Predictors of donor follow-up after living donor liver transplantation

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.

Healthcare Resource Utilization After Living Liver Donation: A Retrospective Case-control Study

BACKGROUND

Living liver donation is generally considered safe, but donors may experience short or long-term complications. The purpose of this study was to assess healthcare resource utilization after liver donation in living liver donors in comparison to the general population.

METHODS

Outpatient or emergency department visits and hospital admissions were compared between living liver donors who underwent hepatic resection for living liver donation between 2004 and 2018 and the matched general population. Healthcare resource utilization data for 5 years after liver donation were collected from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. For every living liver donor, 4 individually matched nondonors were selected from the NHIS database using age, sex, preexisting comorbidities, and previous healthcare utilization history.

RESULTS

A total of 1886 living liver donors and 7309 nondonors were included. In the first year after donation, living liver donors required more outpatient department visits (7 [4-13] vs. 3 [1-7], P < 0.001) and more emergency department visits (13.33% vs. 0.15%, P < 0.001) compared to matched nondonors. A similar trend persisted for 5 years after donation. The number of hospital admissions of living liver donors was higher for up to 2 years after donation with longer hospital length of stay (13.0 [10.5-16.0] vs. 5.0 [3.0-9.0] days, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource utilization in living liver donors for 5 years after donation were higher compared to matched nondonors. The higher healthcare resource demand may be related to postoperative complications or lowered threshold for healthcare resource utilization after donation.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C291.

Changes in the quality of life of living liver donors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehending the physical, psychological, social benefits, and harm associated with liver donation is critical in promoting practices to maintain donors' long-term health. However, changes in quality of life among living liver donors pre- and post-donation have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies examined the quality of life changes among living liver donors pre- and post-donation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINHAL with full text, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were mainly searched for full-text articles from inception till December 2018 to identify studies assessing the quality of life of living liver donors. The methodological quality of the included studies was examined. The quality of life post-donation at five assessment points, ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥ 24 months were compared with the pre-donation, respectively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2215 records, and a total of 15 articles (13 studies) with 715 donors were included in this meta-analysis. Physical functioning scores at ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥24 months post-donation were significantly lower than pre-donation [overall standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.67, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.49; p ≤]. Significantly higher level of pain was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -1.05; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.85; p < 0.00001). Also, a significantly higher level of anxiety was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07; p = 0.01), but there were no significant changes in general psychological state and depression. A significant reduction in donors' social quality of life (SMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -4.75, 0.48; p = 0.02) was found at ≤1-month post-donation, and recovery to pre-donation levels occurred at 3 months post-donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donation was associated with a decline in physical functioning, which was sustained for longer than 2 years post-donation. Impaired social and psychological quality of life affected donors for 1-3 months after their donation. The quality of life of living liver donors has become a pressing issue requiring more attention from doctors and nurses within the transplant team. However, multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of living liver donors.

[Biliary system : What does the surgeon want to know from the radiologist?]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Exact diagnostic procedures are prerequisite for surgical treatment of bile duct diseases.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography may be supplemented by computed tomography (CT) for planning surgical interventions, for staging diagnostics in malignancies and for imaging the vascular anatomy in the upper abdomen.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

Statements from magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and CT may be supplemented via digital workup in selected cases of transplantation medicine and in liver surgery. Thus, a virtual resection planning including volumetry of the individual liver segments can be realized.

PERFORMANCE

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography provides for exact imaging of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts as well as those situated within the head of the pancreas and their pathologies.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Radiological diagnostics of bile duct malignancies, benign outflow obstructions, in transplantation medicine and in postoperative complication management are an indispensable prerequisite in surgical treatment.

[Influence of bile duct anatomy on biliary complications in hepatic right lobe living donors]

Perioperative morbidity in the living donation of partial livers is mainly due to infections and biliary complications. Bile duct anatomy variants, in particular of the right system, are suspected to be causative. We investigated the influence of bile duct variants on the incidence of biliary donor complications in donations of the right liver lobe. We analyzed 103 donors. Twelve patients had a bile leak that required treatment. All of these were treated endoscopically without any residual defect. We did not see a central extrahepatic bile duct lesion Nagano type C. The anatomic variant Huang A3 is a challenge with respect to the surgical technique. Three of 17 patients with biliary anatomy Huang A3 developed leaks. The bile duct anatomy can be carefully evaluated by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and intraoperative cholangiography. The anatomic variant Huang A3 warrants particular attention for the closure of the bile duct orifice.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of 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.

Survey of Living Organ Donors' Experience and Directions for Process Improvement

INTRODUCTION

Understanding living organ donors' experience with donation and challenges faced during the process is necessary to guide the development of effective strategies to maximize donor benefit and increase the number of living donors.

METHODS

An anonymous self-administered survey, specifically designed for this population based on key informant interviews, was mailed to 426 individuals who donated a kidney or liver at our institution. Quantitative and qualitative methods including open and axial coding were used to analyze donor responses.

FINDINGS

Of the 141 survey respondents, 94% would encourage others to become donors; however, nearly half (44%) thought the donation process could be improved and offered numerous suggestions. Five major themes arose: (1) desire for greater convenience in testing and scheduling; (2) involvement of previous donors throughout the process; (3) education and promotion of donation through social media; (4) unanticipated difficulties, specifically pain; and (5) financial concerns.

DISCUSSION

Donor feedback has been translated into performance improvements at our hospital, many of which are applicable to other institutions. Population-specific survey development helps to identify vital patient concerns and provides valuable feedback to enhance the delivery of care.

Hepatocellular carcinoma developed in a living donor after left lobe donation: a case for caution

Although it has been recognized that those who are positive for anti-hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBcAb) and negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) with normal liver function could be donors for living donor liver transplantation under appropriate prophylaxis, the negative impact of positive HBcAb on such donors themselves has not been reported. We present a case of a living donor with positive HBcAb, who donated his left lobe for his sister with unresectable giant hepatic hemangioma, and the donor himself developed a de novo hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 10 years after donation. He had been lost from the follow-up program since 1 year after donation. Imaging studies showed a heterogeneously enhanced mass compatible with HCC, which was 9 cm in size with portal invasion into the anterior portal vein of the remnant liver. Re-laparotomy for hepatectomy with the removal of the tumor thrombus in the anterior portal vein of the remnant liver was carried out, and he is free from recurrence 6 months after surgery on prophylactic sorafenib. At our institute, 58 (9.6%) donors among the 603 living donors were anti-HBcAb positive and anti-HBsAg negative, and we started regular HCC surveillance using sonogram every 6 months for these patients.

Long-Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Due to the enduring organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation has been a valuable treatment strategy for advanced liver disease patients for over 20 years. A variety of reviews have summarized the extensive data now available on medical and psychosocial risks to living donors in the aftermath of donation. However, evidence on donor medical and psychosocial outcomes beyond the first year postdonation has not been synthesized in any previous review. The evidence base on such "long-term" outcomes has been growing in recent years. A review of this evidence would therefore be timely and could serve as an important resource to assist transplant centers in their efforts to fully educate prospective donors and gain informed consent, as well as develop appropriate postdonation clinical care and surveillance plans. We reviewed recent literature on long-term donor outcomes, considering (a) medical outcomes, including mortality risk, rates of complications, abnormalities detected in laboratory testing, and the progress of liver regeneration; and (b) donor-reported psychosocial outcomes reflecting physical, emotional, and interpersonal/socioeconomic well-being, as well as overall health-related quality of life. We summarize limitations and gaps in available evidence, and we provide recommendations for future research and clinical care activities focused on long-term outcomes in liver donors.

A review of life quality in living donors after liver transplantation

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has increasingly performed all around the world. However, LDLT donors achieve no medical benefits and are exposed to the risk of complications, and even death. The potential effects of LDLT on donor safety, donor recovery, and post-donation psychological impairment are essential to be better understood. We searched the MEDLINE database to identify articles about the quality of life (QOL) in adults after LDLT donation. Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1944 donors were included in the review. 14 of the 28 studies (50%) had a cross-sectional design, and the remaining half had a prospective design. The Physical Component Score (PCS) decreased immediately after the donation, then returned to the baseline within 6 to 12 months while the Mental Component Score (MCS) remains comparable to that of normative population throughout the procedure. Compared with the left graft (LG) donors, right graft (RG) donors were significantly older, had longer hospital stays and higher rates of postoperative complications, and a higher recipient mortality rate, while there were no difference in the PCS and MCS between the two groups. Our review clearly indicates that the LDLT donors can endure the donation procedure and return to their normal daily life without major problem in the short term. However, to improve the donor selection criteria and ensure the QOL in donors throughout donation procedure, more studies with longer follow up and larger samples are essential and predictors of poor QOL should be identified in study with sufficient response rate and ideal control groups.