Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

Long-term follow-up of living liver donors: A single-center experience

Living donors are healthy individuals who are exposed to a major surgical procedure during which a major part of their liver is resected. Data on the long-term consequences of living liver donation are scarce. This study examined clinical, laboratory, and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 237 living liver donors and 239 matched controls during 48-168 months of postdonation follow-up. We used the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), version 1. The scores for the four following subscales were higher in nondonors than in donors: physical functioning (p = 0.009), role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.002), energy/fatigue (p < 0.001), and bodily pain (p < 0.001). The scores on the eight subscales of the SF-36 were higher in donors with living recipients than in donors whose recipients died (p < 0.001). Our results suggest that living donor right hepatectomy is safe and results in a postdonation HRQoL similar to that of nondonors in those donors whose recipients are healthy, whereas donors whose recipients die have a lower HRQoL that is significantly negatively correlated with the time since recipient death and improves over time.

Psychosocial Outcomes of Donors Whose Recipients Died After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

PURPOSE

Our aim was to investigate the psychosocial outcomes of the donors whose recipients died after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

Forty-one donors whose recipients died and 87 donors whose recipients were alive after LDLT at Inonu University Liver Transplantation Institute between 2012 and 2017 were included into the study. Demographic data form, Beck anxiety scale, Beck depression scale, Beck Hopelessness Scale, Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, Decision Regret Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and general evaluation questionnaire (24 questions) were used in all donors by face to face questioning. In addition to the descriptive statistical analysis, chi-square and student's t tests were used to evaluate the differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Recipient death after living donor liver transplantation is a factor that negatively increases the level of anxiety, depression, hopelessness levels, and repentance of donors, and adversely affects the psychological growth of the donors after donation experience.

CONCLUSION

Regular follow-up of the donors should be done psychosocially in the postoperative period, especially the donors whose recipients have died should be followed up more frequently, and their support and treatment should be provided when needed. The donors should also be informed about the psychosocial implications of operative management and postoperative period. More studies are needed regarding the psychosocial problems of the donors.

Sex differences in postsurgical skeletal muscle depletion after donation of living-donor liver transplantation, although minimal, should not be ignored

Background

Donor safety is the top priority in living-donor liver transplantation. Splenic hypertrophy and platelet count decrease after donor surgery are reported to correlate with the extent of hepatectomy, but other aftereffects of donor surgeries are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the surgical effects of donor hepatectomy on skeletal muscle depletion and their potential sex differences.

Methods

Among a total of 450 consecutive donor hepatectomies performed from April 2001 through March 2017, 277 donors who completed both preoperative and postoperative (60–119 days postsurgery) evaluation by computed tomography were the subjects of this study. Donors aged 45 years or older were considered elderly donors. Postoperative skeletal muscle depletion was assessed on the basis of the cross-sectional area of the psoas major muscle. Postoperative changes in the spleen volume and platelet count ratios were also analysed to evaluate the effects of major hepatectomy.

Results

The decrease in the postoperative skeletal muscle mass in the overall donor population was slight (99.4 ± 6.3%). Of the 277 donors, 59 (21.3%) exhibited skeletal muscle depletion (i.e., < 95% of the preoperative value). Multivariate analysis revealed that elderly donor (OR:2.30, 95% C.I.: 1.27–4.24) and female donor (OR: 1.94, 95% C.I. 1.04–3.59) were independent risk factors for postoperative skeletal muscle depletion. Stratification of the subjects into four groups by age and sex revealed that the elderly female donor group had significantly less skeletal muscle mass postoperatively compared with the preoperative values (95.6 ± 6.8%), while the other three groups showed no significant decrease. Due to their smaller physical characteristics, right liver donation was significantly more prevalent in the female groups than in the male groups (112/144, 77.8% vs 65/133, 48.9%; p < 0.001). The estimated liver resection rate correlated significantly with the splenic hypertrophy ratio (r = 0.528, p < 0.001) and the extent of the platelet count decrease (r = − 0.314, p < 0.001), but donor age and sex did not affect these parameters.

Conclusion

Elderly female donors have a higher risk of postoperative skeletal muscle depletion. Additionally, female donors are more likely to donate a right liver graft, whose potential subclinical risks include postoperative splenic enlargement and a platelet count decrease.

Long-term donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation in Japan

AIMS

This study examined the long-term quality of life (QOL) of living liver donors (LLDs) in Japan using both generic and LLD-specific instruments.

METHODS

The sample comprised 374 LLDs from five university hospitals in Japan who underwent surgery more than a year previously. QOL was evaluated using the Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and LLD-QOL scale.

RESULTS

SF-36 results indicated that the overall long-term QOL of LLDs was significantly better than the Japanese standard. When comparing by donor factors, LLDs whose recipients were children scored higher for "satisfaction" than those whose recipients were adults on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs with complications had lower QOL for "scars" and "burden" on the LLD-QOL scale but no differences in SF-36 scores. LLDs with longer hospital stay had lower physical QOL on SF-36 and lower QOL for "scars" and "after-effects" on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs whose recipients have died showed lower mental QOL on SF-36 and lower "satisfaction" and greater "lack of understanding of donor health" on the LLD-QOL scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multicenter study clarified the long-term QOL of LLDs and suggested that donors' QOL was related to the donors' and recipients' ages, donor's complications and hospital stay length, and recipient's prognosis.

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), 2 patients undergo surgery, and the advantages and disadvantages for both patients should be considered. This study evaluated the long-term quality of life in living liver donors, and its impact on their activities of daily living focusing on mood and mental health. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 101 living liver donors (69 female and 32 male patients, median age of 36.8 years) were surveyed at a median time of 61.8 months after liver donation (range 7-169 months). The generic Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the Questionnaire of Physical Activity (IPAQ) were used. The results of SF-36 were compared to a matched control group (n=72) using the Wilcoxon test; the SF-36, the PHQ-9, and the IPAQ scores were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Linear regression model was used to check for dependencies between variables of interest. The IPAQ results were compared between the study group and the general Polish population. RESULTS There were no significant differences in the SF-36 domains between the study group and control group except body pain, which was higher in the living liver donor group (P<0.05). In 30.6% of patients, the PHQ-9 survey revealed mood disturbances. The PHQ-9 scores were higher in female-donors (P<0.05). Both summary scores of the SF-36 correlated to the PHQ-9 (P<0.001). In 89.1% of patients, physical activity was below the population norm and was lower in female donors than in male donors (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS LDLT had no impact on donors' physical and mental health. Physical activity of living liver donors was lower than that of the general population. The SF-36 and the IPAQ measures seem to be reliable in the care of living liver donors. The PHQ-9 survey results and the inclination to depression of female living liver donors requires further study.

Assessment of relevant factors with respect to psychosocial properties in potential living donor candidates before liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been developed as one of gold standard treatments for end-stage liver disease. Mental health is a required selection criterion for adult living liver donors and may influence the quality of life after operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,210 potential living donor candidates for liver transplantation (LT) underwent psychosocial evaluation that included a semi-structured interview, multi-choice self-reported inventory (Beck Depression Inventory-2nd edition [BDI-II], Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI]), and the family APGAR (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve) index. The test results were compared by family relationships, and subgroups were classified based on the donation type: 1) parents to children, 2) grown children to parents, 3) siblings to siblings, 4) spouses to spouses, and 5) other relatives to other relatives.

RESULTS

The BDI-II (P < 0.001) and BAI differed considerably according to the donation type in potential donor candidates. Compared with other subgroups, parents donating to their children suffered the most severe psychological stress before LDLT and exhibited more depressive (P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms. However, the stress associated with grown children donating to their parents, siblings, and spouses was not significantly higher than it was for other relatives. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation existed between family APGAR scores and the severity of depression and anxiety (P < 0.001) among potential donor candidates.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the importance of understanding potential donor candidates' psychological characteristics before LT. Greater anxiety and depression may be exhibited by parent donors due to the distress from fears of death or illness of the recipients, or their guilty feeling for their child. Additionally, family dysfunction also revealed more depression and anxiety. Such donor candidates should be given more extensive pre-donation counseling for minimizing pre-LDLT psychological stress.

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.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Donor quality of life up to two years after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL). This is the first prospective study examining QOL up to 2 years after donation.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of living donors (n=40) was compared with a sample of potential donors (n=27) with respect to QOL, anxiety, and depression. Performing mixed-effects model analysis, both groups were assessed before transplantation, with and without simultaneous donation (T0), and at three postoperative data points: 3 months (T1), 1 year (T2), and 2 years (T3). Subsequently, both groups were compared with reference data of the general population and healthy individuals.

RESULTS

At T1, living donors' physical QOL was impaired. At T2 and T3, physical QOL was slightly lower than the preoperative level but within the range of healthy individuals in both living donors and potential donors. Neither mental QOL nor depression showed significant changes across time, while anxiety decreased in both groups. Subgroup analysis of adult-to-adult (AA) donors and adult-to-pediatric (AP) donors revealed different trajectories of mental QOL, anxiety, and depression. AP donors experienced more preoperative psychological strain, which improved after donation, whereas AA donors showed unchanged anxiety and depression, and a slight decrease in mental QOL 2 years after surgery. Two AA donors, whose recipients had died, reported persisting depressive symptoms after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

One and two years after donation, QOL is not substantially impaired in the majority of donors. Future research needs to provide an even longer prospective follow-up and should more rigorously explore risk factors for a negative donor outcome.

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid left-side donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection developed for live liver donors has the advantage of reducing the physical and mental stress in donors. However, its safety and efficacy still remain to be established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy (LADH) to obtain left side grafts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 31 consecutive live liver donors of left side liver grafts underwent LADH, including left lateral segmentectomy (n = 17) and left liver resection with or without the caudate lobe (n = 14) (LADH group). We compared the clinical data between the LADH group and the group of donors in whom traditional open donor hepatectomy was performed to procure the liver graft (open donor hepatectomy [ODH] group, n = 79).

RESULTS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy was feasible in all patients, and there was no mortality over a follow-up period of 13.9 ± 9.8 months. The operative time to procure a left-lobe graft was significantly longer in the LADH group (510 ± 90 min) than in the ODH group (P < 0.001). A large right lobe on CT (RPv distance) was identified as a significant risk factor for prolonged operative time (P = 0.007). Evaluation using the SF36-v2 questionnaire revealed faster recovery of the physical component summary score and bodily pain score in the LADH group than in the ODH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy for procuring left side grafts was safe and effective up to the left liver with the caudate lobe. Left-lobe LADH in donors with a large right lobe should be carefully planned in view of the potential surgical difficulty.

Intraoperative "no go" donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although there are many reports on donor safety, there are few concerning aborted donations. We sought to analyze the "no go" donor hepatectomies in our liver transplantation center over 10 years' experience.

METHODS

Among 290 living donors brought to the operating room for liver graft harvest from March 2002 to April 2012, we examined the reasons to abandon the procedure, comparing their data with those of successful donors.

RESULTS

The donor operation was aborted in 5 cases various for reasons. The main reason for the abandonment of the operation process was poor liver quality: in single cases there was: poor liver quality due to a massive cirrhotic nodule observed by laparoscopy; serious steatosis of the liver, indicated by an intraoperative biopsy; and an unsuitable biliary anatomy, including 4 branches with 2 small ones. In another case, a biliary duct variation in the intraoperative cholangiogram showed a narrow crotch of the left and right ducts. In the 5th case, the donor would have been left with only a small remaining left lobe (<30%) if the right lobe had been harvested. All 5 donors proceeded to accept a right lobe hepatectomy. Comparison with the 285 successful donors showed no significant differences in preoperative demographic data. All 5 donors recovered without complication and were in good condition over long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A low rate of "no go" donor hepatectomy can be achieved. There was no short- or long-term harm to the living donor owing to abandonment of the procedure.

Platelet count reduction and outcomes in living liver donors

BACKGROUND

Platelet count reduction in living donors after graft harvesting is very common. The mechanisms and the subsequent adverse consequences are not clear. The present study was to explore the mechanisms and the consequences of platelet count reduction in living donors.

METHODS

We collected data from 231 living liver donor patients who donated at our transplant center between July 2002 and August 2009. Baseline and post-operative platelet counts were collected and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare the risk factors for the persistent decrease in platelet counts. Complications and other post-operative recovery were compared between the donors.

RESULTS

Platelet count decreased differently at each of the follow-up intervals, and the average reduction from baseline evaluation to year 3 was 18.2%. A concomitant decrease in white blood cells was observed with platelet count reduction. All of the splenic volumes at the post-operative follow-up time points were significantly higher than those at baseline (P<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the graft-to-donor weight ratio was a risk factor for low post-operative platelet counts in living donors at the three follow-up time points: one week (P=0.047), one month (P=0.034), and three months (P=0.047). At the one week follow-up time, 77 donor platelet counts were higher (group 1) and 151 donor platelet counts were lower (group 2) than baseline levels. Two hemorrhage events (1.3%) were observed in group 2, while three hemorrhage events (3.9%) were observed in group 1 (P=0.211). The overall complication rate was comparable between the two groups (P=0.972).

CONCLUSION

An increase in harvesting graft may decrease platelet counts, but this reduction does not produce short- or long-term damage in living liver donors.

Donor safety in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 300 cases

Aim

To evaluate the safety to donors of living-donor liver transplantation.

Methods

This study included 300 consecutive living liver tissue donors who underwent operations at our center from July 2002 to December 2012. We evaluated the safety of donors with regard to three aspects complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien’s classification, and the data were compared in two stages (the first 5 years’ experience (pre-January 2008) and the latter 5 years’ experience (post-January 2008); laboratory tests such as liver function and blood biochemistry were performed; and the health-related quality of life was evaluated.

Results

There was no donor mortality at our center, and the overall morbidity rate was 25.3%. Most of the complications of living donors were either grade I or II. There were significantly fewer complications in the latter period of our study than in the initial period (19.9% vs 32.6%, P<0.001), and biliary complications were the most common complications, with an incidence of 9%. All of the liver dysfunction was temporary; however, the post-operative suppression of platelet count lasted for years. Although within the normal range, eight years after operation, 22 donors showed lower platelet levels (189×10⁹/L) compared with the pre-operative levels (267×10⁹/L) (P<0.05). A total of 98.4% of donors had returned to their previous levels of social activity and work, and 99.2% of donors would donate again if it was required and feasible. With the exception of two donors who experienced grade III complications (whose recipients died) and a few cases of abdominal discomfort, fatigue, chronic pain and scar itching, none of the living donors were affected by physical problems.

Conclusion

With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates and satisfactory long-term recovery can be achieved after hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation.

[Liver transplantation with living donor : current aspects, perspectives and significance in Germany]

More than 20 years ago living donor liver transplantation was introduced into clinical practice. Specifics of this method were developed initially for children and later on for adults particularly in regions where a liver transplantation program using deceased donors was not readily available. The most sensitive aspect of living donation, namely the danger to a healthy relative in order to perform the transplantation is immanent in the system and, thus, it is definitively a secondary option as compared to deceased organ donation. Following worldwide initial euphoria the numbers have markedly decreased in the western world since the start of the new millennium. In Asian countries in particular, much work has been done to optimize the procedure so that the donor safety and the outcome quality for the recipient have been impressively demonstrated in large patient populations. There is still a severe donor organ shortage and the option to allocate an optimal (partial) organ on an individual basis by living donation has given new impact to the discussion about a further rise in the profile of living donations here as well. The new version of the German transplantation legislation implemented in summer 2012 requires a number of conditions with respect to insurance for living donors. The current state and perspectives are presented here.

Long-term quality of life of donors after living donor liver transplantation

The aims of this study were to investigate the long-term effects of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of donors with the Short Form 36 health survey and to determine the risk factors for poor outcomes. Between June 1990 and June 2004, LDLT was performed 1000 times at Kyoto University Hospital. In July 2005, 997 of the 1000 donors were contacted by mail so that data on their HRQOL could be collected. In all, 578 donors responded (ie, there was a 58.0% response rate). The norm-based HRQOL scores for donors were better than the scores for Japanese norms across all time periods. All scores were similar for left lobe donors (n = 367) and right lobe donors (n = 211). For all donors, a multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, the number of months until recovery to the preoperative health status, hospital visits due to donation-related symptoms, rest from work related to donation in the past month, and the existence of 2 or more comorbidities were significantly associated with decreased HRQOL scores. Postoperative complications and recipient mortality were not predictors of poor HRQOL. In conclusion, HRQOL was better for both right lobe donors and left lobe donors versus the Japanese norm population in the long term (mean postdonation period = 6.8 years). However, the prolongation of symptoms or sequelae related to donation lowered mental health or social functioning. The emergence of comorbidities after donation also significantly affected HRQOL in the long term. Careful follow-up and sustained counseling are required for donors with risk factors for lower HRQOL.