Donor age in living donor liver transplantation

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

The Risk of Going Small: Lowering GRWR and Overcoming Small-For-Size Syndrome in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) according to various graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR).

BACKGROUND

The standard GRWR in LDLT is >0.8%. Our center accepted predicted GRWR ≥0.6% in selected patients.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent LDLT from 2001 to 2017 were included. Patients were stratified according to actual GRWR (Group 1:GRWR ≤0.6%; Group 2: 0.6%<GRWR≤ 0.8%; Group 3:GRWR >0.8%).

RESULTS

There were 545 LDLT (group 1 = 39; group 2 = 159; group 3 = 347) performed. Pretransplant predicted GRWR showed good correlation to actual GRWR (R = 0.834) and these figures differed within a ± 10%margin (P = 0.034) using an equivalence test. There were more left lobe grafts in group 1 (33.3%) than group 2 (10.7%) and 3 (2.9%). Median donor age was <35 years and steatosis >10% was rare.There was no difference in postoperative complication, vascular and biliary complication rate between groups. Over one-fifth (20.5%) of group 1 patients required portal flow modulation (PFM) and was higher than group 2 (3.1%) and group 3 (4%) (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients developed small-for-size syndrome (SFSS): 5 of 39 (12.8%) in group 1 and 21 of 159 (13.2%) in group 2 and none in group 3 (P < 0.001). There were 2 hospital mortalities; otherwise, the remaining patients [24/26 (92.3%)] survive with a functional liver graft. The 5-year graft survival rates were 85.4% versus 87.8% versus 84.7% for group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.718). GRWR did not predict worse survivals in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Graft size in LDLT can be lowered to 0.6% after careful recipient selection, with low incidence of SFSS and excellent outcomes. Accurate graft weight prediction, donor-recipient matching, meticulous surgical techniques, appropriate use of PFM, and vigilant perioperative care is important to the success of such approach.

Influence of donor liver telomere and G-tail on clinical outcome after living donor liver transplantation

It has been reported that donor age affects patient outcomes after liver transplantation, and that telomere length is associated with age. However, to our knowledge, the impact of donor age and donor liver telomere length in liver transplantation has not been well investigated. This study aimed to clarify the influence of the length of telomere and G-tail from donor livers on the outcomes of living donors and recipients after living donor liver transplantation. The length of telomere and G-tail derived from blood samples and liver tissues of 55 living donors, measured using the hybridization protection assay. The length of telomeres from blood samples was inversely correlated with ages, whereas G-tail length from blood samples and telomere and G-tail lengths from liver tissues were not correlated with ages. Age, telomere, and G-tail length from blood did not affect postoperative liver failure and early liver regeneration of donors. On the other hand, the longer the liver telomere, the poorer the liver regeneration tended to be, especially with significant difference in donor who underwent right hemihepatectomy. We found that the survival rate of recipients who received liver graft with longer telomeres was inferior to that of those who received liver graft with shorter ones. An elderly donor, longer liver telomere, and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score were identified as independent risk factors for recipient survival after transplantation. In conclusion, telomere shortening in healthy liver does not correlate with age, whereas longer liver telomeres negatively influence donor liver regeneration and recipient survival after living donor liver transplantation. These results can direct future studies and investigations on telomere shortening in the clinical and experimental transplant setting.

Recipient Outcomes with Younger Donors Undergoing Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Introduction

The impact of donor age on liver transplantation is well known. Data on an appropriate donor age cut-off for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with a background of hepatitis C (HCV) is generally limited. The objective of this study was to determine whether limiting donor age to less than 35 years improved outcomes in patients with HCV-related end-stage liver disease (ESLD).

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 169 patients who underwent LDLT for HCV-related ESLD. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received grafts from donors ≤ 35 (Group 1) or > 35 (Group 2) years of age. Kaplan Meier curves were used to determine survival. Uni and multivariate analysis were performed to determine independent predictors of mortality.

Results

Mean donor age was 25.1 ± 5.2 and 40.1 ± 3.4 years (P < 0.0001). Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) was seen in 11.7% patients in Group 1 versus 29.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.02). A significant difference in mortality was present between the two groups, i.e., 33.3% versus 15.8% (P = 0.04). The estimated four-year overall survival (OS) was 78% and 64% (P = 0.03). Upon doing univariate analysis, the donor age (P = 0.04) and EAD (P = 0.006) were found to be significant variables for mortality. On multivariate analysis, EAD was the only independent predictor of mortality (Hazard ratio: 2.6; confidence interval: 1.1 - 5.8; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Opting for younger donors (≤ 35 years) for HCV-related ESLD patients lowers the risk of EAD and improves overall survival.

Liver Donation From Marginal Donors: To Donate or Not to Donate?

OBJECTIVES

Livers from deceased donors compose nearly 30% of all organ transplants, and about 700 liver transplants are carried out per year. Marginal livers (extended-criteria donors), however, are not usually accepted by recipient teams, and there is only one center for these procedures in Iran. The final decision is made according to criteria that are much more conservative than other globally accepted ones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To find significant differences and construct an algorithm to predict the future of marginal livers (before transfer of donors to our organ procurement unit), successfully donated and unsuccessfully donated livers divided into 2 age groups were compared in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function tests, significant medical disorders, and preretrieval liver sonography report.

RESULTS

In the first age group (50-59 years old), there were 88 successful donors and 27 unsuccessful cases (due to 3 reasons: positive virology tests, death before retrieval, and ruled out by surgeons in the operating room). In the second age group (? 60 years old), there were 45 successful donors and 11 unsuccessful cases. The results showed that there were no differences between successful and unsuccessful cases regarding age and liver sonography results; however, sex, body mass index, liver function tests, and previous medical disorder were different between groups. Donors in both age groups were mostly male (60% and 73%); however, surprisingly, most unsuccessful cases were female (56.6% and 57%). Donors had generally lower body mass index (2 numerical difference), better liver function tests, and less risk factors (heart disease, diabetes mellitus, fatty liver, and chronic alcohol consumption).

CONCLUSIONS

Before transfer of marginal liver donors to the organ procurement unit for further evaluation and organ retrieval, one must consider that age is just a number and the presence of other comorbidities can have more decisive roles on liver quality.

Feasibility of using marginal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for end-stage liver disease caused by related risk factors when liver resection is contraindicated. Additionally, despite the decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) over the past two decades, the absolute number of HBsAg-positive people has increased, leading to an increase in HBV-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Consequently, a large demand exists for LT. While the wait time for patients on the donor list is, to some degree, shorter due to the development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), there is still a shortage of liver grafts. Furthermore, recipients often suffer from emergent conditions, such as liver dysfunction or even hepatic encephalopathy, which can lead to a limited choice in grafts. To expand the pool of available liver grafts, one option is the use of organs that were previously considered “unusable” by many, which are often labeled “marginal” organs. Many previous studies have reported on the possibilities of using marginal grafts in orthotopic LT; however, there is still a lack of discussion on this topic, especially regarding the feasibility of using marginal grafts in LDLT. Therefore, the present review aimed to summarize the feasibility of using marginal liver grafts for LDLT and discuss the possibility of expanding the application of these grafts.

Small for size syndrome difficult dilemma: Lessons from 10 years single centre experience in living donor liver transplantation

AIM

To analyze the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of small for size syndrome (SFSS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

Through-out more than 10 years: During the period from April 2003 to the end of 2013, 174 adult-to-adults LDLT (A-ALDLT) had been performed at National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shibin Elkoom, Egypt. We collected the data of those patients to do this cohort study that is a single-institution retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database analyzing the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of SFSS in a period started from the end of 2013 to the end of 2015. The median period of follow-up reached 40.50 m, range (0-144 m).

RESULTS

SFSS was diagnosed in 20 (11.5%) of our recipients. While extra-small graft [small for size graft (SFSG)], portal hypertension, steatosis and left lobe graft were significant predictors of SFSS in univariate analysis (P = 0.00, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.00 respectively); graft size was the only independent predictor of SFSS on multivariate analysis (P = 0.03). On the other hand, there was lower incidence of SFSS in patients with SFSG who underwent splenectomy [4/10 (40%) SFSS vs 3/7 (42.9%) no SFSS] but without statistical significance, However, there was none significant lower incidence of the syndrome in patients with right lobe (RL) graft when drainage of the right anterior and/or posterior liver sectors by middle hepatic vein, V5, V8, and/or right inferior vein was done [4/10 (28.6%) SFSS vs 52/152 (34.2%) no SFSS]. The 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients with SFSS were 30%, 30%, 25%, 25%, 25% and 25% respectively, while, the 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients without SFSS were 70.1%, 65.6%, 61.7%, 61%, 59.7%, and 59.7% respectively, with statistical significant difference (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

SFSG is the independent and main factor for occurrence of SFSS after A-ALDLT leading to poor outcome. However, the management of this catastrophe depends upon its prevention (i.e., selecting graft with proper size, splenectomy to decrease portal venous inflow, and improving hepatic vein outflow by reconstructing large draining veins of the graft).

Small for size syndrome difficult dilemma: Lessons from 10 years single centre experience in living donor liver transplantation

AIM

To analyze the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of small for size syndrome (SFSS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

Through-out more than 10 years: During the period from April 2003 to the end of 2013, 174 adult-to-adults LDLT (A-ALDLT) had been performed at National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shibin Elkoom, Egypt. We collected the data of those patients to do this cohort study that is a single-institution retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database analyzing the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of SFSS in a period started from the end of 2013 to the end of 2015. The median period of follow-up reached 40.50 m, range (0-144 m).

RESULTS

SFSS was diagnosed in 20 (11.5%) of our recipients. While extra-small graft [small for size graft (SFSG)], portal hypertension, steatosis and left lobe graft were significant predictors of SFSS in univariate analysis (P = 0.00, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.00 respectively); graft size was the only independent predictor of SFSS on multivariate analysis (P = 0.03). On the other hand, there was lower incidence of SFSS in patients with SFSG who underwent splenectomy [4/10 (40%) SFSS vs 3/7 (42.9%) no SFSS] but without statistical significance, However, there was none significant lower incidence of the syndrome in patients with right lobe (RL) graft when drainage of the right anterior and/or posterior liver sectors by middle hepatic vein, V5, V8, and/or right inferior vein was done [4/10 (28.6%) SFSS vs 52/152 (34.2%) no SFSS]. The 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients with SFSS were 30%, 30%, 25%, 25%, 25% and 25% respectively, while, the 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients without SFSS were 70.1%, 65.6%, 61.7%, 61%, 59.7%, and 59.7% respectively, with statistical significant difference (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

SFSG is the independent and main factor for occurrence of SFSS after A-ALDLT leading to poor outcome. However, the management of this catastrophe depends upon its prevention (i.e., selecting graft with proper size, splenectomy to decrease portal venous inflow, and improving hepatic vein outflow by reconstructing large draining veins of the graft).

D-MELD, the Product of Donor Age and Preoperative MELD, Predicts Surgical Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Especially in the Recipients With HCV-positive and Smaller Grafts

BACKGROUND

Appropriate donor-recipient match has not been explored well in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) unlike deceased-donor liver transplantation. In this study, we evaluate the donor-recipient match using D-MELD (donor age × recipient Modified for End-stage Liver Disease [MELD] score) as a predictor of surgical outcomes in LDLT, paying attention to graft size and hepatitis C virus (HCV) status.

PATIENT AND METHODS

The 120 consecutive recipients who received adult-to-adult LDLT from March 2002 to December 2014 were divided into the two groups according to D-MELD score: D-MELD <1000 (low-D-MELD: n = 101) and D-MELD ≥1000 (high-D-MELD: n = 19).

RESULTS

The 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-DM group than in low-DM group: 36.8% versus 14.9% (P = .046). In the HCV-positive recipients, the 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in high-DM group (n = 6) than in low-DM group (n = 37): 66.7% versus 13.5% (P = .012), and the 3-year survival rate was significantly lower in high-DM group than in the low-DM group: 33.3% versus 56.8% (P = .01). In the recipients with left graft, the 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-DM group (n = 8) than in the low-DM group (n = 41): 50% versus 14.6% (P = .044), and total bilirubin level on postoperative day 14 was significantly higher in the high-DM group than in the low-DM group: 17.4 mg/dL versus 9.2 mg/dL (P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

It was clarified that D-MELD could predict early and long-term surgical outcomes in the recipients who were HCV-positive and who had smaller grafts.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation With Older (≥50 Years) Versus Younger (<50 Years) Donors: Does Age Matter?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with grafts from older versus younger donors.

INTRODUCTION

Using older donor grafts for adult LDLT may help expand the donor pool. However, the risks of LDLT with older donors remain controversial, and many centers are reluctant to use live donors aged 45 years or older for adult LDLT.

METHODS

Outcomes of patients receiving a LDLT graft from donors aged 50 years or older (n = 91) were compared with those receiving a live donor graft from donors younger than 50 years (n = 378).

RESULTS

Incidences of biliary (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 23%; P = 0.89) and major complications (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 24%; P = 1) were similar between both groups of recipients. No difference was observed in 30-day recipient mortality (LDLT <50: 3% vs LDLT ≥50: 0%; P = 0.13). The 1- (90% vs 90%), 5- (82% vs 73%), and 10- (71% vs 58%) year graft survival was statistically similar between both groups (P = 0.075). Likewise, patient survival after 1- (92% vs 96%), 5- (83% vs 79%), and 10- (76% vs 69%) years was also similar (P = 0.686). Overall, donors rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b) within 30 days was low (n = 2.3%) and not different in older versus younger donors (P = 1). Donor median hospital stay in both groups was identical [LDLT <50: 6 (4-17) vs LDLT ≥50: 6 (4-14) days; P = 0.65]. No donor death occurred and all donors had full recovery and returned to baseline activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Right lobe LDLT with donors aged 50 years or older results in acceptable recipient outcome without increased donor morbidity or mortality. Potential live donors should not be declined on the basis of age alone.

How important is donor age in liver transplantation?

The age of liver donors has been increasing in the past several years because of a donor shortage. In the United States, 33% of donors are age 50 years or older, as are more than 50% in some European countries. The impact of donor age on liver transplantation (LT) has been analyzed in several studies with contradictory conclusions. Nevertheless, recent analyses of the largest databases demonstrate that having an older donor is a risk factor for graft failure. Donor age is included as a risk factor in the more relevant graft survival scores, such as the Donor Risk Index, donor age and Model for End-stage Liver Disease, Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation, and the Balance of Risk. The use of old donors is related to an increased rate of biliary complications and hepatitis C virus-related graft failure. Although liver function does not seem to be significantly affected by age, the incidence of several liver diseases increases with age, and the capacity of the liver to manage or overcome liver diseases or external injuries decreases. In this paper, the importance of age in LT outcomes, the role of donor age as a risk factor, and the influence of aging on liver regeneration are reviewed.

Small-for-size syndrome in living-donor liver transplantation using a left lobe graft

In living-donor liver transplantation with a left lobe graft, which can reduce the burden on the donor compared to right lobe graft, the main problem is small-for-size (SFS) syndrome. SFS syndrome is a multifactorial disease that includes aspects related to the graft size, graft quality, recipient factors and even technical issues. The main pathophysiology of SFS syndrome is the sinusoidal microcirculatory disturbance induced by shear stress, which is caused by excessive portal inflow into the smaller graft. The donor age, the presence of steatosis of the graft and a poor recipient status are all risk factors for SFS syndrome. To resolve SFS syndrome, portal inflow modulation, splenectomy, splenic artery modulation and outflow modulation have been developed. It is important to establish strict criteria for managing SFS syndrome. Using pharmacological interventions and/or therapeutic approaches that promote liver regeneration could increase the adequate outcomes in SFS liver transplantation. Left lobe liver transplantation could be adopted in Western countries to help resolve the organ shortage.

Importance of donor-recipient age gradient to the prediction of graft outcome after living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE

Advanced donor age is a well-known risk factor for poor graft function after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In addition, advanced recipient age has a significant impact because of the high prevalence of comorbidities. We investigated the relationship between donor-recipient age gradient (DRAG) and the posttransplant outcomes in LDLT.

METHODS

We included 821 consecutive adult recipients who underwent LDLT from June 1997 to May 2011. According to the value of DRAG, they were divided into 2 groups: Negative years (the donor was younger than the recipient) and positive years (the donor was older than the recipient). These groups were further divided into subgroups (≤-21, -20 to -1, 0 to 20, and ≥21 years). We collected retrospectively patient characteristics, laboratory results, medical and surgical complications, and graft loss.

RESULTS

The positive DRAG group had higher level of posttransplant alkaline phosphatase, but a lower incidence of biliary complications. The negative DRAG group, particularly DRAG ≤ -21 years was associated with the superior 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year graft survivals. Recipients with DRAG ≥ 21 showed persistently inferior graft survival during the observation period. In cases of young donors, transplants utilizing lower DRAG seen between young donors and older recipients showed more favorable graft survival than that of young-to-young transplants.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that DRAG and a fixed donor age limit could be significant factors to predict graft survival after LDLT. Patients should carefully consider the worse graft survival if the donor is older than the recipient by ≥20.

Early Graft Dysfunction in Living Donor Liver Transplantation and the Small for Size Syndrome

LDLT has arisen as a viable means to reduce waitlist mortality. However, its widespread embrace by the liver transplant community has been met with frustration centered on donor morbidity and small-for-size-syndrome. Focusing on the later entity, we describe the initial recognition of this early graft dysfunction, the theorized pathophysiology and solutions to remedy its emergence.

Donor age affects liver regeneration during early period in the graft liver and late period in the remnant liver after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of donor age on liver regeneration and surgical outcomes in recipients and donors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Among 101 cases of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) between March 2002 and March 2011, according to donor age: younger (Y) <50 years of age or older (O) ≥ 50 years of age, the donors and recipients using right (R) or left (L) graft were divided into groups Y/R (n = 51) and O/R (n = 17), and groups Y/L (n = 26) and O/L (n = 7), respectively. Remnant liver volume (RemLV) and graft liver volume (GLV) were estimated by computed tomography (CT) volumetry. A disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type I domain 13 (ADAMTS13) activities and von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen levels were measured as factors reflecting thrombotic microangiopathy.

RESULTS

Among the donors, RemLV/total liver volume (TLV) was lower in group O/R than in group Y/R, although there were no significant differences by t-test with the Bonferroni correction (rough p value = 0.02 at 6 months and rough p value > 0.05 at 1, 3, and 12 months). Donor age (≥ 50 years) was independently correlated with impaired remnant liver regeneration at 6 months in right lobe LDLT (p = 0.04). Among the recipients, GLV/standard liver volume (SLV) was lower during the first month, although there were no significant differences between the two groups by t-test with the Bonferroni correction (rough p value = 0.03 at 1 week and rough p value >0.05 at 2 weeks and 1 and 3 months). Donor age (≥ 50 years) was independently correlated with impaired graft liver regeneration at 1 week in both right and left lobe LDLT (p < 0.05). ADAMTS13 activities were lower in group O/R than in group Y/R, although there were no significant differences by t-test with the Bonferroni correction (rough p value = 0.049 on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 28 and rough p value >0.05 on POD 7 and 14). vWF/ADAMTW13 ratios were higher on POD 14, although there were no significant differences between the two groups by t-test with the Bonferroni correction (rough p value = 0.044 on POD 14 and rough p value >0.05 on POD 1, 7, 14, and 28).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes using older donor livers for LDLT were comparable to those using younger donor livers. When using older donor livers, however, we should pay attention to the liver volume for recipients as well as donors, because older donor livers might have impaired regenerative ability.

The influence of donor age on liver regeneration and hepatic progenitor cell populations

BACKGROUND

Recent reports suggest that donor age might have a major impact on recipient outcome in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), but the reasons underlying this effect remain unclear. The aims of this study were to compare liver regeneration between young and aged living donors and to evaluate the number of Thy-1+ cells, which have been reported to be human hepatic progenitor cells.

METHODS

LDLT donors were divided into 2 groups (Group O, donor age ≥ 50 years, n = 6 and Group Y, donor age ≤ 30 years, n = 9). The remnant liver regeneration rates were calculated on the basis of computed tomography volumetry on postoperative days 7 and 30. Liver tissue samples were obtained from donors undergoing routine liver biopsy or patients undergoing partial hepatectomy for metastatic liver tumors. Thy-1+ cells were isolated and counted using immunomagnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) technique.

RESULTS

Donor liver regeneration rates were significantly higher in young donors compared to old donors (P = .042) on postoperative day 7. Regeneration rates were significantly higher after right lobe resection compared to rates after left lobe resection. The MACS findings showed that the number of Thy-1+ cells in the human liver consistently tended to decline with age.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that liver regeneration is impaired with age after donor hepatectomy, especially after right lobe resection. The declining hepatic progenitor cell population might be one of the reasons for impaired liver regeneration in aged donors.

Safety of small-for-size grafts in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe

The problem of graft size is one of the critical factors limiting the expansion of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We compared the outcome of LDLT recipients who received grafts with a graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) < 0.8% or a GRWR > or = 0.8%, and we analyzed the risk factors affecting graft survival after small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) were used. Between June 1997 and April 2008, 427 patients underwent LDLT with right lobe grafts at the Department of Surgery of Samsung Medical Center. Recipients were divided into 2 groups: group A with a GRWR < 0.8% (n = 35) and group B with a GRWR > or = 0.8% (n = 392). We retrospectively evaluated the recipient factors, donor factors, and operative factors through the medical records. Small-for-size dysfunction (SFSD) occurred in 2 of 35 patients (5.7%) in group A and in 14 of 392 patients (3.6%) in group B (P = 0.368). Graft survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were not different between the 2 groups (87.8%, 83.4%, and 74.1% versus 90.7%, 84.5%, and 79.4%, P = 0.852). However, when we analyzed risk factors within group A, donor age and middle hepatic vein tributary drainage were significant risk factors for graft survival according to univariate analysis (P = 0.042 and P = 0.038, respectively). Donor age was the only significant risk factor for poor graft survival according to multivariate analysis. The graft survival rates of recipients without SFSD tended to be higher than those of recipients with SFSD (85.3% versus 50.0%, P = 0.074). The graft survival rates of recipients with grafts from donors < 44 years old were significantly higher than those of recipients with grafts from donors > or = 44 years old (92.2% versus 53.6%, P = 0.005). In conclusion, an SFSG (GRWR < 0.8%) can be used safely in adult-to-adult right lobe LDLT when a recipient is receiving the graft from a donor younger than 44 years.

In-hospital mortality in adult recipients of living donor liver transplantation: experience of 576 consecutive cases at a single center

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was developed against the background of a scarcity of deceased donors and has a number of disadvantages leading to in-hospital mortality, such as marginal donors and grafts and recipients suffering from severe conditions. We have thus developed surgical and medical innovations to overcome these disadvantages. The present study analyzes the causes of death and factors affecting in-hospital mortality in adult recipients of LDLT. Between November 1994 and December 2007, 576 consecutive adult patients underwent LDLT at a single medical center. Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.9%. The peak rate was 55.6% in 1996, and the rate gradually decreased thereafter to 4.4% in 2007. The most frequent cause of death was infection (62.5%), which was followed by rejection (15.7%) and nonseptic multiple-organ failure (8.9%). Being intensive care unit-bound before the operation, ABO blood type incompatibility, an absence of postoperative enteral nutrition, and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 25 or higher were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. In ABO-identical and ABO-compatible cases, retransplantation and a positive lymphocyte crossmatch test were additional independent risk factors. In conclusion, even aggressive efforts, preoperative conditions such as being intensive care unit-bound, a high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, retransplantation, and a positive lymphocyte crossmatch test are still risk factors. Enteral nutrition could be a promising strategy to improve adult LDLT.