Is living donor liver transplantation justified in high model for end-stage liver disease candidates (35+)?

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: A novel scoring system to predict short-term mortality after living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Increasing practice and acceptable outcomes of high-MELD living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Recent deceased-donor allocation changes in the United States may have increased high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, outcomes in these patients remain poorly defined. We aimed to examine the impact of the MELD score on LDLT outcomes. Using UNOS data (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2021), LDLT recipients were identified and stratified into low-MELD (<15), intermediate-MELD (15-24), and high-MELD (≥25) groups. We compared outcomes between MELD-stratified LDLT groups and between MELD-stratified LDLT and donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare graft survival rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with graft outcomes. Of 3558 LDLTs, 1605 (45.1%) were low-MELD, 1616 (45.4%) intermediate-MELD, and 337 (9.5%) high-MELD. Over the study period, the annual number of LDLTs increased from 282 to 569, and the proportion of high-MELD LDLTs increased from 3.9% to 7.7%. Graft survival was significantly higher in low-MELD versus high-MELD LDLT recipients (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03-1.79); however, 5-year survival exceeded 70.0% in both groups. We observed no significant difference in graft survival between high-MELD LDLT and high-MELD donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI:0.99-1.58), with a 5-year survival of 71.5% and 77.3%, respectively. Low LDLT center volume (<3 LDLTs/year) and recipient life support requirement were both associated with inferior graft outcomes among high-MELD LDLT recipients. While higher MELD scores confer graft failure risk in LDLT, high-MELD LDLT outcomes are acceptable with similar outcomes to MELD-stratified donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. Future practice guidance should consider the expansion of LDLT recommendations to high-MELD recipients in centers with expertise to help reduce donor shortage.

Early allograft dysfunction after living donor liver transplantation-current concepts and future directions

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after liver transplantation is a significant clinical problem that negatively impacts graft and patient outcomes. The rising incidence of EAD and what it means concerning living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an area of great interest. However, EAD after LDLT is a complex research topic yet to be reviewed comprehensively. Most of the literature on EAD is based on experience in deceased donor liver transplantation, and limited information is available in the context of LDLT. Thus, in this review, we present an overview of EAD after LDLT and have attempted to present balanced points of view on all its aspects, such as definitions, pathogenesis, risk factors, predictive markers, and management. The review aims to broadly overview the nature and extent of ongoing research evidence on this complex topic and inform practice in the field by identifying key concepts and knowledge gaps and highlighting areas that require further inquiry.

Long-term outcome after living donor liver transplantation compared to donation after brain death in autoimmune liver diseases: Experience from the European Liver Transplant Registry

Knowledge of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for autoimmune liver diseases (AILDs) is scarce. This study analyzed survival in LDLT recipients registered in the European Liver Transplant Registry with autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and the non-autoimmune disorder alcohol-related cirrhosis. In total, 29 902 individuals enrolled between 1998 and 2017 were analyzed, including 1003 with LDLT. Survival from >90 days after LDLT for AILDs in adults was 85.5%, 74.2%, and 58.0% after 5, 10, and 15 years. Adjusted for recipient age, sex, and liver transplantation era, adult PSC patients receiving LDLT showed increased mortality compared to donation after brain death (DBD) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.80, p < .001). Pediatric PSC patients showed also increased mortality >90 days after LDLT compared to DBD (HR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.04-8.70, p = .043). Multivariate analysis identified several risk factors for death in adult PSC patients receiving LDLT including a male donor (HR = 2.49, p = .025). Adult PSC patients with LDLT versus DBD conferred increased mortality from disease recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio [subHR] = 5.36, p = .001) and biliary complications (subHR = 4.40, p = .006) in multivariate analysis. While long-term outcome following LDLT for AILD is generally favorable, PSC patients with LDLT compared to DBD might be at increased risk of death.

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.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Posttransplant Outcomes in Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Older Adult Recipients

The impact of increasing recipient age on morbidity and mortality following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. The study aims to analyze the impact of recipient age on outcomes following LDLT. Data on adult LDLTs performed between November 2009 and February 2020 were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on recipient age: 18 to 65 years (younger adults) and >65 years (older adults). Propensity score matching (PSM) using nearest-neighbor matching was used to match each older recipient with up to 2 younger adult recipients using multiple preoperative parameters. Outcomes evaluated were duration of ventilation, need for reintubation, tracheostomy, intensive care unit (ICU) readmission, length of ICU and hospital stays, postoperative complications, reoperation within 90 days, and patient survival. A total of 801 adult LDLT recipients were included in the study; 751 (93.7%) were younger adults, and 50 (6.3%) were older adults. Older recipients were more likely to be diabetic (60.0% versus 39.7%) and hypertensive (44.0% versus 20.4%) with preexisting cardiac disease (28.0% versus 11.2%). However, their pretransplant Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was significantly lower (14.5 versus 17.7), and they were more likely to receive a transplant because of hepatocellular carcinoma (38.0% versus 17.7%). Older recipients had longer durations of ventilation after LT both before (3.7 versus 1.9 days) and after PSM (4.0 versus 1.5 days). After PSM, the 30-day (13.0% versus 2.4%), 90-day (15.2% and 2.4%), and overall mortality rates (21.7% versus 7.1%) were significantly higher for older recipients when compared with younger recipients. There was no difference between the younger and older recipients with respect to other postoperative outcomes. This propensity score-matched study shows that the older LDLT recipients have higher 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality rates when compared with matched younger counterparts.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Impact of Share 35 on Live Donor Utilization

BACKGROUND

Share 35 was a policy implemented in 2013 to increase regional sharing of deceased donor livers to patients with model for end-stage liver disease ≥ 35 to decrease waitlist mortality for the sickest patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). The purpose of this study was to determine whether live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) volume was impacted by the shift in allocation of deceased donor livers to patients with higher model for end-stage liver disease scores.

METHODS

Using Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files, we identified all adults who received a primary LT between October 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018. LT from October 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013, was designated as the pre-Share 35 era and July 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, as the post-Share 35 era. Primary outcomes included transplant volumes, graft survival, and patient survival in both eras.

RESULTS

In total, 48 779 primary adult single-organ LT occurred during the study period (22 255 pre-Share 35, 26 524 post). LDLT increased significantly (6.8% post versus 5.7% pre, P < 0.001). LDLT volume varied significantly by region (P < 0.001) with regions 2, 4, 5, and 8 demonstrating significant increases in LDLT volume post-Share 35. The number of centers performing LDLT increased only in regions 4, 6, and 11. Throughout the 2 eras, there was no difference in graft or patient survival for LDLT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, LDLT volume increased following the implementation of Share 35, which was largely due to increased LDLT volume at centers with experience in LDLT, and corresponded to significant geographic variation in LDLT utilization.