Dual Grafts Live Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Hepatitis B Liver Failure

Special Techniques of Liver Transplantation: Living Donor Liver Transplantation With Right Posterior Sector Grafts and Extended Left Lobe Grafts; Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Liver Transplantation, and Dual-Lobe Liver Transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) constitutes the majority of liver transplants in Asia and advancements in LDLT techniques have expanded the range of allografts beyond the commonly used right lobe (RL). This review provides a comprehensive overview of lesser-known variants of allografts and LDLT techniques which include right posterior sector grafts (RPSG), dual-lobe liver transplantation (DLLT), auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT), and extended left lobe grafts with caudate concentrating on the technical aspects, current evidence, and their indications in contemporary practice of LDLT. The first section examines RPSGs, focussing on their potential as an alternative to RL grafts particularly when volumetric studies indicate a larger right posterior sector in donors. It addresses donor selection, surgical techniques, and potential complications. Next, the article explores DLLT, which optimizes graft volume through partial grafts from two donors. The emphasis is on the ethical considerations, surgical challenges, and haemodynamic risks, such as graft atrophy, highlighting the importance of careful donor selection and meticulous planning. The section on APOLT covers its application in treating acute liver failure (ALF) and metabolic liver diseases. The technique's ability to support liver function in ALF while avoiding long-term immunosuppression when the native liver regenerates is discussed, along with patient selection criteria and follow-up requirements. Finally, the review addresses left lobe grafts with caudate used in smaller adults and older children to increase functional graft volume and improve outcomes.

Advocating for a "shift-to-left" in transplant oncology: left grafts, RAPID and dual graft

The extension of liver transplantation to new oncologic indications might exacerbate the shortage of grafts. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may emerge as a viable resource, although its diffusion in the Western world is still very limited. Several groups have advocated for minimizing the impact on donors by reducing the extent of donor hepatectomy, i.e., shifting from right-lobe to left-lobe or left-lateral segment donation ("shift-to-left"). This is particularly relevant when dealing with non-established indications and could make it more acceptable both for potential donors and for the recipients. Left grafts can be transplanted straightforward, despite a higher risk of small-for-size syndrome, or they can be used in the setting of dual-graft LDLT or RAPID procedures, despite technical complexity. This review will expose the most relevant features of each technique, highlighting their strengths and pitfalls and focusing on outcomes. This wide set of tools should be available at high-volume transplant centers, to propose the best technique to adapt to donor-recipient matching.

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.

Living donor liver transplantation using dual grafts: Experience and lessons learned from cases worldwide

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), insufficient graft volume could result in small-for-size syndrome in recipients, whereas major liver donation predisposes the donor to a high risk of posthepatectomy liver failure. Dual graft LDLT is therefore introduced to obtain combined graft sufficiency. To date, 367 patients have been reported worldwide. We reviewed all the relevant literature, with a special focus on 43 case reports containing enough data to extract and analyze. A simple decision-making algorithm was developed. Dual graft LDLT is indicated when (1) a single donation is unacceptable due to graft-to-recipient size mismatch; (2) the future liver remnant is insufficient in the single donor after major resection; or (3) there is a significant underlying disorder or anatomical variation within the donor liver. The outcome of dual graft LDLT is reported to be comparable with that of single donor LDLT. Unilateral graft atrophy was found in 7 of the 43 patients, predominantly in the right-sided, heterotopic and initially smaller grafts. Technically, the heterotopic implantation and complex vascular reconstruction are the most demanding. Elaborate surgical planning and modification are needed. Ethical concerns about involving a second living donor need to be addressed. In conclusion, dual graft LDLT should be prudently performed in select cases by surgeons of proven expertise when single donation is unacceptable and a second living donor is available. The decision-making criteria need to be standardized. More surgical modification and clinical research are needed.

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not predict outcomes of hepatitis B-induced acute-on-chronic liver failure in transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a severe clinical entity and liver transplantation is the only definitive therapy to salvage these patients. However, the timing of liver transplant for these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients undergoing liver transplantation because of hepatitis B ACLF were retrospectively analyzed from June 2004 to December 2010. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score for the post-transplantation outcomes were calculated.

RESULTS

The median age was 44 years (range, 25-64 years), serum bilirubin 418.53 μmol/L (range, 112.90-971.40 μmol/L), INR 3.177 (range, 1.470-9.850), and creatinine 70.84 μmol/L (range, 12.39-844.1 μmol/L); the median MELD score was 32 (range, 21-53) and CTP score 12 (8-15). The AUCs of MELD and CTP scores for 3-month mortality were 0.581 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.421-0.742; sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 32.8%) and 0.547 (95% CI, 0.401-0.693; sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 41%), respectively. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in hospital mortality (P = .252) or morbidity (P = .338) between the patients with MELD score ≥30 and those <30.

CONCLUSIONS

MELD score had no predictive ability for the outcomes of patients with hepatitis B ACLF after orthotopic liver transplantation.

Predictors of the outcomes of acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure

AIM: To identify the risk factors in predicting the outcome of acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure patients.

METHODS: We retrospectively divided 113 patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure-hepatitis B virus (ACLF-HBV) and without concurrent hepatitis C or D virus infection and hepatocellular carcinoma into two groups according to their outcomes after anti-HBV therapy. Their demographic, clinical, and biochemical data on the day of diagnosis and after the first week of treatment were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test, and a multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS: The study included 113 patients (87 men and 26 women) with a mean age of 49.84 years. Fifty-two patients survived, and 61 patients died. Liver failure (85.2%), sepsis (34.4%), and multiple organ failure (39.3%) were the main causes of death. Multivariate analyses showed that Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥ 12 [odds ratio (OR) = 7.160, 95% CI: 2.834-18.092, P < 0.001] and positive blood culture (OR = 13.520, 95% CI: 2.740-66.721, P = 0.001) on the day of diagnosis and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores ≥ 28 (OR = 8.182, 95% CI: 1.884-35.527, P = 0.005) after the first week of treatment were independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION: APACHE II scores on the day of diagnosis and MELD scores after the first week of anti-HBV therapy are feasible predictors of outcome in ACLF-HBV patients.