Survival outcomes of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation for patients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Adults With High Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) at high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores are not well characterized in the United States.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data in adults listed for their first liver transplant alone between 2002 and 2021. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of MELD score (<20, 20-24, 25-29, and ≥30) and patient/graft survival after LDLT and the association of donor type (living versus deceased) on outcomes stratified by MELD.

RESULTS

There were 4495 LDLTs included with 5.9% at MELD 25-29 and 1.9% at MELD ≥30. LDLTs at MELD 25-29 and ≥30 LDLT have substantially increased since 2010 and 2015, respectively. Patient survival at MELD ≥30 was not different versus MELD <20: adjusted hazard ratio 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.88). However, graft survival was worse: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.68). Compared with deceased-donor liver transplant, LDLT led to superior patient survival at MELD <20 (aHR 0.92; P = 0.024) and 20-24 (aHR 0.70; P < 0.001), equivalent patient survival at MELD 25-29 (aHR 0.97; P = 0.843), but worse graft survival at MELD ≥30 (aHR 1.68, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient survival remains acceptable, the benefits of LDLT may be lost at MELD ≥30.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Impact, Advantages, and Challenges

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This review provides an overview of the current status of Living Donor Liver Transplant (LDLT). It discusses the impact of LDLT on waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes, highlighting the technical challenges and unique advantages of LDLT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings show that LDLT offers several theoretical advantages over deceased donor liver transplant, including shorter wait times, better graft quality, and improved post-transplant outcomes. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are emerging as the leading indications for adult LDLT in the US. LDLT demonstrates comparable or better overall survival rates and organ-specific outcomes compared to deceased donor transplants. However, challenges exist, including donor and recipient risks such as biliary complications and small-for-size syndrome. Ongoing research focuses on refining surgical techniques, exploring minimally invasive approaches, utilizing predetermined donors to modulate the recipient's immune system, and ensuring ethical practices. LDLT is a valuable solution for patients with end-stage liver failure or disorders requiring transplantation. It offers advantages such as shorter wait times as well as improved waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Continued research and advancements in LDLT will benefit patients in need of liver transplantation.

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.

Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients with a High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score

BACKGROUND

The Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system can predict short-term survival among patients awaiting liver transplantation and is used to allocate organs prioritizing liver transplantation. Patients with high MELD scores have been reported to have worse early graft dysfunction and survival. However, recent studies have shown that patients with high MELD scores had satisfactory graft survival, although they showed more postoperative complications. In this study, we examined the effect of the MELD score on the short-term and long-term prognosis of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

This study included 102 patients who underwent LDLT in our institution between 2005 and 2020. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to MELD score (low MELD group: ≤20, moderate MELD group: 21-30, and high MELD group: ≥31). Perioperative factors were compared among the 3 groups, and cumulative overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The patients' characteristics were comparable, and the median age was 54 years. Hepatitis C virus cirrhosis was the most common primary disease (n = 40), followed by hepatitis B virus (n = 11). The low MELD group consisted of 68 patients (median score: 16, 10-20); the moderate MELD group, 24 patients (median score: 24, 21-30); and the high MELD group, 10 patients (median score: 35, 31-40). The mean operative time (1241 min versus 1278 min versus 1158 min, P = .19) and mean blood loss (7517 mL vs 11162 mL vs 8808 mL, P = .71) were not significantly different among the 3 groups. The vascular and biliary complication rates were similar. The periods of intensive care unit and hospital stay tended to be longer in the high MELD group, but the difference was insignificant. The 1-year postoperative survival rate (85.3 % vs 87.5 % vs 90.0 %, P = .90) and overall survival rate were also not significantly different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that LDLT patients with high MELD scores do not have a worse prognosis than those with low scores.

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.

Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the prevalence of complications following liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

As a nutritional index, preoperative serum prealbumin highly correlates with surgical complications. However, the correlation between preoperative prealbumin and postoperative complications remains unclear in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

A total of 191 patients who underwent LT between 2015 and 2019 were included in the retrospective analysis. According to a cut-off value calculated from a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the patients were divided into normal and low preoperative prealbumin groups. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for postoperative complications. In addition, patients were divided into subgroups by Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and the association between preoperative prealbumin and postoperative complications was also assessed in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 111 (58.1%) patients were included in the low prealbumin group based on a cut-off value of 120 mg/L. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.754 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.832). Low prealbumin (95% CI 1.51-12.8, P = 0.007) was identified as a predictor for postoperative complications based on multivariable regression. In the low and normal prealbumin groups, the prevalence rates of postoperative complications were 27.5% and 8.0% (P = 0.003) in the MELD score ≤ 15 subgroup and 53.3% and 20.0% (P = 0.197) in the MELD score > 15 subgroup, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative prealbumin was associated with postoperative complications in LT, and preoperative nutritional support benefitted postoperative recovery, especially for patients with low MELD scores.

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.

Liver Transplantation

The field of liver transplantation has changed since the MELD scoring system became the most widely used donor allocation tool. Due to the MELD-based allocation system, sicker patients with higher MELD scores are being transplanted. Persistent organ donor shortages remain a challenging issue, and as a result, the wait-list mortality is a persistent problem for most of the regions. This chapter focuses on deceased donor and live donor liver transplantation in patients with complications of portal hypertension. Special attention will also be placed on donor-recipient matching, perioperative management of transplant patients, and the impact of hepatic hemodynamics on transplantation.

Predictors of early recipient mortality after living donor liver transplantation in a tertiary care center in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved into a widely accepted therapeutic option. Many different risk factors may affect early mortality after LDLT.

OBJECTIVES

Analyze risk factors that can affect early (<6 months) mortality of patients after LDLT in a single center.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LDLT.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult cirrhotic patients who underwent LDLT were classified by early (first 6 months) or late mortality. A full pre, intra- and post-operative evaluation had been done on all patients including a full history, examination and investigations to identify risk factors that might affect mortality post-LDLT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Determination of pre-, intra- or postoperative factors that might affect recipient mortality post-LDLT.

SAMPLE SIZE

123.

RESULTS

Pre-operative factors that increased early mortality in a univariate analysis were higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, lower graft-recipient weigh ratio (GRWR), older donor age, and recurrent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Intraoperative factors included more transfusion units of blood, plasma, platelets and cryoprecipitate, a longer time for cold and warm ischemia, and a longer anhepatic phase among others. Postoperative factors included a longer ICU or hospital stay and abnormal postoperative laboratory data. In the final logistic regression model, the most significant factors were pre-operative GRWR, length of hospital stay, units of intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative alanine aminotransferase, postoperative total leukocyte count, and MELD score.

CONCLUSION

LDLT outcomes might be improved by attempting to resolve clinical factors that have been identified as contributors to early post-LDLT mortality.

LIMITATIONS

More risk factors, such as those relevant to patient portal vein hemodynamics, should be included in an analysis of predictors of early mortality.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver (APASL): an update

The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was published in 2009. With international groups volunteering to join, the "APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)" was formed in 2012, which continued to collect prospective ACLF patient data. Based on the prospective data analysis of nearly 1400 patients, the AARC consensus was published in 2014. In the past nearly four-and-a-half years, the AARC database has been enriched to about 5200 cases by major hepatology centers across Asia. The data published during the interim period were carefully analyzed and areas of contention and new developments in the field of ACLF were prioritized in a systematic manner. The AARC database was also approached for answering some of the issues where published data were limited, such as liver failure grading, its impact on the 'Golden Therapeutic Window', extrahepatic organ dysfunction and failure, development of sepsis, distinctive features of acute decompensation from ACLF and pediatric ACLF and the issues were analyzed. These initiatives concluded in a two-day meeting in October 2018 at New Delhi with finalization of the new AARC consensus. Only those statements, which were based on evidence using the Grade System and were unanimously recommended, were accepted. Finalized statements were again circulated to all the experts and subsequently presented at the AARC investigators meeting at the AASLD in November 2018. The suggestions from the experts were used to revise and finalize the consensus. After detailed deliberations and data analysis, the original definition of ACLF was found to withstand the test of time and be able to identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure. New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, variceal bleed, antivirals and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed. The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies are presented here.

Albumin-Bilirubin Score for Predicting Post-Transplant Complications Following Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade has been evaluated as an objective method to assess liver function and predict postoperative complications, particularly after hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, ALBI grade was rarely used in evaluation in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Material/Methods

Between March 2005 and November 2015, 272 consecutive patients undergoing right-lobe LDLT were enrolled in this study. According to the ALBI score used to evaluate recipients preoperatively, those patients were divided into 3 grades (I, II, and III). Demographic findings and the post-operative complication rates were collected and compared among groups.

Results

The proportions of massive blood cell transfusions were different among those 3 grades (p<0.05). The patients in grade III had a higher risk of bacterial pneumonia and early allograft dysfunction (EAD) compared to grade I (p=0.029 and p=0.038, respectively) and grade II (p=0.006 and p=0.007, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of ALBI, Child-Pugh, and MELD for predicting 30-day mortality were 0.702 (95% CI: 0.644–0.756), 0.669 (95% CI: 0.580–0.697, p=0.510, versus ALBI grade), and 0.540 (95% CI: 0.580–0.697, p=0.144, versus ALBI grade), respectively.

Conclusions

ALBI grade was a good index for predicting post-operative complications and had a predictive ability similar to those of the Child-Pugh classification and MELD score.

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight (GW) to recipient standard liver volume (RSLV) (GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.

RESULTS

Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age (median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women (165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW (P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV (P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time (P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable (P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital, 4 (2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1 (5.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33 (16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5 (26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group (95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates (RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).

CONCLUSION

The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailor-made surgical planning and meticulous operation. LL-LDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.

Comparable Short- and Long-term Outcomes in Living Donor and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantations for Patients With Model for End-stage Liver Disease Scores ≥35 in a Hepatitis-B Endemic Area

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35.

BACKGROUND

No data was available to support LDLT of such patients.

METHODS

Data of 672 consecutive adult liver transplant recipients from 2005 to 2014 at our center were reviewed. Patients with MELD scores ≥35 were divided into the deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group and the LDLT group and were compared. Univariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors affecting survival.

RESULTS

The LDLT group (n = 54) had younger (33 yrs vs 50 yrs, P < 0.001) and lighter (56 Kg vs 65 Kg, P = 0.004) donors, lighter grafts (627.5 g vs 1252.5 g, P < 0.001), lower graft-weight-to-recipient-standard-liver-volume rates (51.28% vs 99.76%, P < 0.001), shorter cold ischemic time (106.5 min vs 389 min, P < 0.001), and longer operation time (681.5 min vs 534 min, P < 0.001). The groups were comparable in postoperative complication, hospital mortality, and graft survival and patient survival at one year (88.9% vs 92.5%; 88.9% vs 94.7%), three years (87.0% vs 86.9%; 87.0% vs 88.8%), and five years (84.8% vs 81.8%; 84.8% vs 83.3%). Univariate analysis did not show inferior survival in LDLT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

At centers with experience, the outcomes of LDLT can be comparable with those of DDLT even in patients with MELD scores ≥35. When donor risks and recipient benefits are fully considered and balanced, an MELD score ≥35 should not be a contraindication to LDLT. In Hong Kong, where most waitlisted patients have acute-on-chronic liver failure from hepatitis B, LDLT is a wise alternative to DDLT.

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

Living donor liver transplantation in patients weighing ≥100 kg: Low graft weight and obesity do not impact outcomes

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in obese patients raises concerns with regards to obtaining grafts of "adequate" graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) and the impact of obesity on the outcomes of LDLT. LDLT outcomes in patients weighing ≥100 kg were compared with those weighing <100 kg. Patients weighing ≥100 kg were divided into 3 categories based on the GRWR of the grafts they received. Groups 1, 2, and 3 included patients with GRWR ≥0.8%, between 0.65% and 0.8%, and <0.65%, respectively. The 56 (6.5%) adult liver transplants were performed in patients weighing 100 kg or more. Except for higher mean body mass index (35.8 versus 25.2 kg/m² ; P value < 0.01) and grafts of lower GRWR in obese patients (0.74% versus 1.02%; P value < 0.01), all other parameters were similar between the 2 groups. Despite obesity and smaller grafts, the posttransplant outcomes such as day to normal bilirubin and international normalized ratio; infective, respiratory, and biliary complications; and hospital mortality were similar between the 2 groups. On comparing obese patients in the 3 GRWR categories, except for graft weight (985 versus 769 versus 646 g; P value < 0.01), all the pretransplant parameters were comparable. There was no significant difference in terms of graft function, postoperative morbidity, and hospital mortality between patients with grafts of normal GRWR and those with grafts of low and very low GRWR. Grafts of low GRWR give satisfactory results in obese patients undergoing LDLT and obesity does not adversely impact the outcome of LDLT. Liver Transplantation 23:35-42 2017 AASLD.

Smaller grafts do not imply early recurrence in recipients transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma: A Chinese experience

Liver graft size has long been a critical issue in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We analyzed China Liver Transplant Registry data (January 2007–December 2009), identifying 295 patients who underwent LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The recipients were divided into two groups: A, graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) ≤ 0.8% (n = 56); B, GRWR > 0.8% (n = 239). We evaluated donor, recipient, and operative factors and analyzed survival outcome and the risk factors affecting overall and recurrence survival. As a result, the overall survival rates of group B were significantly higher than that of group A (p = 0.009); the corresponding tumor-free survival rates did not differ significantly (p = 0.133). The overall survival rates among the 151 recipients who met the Hangzhou criteria did not differ significantly (p = 0.953), nor did the corresponding tumor-free survival rates (p = 0.893). Multivariate analysis determined that GRWR was a significant risk factor for poor survival but not for early recurrence. In conclusion, small grafts may predict poorer survival outcome but do not indicate earlier HCC recurrence in recipients transplanted for HCC, and survival outcome with smaller grafts is merely acceptable in selected recipients.

Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B: a 2015 update

Worldwide, some 240 million people have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), with the highest rates of infection in Africa and Asia. Our understanding of the natural history of HBV infection and the potential for therapy of the resultant disease is continuously improving. New data have become available since the previous APASL guidelines for management of HBV infection were published in 2012. The objective of this manuscript is to update the recommendations for the optimal management of chronic HBV infection. The 2015 guidelines were developed by a panel of Asian experts chosen by the APASL. The clinical practice guidelines are based on evidence from existing publications or, if evidence was unavailable, on the experts' personal experience and opinion after deliberations. Manuscripts and abstracts of important meetings published through January 2015 have been evaluated. This guideline covers the full spectrum of care of patients infected with hepatitis B, including new terminology, natural history, screening, vaccination, counseling, diagnosis, assessment of the stage of liver disease, the indications, timing, choice and duration of single or combination of antiviral drugs, screening for HCC, management in special situations like childhood, pregnancy, coinfections, renal impairment and pre- and post-liver transplant, and policy guidelines. However, areas of uncertainty still exist, and clinicians, patients, and public health authorities must therefore continue to make choices on the basis of the evolving evidence. The final clinical practice guidelines and recommendations are presented here, along with the relevant background information.

Diagnostic Value of Preoperative Needle Biopsy for Tumor Grading Assessment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Needle core biopsy (NCB) is one of the most widely used and accepted methods for the diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions. Although many studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NCB in predicting the tumor grade, it is still under debate.

Objective

To identify the influence of number of biopsies on NCB diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

153 patients with HCC were selected from patients who received preoperative NCB under the guidance of ultrasonography in our hospital. The diagnostic reference standard was the surgical pathologic diagnosis.

Results

Using a 3-tier grading scheme (well, moderate and poor), the accuracy of NCB has no significant differences among different number of passes in HCC ≤5cm. For HCC >5≤8cm, the increasing number of passes could increase the diagnostic accuracy (63.3%, 81.8%, and 84.8% for passes one, two, and three, respectively). While in HCC>8cm, the diagnostic accuracy of passes one, two, and three were 62.1%, 69%, and 75.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

The accuracy of NCB in assessing tumor grading associated with tumor size and number of passes. Meanwhile, a minimum of two passes should be performed to get better accuracy in patients with HCC >5cm.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

The travails of setting up a living donor liver transplant program: Experience from Pakistan and lessons learned

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) where cadaveric donors are not available. In developing countries, the inception of LDLT programs remains a challenge. The first successful liver transplantation program in Pakistan started transplantation in 2012. The objective of this study was to report outcomes of 100 LDLT recipients in a developing country and to highlight the challenges encountered by a new LDLT program in a resource-limited setting. We retrospectively reviewed recipients who underwent LDLT between April 2012 and August 2014. Demographics, etiology, graft characteristics, and operative variables were assessed. Outcome was assessed on the basis of morbidity and mortality. All complications of ≥ 3 on the Clavien-Dindo grading system were included as morbidity. Estimated 1-year survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and a Log-rank test was used to determine the significance. Outcomes between the first 50 LDLTs (group 1) and latter 50 LDLTs (group 2) were also compared. Median age was 46.5 (0.5-72) years, whereas the median MELD score was 15.5 (7-37). The male to female ratio was 4:1. ESLD secondary to hepatitis C virus was the most common indication (73% patients). There were 52 (52%) significant (≥ grade 3) complications. The most common morbidities were bile leaks in 9 (9%) and biliary strictures in 14 (14%) patients. Overall mortality in patients who underwent LDLT for ESLD was 10.6%. Estimated 1-year survival was 87%. Patients who underwent transplantation in the latter period had a significantly lower overall complication rate (36% versus 68%; P = 0.01). Comparable outcomes can be achieved in a new LDLT program in a developing country. Outcomes improve as experience increases.

Complications and mortality after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is widely performed for patients to resolve the critical shortage of organs from cadavers. Despite rapid implementation of the procedure, both complications and mortality of LDLT are annoying problems. The aim of this study was to analyze complications and mortality of patients after adult to adult LDLT (A-ALDLT) in a single center.

METHODS

Between April 2003 and November 2013, 167 (A-ALDLT) recipients in National Liver Institute, Egypt were included. We retrospectively analyzed complications and mortality in them.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of complications was 86.2% (n = 144) and classified as biliary 43.7% (n = 73), vascular 21.6% (n = 36), Small for size syndrome (SFSS) 12.6% (n = 21), Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) 19.8% (n = 33), wound 12.6% (n = 21), chest 19.8% (n = 33), neurological 26.3% (n = 44), renal 21% (n = 35), intra abdominal collection 21.6% (n = 36), recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) 16.8% (n = 28), recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 2.4% (n = 4), acute rejection 19.2% (n = 32). 65 (45.1%) of 144 complicated patients died, while 10 (43.5%) of 23 non complicated died. The incidence of whole, in hospital and late mortalities were 44.9%, 28.7% and 16.2% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was higher among complicated cases where vascular complications and SFSS had significant effect on it so prevention and treatment of them is required for improving outcome.

Complications and mortality after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective cohort study

Background and aims

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is widely performed for patients to resolve the critical shortage of organs from cadavers. Despite rapid implementation of the procedure, both complications and mortality of LDLT are annoying problems. The aim of this study was to analyze complications and mortality of patients after adult to adult LDLT (A-ALDLT) in a single center. Methods: Between April 2003 and November 2013, 167 (A-ALDLT) recipients in National Liver Institute, Egypt were included. We retrospectively analyzed complications and mortality in them.

Results

The overall incidence of complications was 86.2% (n = 144) and classified as biliary 43.7% (n = 73), vascular 21.6% (n = 36), Small for size syndrome (SFSS) 12.6% (n = 21), Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) 19.8% (n = 33), wound 12.6% (n = 21), chest 19.8% (n = 33), neurological 26.3% (n = 44), renal 21% (n = 35), intra abdominal collection 21.6% (n = 36), recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) 16.8% (n = 28), recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 2.4% (n = 4), acute rejection 19.2% (n = 32). 65 (45.1%) of 144 complicated patients died, while 10 (43.5%) of 23 non complicated died. The incidence of whole, in hospital and late mortalities were 44.9%, 28.7% and 16.2% respectively. Conclusions: Mortality was higher among complicated cases where vascular complications and SFSS had significant effect on it so prevention and treatment of them is required for improving outcome.

•

Mortality was higher among complicated cases.

•

Vascular complication was independent predictors of poor outcome.

•

Small for size syndrome was independent predictors of poor outcome.

•

Proper management of the previous complications improve outcome of LDLT.

Criteria for liver transplantation in ACLF and outcome

Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only curative treatment for patients with failed medical treatment for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, the selection criteria for LT in ACLF is ill-defined. Given the scarcity of deceased organs and the inherent risk of living donor hepatectomy, it is mandatory to identify unfavourable prognostic factors for survival in ACLF in order to establish an objective and fair selection criteria for LT, and more importantly to ensure a satisfactory post-transplant outcome. The aim of this article was to review the current evidence on the validity of the existing prognostic models and to evaluate the survival outcomes after LT for ACLF.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) 2014

The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was published in 2009. Due to the rapid advancements in the knowledge and available information, a consortium of members from countries across Asia Pacific, "APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)," was formed in 2012. A large cohort of retrospective and prospective data of ACLF patients was collated and followed up in this data base. The current ACLF definition was reassessed based on the new AARC data base. These initiatives were concluded on a 2-day meeting in February 2014 at New Delhi and led to the development of the final AARC consensus. Only those statements which were based on the evidence and were unanimously recommended were accepted. These statements were circulated again to all the experts and subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Brisbane, on March 14, 2014. The suggestions from the delegates were analyzed by the expert panel, and the modifications in the consensus were made. The final consensus and guidelines document was prepared. After detailed deliberations and data analysis, the original proposed definition was found to withstand the test of time and identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure. Based on the AARC data, liver failure grading, and its impact on the "Golden therapeutic Window," extra-hepatic organ failure and development of sepsis were analyzed. New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, variceal bleed, antivirals, and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed. The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information are presented here.