Living Donor Liver Transplantation When Deceased Donor Is Not Possible or Timely: Case Examples and Ethical Perspectives

Complications and Long-Term Outcomes in Adult Patients Undergoing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Because of Fulminant Hepatitis

BACKGROUND

The present study investigates the complications that may occur during long-term follow-up in patients aged 18 years and older undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in our clinic because of fulminant hepatitis.

METHODS

The study included patients aged 18 years and older with a minimum survival of 6 months who underwent an LDLT between June 2000 and June 2017. The demographic data of the patients were evaluated in terms of late-term complications.

RESULTS

Of the 240 patients who met the study criteria, 8 (3.3%) underwent LDLT for fulminant hepatitis. The indication for transplantation in patients with fulminant hepatitis was cryptogenic liver hepatitis in 4 patients, acute hepatitis B infection in 2 patients, hemochromatosis in 1 patient, and toxic hepatitis in 1 patient. Of the 240 patients, 65 (27%) undergoing LDLT underwent a liver biopsy for suspected rejection because of an elevation in liver function test results during follow-up. Histopathologic scoring was carried out according to the Banff scoring system. A diagnosis of late acute rejection was made in only 1 of the 8 patients (12.5%) who underwent LDLT for fulminant hepatitis.

CONCLUSION

Patients with fulminant hepatitis must be prepared for an LDLT, if available, while waiting for a cadaveric donor. The results of the present study suggest that LDLTs in patients with fulminant hepatitis are safe, and the outcomes are acceptable in terms of survival and complications.

Complementary Roles of Cadaveric and Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Acute Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation may complement cadaveric transplantation in acute liver failure (ALF) patients.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2017, 89 patients were treated for ALF; 15 patients (17%) recovered with intensive care treatment; 31 (35%) died without transplant. The records of the remaining 43 patients (median (range) age: 14 (1-62)) who underwent transplantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

The etiologic factors were toxic agents (10; mushrooms: 8; herbs: 2), hepatitis viruses (7; A: 1; B: 6), Wilson's disease (7), autoimmune hepatitis (4), and Budd-Chiari syndrome (2); 13 cases were idiopathic. Cadaveric organs (whole, split, reduced) were transplanted to 32 patients; 11 patients underwent living donor transplantation. One patient (2%) died of septic shock on the second postoperative day. Bacterial infection was the most common early (< 3 months) complication in the remaining patients (31/42; 74%), followed by delirium (5/42; 12%) and acute rejection requiring steroid pulse (5/42; 12%). Seven other patients died during median (range) follow-up of 94 (14-142) months: various infections (5), leukemia (1), and acute myocardial infarction (1). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 100%, 96%, and 92% in children and 94%, 82%, and 65% in adults respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cadaveric organ sharing and transplantation from living donors when appropriate yield a high survival rate, despite high early morbidity, in ALF patients whose conditions deteriorate despite intensive care treatment. Efforts to eliminate preventable causes of acute liver failure will lead to more efficient use of health care resources.

Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata.

CONCLUSIONS

The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

Evaluation and selection of the liver transplant candidate: updates on a dynamic and evolving process

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although conceptually unchanged, the evaluation and selection of the liver transplant candidate has seen significant recent advances. Expanding criteria for transplant candidacy, improved diagnostics for risk stratification and advances in prognostic models have paralleled recent changes in allocation and distribution that require us to revisit core concepts of candidate evaluation and selection while recognizing its now dynamic and continuous nature.

RECENT FINDINGS

The liver transplant evaluation revolves around three interrelated themes: candidate selection, donor selection and transplant outcome. Introduction of dynamic frailty indices, bariatric surgery at the time of liver transplant in obese patients and improved therapies and prognostic tools for hepatobiliary malignancy have transformed candidate selection. Advances in hypothermic organ preservation have improved outcomes in marginal donor organs. Combined with expansion of hepatitis C virus positive and split donor organs, donor selection has become an integral part of candidate evaluation. In addition, with liver transplant for acute alcohol-related hepatitis now widely performed and increasing recognition of acute-on-chronic liver failure, selection of critically ill patients is refining tools to balance futility versus utility.

SUMMARY

Advances in liver transplant candidate evaluation continue to transform the evaluation process and require continued incorporation into our clinical practice amidst a dynamic backdrop of demographic and policy changes.

[Living related liver transplantation]

Liver transplantation has become established as a standard procedure in the treatment of end-stage liver diseases. Despite intense efforts by all parties involved up to the amendment of the German Transplantation Act, the lack of suitable donor organs was still one of the limiting factors of this therapeutic procedure. One way out of this problem is to make so-called marginal organs usable, e.g. with the help of machine perfusion or by utilizing living liver donation, which are used in some countries for more than 90% of organ donations. In general, there is no difference in the indications for liver transplantation between a (partial) organ obtained by post-mortem or living donation. Before any living donation, a thorough evaluation of the donor is carried out in order to minimize postoperative morbidity as far as possible. Technically the partial liver donation is based on the oncological liver resection, while the partial liver transplantation is a further development of split liver transplantation after post-mortem liver donation. In specialized centers comparable or even better results can nowadays be achieved using living liver donation instead of post-mortem donation.