Improvement in survival associated with adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy is associated with superior outcomes for both the donor and the recipient compared with laparoscopic or open - A single-center prospective registry study of 3448 cases

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy is an emerging surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We examined outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic LDLT using a prospective registry. We analyzed 3448 cases (1724 donor-recipient pairs) from January 2011 to March 2023 (NCT06062706). Among donors, 520 (30%) were female. Adult-to-adult LDLT comprised 1061 (62%) cases. A total of 646 (37%) of the donors underwent open, 165 (10%) laparoscopic, and 913 (53%) robotic hepatectomies. Primary outcomes: donor overall morbidity was 4% (35/903) for robotic, 8% (13/165) laparoscopic, and 16% (106/646) open (P < .001) procedures. Pediatric and adult recipient mortality was similar among the 3 donor hepatectomy approaches: robotic 1.5% and 7.0%, compared with 2.3% and 8.3% laparoscopic, and 1.6% and 5.5% for open donor surgery, respectively (P = .802, P = .564). Secondary outcomes: pediatric and adult recipients major morbidity after robotic hepatectomy was 15% and 23%, compared with 25% and 44% for laparoscopic surgery and 19% and 31% for open surgery, respectively (P = .033, P < .001). Graft and recipient 5-year survival were 90% and 93% for pediatrics and 79% and 80% for adults, respectively. In conclusion, robotic LDLT was associated with superior outcomes when compared with the laparoscopic and open approaches. Both donors and, for the first time reported, recipients benefitted from lower morbidity rates in robotic surgery, emphasizing its potential for further advancing this field.

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.

Outcomes of Living Donor Liver Transplantation Compared with Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Improved surgical techniques and revolutionary immunosuppressive agents have enhanced the long-term outcomes for liver transplantation, with more patients seeking the benefits of liver transplantation, and demand is high. In this review, we hope to delineate where the current data supporting favorable outcomes in using live donation to expand the donor pool compared with the outcomes seen in deceased donor liver transplants. Advances in surgery, transplant and center comfort has made live donor transplantation an asset with favorable patient outcomes in comparison to decease donor data.

Three-dimensional Liver Model Application for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Children are removed from the liver transplant waitlist because of death or progressive illness. Size mismatch accounts for 30% of organ refusal. This study aimed to demonstrate that 3-dimensional (3D) technology is a feasible and accurate adjunct to organ allocation and living donor selection process.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study included pediatric liver transplant candidates and living donors from January 2020 to February 2023. Patient-specific, 3D-printed liver models were used for anatomic planning, real-time evaluation during organ procurement, and surgical navigation. The primary outcome was to determine model accuracy. The secondary outcome was to determine the impact of outcomes in living donor hepatectomy. Study groups were analyzed using propensity score matching with a retrospective cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight recipients were included. The median percentage error was -0.6% for 3D models and had the highest correlation to the actual liver explant (Pearson's R = 0.96, P < 0.001) compared with other volume calculation methods. Patient and graft survival were comparable. From 41 living donors, the median percentage error of the allograft was 12.4%. The donor-matched study group had lower central line utilization (21.4% versus 75%, P = 0.045), shorter length of stay (4 versus 7 d, P = 0.003), and lower mean comprehensive complication index (3 versus 21, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional volume is highly correlated with actual liver explant volume and may vary across different allografts for living donation. The addition of 3D-printed liver models during the transplant evaluation and organ procurement process is a feasible and safe adjunct to the perioperative decision-making process.

Liver transplantation in Latin America: reality and challenges

Healthcare systems in Latin America are broadly heterogeneous, but all of them are burdened by a dramatic rise in liver disease. Some challenges that these countries face include an increase in patients requiring a transplant, insufficient rates of organ donation, delayed referral, and inequitable or suboptimal access to liver transplant programs and post-transplant care. This could be improved by expanding the donor pool through the implementation of education programs for citizens and referring physicians, as well as the inclusion of extended criteria donors, living donors and split liver transplantation. Addressing these shortcomings will require national shifts aimed at improving infrastructure, increasing awareness of organ donation, training medical personnel, and providing equitable access to care for all patients.

Biliary atresia and liver transplantation in the United States: A contemporary analysis

BACKGROUND

Biliary atresia (BA) remains the number one indication for paediatric liver transplantation (LT) worldwide but is an uncommon indication for older LT recipients. The impact of recent donor allocation changes, pervasive organ shortage and evolving LT practices on the BA LT population is unknown.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent LT between January 2010 and December 2021 using the UNOS database. We compared clinical outcomes between patients with BA and those with non-BA cholestatic liver disease. Groups were stratified by age, <12 years (allocated via PELD system) and ≥12 years (allocated via MELD system). Waitlist outcomes were compared using competing-risk regression analysis, graft survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis and Cox proportional hazards modelling provided adjusted estimates.

RESULTS

There were 2754 BA LT waitlist additions and 2206 BA LTs (1937 <12 years [younger], 269 ≥12 years [older]). There were no differences in waitlist mortality between BA and non-BA cholestatic patients. Among BA LT recipients, there were 441 (20.0%) living-donor liver transplantations (LDLT) and 611 (27.7%) split deceased-donor LTs. Five-year graft survival was significantly higher among BA versus non-BA cholestatic patients in the older group (88.3% vs. 79.5%, p < .01) but not younger group (89.3% vs. 89.5%). Among BA LT recipients, improved graft outcomes were associated with LDLT (vs. split LT: HR: 2, 95% CI: 1.03-3.91) and higher transplant volume (volume >100 vs. <40 BA LTs: HR: 3.41, 95% CI: 1.87-6.2).

CONCLUSION

Liver transplant outcomes among BA patients are excellent, with LDLT and higher transplant centre volume associated with optimal graft outcomes.

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.

Availability of living donor optimizes timing of liver transplant in high-risk waitlisted cirrhosis patients

Liver transplant (LT) candidates have become older and frailer, with growing Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and comorbid disease burden in recent years, predisposing them for poor waitlist outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in waitlisted patients at highest risk of dropout. We reviewed all adult patients with decompensated cirrhosis listed for LT from November 2012 to December 2018. Patients with a potential living donor (pLD) available were identified. Survival analyses with Cox Proportional Hazards models and time to LT with Competing risk models were performed followed by prediction model development. Out of 860 patients who met inclusion criteria, 360 (41.8%) had a pLD identified and 496 (57.6%) underwent LT, out of which 170 (34.2%) were LDLT. The benefit of pLD was evident for all, but patients with moderate to severe frailty at listing (interaction p = 0.03), height <160 cm (interaction p = 0.03), and Model for end stage liver disease (MELD)-Na score <20 (interaction p < 0.0001) especially benefited. Our prediction model identified patients at highest risk of dropout while waiting for deceased donor and most benefiting of pLD (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.82). Access to LDLT in a transplant program can optimize the timing of transplant for the increasingly older, frail patient population with comorbidities who are at highest risk of dropout.

Vibration Controlled Transient Elastography to Evaluate Steatosis in Candidate Living Donors for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The ability of vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE) to reliably exclude significant steatosis in living donor candidates could obviate the need for invasive liver biopsies, expedite the donor approval process, and reduce recipient wait time. We therefore aimed to determine whether VCTE controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) could be used to detect steatosis in potential living donors.

METHODS

Living donor candidates who presented for evaluation between 2016 and 2019 underwent standard donor workup, VCTE, and liver biopsy if indicated. CAP scores were compared with MRI-Fat Fraction and, when available, histologic fat fraction from liver biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify cutoffs with appropriate sensitivity and specificity for screening. Statistical analysis was conducted using R (version 3.6.0).

RESULTS

Seventy-nine candidate living donors presented during the study period, of whom 71 were included in the final analysis and of whom 20 underwent liver biopsy. There was a positive correlation between MRI-Fat Fraction and CAP scores with an observed Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.424 ( P < 0.01). A CAP score of 271.5 dB/m or less was determined to have 89.8% sensitivity and 75% specificity for detecting <5% steatosis on MRI. The correlation between CAP and steatosis of available histologic samples had a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.603 ( P = 0.005). A CAP cutoff of 276.0 dB/m demonstrated 66.7% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity for detecting <15% histopathologic steatosis and positive and negative predictive values of 71.5% and 82.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

VCTE can be integrated into living donor evaluation to accurately screen for hepatic steatosis.

Early liver transplantation for severe acute alcohol-related hepatitis after more than a decade of experience

In patients with severe acute alcohol-related hepatitis not responding to medical therapy, early liver transplantation (LT) represents the only effective therapy and, when performed within strict and well-defined protocols, it is associated with a clear survival benefit and acceptable rates of return to alcohol use after transplantation. However, there is still high variability in access to LT for patients with severe alcohol-related hepatitis, mainly due to a persistent overemphasis in the pre-LT evaluation on duration of pre-transplant abstinence and the stigma that patients with alcohol-related liver disease often experience, leading to marked inequity of access to this potentially lifesaving procedure and negative health outcomes. Therefore, there is an increasing need for prospective multicentre studies focusing on pre-transplant selection practices and on better interventions to treat alcohol use disorder after LT.

Invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is increasing worldwide with underlying pathologies dominated by metabolic and alcoholic diseases in developed countries.

METHODS

We provide a narrative review of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in liver transplant (LT) recipients. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for references without language and time restrictions.

RESULTS

The incidence of IA in LT recipients is low (1.8%), while mortality is high (∼50%). It occurs mainly early (<3 months) after LT. Some risk factors have been identified before (corticosteroid, renal, and liver failure), during (massive transfusion and duration of surgical procedure), and after transplantation (intensive care unit stay, re-transplantation, re-operation). Diagnosis can be difficult and therefore requires full radiological and clinicobiological collaboration. Accurate identification of Aspergillus species is recommended due to the cryptic species, and susceptibility testing is crucial given the increasing resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus to azoles. It is recommended to reduce the dose of tacrolimus (50%) and to closely monitor the trough level when introducing voriconazole, isavuconazole, and posaconazole. Surgery should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended in high-risk patients. Environmental preventative measures should be implemented to prevent outbreaks of nosocomial aspergillosis in LT recipient units.

CONCLUSION

IA remains a very serious disease in LT patients and should be promptly sought and, if possible, prevented by clinicians when risk factors are identified.

Living donor liver transplantation: A multi-disciplinary collaboration towards growth, consensus, and a change in culture

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) reduces liver transplant waitlist mortality and provides excellent long-term outcomes for persons with end stage liver disease. Yet, utilization of LDLT has been limited in the United States (US).

METHODS

In October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation held a consensus conference to identify important barriers to broader expansion of LDLT in the US, including data gaps, and make recommendations for impactful and feasible mitigation strategies to overcome these barriers. Domains addressed encompassed the entirety of the LDLT process. Representation from international centers and living donor kidney transplantation were included for their perspective/experience in addition to members across disciplines within the US liver transplantation community. A modified Delphi approach was employed as the consensus methodology.

RESULTS

The predominant theme permeating discussion and polling results centered on culture; the beliefs and behaviors of a group of people perpetuated over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Creating a culture of support for LDLT in the US is key for expansion and includes engagement and education of stakeholders across the spectrum of the process of LDLT. A shift from awareness of LDLT to acknowledgement of benefit of LDLT is the primary goal. Propagation of the maxim "LDLT is the best option" is pivotal.

Current Approaches in the Allocation of Liver Transplantation

In recent decades, important advances have been made in the field of liver transplantation. One of the major problems remaining in this area is the small number of donors. Thus, recent data bring multiple updates of the indications and contraindications of this therapeutic method. The main goal is to increase the number of patients who can benefit from liver transplantation, a therapeutic method that can improve life expectancy and the quality of life of patients with end-stage liver disease. Another goal in the management of these patients is represented by the optimal care of those on the waiting list during that period. A multidisciplinary team approach is necessary to obtain the best results for both the donor and the recipient.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Living Donor Liver Transplant Center Volume Influences Waiting List Survival Among Children Listed for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains infrequently performed in the United States and localized to a few centers. This study aimed to compare pediatric waiting list and posttransplant outcomes by LDLT center volume.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric (age <18 y) liver transplant candidates listed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019. The average annual number of LDLT, deceased donor partial liver transplant (DDPLT), and overall (ie, LDLT + DDPLT + whole liver transplants) pediatric liver transplants performed by each transplant center during the study period was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 88 transplant centers, only 44 (50%) performed at least 1 pediatric LDLT during the study period. LDLT, DDPLT, and overall transplant center volume were all positively correlated. LDLT center volume was protective against waiting list dropout after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97; P = 0.004), whereas DDPLT and overall center volume were not (P > 0.05); however, DDPLT center volume was significantly protective against both recipient death and graft loss, whereas overall volume was only protective against graft loss and LDLT volume was not protective for either.

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume pediatric LDLT center can improve waiting list survival, whereas DDPLT and overall volume are associated with posttransplant survival. Expertise in all types of pediatric liver transplant options is important to optimize outcomes.

Perioperative management of adult living donor liver transplantation: Part 1 - recipients

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation option has become an established and widely practiced transplantation method for adult patients suffering from end-stage liver disease. It has successfully addressed the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplant Anesthesia jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of live donor liver transplant recipients. The review aims to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live liver transplantation recipients. We feature the status, outcomes, surgical procedure, portal venous decompression, anesthetic management, prevention of acute kidney injury, avoidance of blood transfusion, monitoring and therapeutic strategies of hemodynamic derangements, and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols for liver transplant recipients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Expectations of a new opt-out system of consent for deceased organ donation in England: A qualitative interview study

Introduction

In 2020 England moved to an opt‐out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased‐donor and living‐donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change.

Methods

We undertook in‐depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living‐donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased‐donor transplant opportunities.

Conclusions

Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt‐out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased‐donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living‐donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt.

Patient or Public Contribution

Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents.

Impact of Advanced Renal Dysfunction on Posttransplant Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States is excellent. However, the significance of pretransplant kidney disease on outcomes in this population is poorly understood.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 2806 LDLT recipients nationally between January 2010 and June 2020. Recipients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min/1.73 m2 (eGFR-low) or requiring dialysis were compared. Multivariable survival analyses evaluated (1) eGFR-low as a predictor of post-LDLT survival and (2) the survival of LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) alone with eGFR-low.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2020, 140 (5.0%) patients had eGFR-low and 18 (0.6%) required dialysis pre-LDLT. The number of LDLTs requiring dialysis between 2017 and 2020 outnumbered the prior 7 y. Overall LDLT experience was greater at centers performing LDLT in recipients with renal dysfunction (P < 0.001). LDLT recipients with eGFR-low had longstanding renal dysfunction: mean eGFR 3-6 mo before LDLT 42.7 (±15.1) mL/min/1.73 m2. Nearly half (5/12) of eGFR-low recipients with active kidney transplant (KT) listing at LDLT experienced renal recovery. Five patients underwent early KT after LDLT via the new "safety net" policy. Unadjusted survival after LDLT was worse with eGFR-low (hazard ratio 2.12 versus eGFR ≥40 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.05; P < 0.001), but no longer so when accounting for mean eGFR 3-6 mo pre-LDLT (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.95; P = 0.3). The adjusted survival of patients with eGFR-low receiving LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplant alone was not different (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, outcomes after LDLT with advanced renal dysfunction are acceptable. These findings are relevant given the recent "safety net" KT policy.

Sex Disparity in Liver Transplant and Access to Living Donation

Importance

The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based organ allocation system has significantly decreased mortality on the transplant waiting list for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, women have remained at a disadvantage with respect to access to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) even after introduction of the MELD score for organ allocation.

Objective

To determine whether availability of living donation in a transplant program can offset inequity in liver transplant (LT) allocation for women.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study retrospectively analyzed adult patients listed for LT at the University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Patients included had a potential living donor (pLD) at the moment of listing. This study was performed from November 13, 2012, to May 31, 2019. A total of 1289 listed patients (830 men; 459 women) were analyzed during the study period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

This study performed survival analysis and competing-risk analysis to delineate how access to livers from living donors was associated with events in women vs men on the transplant waiting list (LT, death, or dropout).

Results

Of 1289 included patients, 459 (35.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.1 (10.0) years at assessment and listing. A total of 783 of 1289 listed patients underwent LT. Among those with no pLD at assessment, there was a higher median (range) Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at listing (22 [6-50] vs 19 [6-50]; P < .001) and at LT (27 [6-49] vs 20 [6-52]; P < .001) in women receiving DDLT. Women were at a significant disadvantage without a pLD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.60; P = .01); there was no difference in access to LT with availability of a pLD (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76,-1.14; P = .44). The instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in men with a pLD was 1.39 times higher than men who did not have a pLD (HR, 1.39; 95% CI; P < .001) and the instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in women with a pLD was 1.92 times higher than in women who did not (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.51-2.44; P < .001). The HR was 1.38 times higher in women compared with men across the MELD-Na score strata (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84; P = .03) and 2.04 times higher when the MELD-Na score was less than 20 (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.31-3.14; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

These study findings suggest that women can overcome the complex problem of allocation inequity with access to livers from living donors. Women with access only to DDLT were much more unwell than men independent of liver disease at the time of listing, dropout, or LT. Therefore, the wider availability of living donation liver transplant would be helpful in addressing the sex disparity in access to LT in the current MELD-Na era.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%.

METHODS

Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1).

CONCLUSION

A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Challenging the Traditional Paradigm of Supply and Demand in Pediatric Liver Transplantation Through Nondirected Living Donation: A Case Series

A gap exists between the demand for pediatric liver transplantation and the supply of appropriate size-matched donors. We describe our center's experience with pediatric liver transplantation using anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD). First-time pediatric liver transplant candidates listed at our center between January 2012 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by donor graft type, and recipients of ND-LLD grafts were described. A total of 13 ND-LLD pediatric liver transplantations were performed, including 8 left lateral segments, 4 left lobes, and 1 right lobe. Of the ND-LLD recipients, 5 had no directed living donor evaluated, whereas the remaining 8 (62%) had all potential directed donors ruled out during the evaluation process. Recipient and graft survival were 100% during a median follow-up time of 445 (range, 70-986) days. Of ND-LLDs, 69% were previous living kidney donors, and 1 ND-LLD went on to donate a kidney after liver donation. Of the ND-LLDs, 46% were approved prior to the recipient being listed. Over time, the proportion of living donor transplants performed, specifically from ND-LLDs, increased, and the number of children on the waiting list decreased. The introduction of ND-LLDs to a pediatric liver transplant program can expand the benefit of living donor liver transplantation to children without a suitable directed living donor while achieving excellent outcomes for both the recipients and donors.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

Outcomes in Living Donor Compared With Deceased Donor Primary Liver Transplantation in Lower Acuity Patients With Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores <30

Although recent studies have reported favorable outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it remains unclear which populations benefit most from LDLT. This study aims to evaluate LDLT outcomes compared with deceased donor LT (DDLT) according to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score categories. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, outcomes were compared between 1486 LDLTs; 13,568 donation after brain death (DBD)-DDLTs; and 1171 donation after circulatory death (DCD)-DDLTs between 2009 and 2018. Because LDLT for patients with MELD scores >30 was rare, all patients with scores >30 were excluded to equalize LDLT and DDLT cohorts. Risk factors for 1-year graft loss (GL) were determined separately for LDLT and DDLT. Compared with LDLT, DBD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.60; P < 0.001) and 1-year GL (aHR, 0.57; P < 0.001). The lower risk of GL was more prominent in the mid-MELD score category (score 15-29). Compared with LDLT, DCD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day GL but a comparable risk of 1-year GL, regardless of MELD score category. In LDLT, significant ascites was an independent risk for GL in patients with mid-MELD scores (aHR, 1.68; P = 0.02), but not in the lower-MELD score group. The risk of 1-year GL in LDLT patients with ascites who received a left liver was higher than either those who received a right liver or those without ascites who received a left liver. In LDLT, combinations of MELD scores of 15 to 29, moderate/severe ascites, and the use of a left liver are associated with worse outcomes. These findings help calibrate appropriate patient and graft selection in LDLT.

Lose Weight to Donate: Development of a Program to Optimize Potential Donors With Hepatic Steatosis or Obesity for Living Liver Donation

Background.

Living donor liver transplantation offers an attractive option to reduce the waitlist mortality. However, in recent years, the rising prevalence of obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease has posed a serious threat to the donor pool while simultaneously increasing demand for liver transplant. To our knowledge, there have been no major published studies in the United States documenting a diet and exercise intervention to expand the living donor pool. Hereby, we established a pilot program called “Lose Weight to Donate” and present our initial experience.

Methods.

Our center instituted a remotely monitored diet and exercise pilot program to increase eligibility for living liver donation. Potential donors with any of the following were included: body mass index >30 kg/m², hepatic steatosis >5% on screening MRI, or isolated hypertension.

Results.

Over 19 mo, 7 individuals enrolled in the program of remote monitoring for at least 6–8 wk. Initial and follow-up abdominal MRI was performed in 5 of these individuals to assess steatosis, anatomy, and volume. Initial steatosis was highly variable (fat signal fraction range, 8%–26%). Follow-up MRI fat signal fraction values and hepatic volume all decreased to varying degrees. Ultimately, 2 of 7 individuals donated, whereas a third was approved, but the intended recipient was transplanted in the interim.

Conclusions.

These results indicate the feasibility of a remotely monitored program to expand donation in light of the rising incidence of hepatic steatosis and obesity.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

Estimating the effect of increasing utilization of living donor liver transplantation using observational data

There has been a recent increase in enthusiasm for expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) programmes. Using all adults initially placed on the waiting list in the United States, we estimated the risk of overall mortality under national strategies which differed in their utilization of LDLT. We used a generalization of inverse probability weighting which can estimate the effect of interventions in the setting of finite resources. From 2005 to 2015, 93 812 eligible individuals were added to the waitlist: 51 322 received deceased donor grafts while 1970 underwent LDLT. Individuals who underwent LDLT had more favourable prognostic factors, including lower mean MELD score at transplant (14.6 vs. 20.5). The 1-year, 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of death under the current level of LDLT utilization were 18.0% (95% CI: 17.8, 18.3%), 41.2% (95% CI: 40.8, 41.5%) and 57.4% (95% CI: 56.9, 57.9%) compared to 17.9% (95% CI: 17.7, 18.2%), 40.6% (95% CI: 40.2, 40.9%) and 56.4% (95% CI: 55.8, 56.9%) under a strategy which doubles LDLT utilization. Expansion of LDLT utilization would have a measurable, modest effect on the risk of mortality for the entire cohort of individuals who begin on the transplant waiting list.

The utility of thrombophilia and hematologic screening in live liver donation

BACKGROUND

Most centers perform some degree of hematologic screening, including thrombophilia testing, on prospective live liver donors. The nature and extent of such screens are not standardized, and there is limited evidence regarding hematologic risk stratification.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We present an experience of hematologic screening among prospective liver donors. Five-hundred-eightyfour patients were screened for liver donation between 1/2013 and 1/2020, of whom 156 (27%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy. Thirty-three of 428 (8%) declined patients were excluded for hematologic indications. Hematologic indications were the 2nd most frequent medical indications for exclusion (trailing only hepatologic indications). The most common reason for hematologic exclusion was concern regarding thrombophilia. Nevertheless, 21 patients with evidence of possible thrombophilia proceeded to donor hepatectomy, and none incurred hematologic complications. Similarly, seven patients with screening findings concerning for increased bleeding risk (most often thrombocytopenia) underwent donor hepatectomy without hematologic complication. Three of 156 (2%) of patients who underwent donor hepatectomy incurred a hematologic complication (all thrombotic, none fatal). None of these patients had any evident hematologic risk factor on screening.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the difficulty of hematologic risk stratification among prospective living donors, however, suggests that some patients with relatively mild risk factors may be safe for donation.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Prioritization for liver transplantation using the MELD score in Chile: Inequities generated by MELD exceptions.: A collaboration between the Chilean Liver Transplant Programs, the Public Health Institute and the National Transplant Coordinator

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

The MELD score has been established as an efficient and rigorous prioritization system for liver transplant (LT). Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the MELD score as a system for prioritization for LT, in terms of decreasing the dropout rate in the waiting list and maintaining an adequate survival post-LT in Chile.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the Chilean Public Health Institute liver transplant registry of candidates listed from October 15th 2011 to December 31st 2014. We included adult candidates (>15 years old) listed for elective cadaveric LT with a MELD score of 15 or higher. Statistical analysis included survival curves (Kaplan-Meier), log-rank statistics and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

420 candidates were analyzed. Mean age was 53.6±11.8 years, and 244 were men (58%). Causes of LT included: Liver cirrhosis without exceptions (HC) 177 (66.4%); hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 111 (26.4%); cirrhosis with non-HCC exceptions 102 (24.3%) and non-cirrhotic candidates 30 (7.2%). LT rate was 43.2%. The dropout rate was 37.6% at 1-year. Even though the LT rate was higher, the annual dropout rate was significantly higher in cirrhotic candidates (without exceptions) compared with cirrhotics with HCC, and non-HCC exceptions plus non-cirrhotic candidates (47.9%; 37.2% and 24.2%, respectively, with p=0.004). Post-LT survival was 84% per year, with no significant differences between the three groups (p=0.95).

CONCLUSION

Prioritization for LT using the MELD score system has not decreased the dropout rate in Chile (persistent low donor's rate). Exceptions generate inequities in dropout rate, disadvantaging patients without exceptions.

Human Liver Regeneration: An Etiology Dependent Process

Regeneration of the liver has been an interesting and well-investigated topic for many decades. This etiology and time-dependent mechanism has proven to be extremely challenging to investigate, certainly in human diseases. A reason for this challenge is found in the numerous interactions of different cell components, of which some are even only temporarily present (e.g., inflammatory cells). To orchestrate regeneration of the epithelial cells, their interaction with the non-epithelial components is of utmost importance. Hepatocytes, cholangiocytes, liver progenitor cells, and peribiliary glands have proven to be compartments of regeneration. The ductular reaction is a common denominator in virtually all liver diseases; however, it is predominantly found in late-stage hepatic and biliary diseases. Ductular reaction is an intriguing example of interplay between epithelial and non-epithelial cells and encompasses bipotential liver progenitor cells which are able to compensate for the loss of the exhausted hepatocytes and cholangiocytes in biliary and hepatocytic liver diseases. In this manuscript, we focus on the etiology-specific damage that is observed in different human diseases and how the liver regulates the regenerative response in an acute and chronic setting. Furthermore, we describe the importance of morphological keynotes in different etiologies and how spatial information is of relevance for every basic and translational research of liver regeneration.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis.

METHODS

All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death.

CONCLUSION

Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period.

LAY SUMMARY

Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Specific issues concerning the management of patients on the waiting list and after liver transplantation

The present document is a second contribution collecting the recommendations of an expert panel of transplant hepatologists appointed by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF) concerning the management of certain aspects of liver transplantation, including: the issue of prompt referral; the management of difficult candidates; malnutrition; living related liver transplants; hepatocellular carcinoma; and the role of direct acting antiviral agents before and after transplantation. The statements on each topic were approved by participants at the AISF Transplant Hepatology Expert Meeting organized by the Permanent Liver Transplant Commission in Mondello on 12-13 May 2017. They are graded according to the GRADE grading system.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Technical Innovations

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has found a place to serve the end-stage liver disease community as the donor safety and recipient suitability has been elucidated. Donor safety is of paramount importance and transplant programs must continue endeavors to maintain the highest possible standards. At the same time, adequacy of grafts based on recipient clinical status via their model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and volumetric studies to achieve a GRBWR >0.8, along with special attention to anatomic tailoring and portal venous flow optimization are necessary for successful transplantation. Technical innovations have improved sequentially the utility and availability of LDLT.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Assessment of relevant factors with respect to psychosocial properties in potential living donor candidates before liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been developed as one of gold standard treatments for end-stage liver disease. Mental health is a required selection criterion for adult living liver donors and may influence the quality of life after operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,210 potential living donor candidates for liver transplantation (LT) underwent psychosocial evaluation that included a semi-structured interview, multi-choice self-reported inventory (Beck Depression Inventory-2nd edition [BDI-II], Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI]), and the family APGAR (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve) index. The test results were compared by family relationships, and subgroups were classified based on the donation type: 1) parents to children, 2) grown children to parents, 3) siblings to siblings, 4) spouses to spouses, and 5) other relatives to other relatives.

RESULTS

The BDI-II (P < 0.001) and BAI differed considerably according to the donation type in potential donor candidates. Compared with other subgroups, parents donating to their children suffered the most severe psychological stress before LDLT and exhibited more depressive (P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms. However, the stress associated with grown children donating to their parents, siblings, and spouses was not significantly higher than it was for other relatives. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation existed between family APGAR scores and the severity of depression and anxiety (P < 0.001) among potential donor candidates.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the importance of understanding potential donor candidates' psychological characteristics before LT. Greater anxiety and depression may be exhibited by parent donors due to the distress from fears of death or illness of the recipients, or their guilty feeling for their child. Additionally, family dysfunction also revealed more depression and anxiety. Such donor candidates should be given more extensive pre-donation counseling for minimizing pre-LDLT psychological stress.

Biliary reconstructive techniques and associated anatomic variants in adult living donor liver transplantations: The adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study experience

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a technically demanding endeavor, requiring command of the complex anatomy of partial liver grafts. We examined the influence of anatomic variation and reconstruction techniques on surgical outcomes and graft survival in the 9-center Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). Data from 272 adult LDLT recipients (2011-2015) included details on anatomic characteristics and types of intraoperative biliary reconstruction. Associations were tested between reconstruction technique and complications, which included first biliary complication (BC; leak, stricture, or biloma) and first vascular complication (VC; hepatic artery thrombosis [HAT] or portal vein thrombosis [PVT]). Time to patient death, graft failure, and complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and tested with log-rank tests. Median posttransplant follow-up was 1.2 years. Associations were found between the type of biliary reconstruction and the incidence of VC (P = 0.03) and BC (P = 0.05). Recipients with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy had the highest probability of VC. Recipients with biliary reconstruction involving the use of high biliary radicals on the recipient duct had the highest likelihood of developing BC (56% by 1 year) compared with duct-to-duct (42% by 1 year). In conclusion, the varied surgical approaches in the A2ALL centers offer a novel opportunity to compare disparate LDLT approaches. The choice to use higher biliary radicals on the recipient duct for reconstruction was associated with more BC, possibly secondary to devascularization and ischemia. The use of Roux-en-Y biliary reconstruction was associated with VCs (HAT and PVT). These results can be used to guide biliary reconstruction decisions in the setting of anatomic variants and inform further improvements in LDLT reconstructions. Ultimately, this information may contribute to a lower incidence of technical complications after LDLT. Liver Transplantation 23 1519-1530 2017 AASLD.

Comparative study on the effect of low intensity laser and growth factors on stem cells used in experimentally-induced liver fibrosis in mice

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The therapeutic effects of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) exposed to diode laser and/or hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) were compared in mice with experimental liver fibrosis induced by carbon tetra chloride (CCl₄).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Animal model of liver cirrhosis was induced by intraperitoneal injection of CCl₄ in a dose of 0.4ml/kg, twice a week for 6weeks. UC-MSCs were obtained from normal full term placentas and were exposed to diode laser and/or HGF. Before treatment, UC-MSCs were labelled with red fluorescent PKH26. Fifty four male mice weighing 25-35g were randomly divided into four groups control, stem cells, CCl₄, and treated groups. After the experimental period, body and liver weights were recorded, and the liver specimens were processed for histological examination using haematoxylin and eosin, Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS), and Masson's Trichrome staining (MT).

RESULTS

Results showed that administration of UC-MSCs stimulated by diode laser and/or HGF improved body and liver weights, reduced vascular dilatation and congestion, reduced mononuclear cellular infiltration, reduced hepatocyte vacuolation, eosinophilia, and pyknosis. Furthermore, periportal fibrosis was minimized and PAS reaction was increased. These effects were maximum when UC-MSCs were exposed to both diode laser and HGF.

CONCLUSION

UC-MSCs stimulated by both diode laser and HGF proved to be an effective therapeutic option in experimental liver fibrosis induced by CCl₄ in mice.

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.