Evaluation of 100 patients for living donor liver transplantation

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.

Our Living Donor Protocol for Liver Transplant: A SingleCenter Experience

OBJECTIVES

The shortage of deceased donor organs is a limiting factor in transplant. The growing discrepancy between the wait list demand versus the supply of deceased donor organs has created an incentive for consideration of living donor liver transplant as an alternative. Here, we describe our evaluation process and donor complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 1988, we have performed 659 (449 living donor and 210 deceased donor) liver transplants. The most important evaluation criteria is the relationship between donor and recipient, and we require thatthe donor must be related to the recipient. The evaluation protocol has 5 stages. Donor complications were defined as simple, moderate, and severe.

RESULTS

We retrospectively investigated data for 1387 candidates, and 938 (67.7%) were rejected; subsequently, 449 living donor liver transplants were performed. There were no complications in 398 of the donors (88.7%). Total complication rate was 11.3%. Simple complications were seen in 31 patients (6.9%). Moderate complications were seen in 19 patients (4.2%). We had only 1 severe complication, ie, organ failure from unspecified liver necrosis, which resulted in death.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between donor and recipient and donor safety should be the primary focus for living donor liver transplant. Donor selection should be made carefully to minimize complications and provide adequately functional grafts.

The impact of metabolic syndrome and prevalent liver disease on living donor liver transplantation: a pressing need to expand the pool

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Organ shortage has been the ongoing obstacle to expanding liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is hoped to improve this shortage. The aim of the present study is to analyze the impact of metabolic syndrome and prevalent liver disease on living donations.

METHODS

From July 2007 to May 2012, 1065 potential living donors were evaluated according to a stepwise evaluation protocol. The age of the worked-up donors ranged from 18 to 45 years.

RESULTS

Only 190 (18%) were accepted for donation, and 875 (82%) were rejected. In total, 265 (24.9%) potential donors were excluded because of either diabetes or a body mass index >28. Some potential donors were excluded at initial screening because of incompatible blood groups (115; 10.8%), social reasons (40; 3.8%), or elevated liver enzymes (9; 1%). Eighty-five (8%) donors were excluded because of positive hepatitis serology. Steatosis resulted in the exclusion of 84 (8%) donors. In addition, 80 (7.5%) potential donors were rejected because of variations in biliary anatomy, and 20 (2%) were rejected because of aberrant vascular anatomy. Rejection due to biliary-related aberrancy decreased significantly in the second half of our program (11 vs. 4%, p = 0.001). In total, 110 (10.3%) potential donors were rejected because of insufficient remnant volume (<30%) as determined by CT volumetry, whereas 24 (2.2%) were rejected because of a graft-to-recipient body weight ratio less than 0.8%.

CONCLUSION

Metabolic syndrome and viral hepatitis negatively impacted our living donor pool. Expanding the donor pool requires the implementation of new strategies.

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.

Addition of adult-to-adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost

Using outcomes data from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4-QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9-QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost-effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10-year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost.

Liver transplantation for chronic liver disease: advances and controversies in an era of organ shortages

Since liver transplantation was first performed in 1968 by Starzl et al, advances in case selection, liver surgery, anaesthetics, and immunotherapy have significantly increased the indications for and success of this operation. Liver transplantation is now a standard therapy for many end stage liver disorders as well as acute liver failure. However, while demand for cadaveric organ grafts has increased, in recent years the supply of organs has fallen. This review addresses current controversies resulting from this mismatch. In particular, methods for increasing graft availability and difficulties arising from transplantation in the context of alcohol related cirrhosis, primary liver tumours, and hepatitis C are reviewed. Together these three indications accounted for 42% of liver transplants performed for chronic liver disease in the UK in 2000. Ethical frameworks for making decisions on patients' suitability for liver transplantation have been developed in both the USA and the UK and these are also reviewed.