Ethical considerations and rationale of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

Non-Maleficence toward Young Kidney Donors: A Call for Stronger Ethical Standards and Associated Factors in Multidisciplinary Nephrology Teams

BACKGROUND

The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors' understanding of long-term consequences.

AIM

To explore donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health's Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic).

RESULTS

Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18-49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Our findings display that donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered.

The Landscape of Nondirected Living Liver Donation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplants (LDLTs) including those from nondirected donors (NDDs) have increased during the past decade, and center-level variations in LDLTs have not yet been described. We sought to quantify changes in the volume of NDD transplants over time and variation in NDD volume between transplant centers. We further examined characteristics of living liver donors and identified factors potentially associated with receiving an NDD liver transplant.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data between March 01, 2002, and December 31, 2020, we compared 173 NDDs with 5704 DLDs and 167 NDD recipients with 1153 waitlist candidates.

RESULTS

NDDs increased from 1 (0.4% of LDLTs) in 2002 to 58 (12% of LDLTs) in 2020. Of 150 transplant centers, 35 performed at least 1 NDD transplant. Compared with waitlist candidates, adult NDD recipients were less frequently males (39% versus 62%, P < 0.001), had a lower model for end-stage liver disease (16 versus 18, P = 0.01), and spent fewer days on the waitlist (173 versus 246, P = 0.02). Compared with waitlist candidates, pediatric NDD recipients were younger (50% versus 12% age <2 y, P < 0.001) and more often diagnosed with biliary atresia (66% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Compared with DLDs, NDDs were older (40 versus 35 y, P < 0.001), college educated (83% versus 64%, P < 0.001), White (92% versus 78%, P < 0.001), and more frequently donated left-lateral segment grafts (32.0% versus 14%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver NDD transplants continue to expand but remain concentrated at a few centers. Graft distribution favors female adults and pediatric patients with biliary atresia. Racial inequities in adult or pediatric center-level NDD graft distribution were not observed.

Ethical dilemmas related to living donor liver transplantation in Asia

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved rapidly in Asia with good outcomes for both donor and recipient. Nonetheless, LDLT remains a highly demanding technique and complex surgery. The potential risks to the donors provide the basis for many of the ethical dilemmas associated with LDLT. The transplant team must have a good knowledge of the principles of bioethics in order to handle these matters. To look after the need, donor's safety and the chance for good recipient outcomes, the principles of respect for the donor's autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be practiced. In accordance with the concept of equipoise, the risk to the donor must balance the benefit to the recipient. The transplant center should have adequate experience and proven expertise in LDLT. There are concerns regarding the validity of informed consent given by the donor. While donations to non-relative patients may, at first sight, indicate radical altruism, it is important to apply careful scrutiny. Though organ trading is strictly prohibited by the law, there seems to be an inherent risk with directed donations to strangers. Transplant tourism has flourished in some countries in spite of the existence of strict laws. There are reservations regarding transplantation done by foreign visiting teams. Donor websites facilitating patients and donors and Facebook pages bear no responsibility for the outcomes of their matches and cannot ensure sufficient and accurate information about donation, transplantation, and post-operation life. Telemedicine and virtual consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and the patient know and trust each other.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma with live donors or extended criteria donors: a propensity score-matched comparison

Background

To compare patient survival after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from live donors (LD) or extended criteria donors (ECD).

Methods

Data from consecutive LT procedures for HCC involving either LD or ECD were reviewed. Patient survival was our primary outcome. Re-transplantation (Re-LT), ischemic type bile lesions (ITBL), and tumor recurrence represented secondary outcomes. The primary outcome was statistically analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression; logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analysis of the secondary outcomes. Propensity score was calculated based on patient age, sex, hepatitis C viral infection (HCV), laboratory model for end-stage liver disease (labMELD) score, bridging treatment, Milan criteria, α-fetoprotein levels, and tumor grade.

Results

The study evaluated 109 recipients undergoing LT from either LD (n=57) or ECD (n=52). LT procedure (hazard ratio [HR] 2.349, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.151-4.794, P=0.0190), age (HR 1.075, 95%CI 1.020-1.133, P=0.0074) and labMELD score (HR 1.082, 95%CI 1.021-1.147, P=0.0075) reached significance by Cox proportional hazards regression. After adjustment with the propensity score (stratification with 5 strata), the LT procedure was still significant (HR 2.401, 95%CI 1.114-5.175, P=0.0253). Tumor grade (odds ratio [OR] 9.628, 95%CI 1.120-82.752, P=0.0391), labMELD score (OR 1.224, 95%CI 1.019-1.471, P=0.0306), and Milan criteria (OR 6.375, 95%CI 1.239-32.796, P=0.0267) gained statistical significance by logistic regression analysis for Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence, respectively.

Conclusions

LT for HCC showed superior patient survival with ECD rather than LD grafts. Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the diverging criteria for the definition of ECD grafts represent a considerable limitation for the wide application of this policy.

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.

The outcomes of pediatric liver retransplantation from a living donor: a 17-year single-center experience

PURPOSE

Liver retransplantation is the only therapeutic option for patients with graft failure after liver transplantation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of pediatric retransplantation from living donor at a single center.

METHODS

Between December 1998 to August 2015, retransplantation from a living donor was performed for 14 children (<18 years of age) at Kumamoto University Hospital. The characteristics of the retransplantation recipient and the clinicopathological factors between primary transplantation and retransplantation were analyzed to detect the prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In retransplantation, the operative time was longer and the amount of blood loss was greater in comparison to primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates from the date of retransplantation were 85.7, 85.7, and 78.6%, respectively. The rates of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation, bile leakage and postoperative bleeding after retransplantation were higher than after primary transplantation. Among the three patients who died after retransplantation, the operative time, the rate of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation and the incidence of gastrointestinal complications were higher in comparison to the surviving patients.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric retransplantation from a living donor is an acceptable procedure that could save the lives of recipients with failing allografts when organs from deceased donors are scarce. To ensure good results, it is essential to make an appropriate assessment of the cardiopulmonary function and the infectious state of the patients before Re-LDLT.

Trends in Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Organ Donation: The Johns Hopkins Experience

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation is an increasingly important option for 17000 patients awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. However, adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation volumes peaked in 2001 (N=518), and have gradually fallen in 2002 (N=362), 2003 (N=321), and 2004 (N=323). Recent concerns about donor safety and ethical considerations have made careful analysis of donor availability and selection criteria critically important. We conducted a retrospective review of our active liver transplant recipient registry (N=251) and compared it to our living donor registry (N=231), which included all potential living donors before the selection process. Fifteen percent of recipients accounted for the majority (53%) of donor evaluations, whereas 42% of recipients did not have even a single donor evaluation. Recipient diagnosis appears to have a significant impact on donor availability, with donors rarely evaluated for patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. Careful and stringent selection criteria rule out 67% of potential donors.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Perpetuating proficiency in donor right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Donor right hepatectomy (DRH) was developed by master liver surgeons and has been applied in many liver transplant centers as the mainstay for adult living donor liver transplantation. It is a major and complex surgical operation performed on living liver donors for the benefit of liver recipients. The donors deserve the lowest though inevitable morbidity and mortality. In this study, the surgical outcomes of DRH performed by newer surgeons at an established center were studied to assess the transferability of the techniques of this standardized procedure.

METHODS

We studied 450 consecutive DRHs performed by 11 surgeons. Three surgeons initiated and developed the transplant program and performed the first 200 DRHs (Era I). The role of chief surgeon in the following 250 DRHs (Era II) was gradually taken up by four newer surgeons with close guidance initially.

RESULTS

Blood loss and operation time at the end of Era I versus the beginning of Era II were 251 vs. 341 mL and 391 vs. 497 minutes. The learning curve effect in Era I did not occur in Era II. The complication rates of the last 50 cases in Era I and Era II were 16% and 24%, respectively. Era I had one donor death whereas Era II had no donor death.

CONCLUSION

At an established center, DRH can be carried out safely by newer surgeons with good outcomes.

Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research

Given the organ scarcity, live organ donation is increasingly considered a viable alternative for kidney and liver transplantation. Yet living donation challenges the ethical principle of nonmaleficence by subjecting healthy individuals to medical, psychosocial and unknown risks. Therefore, transplant providers, policy-makers and donors are committed to ensuring that prospective donors provide adequate informed consent to undergo the procedure. Informed consent for living donation is ethically required as a means of demonstrating respect for donor's autonomy and protecting their safety. However, all elements of informed consent are fraught with difficulties due to the unique nature of the donation process and outcome. This paper reviews empirical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipients. As this review shows, studies that empirically assessed the quality of informed consent elements reveal considerable variability and deficiencies across the informed consent process, suggesting the need for improvement. This review highlights challenges to each element of consent for both LKDs and LLDs, and situates trends within broader policy contexts, ethical debates and avenues for future innovative research.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is a widely accepted modality in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In our center, patients with HCC limited to the liver without macrovascular invasion are accepted as candidates for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to describe the patient characteristics and outcomes at a single institution to analyze the impact of our criteria on the survival of HCC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all HCC (n = 105) patients who underwent liver transplantation in our institution. We excluded deaths in the early postoperative period and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) patients, leaving 74 subjects (65 males and 9 female). Their median age was 53 years (range, 19-69). Univariate Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze overall and disease-free survivals.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (43%) patients were within the Milan criteria, and 42 (57%) exceeded them. One- and 2-year overall survival rates for patients within versus exceeding the Milan criteria were 72% versus 68% and 61% versus 58%, respectively. One- and 2-year disease-free survival rates for patients within versus exceeding the Milan criteria were 72% versus 68% and 60% versus 55%, respectively (P > .05). Tumor recurrence rates for patients within versus exceeding the Milan criteria were 0% versus 36%, respectively (P = .0002). Alpha-fetoprotein level was the only predictor of overall survival; alpha-fetoprotein level and tumor differentiation were predictors of disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Although higher recurrence rates have been observed among patients exceeding the Milan criteria, LDLT is the only treatment option for the patients in countries with limited sources of cadaveric organs. As a general principle, we believe that the use of cadaveric donor liver grafts is not suitable for patients who exceed these criteria.

Primary caregiver stress in caring for a living-related liver transplantation recipient during the postoperative stage

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the stress experienced by the primary family caregiver of the living-related liver transplantation patient during the postoperative stage.

BACKGROUND

Living-related liver transplantation is a treatment choice for end-stage liver disease patients who face a shortage of available donated livers. Research suggests that the caregiver of the liver transplant recipient experiences tremendous stress because a family member is on the waiting list. Nevertheless, there are limited studies that investigate the caregiver experience of stress during this surgery.

METHOD

This qualitative study used face-to-face semi-structured interviews to understand the subjective experiences of study participants. The study participants were drawn from a tertiary medical centre in northern Taiwan. During the data collection period (October 2007 to May 2008), 6 of the 12 caregivers agreed to participate in this study (N = 6), all of whom were female and, except for one participant, were the wives of the recipients.

RESULTS

Participant stress was caused by the gap between expectations and primary caregiving experiences. In particular, the five themes that were identified: (a) unstable sentiment towards liver transplantation; (b) entanglement of burden; (c) non-synchronized family interaction; (d) distance from the healthcare professional; and (e) concern about the protector role function.

CONCLUSIONS

The stress of primary caregivers of living-related liver transplantation is related to the gap between expectations and primary caregiving experiences. The immediate postoperative stage is a critical one for health professionals to provide intervention and management.

Adult living-related liver donation for acute liver failure: is it ethically appropriate?

Acute liver failure (ALF) results in the annual death of approximately 3.5 per million people in the United States. Unfortunately, given the marked shortage of cadaveric liver donations and the ethical questions that plague utilization of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALF, many patients with ALF die before a liver is allocated to them. In this review, we discuss how the consistent utilization of LDLT for ALF could decrease the mortality rate of ALF. Additionally, we examine a key underlying issue: is LDLT for ALF ethically appropriate?

A peer-based intervention to educate liver transplant candidates about living donor liver transplantation

The number of liver donors has not measurably increased since 2004 and has begun to decrease. Although many waitlisted patients may be suitable candidates to receive a living donor graft, they are often reticent to discuss living donation with close friends and family, partly because of a lack of knowledge about donor health and quality of life outcomes after donation. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of an educational intervention that uses testimonials and self-report data from living donors in New York State. The study had an independent sample pretest (n = 437) and posttest (n = 338) design with posttest, between-subjects comparison for intervention exposure. All waitlisted patients at 5 liver transplant centers in New York were provided a peer-based educational brochure and DVD either by mail or at the clinic. The outcome measures were liver candidates' knowledge and self-efficacy to discuss living donation with family and friends. The number and proportion of individuals who presented to centers for living liver donation evaluation were also measured. Liver transplant candidates' self-efficacy to discuss living donation and their knowledge increased from the pretest period to the posttest period. Those exposed to the peer-based intervention reported significantly greater knowledge, a greater likelihood of discussing donation, and increased self-efficacy in comparison with those not exposed to the intervention. The results did not differ by age, length of time on the waiting list, education, or ethnicity. In comparison with the preintervention period, living donation increased 42%, and the number of individuals who presented for donation evaluation increased by 74%.

Acute liver failure and living donor liver transplantation

Acute liver failure (ALF) is defined by the presence of hepatic encephalopathy due to severe liver damage in patients without pre-existing liver disease. Although the mortality of ALF without liver transplantation is over 80%, the survival rates of ALF patients have improved considerably with the advent of liver transplantation, up to 60-80% in the last decade. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which has mainly evolved in Asian countries where organ availability from deceased donors is extremely scarce, has also improved the survival rate of ALF patients. According to recent reports, the overall survival rate of adult ALF patients who underwent LDLT is 60% to 90%. Although there is still controversy regarding the graft type, the optimal graft volume, and ethical issues of defining the indications for LDLT in ALF patients with respect to donor risk, LDLT has become an established treatment option for ALF in areas where the use of deceased donors organs is severely restricted.

Roller Coaster Marathon: Being a Live Liver Donor

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine the meaning of being a live liver donor. Six people between ages 27 and 53 years participated. A qualitative, in-depth, semistructured interview format was used to explore donors' thoughts and feelings about being an organ donor. Five themes were identified: (1) no turning back—how do I live without you? (2) roller coaster marathon, (3) donor network, (4) the scar, and (5) reflections—time to think. At the center of the experience was the donor's commitment to the recipient. Once donors began the process, they were determined to see it through. The process was complex, and donors received various levels of support from family, friends, health care professionals, and others. After donation, as donors recovered and were able to resume their usual daily responsibilities, they reflected on the impact of the experience and how it changed their view of life.

Successful treatment of small-for-size syndrome in adult-to-adult living-related liver transplantation: single center series

The portal hyperperfusion, or small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), is a widely recognized clinical complication that may occur after segmental liver transplantation. Several surgical strategies have been proposed to reduce portal blood inflow and portal pressure after partial liver transplantation. In particular, splenic artery ligation and splenectomy have been used without a firm hemodynamic basis for these procedures. Our group recently demonstrated that, in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the occlusion of the splenic artery causes a significant reduction in the portal pressure gradient, which is directly related to the spleen volume and indirectly related to the liver volume. This concept is at the center of our strategy for performing early splenic artery embolization (SAE) for the treatment of SFSS after living-related liver transplantation (LRLT). Six patients developed small-for-size syndrome, defined as: onset within the first week after LRLT of progressive hyperbilirubinemia without mechanical cause; marked cholestasis; centrilobular sinusoidal dilatation and hepatocyte atrophy at liver biopsy; and refractory ascites in the absence of vascular complications. All six patients who underwent SAE rapidly improved their clinical condition, with an evident decrease in the value of bilirubin in the serum, in the production of ascites, and improvement in condition of pancytopenia. Coagulopathy expressed by the international normalized ratio value (INR) was not a reliable early marker of SFSS in this series; in fact a slight improvement in the result of this test was already present immediately after LRLT and before SAE. Because splenic flow clearly contributes to portal hyperperfusion, an early SAE can relieve the partial graft from the deleterious effect of this portal overflow.

Historical perspective of living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has gone through its formative years and established as a legitimate treatment when a deceased donor liver graft is not timely or simply not available at all. Nevertheless, LDLT is characterized by its technical complexity and ethical controversy. These are the consequences of a single organ having to serve two subjects, the donor and the recipient, instantaneously. The transplant community has a common ground on assuring donor safety while achieving predictable recipient success. With this background, a reflection of the development of LDLT may be appropriate to direct future research and patient-care efforts on this life-saving treatment alternative.

Psychological strain in urgent indications for living donor liver transplantation

The ethical soundness of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in urgent indications is still under discussion. The aim of the survey was to investigate the psychological distress of donors in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or acute liver failure (ALF). In a prospective multicenter study (n = 123), health-related quality of life (QOL), anxiety, and depression were measured. The psychological distress of donors was correlated to the degree of urgency of the recipients' indication, which was classified as nonurgent, HCC, or ALF. During the donor evaluation prior to LDLT, the donors with recipients for HCC and ALF demonstrated significantly reduced mental QOL in comparison to donors for a nonurgent indication and to the German normative sample. Compared to healthy controls, anxiety and depression were significantly increased in donors for ALF. Three months after the transplantation, scores for mental QOL as well as for anxiety and depression improved and were within the normal range for the whole group as well as for the ALF donors. In conclusion, the psychological burden was temporary in nature. Our findings can be considered as arguments for the current practice to address family members as donors in cases of HCC and ALF.

Liver and intestine transplantation in the United States, 1996-2005

The number of liver transplants performed yearly has slowly and steadily increased over the last 10 years, reaching 6441 procedures in 2005. The number of living donor liver transplants performed rose steadily from 1996 to 2001, when it peaked at 519; since 2003 there have been approximately 320 such procedures performed each year. The continual increase in the size of the waiting list for a liver transplant, which peaked in 2001 at 14 897 patients, was interrupted in 2002 by the implementation of the allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease and pediatric end-stage liver disease (MELD/PELD). Activity in all areas of intestinal transplantation continues to increase. One-year patient and graft survival following intestine-alone transplantation now seem to be superior to outcomes following liver-intestine transplantation. Other topics covered here include the recent 'Share 15' component of the MELD allocation system; liver transplantation following donation after cardiac death; simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation and waiting list and post-transplant outcomes for both liver and intestine transplantation, broken out by a variety of clinical and demographic factors.

Adult to adult living-related liver transplant: report on an initial experience in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Living-related liver transplantation has become the treatment of choice for many liver diseases. We present our initial analysis of 53 cases of adult to adult living-related liver transplantation performed in a single institute in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to September 2006, we performed 53 adult to adult living-related liver transplantations. The donors (age 18-53) all had genetic or emotional relationships; they were all ABO identical or compatible. Recipients (ages 18-68) suffered from cirrhosis secondary to viral etiology (18), hepatocellular carcinoma with viral cirrhosis (24), cystic fibrosis (2), primary biliary cirrhosis (2), hepatocellular carcinoma with non-viral cirrhosis (2), alcoholic cirrhosis (1), ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency (OTC), (1) criptogenic cryptogenic cirrhosis, (1) primary sclerosing cholangitis, (1) biliary atresia and metastatic carcinoid (1). Donor liver resection resulted in 51 right hepatectomies and two left hepatectomies. Graft body weight ratio was always above 0.8%; graft implantation was performed with the piggy back technique and, in 43 cases, with the use of veno-venous bypass.

RESULTS

There was neither donor mortality nor need of blood transfusion. Actuarial recipient survival rate at 3 years was 82.66% and graft survival rate was 75.34%. Six patients underwent retransplantation: in four cases due to hepatic artery thrombosis, and in two, due to graft dysfunction. Three patients had one episode each of acute cellular rejection.

CONCLUSION

Adult to adult living-related liver transplantation represents a resource to be used in confronting organ shortage, and is a valuable option for decreasing mortality and drop out from the waiting list.

Current trends in live liver donation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT), able to significantly expand the scarce donor pool in countries in which the growing demands of organs are not met by the shortage of available cadaveric grafts. Although the benefits of this procedure are enormous, the physical and psychological sacrifice of the donors is immense, and the expectations for a good outcome for themselves, as well as for the recipients, are high. We report a current overview of the latest trends in live liver donation in its different aspects (i.e. donor's selection, evaluation, operation, morbidity, mortality, ethics and psychology). This review is based on our center's personal experience with almost 200 LDLTs and a detailed analysis of the international literature of the last 7 years about this topic. Knowing in detail how to approach to the different aspects of living liver donation may be helpful in further improve donor's safety and even recipient's outcome.

Living-donor liver transplantation: an overview

It has been 16 years since the first successful living-donor liver transplant was performed from a parent to a child. The overall recipient and graft survival, together with a low morbidity and mortality in donors, have resulted in the widespread acceptance of the procedure by both the transplant community and the public at large. Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation has been evolving over the past decade. Despite living-donor transplant patients being better-risk candidates than those who receive a graft from a deceased donor, and well-established and experienced units achieving satisfactory results, overall recipient and graft survival recorder by registries can only be described as suboptimal. This, combined with the high morbidity and not-insignificant mortality amongst donors makes expansion of adult-to-adult liver transplantation hard to justify on a risk-benefit analysis.

Donor quality of life before and after adult-to-adult right liver live donor liver transplantation

Donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is a major surgical operation for the benefit of the recipient. Justification of procedure mandates knowledge of the possible physical and psychological negative effects on the donor. We prospectively and longitudinally quantified donor quality of life using generic and condition-specific questionnaires up to 1 year. The generic questionnaires were the Karnofsky Performance Status scale and the Chinese (Hong Kong) version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Survey, which measures 8 health concepts: 4 physical components and 4 mental components. Within 1 year, 30 consecutive donors were included. These 11 male and 19 female donors (36.7% and 63.3%, respectively) had a median age of 35 years (range, 21-56 years). There was no donor mortality or major complications. Donor quality-of-life worsening was most significant in the first 3 postoperative months, particularly among the physical components. The physical and mental components returned to the previous levels in 6 to 12 months' time, though the Karnofsky performance scores were slightly lower at 1 year (P = 0.011). Twenty-six (86.7%) donors declared that they would donate again if there were such a need and it were technically possible. It was noticed that older donors were more likely to express unwillingness to donate again. In conclusion, the temporary worsening of donor quality of life substantiates ALDLT as an acceptable treatment modality.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center preliminary report

Liver transplantation (LT) is the treatment of choice for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with end-stage liver disease but is limited by the availability of donor organs. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) represents an alternative therapeutic option for patients with disease confined to the liver. Between April 1998 and December 2003, 537 patients underwent liver transplantation in our center. Thirty patients with HCC and associated terminal cirrhosis and 4 patients with tumor recurrence after liver resection who underwent LDLT were reviewed. Nineteen patients (55.8%) met the Milan criteria for LT, whereas 15 patients (44.2%) "exceeded" them. The overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 68% and 62%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 41 months (range, 17-64 months). Five patients (14.7%) died in the first 30 days after LDLT. Hospital mortality was significantly correlated with age > 60 years. Four patients developed recurrence between 6 and 35 months after LDLT. Recurrence was significantly related to the presence of more than 3 tumor lesions in our series. In conclusion, LDLT is a promising treatment option for patients with HCC. Even longer follow-up and bigger patients' series are needed to fully assess the benefits of LDLT for HCC patients exceeding the Milan criteria.

Medical community preferences concerning adult living related donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To assess acceptance and acceptable estimated mortality levels for right lobe adult-to-adult living related liver transplantation for the medical and allied professions.

METHODS

A paper questionnaire was sent to the physicians practicing with the French Graft Agency (Etablissement Français des Greffes) and to all nurses and ancillary staff of the Paul Brousse Hospital Hepatobiliary Center. Responses were received from surgeons: 38/73; internists specialized in hepatology: 44/120; nurses: 98/100; health care assistants: 45/86; others: 17/20.

RESULTS

Acceptance of living donor transplantation is above average for all professional categories and indications may be extended including patients with cancer. Acceptable mortality for the donor was 4%, except among internists (0.7%). Currently, the real risk of mortality for the donor (1%) is lower. Acceptable mortality for the recipient was between 15 and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of adult living donor liver transplantation among health care professionals is clearly above average. Thus the psychological involvement of transplantation teams, which is very strong in such situations, should not hamper the development of this type of transplantation.

Improved survival after live donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) using right lobe grafts: program experience and lessons learned

We present our program experience with 85 live donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) procedures using right lobe grafts with five simultaneous live donor kidney transplants using different donors performed over a 6-year period. After an "early" 2-year experience of 25 LDALT procedures, program improvements in donor and recipient selection, preoperative imaging, donor and recipient surgical technique and immunosuppressive management significantly reduced operative mortality (16% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.038) and improved patient and graft 1-year survival in recipients during our "later" experience with the next 60 cases (January 2001 and March 2005; patient survival: early 70.8% vs. later 92.7%, p = 0.028; graft survival: Early 64% vs. later 91.1%, p = 0.019, respectively). Overall patient and graft survival were 82% and 80%. There was a trend for less postoperative complications (major and minor) with program experience (early 88% vs. later 66.7%; p = 0.054) but overall morbidity remained at 73.8%. Biliary complications (cholangitis, disruption, leak or stricture) were not influenced by program experience (early 32% vs. later 38%). Liver volume adjusted to 100% of standard liver volume (SLV) within 1 month post-transplant. Despite a high rate of morbidity after LDALT, excellent patient and graft survival can be achieved with program experience.

Living donor liver transplantation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT). First introduced for children in 1989, its adoption for adults has followed only 10 years later. As the demand for LT continues to increase, LDLT provides life-saving therapy for many patients who would otherwise die awaiting a cadaveric organ. In recent years, LDLT has been shown to be a clinically safe addition to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and has been able to significantly extend the scarce donor pool. As long as the donor shortage continues to increase, LDLT will play an important role in the future of LT.

Transplantation and palliative care: the convergence of two seemingly opposite realities

One of the authors once asked a great transplant surgeon what came to his mind when asked about palliative care. He had two answers: the first,was somewhat simplistic; the second was profound. He said that this type of service was helpful in the ICU when there was not much more to be done surgically for a patient who was dying; the second, was a story about an individual whom he had transplanted three times (who survived!) because he and his team did not want the patient and family to give up hope. The second answer is fundamentally more in keeping with the philosophy of palliative care, despite the extraordinary specific circumstances. The surgeon demonstrated ongoing presence and non abandonment. This patient was palliated, although few surgeons could have accomplished this by doing two retransplantations! Fortunately, for the less gifted and lucky, there are many ways in which to continue a meaningful presence to an ailing or dying patient on a transplant service that do not require a transplantation procedure. One wonders why palliative care and transplantation have not been more formally acquainted in the past given the extensive overlap of the populations served, the nature of the day-to-day problems, and the intensity of the commitment to the patient. The time is ripe for a formal mutual acquaintance between palliative care specialists and transplant teams,perhaps in the format of a work group that is similar to the work groups that promoted excellence in palliative care, such as the End Stage Renal Disease Workgroup, that were grant funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The fields of transplantation and palliative care have a treasure trove of experience that is lacking in the other that could be exchanged profitably with a great sense of satisfaction for all.

Living donor liver transplantation: the historical and cultural basis of policy decisions and ongoing ethical questions

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is in a state of flux. Technical innovations and demand have outpaced internal and external regulatory efforts. This has led to a wide array of centers performing LDLT for a variety of indications without clear evidence on the risks to the donor or recipient or the system as a whole. The birth from necessity of LDLT in Asia has led to the extrapolation of the technique in America and Europe that has not been sufficiently studied in the appropriate populations. While there is a clear benefit in some patients, the appropriate donors and recipients have not been defined. Regulatory and ethical consideration should be focused on minimizing acceptable risk in donors and recipients and expanding the investigation into the costs and outcomes of this challenging procedure. The recently funded adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort sponsored by the National Institutes of Health aims to answer some of these questions over the next five years.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: is clinical tumor classification before transplantation realistic?

BACKGROUND

The decision of whether to proceed with transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis is based on clinical and imaging findings. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of the current system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated data of 70 patients with HCC who underwent liver transplantation (LTx) at our center. We specifically analyzed the correlation between preoperative imaging studies and postoperative anatomopathologic findings. Tumor-node-metastasis, Milan, and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) classifications were used. Patients were divided in 2 groups: (1) Patients undergoing live-donor LTx (LDLTx, n=35) and (2) patients undergoing cadaveric LTx (CLTx, n=35).

RESULTS

Only 10 (14.3%) of the 70 patients considered had tumor diameter that was correctly identified by pretransplant radiologic examinations. Twenty-four (34.2%) patients had correct identification of the number of tumors present. Fifty (71.4%) patients had incorrect measurements of tumor diameter of more than 1 cm. Sensitivity of radiologic imaging was especially poor for tumors between 1 and 2 cm and less than 1 cm (21% and 0%, respectively). Best accuracy of 60% was found for both the Milan and UCSF criteria. No significant difference was found between the two patient groups concerning the accuracy of the various systems/criteria of classification.

CONCLUSIONS

Current imaging techniques have a high incidence of false-negative and false-positive results when evaluating HCC in cirrhosis. A critical appraisal of patient characteristics together with great caution when interpreting imaging studies is recommended to determine candidacy for transplantation.

The current status of living donor liver transplantation

In response to the critical organ shortage, transplant professionals have utilized living donors in an attempt to decrease the mortality rate associated with waiting on the liver transplant list. Although the surgical techniques were first utilized clinically 15 years ago, application of LDLT has been somewhat limited by the steep learning curve associated with developing a program. Clinical success with LDLT in children was realized early in the experience and application of the techniques to the adult population has occurred more recently. Although transplant centers embark on LDLT with enthusiasm, the safety of the donor must always be at the forefront of the process. Potential donors must come to the decision to donate without pressure from members of the family or transplant team. He/she should also be assigned advocates who constantly promote the donor's best interest. Failure to adhere to strict donor evaluation protocols and standardized operative techniques could result in disastrous consequences.

Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: History, Current Practice, and Implications for the Future

More than 1600 Americans have received adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants. As the number of patients with end-stage liver disease is expected to grow significantly in the next 20 years due to hepatitis C infection, living donor liver transplantation has become a promising solution to the shortage of donor organs. The use of living donors provides organs in an environment of scarcity, allows patients to receive transplants when medically optimized, and produces liver segments with minimal ischemic damage. The donor complications most frequently cited in the medical literature include bile leaks and strictures, biloma, hepatic encephalopathy, wound infection, and pressure sores. In the wake of 2 donor deaths in the United States and subsequent media publicity, there have been new efforts by the transplant community to describe the risks and outcomes for donors, and establish safeguards to protect them from excessive pressure to donate.

Differences in Attitude Toward Living and Postmortal Liver Donation in the United States, Germany, and Japan

Living liver donation is a possible immediate option for decreasing the shortage of liver allografts worldwide. Risks related to the donation make this procedure ethically controversial. Study groups of medical students (N= 330) from three different nations were analyzed with a complex questionnaire, and data were subjected to multiparameter analysis. The readiness for living liver donation was dependent upon the cultural background of the study groups. It was higher in the U.S. than in Germany and Japan, with a higher donation readiness for children as recipients than adults. Major differences among distinct sociodemographic groups need to be carefully addressed when setting up consensus guidelines for the clinical practice of living donation.

Experience after the evaluation of 700 potential donors for living donor liver transplantation in a single center

Adequate selection of donors is a major prerequisite for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Few centers report on the entire number of potential donors considered or rejected for living donation. From April 1998 to July 2003, a total of 111 living donor liver transplantations were performed at our institution, with 622 potential donors for 297 adult recipients and 78 potential donors for 52 pediatric recipients evaluated. In the adult group, only 89 (14%) potential donors were considered suitable, with a total of 533 (86%) potential donors rejected. Of these, 67% were excluded either at initial screening or during the first and second steps of the evaluation procedure. In 31% of all cases, the evaluation of donors was canceled because of recipient issues. In the pediatric group, 22 (28%) donors were selected, with the other 56 (72%) rejected. Costs of the complete evaluation process accounted for 4,589 Euro (Euro) per donor. The evaluation of a potential living donor is a complex and expensive process. We present the results on the evaluation of the largest group of potential donors for adults reported in the literature. Only 14% of potential donors in our series were considered suitable candidates. It has not yet been established who should cover the expenses of the evaluation of all rejected donors. In conclusion, all efforts should be made in order to develop an effective screening protocol for the evaluation of donors with the aim of saving time and resources for a liver transplantation program.