Noninvasive Risk Stratification for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among Living Liver Donor Candidates: A Proposed Algorithm

Practice patterns and considerations in liver transplantation from living donors with high BMI: A review

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) is a valuable solution to the shortage of donor organs for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, the eligibility of obese donors for LDLT remains a subject of debate. This literature review explores global practices and perceptions of LDLT, identifies donor eligibility criteria, and discusses special considerations and ethical caveats. The review highlights the need for standardized guidelines for donor selection, considering the global distribution of Body mass index and variations in population-specific criteria. It also emphasizes the importance of non-invasive testing and pre-operative optimization of liver steatosis for select obese donors. Furthermore, the review examines the outcomes and complications associated with obese donors in LDLT. The findings of this review contribute to the ongoing discussion on the inclusion of obese donors in LDLT and provide insights for future research and guideline development.

Donor BMI and Post-living Donor Liver Transplantation Outcomes: A Preliminary Report

Living liver donor obesity has been considered a relative contraindication to living donation given the association with hepatic steatosis and potential for poor donor and recipient outcomes. We investigated the association between donor body mass index (BMI) and donor and recipient posttransplant outcomes.

Methods

We studied 66 living donors and their recipients who underwent living donor liver transplant at our center between 2013 and 2020. BMI was divided into 3 categories (<25, 25-29.9, and ≥30 kg/m²). Magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction was used to quantify steatosis. Donor outcomes included length of stay (LOS), emergency department visits within 90 d, hospital readmissions within 90 d, and complication severity. Recipient outcomes included LOS and in-hospital mortality. The Student t test was used to compare normally distributed variables, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for nonparametric data.

Results

There was no difference in donor or recipient characteristics based on donor BMI. There was no significant difference in mean magnetic resonance imaging fat percentage among the 3 groups. Additionally, there was no difference in donor LOS (P = 0.058), emergency department visits (P = 0.64), and hospital readmissions (P = 0.66) across BMI category. Donor complications occurred in 30 patients. There was no difference in postdonation complications across BMI category (P = 0.19); however, there was a difference in wound complications, with the highest rate being seen in the highest BMI group (0% versus 16% versus 37%; P = 0.041). Finally, there was no difference in recipient LOS (P = 0.83) and recipient in-hospital mortality (P = 0.29) across BMI category.

Conclusions

Selecting donors with BMI ≥30 kg/m² can result in successful living donor liver transplantation; however, they are at risk for perioperative wound complications. Donor counseling and perioperative strategies to mitigate wound-related issues should be used when considering obese living donors.

Optimal surgical workup to ensure safe recovery of the donor after living liver donation - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

The essential premise of living donor liver transplantation is the assurance that the donors will have a complication-free perioperative course and a prompt recovery. Selection of appropriate donors is the first step to support this premise and is based on tests that constitute the donor workup. The exclusion of liver pathologies and assessment of liver anatomy and volume in the donor candidate are the most important elements in the selection of the appropriate candidate.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is evidence to define an optimal donor surgical workup that would improve short-term outcomes of the donor after living liver donation.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.

RESULTS

Although a liver biopsy remains the only method to exactly determine the percentage and type of steatosis and to detect other liver pathologies, its routine use is not supported. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) appear to be adequate for quantifying liver volume; the preference for one or the other is often based on center expertise. MRI is clearly a better technique to assess biliary anatomy, although aberrant biliary anatomy may not be clearly detected. MRI is also more accurate than CT in determining low grades of steatosis. CT angiography is the imaging test of choice to assess the vascular anatomy. There is no evidence of the need for catheter angiography in the modern evaluation of a living liver donor.

CONCLUSIONS

A donor liver biopsy is indicated if abnormalities are present in serological or imaging tests. Both MRI and CT imaging appear to be adequate methodologies. The routine use of catheter angiography is not supported in view of the adequacy of CT angiography in delineating liver vascular anatomy. No imaging modality available to quantify liver volume is superior to another. Biliary anatomy is better defined with MRI, although poor definition can be expected, particularly for abnormal ducts.