Long-Term Financial, Psychosocial, and Overall Health-Related Quality of Life After Living Liver Donation

The long-term follow-up of the living liver donors

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been proposed in many countries to reduce organ shortage. While the early postoperative outcomes have been well investigated, little is known about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. We, therefore, designed a systematic review of the literature to explore long-term complications and quality of life among living donors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE registries for studies published since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation, concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. A total of 2505 papers were initially identified. After a thorough selection, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria. The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 11.5 years. The most common complications were incision site discomfort (13.2-38.8%) and psychiatric disorders (1-22%). Biliary strictures occurred in 1-14% of cases. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy could improve quality of life, but long-term data are limited. About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Although the reported studies seem to confirm long-term donor safety, further research is needed to address the real-life long-term impact of this procedure.

The aim of donor safety: surgical approaches and current results

Living liver donation (LLD) has been suggested as a potential solution to reduce the waitlist mortality for liver transplantation (LT) recipients by facilitating living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring both donor and recipient safety is a critical aspect of LDLT. An accurate understanding of the complexity and extend of safety outcomes of the donor is imperative to maintain the high-quality standard this medical program requires. This review seeks to outline safety outcome parameters of interest for donors. Early postoperative mortality is very low with no significant differences comparing left lobe to right lobe LLD. Complications most commonly are biliary (leakage or strictures), bleeding, respiratory or pulmonary, gastrointestinal or infectious. Return to full-time work and quality of life are essential parameters in the mid and long term. As evidence continues to accumulate, outcomes may evolve with the expansion of minimal invasive surgery practice and currently laparoscopic approach is recommended in large experienced centers. By offering safer operations that require fewer incisions or liver resections, living liver donations can be further encouraged, and the perception of the procedure can be improved. Rational consideration of the safety of the donor and in-depth discussion and evaluation with the patient is of utmost importance.

Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT.

Long-term medical and quality of life outcomes among voluntary liver donors

BACKGROUND

Long-term medical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in voluntary liver donors remain under investigated. The objective of the current study was to report long-term medical outcomes and re-evaluate QOL in living liver donors.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between 2012 and 2018. We investigated long-term outcomes in 7 domains. These include medical problems, surgical procedures, work-related issues, pregnancy outcomes, psychiatric interventions, willingness to donate again, and long-term mortality. QOL was evaluated using short-form 36.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.4 months (53.3-83.7). Among 698 donors, 80 (11.5%) experienced medical problems, 4 (0.6%) had work-related issues, and 20 (2.9%) needed psychiatric assistance. Surgery was performed in 49 donors (7%), and females were more likely to have undergone incisional hernia repair (5.8% vs 1.9%, P = .006). There were 79 postdonation pregnancies including 41 normal vaginal deliveries (51.9%), 35 cesarean sections (44.3%), and 3 miscarriages (3.8%). Willingness to donate again was reported by 658 donors (94.3%). Donors whose recipients were alive were more likely to donate again (95.5% vs 90.5%, P = .01). There were 3 deaths (0.4%) in the long-term. The mean physical composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 86.7 ± 13.9 and 76.5 ± 20.9 (P = .001), and the mean mental composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 92.1 ± 13.5 and 80.7 ± 16 (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The overall long-term outlook in living liver donors is promising. QOL parameters might deteriorate over time and frequent re-evaluation might be considered.

Psychosocial evaluation of living liver donors-State of current practices in the United States

We surveyed living donor liver transplant programs in the United States to describe practices in the psychosocial evaluation of living donors focused on (1) composition of psychosocial team; (2) domains, workflow, and tools of the psychosocial assessment; (3) absolute and relative mental health-related contraindications to donation; and (4) postdonation psychosocial follow-up. We received 52 unique responses, representing 33 of 50 (66%) of active living donor liver transplant programs. Thirty-one (93.9%) provider teams included social workers, 22 (66.7%) psychiatrists, and 14 (42.4%) psychologists. Validated tools were rarely used, but domains assessed were consistent. Respondents rated active alcohol (93.8%), cocaine (96.8%), and opioid (96.8%) use disorder, as absolute contraindications to donation. Active suicidality (97%), self-injurious behavior (90.9%), eating disorders (87.9%), psychosis (84.8%), nonadherence (71.9%), and inability to cooperate with the evaluation team (78.1%) were absolute contraindications to donation. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute psychosocial contraindications to liver donation between geographical areas or between large and small programs. Programs conduct postdonation psychosocial follow-up (57.6%) or screening (39.4%), but routine follow-up of declined donors is rarely conducted (15.8%). Psychosocial evaluation of donor candidates is a multidisciplinary process. The structure of the psychosocial evaluation of donors is not uniform among programs though the domains assessed are consistent. Psychosocial contraindications to living liver donation vary among the transplant programs. Mental health follow-up of donor candidates is not standardized.

A systematic review of the factors significantly influencing the quality of life of living liver donors

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature on factors influencing the quality of life in living liver donors post-donation and to provide a reference for developing targeted interventions in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic search guided by the PRISMA 2020 approach was performed on specific databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL with full text, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses databases. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from inception to October 2022 covering cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies on factors affecting the quality of life of living liver donors after donation were included in this systematic review. The methodological quality of the studies was examined using a modified version of the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool.

Results

A total of 6,576 studies were retrieved, and 16 eligible studies were finally included. Four types of independent influencing factors: sociodemographic (gender, donor age, education, ethnicity, and marital status), donation-related (length of hospital stay and number of hospitalizations/hospital visits related to donation surgery, recipient outcome, time from donation, complications, donation decision, ambivalence about donating, donor-recipient relationship), health-related (body mass index and pre-donation physical symptoms), and psychosocial (pre-donation physical and mental score, household income, anxiety, depression), were extracted from the included studies. Several studies consistently identified old age, recipient death, recent donation, postoperative complications experienced by donors, and donor concerns about their well-being as negative influencing factors on physical function. Female donors, low education levels, longer hospital stays, and/or more hospital visits due to donation, poor recipient outcome, recent donation, pre-donation concerns regarding their well-being, and first-degree relative and spouse/partner donors were reported in several studies as negative predictors for psychological status. Factors affecting social function were considered by only two included articles.

Conclusions

The quality of life of living liver donors could be affected by both donation surgery and psychosocial factors. Based on the above-influencing factors, clinical nurses can develop targeted interventions to improve the quality of life of living liver donors.

The effect of a web-based self-care instruction on symptom experience and quality of life in living liver donors: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

Living liver donors need help to manage symptom distress and improve their quality of life. This study aims to test the effectiveness of a web-based symptom self-care instruction on symptom experience and health-related quality of life of living liver donors.

Methods

This study was a randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited from January 2019 to August 2020. Participants in the experimental group had access to a web-based symptom self-care instruction, which included text and video. The control group received routine care. The primary outcomes were symptom distress and quality of life.

Results

A total of 90 living liver donors recruited in this study were assigned randomly to the web group (n = 46) and control group (n = 44). The symptom distress was significantly negatively correlated with quality of life at each data collection time. There was an interaction effect with the participants in the web group experiencing more symptom distress at three months after surgery than the control group (B = 3.616, 95% CI: 7.163-3.990, p = 0.046). There was no significant effect on the quality of life.

Conclusion

Patients in the web-based self-care group had higher symptom distress than those in the control group three months after surgery, but there was no difference in quality of life. Future studies could add some interactive elements to the website and include a larger sample size.

Registration

This study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900020518).

Multi-center living liver donor quality of life survey up to 20 years after donor hepatectomy and association with surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

We implemented a multicenter interview with the donors to investigate Quality of Life (QoL) up to 20 years following donation.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively. Complications were graded by Dindo-Clavien classification.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 16.1 years. Out of 485 donors, 272 responded (56.1%). The majority (>90%) reported they are in excellent/good overall health and positive or no impact of donation on professional life. Length of stay (LOS) was associated with impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality (both p = 0.046). Major complication was not associated with current physical condition or return to baseline normalcy (p = 0.06). Seventy-five (27.5%) reported unsure or no to donate again. None of the parameters were associated with donation again response. Faster return to baseline functionality, and more positive impact on professional life were reported in the last decade, likely secondary to less complication rates (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This the longest follow up reports after living liver donation among German and Turkish populations. Although subject to recall bias, LOS was associated with negative impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality. Regret feelings were higher than literature. These long-term effects should be incorporated into donor discussions.

Does living liver donors' underestimation about surgical outcomes impact on their health-related quality of life after donation?: a descriptive cross-sectional study

Background

In South Korea, the number of living-donor liver transplantations in 2019 was 1,188. Living liver donors (LLDs) undergo surgery and the postoperative recovery process for altruistic purposes. This study explored LLDs’ unmet expectations about surgical outcomes and examined their impact on the donors’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Methods

This descriptive cross-sectional study utilized a self-reported survey. Data were collected at a university hospital in Seoul, South Korea. Among the 535 LLDs who underwent surgery for donation between January 2011 and March 2021, 124 participated in this study. The Korean version of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) was used to measure the HRQOL of LLDs. Unmet expectations regarding surgical outcomes were measured using four items: pain, length of hospital stay, speed of recovery, and complications. Logistic regression model was applied to determine whether the unmet expectations influence HRQOL in LLDs. Odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were used.

Results

The percentage of the participants who reported that their actual experiences for pain, speed of recovery, hospital stay, and complications were worse than expected were 34.7%, 22.6%, 9.7%, and 7.3%, respectively. Unmet expectations about surgical outcomes were significantly associated with physical and mental HRQOL after controlling for age, sex, education level, income, postoperative complications, recipients’ death, time since donation, and satisfaction with the decision to donate.

Conclusion

LLDs should be supported in obtaining more accurate and realistic information about surgical outcomes to decrease unmet expectations, which may help improve their quality of life.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-022-02055-0.

Assessment of long-term outcomes post living liver donation highlights the importance of scientific integrity when presenting transplant registry data

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.

CANLI KARACİĞER DONÖRLERİNDE YAŞAM KALİTESİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to examine the effect of transplantation on physical, mental and psychosocial health of donors by evaluating the quality of life of living liver donors after transplantation. Methods: The study was conducted with three groups at XXXX University Faculty of Medicine Organ Transplantation and Research Center. 43 living donors from 2017 and 43 living donors from 2007-2016 who underwent liver transplantation were randomly selected to participate in the study. Also 43 control subjects were selected randomly from the community. The study was conducted by a single interviewer between 01.02.2018 and 31.05.2018 by telephone or e-mail. The socio-demographic data questionnaire, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale (HADS) prepared by the researchers were applied to all participants. Results: The mean age of the participants was 38.04 ± 9.84 years, and of these participants 48.1% (n= 62) of them were female. When donors and control group were evaluated in terms of their quality of life, no significant difference was found between physical role, energy(vitality) and mental health subgroups(p> 0.05). However, donors have a better quality of life in physical functioning, emotional aspect, social functioning, pain and general health subgroups. It was detected that the quality of life was not affected by age, gender, marital status, educational status, economic status, job loss, comorbidity or disturbance by presence of operational scar. Only sexual problems and the loss of the recipient’s life were observed to have a negative impact on the quality of life. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of anxiety and depression (p

Assessment of the global practice of living donor liver transplantation

Criteria that drive the selection and utilization of living liver donors are limited. Herein, the global availability of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and components of donor selection and utilization were assessed via an international survey. There were 124 respondents representing 41 countries, including 47 from Asia/Middle East (A/ME), 20 from Europe, and 57 from the Americas. Responses were obtained from 94.9% of countries with ≥10 LDLT cases/year. Most centers (82.3%) have defined donor age criteria (median 18-60 years), while preset recipient MELD cutoffs (median 18-30) were only reported in 54.8% of programs. Overall, 67.5% of programs have preset donor BMI (body mass index) ranges (median 18-30), and the mean acceptable macrosteatosis was highest for A/ME (20.2 ± 9.2%) and lowest for Americas (16.5 ± 8.4%, P = 0.04). Americas (56.1%) and European (60.0%) programs were more likely to consider anonymous donors versus A/ME programs (27.7%, P = 0.01). There were no differences in consideration of complex anatomical variations. Most programs (75.9%) perform donor surgery via an open approach, and A/ME programs are more likely to use microscopic arterial reconstruction. Despite variations in practice, key aspects of living donor selection were identified. These findings provide a contemporary reference point as LDLT continues to expand into areas with limited access to liver transplantation.

Health-related quality of life after anonymous nondirected living liver donation: A multicenter collaboration

Literature on living nondirected liver donation is sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLDs). ND-LLDs at 3 centers: University of Alberta (n = 12), University of Colorado (n = 12), and University of Southern California (n = 12), were surveyed. Thirty donors (83%) responded to the Donor Quality of Life (USC DQLS) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Most respondents (n = 15, 50%) donated their left lateral segment, 27% right lobe, and 23% left lobe. The majority were female (67%) and mean age was 38.9 ± 11.2 years at donation. Median follow-up was 1.1 (interquartile range 0.4-3.3) years. Approximately 37% had previously donated a kidney. Eleven experienced ≥1 postoperative complication, with only 1 Clavien-Dindo IIIb. Most reported minimal impact on school or work performance, all felt positive or neutral about their overall health since donation, and none expressed postdonation regrets. No donor reported impacts on health insurability, and 3 of 4 respondents attempting to purchase life insurance postdonation were successful. ND-LLD SF-36 outcomes were similar to US population norms. Overall, ND-LLDs demonstrated acceptable HR-QOL after donation and are appropriate candidates for partial liver donation. Based on evaluation of donation impact, consideration should be given to postdonation support strategies.

[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.