Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver (ACLF) are distinct phenotypes of liver failure and, thus, need to be compared and contrasted for appropriate management. There has been a significant improvement in the outcomes of these patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Survival post-LT for ALF and ACLF ranges between 90% and 95% and 80% and 90% at 1 year, futility criteria have been described in both ALF and ACLF where organ failures define survival. Plasma exchange and continuous renal replacement therapy may serve as bridging therapies. Identifying the futility of LT is as necessary as the utility of LT in patients with ALF and ACLF. The role of regenerative therapies such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in ACLF and hepatocyte and xenotransplantation in both conditions remains uncertain. Measures to increase the donor pool through increasing deceased donor transplants in Asian countries, living donations in Western countries, auxiliary liver transplants, and ABO-incompatible liver transplants are necessary to improve the survival of these patients. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences in clinical characteristics and the timing and outcomes of LT for ALF and ACLF, briefly highlighting the role of bridging therapies and providing an overview of recent advances in the management of ALF and ACLF.

An international, multicenter, survey-based analysis of practice and management of acute liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is an acute liver dysfunction with coagulopathy and HE in a patient with no known liver disease. As ALF is rare and large clinical trials are lacking, the level of evidence regarding its management is low-moderate, favoring heterogeneous clinical practice. In this international multicenter survey study, we aimed to investigate the current practice and management of patients with ALF. An online survey targeting physicians who care for patients with ALF was developed by the International Liver Transplantation Society ALF Special-Interest Group. The survey focused on the management and liver transplantation (LT) practices of ALF. Survey questions were summarized overall and by geographic region. A total of 267 physicians completed the survey, with a survey response rate of 21.36%. Centers from all continents were represented. More than 90% of physicians specialized in either transplant hepatology/surgery or anesthesiology/critical care. Two hundred fifty-two (94.4%) respondents' institutions offered LT. A total of 76.8% of respondents' centers had a dedicated liver-intensive or transplant-intensive care unit ( p < 0.001). The median time to LT was within 48 hours in 12.7% of respondents' centers, 72 hours in 35.6%, 1 week in 37.6%, and more than 1 week in 9.6% ( p < 0.001). Deceased donor liver graft (49.6%) was the most common type of graft offered. For consideration of LT, 84.8% of physicians used King's College Criteria, and 41.6% used Clichy Criteria. Significant differences were observed between Asia, Europe, and North America for offering LT, number of LTs performed, volume of patients with ALF, admission to a dedicated intensive care unit, median time to LT, type of liver graft, monitoring HE and intracranial pressure, management of coagulopathy, and utilization of different criteria for LT. In our study, we observed significant geographic differences in the practice and management of ALF. As ALF is rare, multicenter studies are valuable for identifying global practice.

Survival benefit of living-donor liver transplantation in patients with a model for end-stage liver disease over 30 in a region with severe organ shortage: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in patients with a high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (who have high waitlist mortality) are unclear. Regional availability of deceased-donor organs must be considered when evaluating LDLT benefits. The authors aimed to compare the survival benefit of intended-LDLT to awaiting deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in patients with a MELD score greater than or equal to 30 in a region with severe organ shortage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review included 649 patients with a MELD score greater than or equal to 30 placed on the liver transplantation waitlist. They were divided into intended-LDLT ( n =205) or waiting-DDLT ( n =444) groups based on living-donor eligibility and compared for patient survival from the time of waitlisting. Post-transplantation outcomes of transplant recipients and living donors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Intended-LDLT patients had higher 1-year survival than waiting-DDLT patients (53.7 vs. 28.8%, P <0.001). LDLT was independently associated with lower mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79; P <0.001]. During follow-up, 25 patients were de-listed, 120 underwent LDLT, 170 underwent DDLT, and 334 remained on the waitlist. Among patients undergoing transplantation, the risk of post-transplantation mortality was similar for LDLT and DDLT after adjusting for pretransplantation MELD score (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 0.73-4.75; P =0.193), despite increased surgical complications after LDLT (33.1 vs. 19.4%, P =0.013). There was no mortality among living-donors, but 4.2% experienced complications of grade 3 or higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to awaiting DDLT, LDLT offers survival benefits for patients with a MELD score greater than or equal to 30, while maintaining acceptable donor outcomes. LDLT is a feasible treatment for patients with a MELD score greater than or equal to 30 in regions with severe organ shortages.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Prognostic Scores in Acute Liver Failure Due to Viral Hepatitis

Viral infections are among the major causes of acute liver failure (ALF) worldwide. While the role of agents such as hepatitis A, B, C, D and E viruses in precipitating ALF are well known, improvements in serological assays have led to the detection of viral agents such as Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus etc. as atypical causes of ALF. Despite the plethora of literature available on viral hepatitis and ALF, there is very limited large-scale epidemiologic data on the prevalence, risk factors of progression and outcomes in ALF of viral causes. This is important as viral infections remain the leading cause of ALF in the East and in developing countries, while the impact of viral ALF in the West has largely been ameliorated by effective vaccination and sanitization programs. This review focuses specifically on the available prognostic scores that aid in the management of ALF of viral etiologies while also briefly reviewing the current literature on newer viral agents known to cause ALF, risk factors of progression, outcomes and how management algorithms can be developed by incorporation of prognostic scoring systems for referral and transplant listing.

Management of Acute Liver Failure: Update 2022

Abbreviated pathogenesis and clinical course of the acute liver failure syndrome. The pathogenesis and clinical course of the syndrome of acute liver failure (ALF) differs depending upon the etiology of the primary liver injury. In turn, the severity of the liver injury and resulting synthetic failure is often the primary determinant of whether a patient is referred for emergency liver transplantation. Injuries by viral etiologies trigger the innate immune system via pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), while toxin-induced (and presumably ischemia-induced) injuries do so via damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). The course of the clinical syndrome further depends upon the relative intensity and composition of cytokine release, resulting in an early proinflammatory phenotype (SIRS) and later compensatory anti-inflammatory response phenotype (CARS). The outcomes of overwhelming immune activation are the systemic (extrahepatic) features of ALF (cardiovascular collapse, cerebral edema, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, sepsis) which ultimately determine the likelihood of death.Acute liver failure (ALF) continues to carry a high risk of mortality or the need for transplantation despite recent improvements in overall outcomes over the past two decades. Optimal management begins with identifying that liver failure is indeed present and its etiology, since outcomes and the need for transplantation vary widely across the different etiologies. Most causes of ALF can be divided into hyperacute (ischemia and acetaminophen) and subacute types (other etiologies), based on time of evolution of signs and symptoms of liver failure; the former evolve in 3 to 4 days and the latter typically in 2 to 4 weeks. Both involve intense release of cytokines and hepatocellular contents into the circulation with multiorgan effects/consequences.Management involves optimizing fluid balance and cardiovascular support, including the use of continuous renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and pulmonary ventilation. Early evaluation for liver transplantation is advised particularly for acetaminophen toxicity, which evolves so rapidly that delay is likely to lead to death.Vasopressor support, high-grade hepatic encephalopathy, and unfavorable (subacute) etiologies heighten the need for urgent listing for liver transplantation. Prognostic scores such as Kings Criteria, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, and the Acute Liver Failure Group prognostic index take these features into account and provide reasonable but imperfect predictive accuracy. Future treatments may include liver support devices and/or agents that improve hepatocyte regeneration.

Perioperative management of living donor liver transplantation: Part 2 - Donors

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations for emergency donation. Recent surgical advances, including laparoscopic donor hemi-hepatectomy and robotic laparoscopic donor surgery, are also addressed.

Gender and race/ethnicity differences in living kidney donor demographics: Preference or disparity?

In the United States, women are over-represented and Blacks are under-represented as living kidney donors. A traditional bioethics approach would state that as long as living donors believe that the benefits of participation outweigh the risks and harms (beneficence) and they give a voluntary and informed consent, then the demographics reflect a mere difference in preferences. Such an analysis, however, ignores the social, economic and cultural determinants as well as various forms of structural discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism) that may imply that the distribution is less voluntary than may appear initially. The distribution also raises justice concerns regarding the fair recruitment and selection of living donors. We examine the differences in living kidney donor demographics using a vulnerabilities analysis and argue that these gender and racial differences may not reflect mere preferences, but rather, serious justice concerns that need to be addressed at both the individual and systems level.

Effects of genetically modified human skin fibroblasts, stably overexpressing hepatocyte growth factor, on hepatic functions of cocultured C3A cells

Diseases leading to terminal hepatic failure are among the most common causes of death worldwide. Transplant of the whole organ is the only effective method to cure liver failure. Unfortunately, this treatment option is not available universally due to the serious shortage of donors. Thus, alternative methods have been developed that are aimed at prolonging the life of patients, including hepatic cells transplantation and bridging therapy based on hybrid bioartificial liver devices. Parenchymal liver cells are highly differentiated and perform many complex functions, such as detoxification and protein synthesis. Unfortunately, isolated hepatocytes display a rapid decline in viability and liver-specific functions. A number of methods have been developed to maintain hepatocytes in their highly differentiated state in vitro, amongst them the most promising being 3D growth scaffolds and decellularized tissues or coculture with other cell types required for the heterotypic cell-cell interactions. Here we present a novel approach to the hepatic cells culture based on the feeder layer cells genetically modified using lentiviral vector to stably produce additional amounts of hepatocyte growth factor and show the positive influence of these coculture conditions on the preservation of the hepatic functions of the liver parenchymal cells' model-C3A cells.

The role of living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a life-threatening illness that occurs in the absence of pre-existing liver disease. When symptoms seriously progress under continuous supportive medical care, liver transplantation becomes the only therapeutic strategy. However, the available sources of organs for liver transplantation differ worldwide. In regions in which organs from cadaveric donors are more common, deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is performed in this urgent situation. Conversely, in countries where cadaveric donors are scarce, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only choice. Special considerations must be made for urgent LDLT for ALF, including the expedited evaluation of living donors, technical issues, and the limitations of ABO blood type combinations between recipients and donor candidates. In this review, we highlight the role of LDLT for ALF and the considerations that distinguish it from DDLT. LDLT is well-established as a life-saving procedure for ALF patients and there is often no alternative to LDLT, especially in countries where DDLT is not feasible. However, from a global perspective, an increase in the deceased donor pool might be an urgent and important necessity.

Acute Liver Failure Secondary to Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is the most common cause of acute liver failure (ALF) in Western countries. Without liver transplantation, the mortality rate for ALF approaches greater than 80%. Acetaminophen-related ALF may be associated with a rapid progression but fortunately has a high chance for spontaneous survival compared with idiosyncratic DILI-related ALF. Several prognostic scoring systems for severe DILI have been developed to aid clinicians in selecting patients who require urgent liver transplantation. Patients who undergo liver transplantation for ALF are at risk for early graft loss and death and should be closely followed.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure: Donor Safety and Recipient Outcome

In countries where deceased organ donation is sparse, emergency living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only lifesaving option in select patients with acute liver failure (ALF). The aim of the current study is living liver donor safety and recipient outcomes following LDLT for ALF. A total of 410 patients underwent LDLT between March 2011 and February 2018, out of which 61 (14.9%) were for ALF. All satisfied the King's College criteria (KCC). Median admission to transplant time was 48 hours (range, 24-80.5 hours), and median living donor evaluation time was 18 hours (14-20 hours). Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 37 (32-40) with more than two-thirds having grade 3 or 4 encephalopathy and 70% being on mechanical ventilation. The most common etiology was viral (37%). Median jaundice-to-encephalopathy time was 15 (9-29) days. Preoperative culture was positive in 47.5%. There was no difference in the complication rate among emergency and elective living liver donors (13.1% versus 21.2%; P = 0.19). There was no donor mortality. For patients who met the KCC but did not undergo LT, survival was 22.8% (29/127). The 5-year post-LT actuarial survival was 65.57% with a median follow-up of 35 months. On multivariate analysis, postoperative worsening of cerebral edema (CE; hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-6.31), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS; HR, 16.7; 95% CI, 2.05-136.7), preoperative culture positivity (HR, 6.54; 95% CI, 2.24-19.07), and a longer anhepatic phase duration (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) predicted poor outcomes. In conclusion, emergency LDLT is lifesaving in selected patients with ALF. Outcomes of emergency living liver donation were comparable to that of elective donors. Postoperative worsening of CE, preoperative SIRS, and sepsis predicted outcome after LDLT for ALF.

No Difference in Morbidity and Mortality After Total Joint Arthroplasty in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Nationwide, Population-Based Study Using Universal Healthcare Data

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains regarding the outcomes after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) among patients with or without liver transplantation (LT). This study aimed at investigating the prevalence of TJA in patients after LT and comparing the morbidity and mortality with the non-LT group.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide, population-based study, with data extracted from a universal health insurance database, based on the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Patients who underwent TJAs between January 2001 and December 2014 were included. Patients who had bilateral TJAs or a TJA before LT were excluded. A total of 43 patients with LT and 350,337 patients without LT were included. The analysis was implemented using data from all patients and those matched by 1-to-10 propensity score matching. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control confounding variables.

RESULTS

The prevalence of patients undergoing TJA after LT was 1.3% (43/3276). After propensity score matching, patients with LT were not associated with 30-day complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.03; P = .35), 30-day readmission rates (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-1.08; P = .87), 90-day complication rates (aOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.02; P = .16), 1-year infection rates (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.12; P = .35), reoperation rates (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.23; P = .41), or mortality (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.04; P = .18).

CONCLUSION

The morbidity and mortality seem to be comparable whether TJA is performed in patients with or without LT. Methods for risk assessment would be feasible in liver transplant recipients.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure

With the advent of liver transplant for acute liver failure (ALF), survival rate has improved drastically. Liver transplant for ALF accounts for 8% of all transplant cases. The 1-year survival rates are 79% in Europe and 84% in the United States. Some patients with ALF may recover spontaneously, and approximately half will undergo liver transplant. It is imperative to identify patients with ALF as soon as possible to transfer them to a liver transplant center for a thorough evaluation. Emergent liver transplant in a patient with ALF may place the patient at risk for severe complications in the postoperative period.

Acute liver failure in children-Is living donor liver transplantation justified?

OBJECTIVES

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in patients with acute liver failure (ALF) has become an acceptable alternative to transplantation from deceased donors (DDLT). The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of LDLT in pediatric patients with ALF based on our center's experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We enrolled 63 children (at our institution) with ALF who underwent liver transplantation between 1997 and 2016. Among them 24 (38%) underwent a LDLT and 39 (62%) received a DDLT. Retrospectively analyzed patient clinical data included: time lapse between qualification for transplantation and transplant surgery, graft characteristics, postoperative complications, long-term results post-transplantation, and living donor morbidity. Overall, we have made a comparison of clinical results between LDLT and DDLT groups.

RESULTS

Follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 182 months (median 109 months) for LDLT patients and 12 to 183 months (median 72 months) for DDLT patients. The median waiting time for a transplant was shorter in LDLT group than in DDLT group. There was not a single case of primary non-function (PNF) in the LDLT group and 20 out of 24 patients (83.3%) had good early graft function; 3 patients (12.5%) in the LDLT group died within 2 months of transplantation but there was no late mortality. In comparison, 4 out of 39 patients (10.2%) had PNF in DDLT group while 20 patients (51.2%) had good early graft function; 8 patients (20.5%) died early within 2 months and 2 patients (5.1%) died late after transplantation. The LDLT group had a shorter cold ischemia time (CIT) of 4 hours in comparison to 9.2 hours in the DDLT group (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT is a lifesaving procedure for pediatric patients with ALF. Our experience showed that it may be performed with very good results, and with very low morbidity and no mortality among living donors when performed by experienced teams following strict procedures.

Prognostic Factors Predicting Poor Outcome in Living-Donor Liver Transplantation for Fulminant Hepatic Failure

BACKGROUND

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been accepted as feasible treatment for fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), although it has generated several debatable issues. In this study, we investigated the prognostic factors predicting fatal outcome after LDLT for FHF.

METHODS

From April 1999 to April 2011, 60 patients underwent LT for acute liver failure, including 42 patients for FHF at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Among 42 patients, 30 patients underwent LDLT for FHF, and the database of these patients was analyzed retrospectively to investigate the prognostic factors after LDLT for FHF.

RESULTS

Among 30 patients, 7 patients (23%) died during the in-hospital period within 6 months, and 23 patients (77%) survived until recently. In univariate analyses, donor age (>35 years), graft volume (GV)/standard liver volume (SLV) (<50%), cold ischemic time (>120 minutes), hepatic encephalopathy (grade IV), hepato-renal syndrome (HRS), and history of ventilator care were associated with fatal outcome after LDLT for FHF. In multivariate analyses, HRS, GV/SLV (<50%), and donor age (>35 years) were significantly associated with fatal outcome. Although the statistical significance was not shown in this analysis (P = .059), hepatic encephalopathy grade IV also appears to be a risk factor predicting fatal outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of patients with FHF undergoing LDLT was comparable to that in published data. In this study, HRS, GV/SLV <50%, and donor age >35 years are the independent poor prognostic factors.

Acute Liver Failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a life-threatening condition of heterogeneous etiology. Outcomes are better with early recognition and prompt initiation of etiology-specific therapy, intensive care protocols, and liver transplantation (LT). Prognostic scoring systems include the King's College Criteria and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score. Cerebral edema and intracranial hypertension are reasons for high morbidity and mortality; hypertonic saline is suggested for patients with a high risk for developing intracranial hypertension, and when it does, mannitol is recommended as first-line therapy. Extracorporeal liver support system may serve as a bridge to LT and may increase LT-free survival in select cases.

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure

Before liver transplantation became widely applicable as a treatment option, the mortality rate for acute liver failure was as high as 85%. Today, acute liver failure is a relatively common transplant indication in some settings, but the results of liver transplantation in this context appear to be worse than those for chronic forms of liver disease. In this review, we discuss the indications and contraindications for urgent liver transplantation. In particular, we consider the roles of auxiliary, ABO-incompatible, and urgent living donor liver transplantation and address the management of a «status 1» patient with total hepatectomy and portocaval shunt for toxic liver syndrome.

Liver transplantation in acute liver failure: A challenging scenario

Acute liver failure is a critical medical condition defined as rapid development of hepatic dysfunction associated with encephalopathy. The prognosis in these patients is highly variable and depends on the etiology, interval between jaundice and encephalopathy, age, and the degree of coagulopathy. Determining the prognosis for this population is vital. Unfortunately, prognostic models with both high sensitivity and specificity for prediction of death have not been developed. Liver transplantation has dramatically improved survival in patients with acute liver failure. Still, 25% to 45% of patients will survive with medical treatment. The identification of patients who will eventually require liver transplantation should be carefully addressed through the combination of current prognostic models and continuous medical assessment. The concerns of inaccurate selection for transplantation are significant, exposing the recipient to a complex surgery and lifelong immunosuppression. In this challenging scenario, where organ shortage remains one of the main problems, alternatives to conventional orthotopic liver transplantation, such as living-donor liver transplantation, auxiliary liver transplant, and ABO-incompatible grafts, should be explored. Although overall outcomes after liver transplantation for acute liver failure are improving, they are not yet comparable to elective transplantation.

Should We Exclude Live Donor Liver Transplantation for Liver Transplant Recipients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation and Intensive Care Unit Care?

Patients with acute and chronic liver disease often require admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation support before liver transplantation (LT). Rapid disease progression and high mortality on LT waiting lists makes live donor LT (LDLT) an attractive option for this patient population.

Live donor liver transplantation: a valid alternative for critically ill patients suffering from acute liver failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0-7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0-10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18-72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5- (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work-up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short- and long-term outcomes.

Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in the United States

Clinical outcomes for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure (ALF) in the United States remain to be determined. To address this gap in knowledge, we examined post-liver transplantation outcomes of adults with ALF undergoing LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in the United States. We analyzed Organ and Procurement and Transplantation Network data for adults with ALF who were listed for liver transplantation as status 1 or 1A and who underwent LDLT (N = 21) or DDLT (N = 2316) between October 1987 and April 2011. We found no strong evidence that the survival probabilities for adults with ALF who underwent LDLT were inferior to those who underwent DDLT (P = .764). In adults with ALF who underwent LDLT, 1- and 5-year survival probabilities were both 71%; for DDLT these probabilities were 79% and 71%, respectively. In adults with ALF, 1- and 5-year liver graft survival probabilities, respectively, were 62% and 57% for LDLT, and 74% and 66% for DDLT. In these series of adults with ALF who were listed as status 1 or 1A, patient and graft survival rates for LDLT were similar to those for DDLT. Our findings suggest that if deceased donor livers are unavailable, LDLT is an acceptable option in experienced centers for adults with ALF.

Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Adult-to-adult living donors and recipients were studied to characterize patterns of liver growth and identify associated factors in a multicenter study. Three hundred and fifty donors and 353 recipients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) receiving transplants between March 2003 and February 2010 were included. Potential predictors of 3-month liver volume included total and standard liver volumes (TLV and SLV), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (in recipients), the remnant and graft size, remnant-to-donor and graft-to-recipient weight ratios (RDWR and GRWR), remnant/TLV, and graft/SLV. Among donors, 3-month absolute growth was 676 ± 251 g (mean ± SD), and percentage reconstitution was 80% ± 13%. Among recipients, GRWR was 1.3% ± 0.4% (8 < 0.8%). Graft weight was 60% ± 13% of SLV. Three-month absolute growth was 549 ± 267 g, and percentage reconstitution was 93% ± 18%. Predictors of greater 3-month liver volume included larger patient size (donors and recipients), larger graft volume (recipients), and larger TLV (donors). Donors with the smallest remnant/TLV ratios had larger than expected growth but also had higher postoperative bilirubin and international normalized ratio at 7 and 30 days. In a combined donor-recipient analysis, donors had smaller 3-month liver volumes than recipients adjusted for patient size, remnant or graft volume, and TLV or SLV (P = 0.004). Recipient graft failure in the first 90 days was predicted by poor graft function at day 7 (HR = 4.50, P = 0.001) but not by GRWR or graft fraction (P > 0.90 for each). Both donors and recipients had rapid yet incomplete restoration of tissue mass in the first 3 months, and this confirmed previous reports. Recipients achieved a greater percentage of expected total volume. Patient size and recipient graft volume significantly influenced 3-month volumes. Importantly, donor liver volume is a critical predictor of the rate of regeneration, and donor remnant fraction affects postresection function. Liver Transpl 21:79-88, 2015. © 2014 AASLD.

Bone mesenchymal stem cell transplantation via four routes for the treatment of acute liver failure in rats

In the present study, we assessed the efficiency of four BMSC transplantation methods as a therapy for liver failure. A rat model (80 Sprague-Dawley rats) of D-galactosamine (D-gal)/lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced acute liver failure (ALF) was established and the rats were divided into 5 groups: a hepatic artery injection group, a portal vein injection group, a vena caudalis injection group, an intraperitoneal injection group and a control group (16 per group). Following transplantation, the liver tissue and blood samples were collected on days 1, 3 and 7, we detected the EdU (5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine)-labeled cells homing to the liver tissue and assessed the proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and cysteine-containing aspartate-specific protease (caspase)-3 expression in the liver tissue and detected the levels of stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) in the liver tissues. Compared with the control group, the levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and damage to the liver tissue in the hepatic artery group, the portal vein group and the vena caudalis group improved in vivo. The expression of PCNA and HGF in the liver was higher and caspase-3 expression was lower in the hepatic artery injection group, the portal vein injection group and the vena caudalis injection group than that in the intraperitoneal injection and control groups. The EdU-labeled BMSCs were only observed homing to the liver tissue in these three groups. However, no significant differences were observed between these three groups. Liver function in the rats with ALF was improved following BMSC transplantation via 3 endovascular implantation methods (through the hepatic artery, portal vein and vena caudalis). These 3 methods were effective in transplanting BMSCs for the treatment of ALF. However, the selection of blood vessel in the implantation pathway does not affect the transplantation outcome. Transplantation via intraperitoneal injection showed no therapeutic effect in our animal experiments.

Neurologic manifestations of acute liver failure

Fulminant hepatic failure presents with a hepatic encephalopathy and may progress to coma and often brain death from cerebral edema. This natural progression in severe cases contributes to early mortality, but outcome can be good if liver transplantation is appropriately timed and increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is managed. Neurologists and neurosurgeons have become more involved in these very challenging patients and are often asked to rapidly identify patients who are at risk of cerebral edema, to carefully select the patient population who will benefit from invasive ICP monitoring, to judge the correct time to start monitoring, to participate in treatment of cerebral edema, and to manage complications such as intracranial hemorrhage or seizures. This chapter summarizes the current multidisciplinary approach to fulminant hepatic failure and how to best bridge patients to emergency liver transplantation.

MicroRNAs in Liver Disease: Bench to Bedside

MicroRNAs (miRs) are small non-coding RNAs that negatively regulate gene expression by pairing with partially complementary target sequences in the 3'UTRs of mRNAs to promote degradation and/or block translation. Aberrant miR expression is associated with development of multiple diseases including hepatic diseases. The role of miRs in the regulation of gene expression and rapid progress in the field of microRNA research are resulting in momentum toward development of diagnostic markers and novel therapeutic strategies for human liver diseases. Recent studies provide clear evidence that miRs are abundant in the liver and modulate a diverse spectrum of biological functions, thereby supporting an association between alterations of miR homeostasis and pathological liver diseases. Here we review the role of miRs in liver as their physiological and pathological importance has been demonstrated in metabolism, immunity, viral hepatitis, oncogenesis, fatty liver diseases (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), drug-induced liver injury, fibrosis as well as acute liver failure.

Rescue Living-donor Liver Transplantation for Liver Failure Following Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver failure following major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma is a known but uncommon mode of early treatment failure. When post-hepatectomy liver failure becomes progressive, the only effective treatment for rescuing the patient is liver transplantation. Deceased-donor liver transplantation in this situation is often not feasible because of the shortage of deceased-donor liver grafts. Proceeding with living-donor liver transplantation is an ethical challenge because of the possibility of donor coercion. In addition, tumor status, as confirmed by histopathological examination of the resected specimen, may indicate aggressive cancer that warns against rescue transplantation because of the increased chance of tumor recurrence. Here we describe four cases of rescue living-donor liver transplantation for liver failure after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients all survived the transplantation and were free from tumor recurrence after follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 9 years. Our experience has shown that rescue living-donor liver transplantation for post-hepatectomy liver failure is feasible. Tumor status should be considered carefully because large tumors and tumors with macrovascular invasion are strong contraindications to rescue living-donor liver transplantation.

Acute liver failure and liver transplantation

Acute liver failure (ALF) is defined by the presence of coagulopathy (International Normalized Ratio ≥ 1.5) and hepatic encephalopathy due to severe liver damage in patients without pre-existing liver disease. Although the mortality due to ALF without liver transplantation is over 80%, the survival rates of patients have considerably improved with the advent of liver transplantation, up to 60% to 90% in the last two decades. Recent large studies in Western countries reported 1, 5, and 10-year patient survival rates after liver transplantation for ALF of approximately 80%, 70%, and 65%, respectively. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which has mainly evolved in Asian countries where organ availability from deceased donors is extremely scarce, has also improved the survival rate of ALF patients in these regions. According to recent reports, the overall survival rate of adult ALF patients who underwent LDLT ranges from 60% to 90%. Although there is still controversy regarding the graft type, optimal graft volume, and ethical issues, LDLT has become an established treatment option for ALF in areas where the use of deceased donor organs is severely restricted.

Fulminant viral hepatitis

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a condition wherein the previously healthy liver rapidly deteriorates, resulting in jaundice, encephalopathy, and coagulopathy. There are approximately 2000 cases per year of ALF in the United States. Viral causes (fulminant viral hepatitis [FVH]) are the predominant cause of ALF in developing countries. Given the ease of spread of viral hepatitis and the high morbidity and mortality associated with ALF, a systematic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of FVH is required. In this review, the authors describe the viral causes of ALF and review the intensive care unit management of patients with FVH.

MicroRNA signature at the time of clinical HCV recurrence associates with aggressive fibrosis progression post-liver transplantation

Diagnosis and prediction of the severity of hepatitis C virus recurrence (HCVrec) after liver transplantation (LT) remain a challenge. MicroRNAs have been recently recognized as potential disease biomarkers. Archival liver biopsy samples from 43 HCV+ LT recipients were collected at clinical HCVrec time and at 3 years post-LT. Patients were classified as progressors (P = F0/F1) or nonprogressors (NP = F3/F4) according to the severity of fibrosis on the 3-year biopsy. Training (n = 27) and validation (n = 16) sets were defined. RNA was isolated from all biopsies at clinical HCVrec time, labeled and hybridized to miRNA-arrays. Progressors versus nonprogressors were compared using the two-sample t-test. A p-value ≤0.01 was considered significant. The ingenuity pathway analysis tool was used for microRNA and miRNA:mRNA ontology data integration. Nine microRNAs were differentially expressed between groups. A supervised cluster analysis separated samples in two well-defined groups (progressors vs. nonprogressors). Pathway analysis associated those microRNAs with hepatitis, steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis and T cell-related immune response. Data integration identified 17 genes from a previous genomic study as 9-microRNAs signature targets. Seven microRNAs were successfully validated in the validation set using QPCR. We have identified a 9-microRNA signature able to identify early post-LT patients at high risk of severe HCVrec during long-term follow-up.

The different etiology of fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) in Korea and prognostic factors in patients undergoing liver transplantation for FHF

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) depends on the etiology and reversibility. In this study, we identified the etiological difference of FHF in Korea and analyzed the prognostic factors after liver transplantation (LT) for FHF.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients with FHF who underwent LT from April 1999 to April 2011 at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the short-term result of LT, and perioperative profiles were compared to identify the short-term poor prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Unlike Western countries, there was no paracetamol-related FHF but herbal/folk medicines were the most frequent causes of FHF (26.2%). HAV-related FHF increased significantly and comprised the main portion of FHF with Herbal/folk medicines after 2005. Encephalopathy grade, onset time, pre-transplantation need of renal replacement, and ventilator treatment were significantly different between groups in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, pre-transplantation renal replacement treatment and hepatic encephalopathy grade IV were the independent prognostic factors after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

The etiologies of FHF in Korea were different compared with Western reports. The requirement of renal replacement treatment and hepatic encephalopathy grade IV were identified as independent poor prognostic factors after LT for FHF in this study.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in China

AIM: To investigate the long-term outcome of recipients and donors of adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) for acute liver failure (ALF).

METHODS: Between January 2005 and March 2010, 170 living donor liver transplantations were performed at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. All living liver donor was voluntary and provided informed consent. Twenty ALF patients underwent AALDLT for rapid deterioration of liver function. ALF was defined based on the criteria of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, including evidence of coagulation abnormality [international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.5] and degree of mental alteration without pre-existing cirrhosis and with an illness of < 26 wk duration. We reviewed the clinical indications, operative procedure and prognosis of AALDTL performed on patients with ALF and corresponding living donors. The potential factors of recipient with ALF and corresponding donor outcome were respectively investigated using multivariate analysis. Survival rates after operation were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was undertaken to identify the threshold of potential risk factors.

RESULTS: The causes of ALF were hepatitis B (n = 18), drug-induced (n = 1) and indeterminate (n = 1). The score of the model for end-stage liver disease was 37.1 ± 8.6, and the waiting duration of recipients was 5 ± 4 d. The graft types included right lobe (n = 17) and dual graft (n = 3). The mean graft weight was 623.3 ± 111.3 g, which corresponded to graft-to-recipient weight ratio of 0.95% ± 0.14%. The segment Vor VIII hepatic vein was reconstructed in 11 right-lobe grafts. The 1-year and 3-year recipient’s survival and graft survival rates were 65% (13 of 20). Postoperative results of total bilirubin, INR and creatinine showed obvious improvements in the survived patients. However, the creatinine level of the deaths was increased postoperatively and became more aggravated compared with the level of the survived recipients. Multivariate analysis showed that waiting duration was independently correlated with increased mortality (P = 0.014). Furthermore, ROC curve revealed the cut-off value of waiting time was 5 d (P = 0.011, area under the curve = 0.791) for determining the mortality. The short-term creatinine level with different recipient’s waiting duration was described. The recipients with waiting duration ≥ 5 d showed the worse renal function and higher mortality than those with waiting duration < 5 d (66.7% vs 9.1%, P = 0.017). In addition, all donors had no residual morbidity. Furthermore, univariate analysis did not show that short assessment time induced the high morbidity (P = 0.573).

CONCLUSION: Timely AALDLT for patients with ALF greatly improves the recipient survival. However, further systemic review is needed to investigate the optimal treatment strategy for ALF.

Adult to adult living related liver transplantation: Where do we currently stand?

Adult to adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) was first preformed in the United States in 1997. The procedure was rapidly integrated into clinical practice, but in 2002, possibly due to the first widely publicized donor death, the number of living liver donors plummeted. The number of donors has since reached a steady plateau far below its initial peak. In this review we evaluate the current climate of AALDLT. Specifically, we focus on several issues key to the success of AALDLT: determining the optimal indications for AALDLT, balancing graft size and donor safety, assuring adequate outflow, minimizing biliary complications, and maintaining ethical practices. We conclude by offering suggestions for the future of AALDLT in United States transplantation centers.

Predicting survival after living and deceased donor liver transplantation in adult patients with acute liver failure

BACKGROUND

Post-transplant outcomes for acute liver failure (ALF) are unsatisfactory, and there are debates about the most suitable type of graft. Given the critical shortage of donor organs, accurate assessment of post-transplant outcome in ALF patients is crucial to avoid a futile liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

A database of 160 consecutive adult ALF patients who underwent primary LT between 2000 and 2009 in a tertiary LT center was analyzed.

RESULTS

The most common causes of ALF were hepatitis B virus infection (30%) and herbal/folk medicine use (30%). Thirty-six (22.5%) and 124 (77.5%) patients underwent deceased-donor LT (DDLT) and adult-to-adult living-donor LT (LDLT), respectively. During a median follow-up period of 38 (range 1-132) months, the DDLT and LDLT groups showed similar patient (P = 0.99) and graft (P = 0.97) survival rates. The overall 1- and 3-year patient survival rates were 78.8 and 74.6%, respectively. Five predictors of patient survival were identified by bootstrapping and multivariate analysis: vasopressor requirement, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum sodium concentration, recipient age, and donor age, at the time of transplant. By summing scores weighted in each of these predictor categories, we designed a prognostic scoring system (scores from -2 to 20) that estimated 1-year post-transplant mortality from 0 to 100% (c statistic 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes after LDLT and DDLT were comparable in adult patients with ALF. A simple prognostic scoring system that includes 5 predictive variables at the time of LT may help estimate post-transplant survival in ALF patients, regardless of the type of transplant.

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.

Outcomes after living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in Japan: results of a nationwide survey

Nationwide surveys of acute liver failure (ALF) are conducted annually in Japan, and 20% of patients with ALF undergo liver transplantation (LT). We extracted data for 212 patients who underwent LT for ALF from the nationwide survey database of the Intractable Liver Diseases Study Group of Japan. After the exclusion of 3 patients who underwent deceased donor LT, 209 recipients of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were analyzed. ALF patients were placed into 3 subgroups according to the time from the onset of the disease to the occurrence of encephalopathy: patients who presented with encephalopathy within 10 days of the disease's onset were classified as having acute ALF, patients who presented within 11 to 56 days were classified as having subacute ALF, and patients who presented within 9 to 24 weeks were classified as having late-onset hepatic failure (LOHF). Long-term follow-up data were obtained from the registry of the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society. The 2 data sets were merged, and descriptive and survival data were analyzed. A Cox regression analysis was performed to define factors predicting overall mortality, short-term mortality (≤90 days after LT), and long-term mortality (>90 days after LT). One hundred ninety of the analyzed patients (91%) were adults (age ≥ 18 years); 70 patients (34%) were diagnosed with acute ALF, 124 (59%) were diagnosed with subacute ALF, and 15 (7%) were diagnosed with LOHF. Hepatitis B virus was the most common cause of acute ALF (61%), whereas autoimmune hepatitis (14%) and drug allergy-induced hepatitis (14%) were more frequent in patients with subacute ALF or LOHF. The cumulative patient survival rates 1, 5, and 10 years after LT were 79%, 74%, and 73%, respectively. Patient age was associated with short- and long-term mortality after LT, whereas ABO incompatibility affected short-term mortality, and donor age affected long-term mortality. In conclusion, the long-term outcomes of LDLT for ALF in this study were excellent, regardless of the etiology or classification. The majority of the donors were living donors. Increasing the deceased donor pool might be an urgent necessity.

Emergency versus elective living-donor liver transplantation: a comparison of a single center analysis

Purpose

We studied the risk factors for postoperative mortality between patients who underwent emergency or elective living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods

Forty-seven patients underwent LDLT in our institute, 16 for emergencies and 31 as elective procedures. The emergency LDLT status was applied to cases in which the time period between referral to our institution and transplantation did not exceed 10 days, and in which liver failure was accompanied by the presence of any degree of hepatic encephalopathy.

Results

With regard to preoperative factors, age (P = 0.03), the model for end-stage liver disease score (P = 0.001), preoperative tracheal intubation (P = 0.001), ratio between arterial oxygen tension and fractional inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) (P = 0.03), steroid therapy use (P = 0.001), lymphocyte count (P = 0.02), and cases requiring hemodiafiltration (P = 0.001) differed significantly between the two groups. Postoperative pneumonia occurred more frequently in emergency LDLT patients than in elective LDLT patients (P = 0.006). Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) was the main cause of postoperative death in emergency LDLT patients, and, in a univariate analysis, a preoperative status of high serum (1 → 3)-β-d-glucan (>20 pg/ml, P = 0.001), advanced age (>52 years, P = 0.02), and a low PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (<320, P = 0.01) were identified as factors predictive of IPA.

Conclusion

Careful perioperative management, including preoperative investigation of aspergillosis and empiric antibiotic therapy, should be considered for emergency LDLT patients who fulfill IPA risk factors.

Acute liver failure and liver assist devices

Survival of patients presenting with acute liver failure (ALF) has improved over the past decades due to earlier disease recognition, advances in supportive measures, intensive care, and liver transplantation. Liver assist devices may have a role in future care of patients with ALF, bridging them to recovery or to transplantation. A multidisciplinary team approach to the care of patients with ALF is critical for achieving good patient outcomes.