Adult-to-adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation in high model for end-stage liver disease score recipients with hepatitis B virus-related benign liver diseases

Post-liver transplant biliary complications

Biliary complications (BCs) are the most frequent complications following liver transplantation (LT). They are a major source of morbidity after LT. The incidence of BCs after LT is reported to range from 5% to 45%. The main post-LT biliary complications are strictures, biliary fistulas and bilomas, cholelithiasis, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, hemobilia, and mucocele. Risk factors for biliary complications are diverse. In this article we seek to review the main types of biliary complications and modern approaches to their diagnosis and treatment.

Liver transplantation with interposition saphenous vein conduits for arterial reconstruction: Impact of morbidity and arterial ischemia time

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of liver transplantation with hepatic arterial reconstruction using interposition saphenous vein conduits are not widely reported. Here, we share our experience using great saphenous vein conduits for hepatic arterial reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (n = 950). The saphenous vein conduits were used in 39 patients. We compared hepatic artery thrombosis, graft dysfunction, and 30-day and 1-year survival in the early (2012-2017) and late (2017-2020) transplant periods.

RESULTS

Among 39 patients (of whom 30 [76.9%] were males, median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was 24 [interquartile range, 17-27], median age was 50 [interquartile range, 43-54]), saphenous vein conduits were placed on supra celiac aorta in 7 (17.9%), infrarenal aorta in 25 (64.1%), and other arteries in 7 (17.9%) patients. The number of biliary and hepatic vein anastomoses, total arterial ischemia time, portal vein-hepatic artery reperfusion time, and duration of surgery was different in the 2 groups (P < .05). The 30-day mortality was 5/21 (23.8%) and 0 in the early and late periods (P = .05). The 30-day survival was >90% in patients with portal vein-hepatic artery reperfusion time <240 minutes, ≤2 grade 3 complications, no graft dysfunction, and later period of transplantation (P < .05). The 1-year survival with standard transplantation, transplantation with saphenous vein conduits in the early and late period was 87%, 62%, and 89% (P = .022).

CONCLUSION

Liver transplantation with saphenous vein conduits is associated with acceptable outcomes. Major complications and arterial ischemia times are major determinants of outcomes.

Comparing High- and Low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Living-Donor Liver Transplantation to Determine Clinical Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (CHALICE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have demonstrated that low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients have better outcomes with improved patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. LDLT recipients gain the most from being transplanted at MELD <25-30; however, some existing data have outlined that LDLT may provide equivalent outcomes in high-MELD and low-MELD patients, although the term "high" MELD is arbitrarily defined in the literature and various cut-off scores are outlined between 20 and 30, although most commonly, the dividing threshold is 25. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare LDLT in high-MELD with that in low-MELD recipients to determine patient survival and graft survival, as well as perioperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

Following PROSPERO registration CRD-42021261501, a systematic database search was conducted for the published literature between 1990 and 2021 and yielded a total of 10 studies with 2183 LT recipients; 490 were HM-LDLT recipients and 1693 were LM-LDLT recipients.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years post-transplant (5-year HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.79; p-value 0.40) and graft survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.72, 1.63; p-value 0.71). No differences were observed in the rates of major morbidity, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, wound infection and rejection; however, the HM-LDLT group had higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The high-MELD LDLT group had similar patient and graft survival and morbidities to the low-MELD LDLT group, despite being at higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay. The data, primarily sourced from high-volume Asian centers, underscore the feasibility of living donations for liver allografts in high-MELD patients. Given the rising demand for liver allografts, it is sensible to incorporate these insights into U.S. transplant practices.

Which recipient pretransplant factors, such as MELD, renal function, sarcopenia, and recent sepsis influence suitability for and outcome after living donor liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Varied access to deceased donors across the globe has resulted in differential living donor liver transplant (LDLT) practices and lack of consensus over the influence of models for end stage liver disease (MELD), renal function, sarcopenia, or recent infection on short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Consider these risk factors in relation to patient selection and provide recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central.

METHODS

PRIMSA systematic review and GRADE.

PROSPERO ID

RD42021260809 RESULTS: MELD >25-30 alone is not a contraindication to LDLT, and multiple studies found no increase in short term mortality in high MELD patients. Contributing factors such as muscle mass, acute physiologic assessment and chronic health evaluation score, donor age, graft weight/recipient weight ratio, and inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft influence morbidity and mortality in high MELD patients. Higher mortality is observed with pretransplant renal dysfunction, but short-term mortality is rare. Sarcopenia and recent infection are not contraindications to LDLT. Morbidity and prolonged LOS are common, and more frequent in patients with renal dysfunction, nutritional deficiency or recent infection.

CONCLUSIONS

When individual risk factors are studied mortality is low and graft loss is infrequent, but morbidity is common. MELD, especially with concomitant risk factors, had the greatest influence on short term outcome, and recent infection had the least. A multidisciplinary team of experts should carefully assess patients with multiple risk factors, and an optimal graft is recommended.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81-0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R2 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

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.

Outcomes of hemi- versus whole liver transplantation in patients from mainland china with high model for end-stage liver disease scores: a matched analysis

Background

Adult hemiliver transplantation (AHLT) is an important approach given the current shortage of donor livers. However, the suitability of AHLT versus adult whole liver transplantation (AWLT) for recipients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores remains controversial.

Methods

We divided patients undergoing AHLT and AWLT into subgroups according to their MELD scores (≥ 30: AHLT, n = 35; AWLT, n = 88; and < 30: AHLT, n = 323; AWLT, n = 323). Patients were matched by demographic data and perioperative conditions according to propensity scores. A cut-off value of 30 for MELD scores was determined by comparing the overall survival data of 735 cases of nontumor liver transplantation.

Results

Among patients with an MELD score ≥ 30 and < 30, AHLT was found to be associated with increased warm ischemia time, operative time, hospitalization time, and intraoperative blood loss compared with AWLT (P < 0.05). In the MELD ≥ 30 group, although the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher for AWLT than for AHLT (P = 0.037), there was no significant difference between AWLT and AHLT in the MELD < 30 group (P = 0.832); however, we did not observe a significant increase in specific complications following AHLT among patients with a high MELD score (≥ 30). Among these patients, the incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or above was significantly higher in patients undergoing AHLT than in those undergoing AWLT (25.7% vs. 11.4%, P = 0.047). For the MELD < 30 group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III or above for patients undergoing AHLT or AWLT.

Conclusion

In patients with an MELD score < 30, AHLT can achieve rates of mortality and overall survival comparable to AWLT. In those with an MELD score ≥ 30, the prognosis and incidence of complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III or above are significantly worse for AHLT than for AWLT; therefore, we may need to be more cautious regarding the conclusion that patients with a high MELD score can safely undergo AHLT.

Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.

Results

Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 − 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 − 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 − 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 − 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 − 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 − 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.

Conclusions

LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.

Liver transplantation in acute-on-chronic liver failure: lessons learnt from acute liver failure setting

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a clinical entity with high risk of mortality. These patients can have severe liver dysfunction complicated with multiple organ failure. Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for these patients. Literature regarding management of acute liver failure with special emphasis on liver transplantation was reviewed. Lessons learnt from the management of patients with acute liver failure which could be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure are discussed. Significant improvement in outcomes of acute liver failure has been reported across the world. Several aspects in transplantation for acute liver failure were found to be relevant to the management of acute-on-chronic liver failure. These include defining criteria to identify patients needing early liver transplantation, prioritizing patients with acute liver failure on the waiting list, defining when to abandon transplantation in acute liver failure, emphasis on graft quality and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to manage multiple organ dysfunction. Useful lessons can be learnt from the progress made in the management of acute liver failure and these can be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure.

Operative outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) because of the increasing number of patients waiting for liver transplantation (LT). However, whether it can achieve operative outcomes similar to those achieved with DDLT for adult patients remains controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the operative outcomes of LDLT and DDLT recipients. A literature search was performed to identify clinical controlled studies comparing LDLT and DDLT that were published before October 2013. Four perioperative outcomes [duration of the recipient operation (DRO), red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement, length of the hospital stay, and cold ischemia time (CIT)] and 5 postoperative complication outcomes (biliary complications, vascular complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, perioperative death, and retransplantation) were the main outcomes assessed. Nineteen studies with a total of 5450 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with DDLT, LDLT was associated with a significantly longer DRO and a shorter CIT. We found that biliary complications [odds ratio (OR) = 3.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.97-4.81, P < 0.001], vascular complications (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.32-3.54, P = 0.002), and retransplantation (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.09-2.83, P = 0.02) occurred more frequently for LDLT recipients, and the subgroup analysis indicated that the biliary complication rate decreased dramatically with greater LDLT experience. No significant difference was observed in RBC transfusion requirements, the lengths of hospital stays, intra-abdominal bleeding rates, or perioperative mortality between LDLT and DDLT recipients. In conclusion, LDLT is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications after transplantation. A reduction of postoperative complication rates can be achieved as centers gain greater experience with LDLT. However, LDLT is still an excellent alternative to DDLT because it facilitates access to LT.