations between emotionally related donor and recipients (especially from parents to their children) increased the acceptability of an LLD compared with those between strangers. Most healthcare professionals (HCPs) disapproved of altruistic stranger donations, considering them to entail an unacceptable degree of risk taking. Participants tended to emphasise the need to balance the harms of proceeding against those of not proceeding, rather than calculating the harm-to-benefits ratio of donor versus recipient. Participants' views suggested that a complex process of negotiation is required, which respects the autonomy of donor, recipient and HCP. Although they considered that, of the three, donor autonomy is of primary importance, they also placed considerable weight on their own autonomy. Our participants suggest that their opinions about acceptable risk taking were more objective than those of the recipient or donor and were therefore given greater weight. However, it was clear that more subjective values were also influential. Processes used in live kidney donation (LKD) were thought to be a good model for LLD, but our participants stressed that there is a danger that patients may underestimate the risks involved in LLD if it is too closely associated with LKD.

Impacts of pretransplant infections on clinical outcomes of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure who received living-donor liver transplantation

Background

Liver transplantation is the only therapeutic modality for patients with acute-on chronic liver failure (ACLF). These patients are at high risk for bacterial infections while awaiting transplantation. The aim of this study was to elucidate whether an adequately treated bacterial infection influences the outcomes after transplantation in this patient population.

Methodology/Principal Findings

54 recipients (median age, 49.5 years [range, 22–60]) of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant (LDLT) for ACLF were categorized as those with pretransplant infection (Group 1, n = 34) or without pretransplant infection (Group 2, n = 20) for retrospective analyses. With the exception of a higher male-female ratio (P = 0.046) and longer length of pretransplant hospital stay (P = 0.026) in Group 1, similar demographic, laboratory and clinical features were found in both groups. Patients in Group 1 (totally 42 pretransplant infection episodes) were adequately treated with effective antibiotic(s) before receiving LDLT. All included patients were followed up until one year after transplantation or death. Sixty-one posttransplant infection episodes were found in an overall of 44 ACLF patients (27 in Group 1 vs. 15 in Group 2; P = 0.352). Frequently encountered posttransplant infections were intraabdominal infection, pneumonia, bloodstream infection and urinary tract infection. Two patients died in each group (P = 0.622). No significant difference was found in the length of posttransplant ICU stay, and in one-year survival, graft rejection, and posttransplant infection rate between both groups. The longer overall hospital stay (mean day, 89.0 vs. 65.5, P = 0.024) found in Group 1 resulted from a longer pretransplant hospital stay receiving treatment for pretransplant infection(s) and/or awaiting transplantation.

Conclusions

These data suggested that an adequately treated pretransplant infection do not pose a significant risk for clinical outcomes including posttransplant fatality in recipients in adult-to-adult LDLT for ACLF.

Computerized assessment of competence-related abilities in living liver donors: the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Despite its importance, determination of competence to consent to organ donation varies widely based on local standards. We piloted a new tool to aid transplant centers in donor assessment.

METHODS

We assessed competence-related abilities among potential living liver donors (LDs) in the nine-center A2ALL study. Prospective LDs viewed an educational video and were queried to assess Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and ability to express a Final Choice using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research, adapted for computerized administration in LDs ("MacLiver"). Videotaped responses were scored by a clinical neuropsychologist (JF).

RESULTS

Ninety-three LDs were assessed. Mean (standard deviation; domain maximum) scores were as follows: Understanding: 18.1 (2.6; max = 22), Appreciation: 5.1 (1.0; max = 6), Reasoning: 3.1 (0.8; max = 4), and Final Choice: 3.8 (0.5; max = 4). Scores did not differ by demographics, relationship to the recipient, eligibility to donate, or eventual donation (p > 0.4). Higher education was associated with greater Understanding (p = 0.004) and Reasoning (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Standardized, computerized education with independent ratings of responses may (1) alert the clinical staff to potential donors who may not be competent to donate and (2) highlight areas needing further assessment and education, leading to better informed decision making.

Donor selection for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: well begun is half done

BACKGROUND

Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical center of evaluation. Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and the nonmaturation of potential into actual donors may sometimes prove fatal for patients with end-stage liver disease. On the contrary, a thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcomes in otherwise healthy donors. We aimed to study the reasons for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 was done.

RESULTS

Overall, 324 donors were evaluated for 219 potential recipients, and 171 (52.7%) donors were disqualified. Common reasons for donor nonmaturation included the following: (1) donor reluctance, 21%; (2) greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis, 16%; (3) assisted donor withdrawal, 14%; (4) inadequate remnant liver volume, 13%; and (5) psychosocial issues, 7%, and thrombophilia, 7%. Ten donors (6%) were turned down because of anatomic variations (8 biliary and 2 arterial anomalies). Donors older than 50 years and those with body mass index of more than 25 were less likely to be accepted for donation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that donor reluctance, hepatic steatosis, and assisted donor withdrawal are major reasons for nonmaturation of potential into actual donors. Anatomic variations and underlying medical conditions were not a major cause of donor rejection. A system in practice to recognize these factors early in the course of donor evaluation to improve the efficiency of the selection process and ensure donor safety is proposed.

Cytochrome P450 3A4FNx011B as pharmacogenomic predictor of tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and clinical outcome in the liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tacrolimus is a macrolide immunosuppressant used for prevention of allograft rejection in organ transplantation and metabolized in the liver and intestine by cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the CYP3A4 promoter region has been identified. It has been shown that the presence of CYP3A4FNx011B allele (variant GG) is associated with a reduced catalytic activity of CYP3A4 in vivo. The aim of this study was to determine the role of CYP3A4FNx011B on tacrolimus dosing and clinical outcome in liver transplant recipients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Forty-eight liver transplant recipients were stratified according to the genotype. There were 32 wild-type (AA) patients and 5 homozygous variant (GG) and 11 (AG) heterozygous. Tacrolimus doses and trough concentrations as well as phenotypic data were collected in the first 10 days of the transplant.

RESULTS

The tacrolimus concentration was significantly higher in the wild (AA) group as compared to homozygous variant (GG) and heterozygous (AG) patients. Homozygous variant (GG) group had significantly lower dose requirements. However, no significant difference was observed in the concentration/dose ratio between all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, it may be concluded that CYP3A4FNx011B of recipient is an important factor influencing pharmacokinetic of tacrolimus, as patients with CYP3A4FNx011B polymorphism may require lower tacrolimus doses to maintain therapeutic levels. The dose reduction may not affect clinical outcomes after liver transplant.

Combinational effect of intestinal and hepatic CYP3A5 genotypes on tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in recipients of living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

For living donor liver transplantation, the genetic association of CYP3A5 genotype of recipient's native intestine and donor's liver allograft with tacrolimus pharmacokinetics has not been explained completely considering liver regeneration time. The goal of the study was to investigate the longitudinal effects of recipient-donor combinational CYP3A5 genotypes on tacrolimus dose-normalized concentration (C/D ratio) in blood.

METHODS

Tacrolimus blood concentrations were measured for 58 Korean adult living donor liver transplant recipients on tacrolimus-based immunosuppressants during 4 years of follow-up. CYP3A5 was genotyped for both recipient and donor, and the recipient-donor combinational genetic effect on tacrolimus C/D ratios were evaluated as a function of time after adjusting for covariates including demographics and clinical variables.

RESULTS

CYP3A5 expresser recipients grafted from CYP3A5 expresser donors consistently had the least C/D ratio throughout the entire study period, whereas CYP3A5 expresser recipients grafted from CYP3A5 nonexpresser donors had an intermediate, and CYP3A5 nonexpresser recipients grafted from CYP3A5 nonexpresser donors had the largest C/D ratio (all P < 0.01). The CYP3A5 nonexpresser recipients grafted from CYP3A5 expresser donors showed a significant decrease from the largest to the intermediate in C/D ratio for the first month.

CONCLUSIONS

CYP3A5 genotypes of both recipient and donor were important factors influencing pharmacokinetic variability of tacrolimus. The recipient-donor combinational genetic effect on C/D ratio changed over time after transplantation.

[Attitudes among Spanish and Latin American non-medical health professionals to living donor liver transplantation]

INTRODUCTION

Hospital professionals are an opinion group that influences the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze attitudes to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) among non-medical professionals working in Spanish and Latin American hospitals and to determine the variables that influence these attitudes.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A random sample, stratified by department, was selected from non-medical staff in the "International Donor Collaborative Project": there were three hospitals in Spain, five in Mexico and two in Cuba. Attitudes were evaluated through a validated, anonymous, self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were 951 non-medical professionals: 277 from Spain, 632 from Mexico and 42 from Cuba. A total of 86% (n = 818) were in favor of related living donation and 31% (n = 299) were in favor of unrelated living donation. This attitude was associated with the following: country (Mexico 88%, Cuba 83%, Spain 81%) (p =0.016), female sex (p =0.026), having experience of donation and transplantation (p =0.001), having a favorable attitude to donation (P <0.001), considering the possibility of needing a transplant (P <0.001), being in favor of living kidney donation (P <0.001), being willing to accept a transplant from a living donor if necessary (P <0.001), discussing donation and transplantation with the family and partner (P <0.001), carrying out pro-social activities (P <0.001), believing that one's religion was in favor of donation and transplantation (P<0.001), and not worrying about bodily mutilation after donation (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes toward related LDLT among non-medical staff in various Spanish, Mexican and Cuban hospitals are favorable. In 86% of those surveyed, this attitude was not influenced by classical psychosocial factors.

Is there an advantage of living over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established strategy to decrease the mortality in the waiting list and recent studies have demonstrated its value even in patients with low MELD score. However, LDLT is still under a high level of scrutiny because of its technical complexity and ethical challenges as demonstrated by a decline in the number of procedures performed in the last decade in Western Countries. Many aspects make LDLT different from deceased donor liver transplantation, including timing of transplantation, procedure-related complications as well as immunological factors that may affect graft outcomes. Our review suggests that in selected cases, LDLT offers significant advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and should be used more liberally.

Long-term outcome after liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease, acute liver failure, and liver tumors. Over the past 4 decades, improvements in surgical techniques, peritransplant intensive care, and immunosuppressive regimens have resulted in significant improvements in short-term survival. Focus has now shifted to addressing long-term complications and improving quality of life in liver recipients. These include adverse effects of immunosuppression; recurrence of the primary liver disease; and management of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, renal dysfunction, osteoporosis, and de novo malignancy. Issues such as posttransplant depression, employment, sexual function, fertility, and pregnancy must not be overlooked, as they have a direct impact on the liver recipient's quality of life. This review summarizes the latest data in long-term outcome after liver transplantation.