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

Liver Retransplantation Using Living Donor Grafts: A Feasible Approach for Chronic Allograft Failure

BACKGROUND

The indication of living donor liver retransplantation (re-LDLT) for retransplant candidates with chronic allograft failure (CAF) is increasing because of the high mortality rate of patients on the waiting list. However, evidence supporting re-LDLT for CAF remains scarce because of technical difficulties. We aimed to examine the feasibility based on our significant case experience.

METHODS

A total of 95 retransplant cases (adult: 53, pediatric: 42) between 2000 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Graft survival after re-LDLT and deceased donor liver retransplantation (re-DDLT) was compared among recipients with CAF and acute allograft failure (AAF).

RESULTS

Re-LDLTs for CAF were performed in 58 (61.1%) cases, re-DDLTs for CAF in 16 (16.8%) cases, re-LDLTs for AAF in 13 (13.7%) cases, and re-DDLTs for AAF in 8 (8.4%) cases. Re-DDLTs have become increasingly prevalent over time. Retransplantation for AAF results in lower graft survival than that for CAF in both adult and pediatric cases. All adult recipients who underwent re-LDLT for AAF died within 1 y after retransplantation. The 5-y graft survival between re-LDLT and re-DDLT for CAF was not significantly different (73.8% versus 75.0%, P = 0.84). Operation time and blood loss were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival rate of re-LDLT for recipients with CAF is permissible. Re-LDLT may be another treatment option for recipients with CAF.

The application of real-time indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography in laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy

Background

The judgment of the division point of the bile duct has always been one of the difficulties of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence cholangiography during LLLS on the occurrence of biliary complications in both donors and recipients. The optimal dose and injection time of ICG were also investigated.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. From October 2016 to December 2022, the clinical data of 103 donors who underwent LLLS and relevant recipients were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether ICG fluorescence cholangiography was used, they were divided into a non-ICG group (n=46) and an ICG group (n=57). Biliary complications were observed and the optimal dose and injection time of ICG were explored.

Results

Three donors in the non-ICG group suffered from bile leakage. Four grafts had multiple bile duct openings and biliary complications were observed in the relevant recipients who received these grafts in the non-ICG group. Two recipients had bile leakage, and the other two had biliary stenosis. There was no biliary complications both in donors and recipients in the ICG group. The fluorescence intensity of the liver was 108.1±17.6 at a dose of 0.004 mg/kg 90 minutes after injection, significantly weaker than that at 0.05 mg/kg 30 minutes (200.3±17.6, P=0.001) and 90 minutes after injection (140.2±15.4, P=0.001). The fluorescence intensity contrast value at a dose of 0.004 mg/kg was stronger than that at 0.05 mg/kg, both measured 90 minutes after injection (0.098±0.032 vs. 0.078±0.022, P=0.021).

Conclusions

ICG fluorescence cholangiography is safe and feasible in LLLS. It reduces biliary complications in both donors and recipients. The optimal ICG dose was 0.004 mg/kg, and 90 minutes after injection was the best observation time. ICG fluorescence cholangiography is recommended for routine use in LLLS.

Older living liver donors can enlarge the donor pool: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the best option for end-stage liver disease patients. Older potential donors are increasingly requesting donation. This study aims to systematically assess the differences in donor perioperative and postoperative complications, mortality, and quality of life (QoL) between younger and older living liver donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Embase, Medline, and Cochrane were searched for studies published between 2002 and 2 June 2023. Donor complications, major complications, biliary complications, mortality, and QoL were systematically reviewed, including meta-analyses. Donors aged >50 years were considered older. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment Scale.

RESULTS

The search yielded 8320 studies, of which 17 were included. The risk ratio (RR) for complications in younger donors was 1.08 [0.90-1.31] ( P =0.41). RRs for major complications in younger donors were 0.98 [0.64, 1.48] and 0.89 [0.50, 1.57] using Clavien-Dindo ≥III and ≥IIIb as major complication. RR for biliary complications in younger donors was 1.59 [1.05-2.42] ( P =0.03). Mortality rate in younger donors was 47/13 238 (0.4%) and in older donors 13/989 (1.3%). Physical component summary (PCS) in younger donors was 51.87 and in older donors 51.29. Mental component summary (MCS) in younger donors was 52.93 and in older donors 55.40.

CONCLUSION

Older donors do not have a higher complication or mortality rate than younger donors after LDLT. They may have a lower rate of biliary complications. Additionally, older donors have a similar QoL after LDLT. With careful selection, older donors can be included in screening programs for living liver donation to expand the donor pool.

Peripheral Injection of hUC-MSCs in the Treatment of Acute Liver Failure: A Pre-Clinical Cohort Study in Rhesus Monkeys

Background

Using a toxin-induced lethal acute liver failure (ALF) monkey model, we have recently shown that early peripheral infusion of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUC-MSCs) can alleviate liver damage and improve animal survival by suppressing the activation of circulating monocytes and the subsequent cytokine storm. Here, we explored whether the administration of hUC-MSCs could still improve ALF when the cytokine storm is fully developed.

Method

We treated ALF monkeys with peripheral delivery of hUC-MSCs at 48 hr after toxin challenge. Liver indices, histology, imaging, and animal survival were recorded and analyzed.

Results

In our cohort study, we conducted and demonstrated that the infusion of hUC-MSCs significantly improved liver histology, effectively controlled inflammatory cytokine storms, and increased survival rates. Additionally, the administration of a higher dose of hUC-MSCs (2 × 107/monkey) yielded superior outcomes compared to a lower dose (1 × 107/monkey).

Conclusion

Treatment of hUC-MSCs can significantly improve the pathological and survival outcomes of ALF even when the cytokine storm has been fully developed, indicating a promising clinical solution for ALF.

Optimizing pediatric liver transplantation: Evaluating the impact of donor age and graft type on patient survival outcome

BACKGROUND

We examined the combined effects of donor age and graft type on pediatric liver transplantation outcomes with an aim to offer insights into the strategic utilization of these donor and graft options.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a national database on 0-2-year-old (N = 2714) and 3-17-year-old (N = 2263) pediatric recipients. These recipients were categorized based on donor age (≥40 vs <40 years) and graft type. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models, followed by an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis to examine overall patient survival.

RESULTS

Living and younger donors generally resulted in better outcomes compared to deceased and older donors, respectively. This difference was more significant among younger recipients (0-2 years compared to 3-17 years). Despite this finding, ITT survival analysis showed that donor age and graft type did not impact survival with the exception of 0-2-year-old recipients who had an improved survival with a younger living donor graft.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely transplantation has the largest impact on survival in pediatric recipients. Improving waitlist mortality requires uniform surgical expertise at many transplant centers to provide technical variant graft (TVG) options and shed the conservative mindset of seeking only the "best" graft for pediatric recipients.

The incidence of adverse outcome in donors after living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis of 60,829 donors

The scarcity of liver grafts has prompted developments in living donor liver transplantations (LDLT), with previous literature illustrating similar outcomes in recipients compared to deceased donor transplants. However, significant concerns regarding living donor morbidity and mortality have yet to be examined comprehensively. This study aims to provide estimates of the incidence of various outcomes in living liver donors. In this meta-analysis, Medline and Embase were searched from inception to July 2022 for articles assessing the incidence of outcomes in LDLT donors. Complications in the included studies were classified into respective organ systems. Analysis of incidence was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Clopper-Pearson intervals. Eighty-seven articles involving 60,829 living liver donors were included. The overall pooled incidence of complications in LDLT donors was 24.7% (CI: 21.6%-28.1%). The incidence of minor complications was 17.3% (CI: 14.7%-20.3%), while the incidence of major complications was lower at 5.5% (CI: 4.5%-6.7%). The overall incidence of donor mortality was 0.06% (CI: 0.0%-0.1%) in 49,027 individuals. Psychological complications (7.6%, CI: 4.9%-11.5%) were the most common among LDLT donors, followed by wound-related (5.2%, CI: 4.4%-6.2%) and respiratory complications (4.9%, CI: 3.8%-6.3%). Conversely, cardiovascular complications had the lowest incidence among the subgroups at 0.8% (CI: 0.4%-1.3%). This study presents the incidence of post-LDLT outcomes in living liver donors, illustrating significant psychological, wound-related, and respiratory complications. While significant advancements in recent decades have contributed towards decreased morbidity in living donors, our findings call for targeted measures and continued efforts to ensure the safety and quality of life of liver donors post-LDLT.

Outcomes of living donor liver transplant recipients receiving grafts with the graft-to-recipient weight ratio less than 0.6%: A matched pair analysis

We sometimes experience living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) involving very small grafts with graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) < 0.6% when the actual graft size is smaller than predicted. The outcomes in this situation have not been fully investigated. The present study aimed to determine the graft outcomes of LDLT with GRWR < 0.6%. We retrospectively reviewed 280 cases of adult LDLT performed at our institution between January 2000 and March 2021. In our institution, the lower limit for graft volume/standard liver volume ratio was 30%. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the cutoff value of 0.6% for actual GRWR. Graft survival and surgical outcomes, including small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), were compared between the groups using propensity score matching analysis. Risk factors associated with SFSS in recipients with GRWR < 0.6% were also evaluated. Fifty-nine patients received grafts with GRWR < 0.6%. After propensity score matching, similar graft survival rates were observed for GRWR < 0.6% (n = 53) and GRWR ≥ 0.6% (n = 53) ( p = 0.98). However, patients with GRWR < 0.6% had a significantly worse 3-month graft survival rate (86.8% vs. 98.1%, p = 0.03) and higher incidence of SFSS ( p < 0.001) than patients with GRWR ≥0.6%. On multivariate analysis, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and donor age were associated with SFSS in patients with GRWR < 0.6%. The same factors were also associated with graft survival. In conclusion, although similar overall graft survival rates were observed for LDLT with GRWR < 0.6% and GRWR ≥ 0.6%, GRWR < 0.6% was associated with an increased risk of SFSS. Appropriate donor and recipient selection is important for successful LDLT with very small grafts.

Early Graft Failure After Living-Donor Liver Transplant

BACKGROUND

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasing in the USA. While data exist on longer-term patient and graft outcomes, a contemporary analysis of short-term outcomes is needed.

AIM

Evaluate short-term (30-day) graft failure rates and identify predictors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

Adult (≥ 18) LDLT recipients from 01/2004 to 12/2021 were analyzed from the United States Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Graft status at 30 days was assessed with graft failure defined as retransplantation or death. Comparison of continuous and categorical variables was performed and a multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of early graft failure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4544 LDLTs were performed with a graft failure rate of 3.4% (155) at 30 days. Grafts from male donors (aOR: 0.63, CI 0.44-0.89), right lobe grafts (aOR: 0.40, CI 0.27-0.61), recipients aged > 60 years (aOR: 0.52, CI 0.32-0.86), and higher recipient albumin (aOR: 0.73, CI 0.57-0.93) were associated with superior early graft outcomes, whereas Asian recipient race (vs. White; aOR: 3.75, CI 1.98-7.10) and a history of recipient PVT (aOR: 2.7, CI 1.52-4.78) were associated with inferior outcomes. LDLTs performed during the most recent 2016-2021 period (compared to 2004-2009 and 2010-2015) resulted in significantly superior outcomes (aOR: 0.45, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that while short-term adult LDLT graft failure is uncommon, there are opportunities for optimizing outcomes by prioritizing right lobe donation, improving candidate nutritional status, and careful pre-transplant risk assessment of candidates with known PVT. Notably, a period effect exists whereby increased LDLT experience in the most recent era correlated with improved outcomes.

Early experience with pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: comparison with open donor hepatectomy and non-donor laparoscopic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (L-DH) has seen a rise in uptake in recent years following the popularization of minimally invasive modality for major hepatobiliary surgery. Our study aimed to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-DH with open donor hepatectomy (O-DH) and laparoscopic non donor hepatectomy (L-NDH) based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Eighty of 113 laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomies performed between 2015 and 2022 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were L-DH. PSM in a 1:2 ratio of L-DH versus L-NDH and 1:1 ratio of L-DH versus O-DH were performed, identifying patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics.

RESULTS

After 2:1 matching, the L-DH cohort were significantly younger (P < 0.001) and had lower ASA scores (P < 0.001) than the L-NDH cohort. L-DH was associated with a longer median operating time (P < 0.001) and shorter median postoperative stay (P < 0.001) than L-NDH. After 1:1 matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic between the L-DH and O-DH cohorts. L-DH was associated with lower median blood loss (P = 0.040) and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in recipient outcomes for both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

L-DH can be adopted safely by surgeons experienced in L-NDH and ODH. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH.

Pre-operative assessment of living liver donors' liver anatomy and volumes

Decades of experience supports LDLT as a favorable strategy to reduce waitlist mortality. The multiple regenerative pathways of hepatocytes and other hepatic cells justify the rationale behind it. Nonetheless, living liver donation is still underused and its broader implementation is challenging, mostly due to variability in practices leading to concerns related to donor safety. A non-systematic literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed original articles related to pre-operative evaluation of living liver donor candidates. Eligible studies were synthesized upon consensus for discussion in this up-to-date review. Review of the literature demonstrate that the importance of preoperative assessment of vascular, biliary and liver volume to ensure donor safety and adequate surgical planning for graft procurement is widely recognized. Moreover, data indicates that anatomic variants in vascular and biliary systems in healthy donors are common, present in up to 50% of the population. Therefore, comprehensive mapping and visualizations of each component is needed. Different imaging modalities are reported across practices and are discussed in detail. Lastly, assessment of liver volume must take into account several technical and donor factors that increase the chances of errors in volume estimation, which occurs in up to 10% of the cases. Experience suggests that maximizing donor safety and lessening their risks is a result of integrated experience between hepatobiliary and transplant surgery, along with multidisciplinary efforts in performing a comprehensive pre-operative donor assessment. Although technical advances have increased the accuracy of volume estimation, over- or under-estimation remains a challenge that needs further attention.

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.

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Do We Still Need Microscope Surgery in Hepatic Artery Anastomosis to Decrease the Incidence of Complications in Living Donor Liver Transplantation?

Hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) is the most serious vascular complication after liver transplantation (LT). Moreover, in comparison to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), hepatic artery (HA) anastomosis is more challenging in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with a lot of controversial topics about the use of microscopic surgery. We aimed to compare the use of microscopic and loupe surgery in HA anastomosis in adult and pediatric LDLT to decrease the incidence of vascular complications. We searched PubMed, Scopes, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies from inception to April 2023 and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done. According to our eligibility criteria, 10 studies with a total of 1939 patients were included. In comparison to microscopic surgery, loupe anastomosis has a similar incidence of HAT (thrombosis, risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.26-3.48, P = 0.95). In addition to that, no significant difference was detected between the two types in terms of stenosis, decreased blood flow and hospital stay (decreased blood flow, RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.01-86.65, P = 0.88), (stenosis, RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 0.19-17.21, P = 0.60), (hospital stay, mean deviation (MD) = 1.16, 95% CI = -3.79-6.11, P = 0.65). However, the anastomotic time was longer in the case of microscopic surgery (anastomotic time, MD = 24.09, 95% CI = 7.79-40.39, P = 0.004). With an equal incidence of complications and longer anastomotic time, there is no added benefit of the routine use of microscopic surgery in HA anastomosis in LDLT.

Liver transplantation with interposition saphenous vein conduits for arterial reconstruction: Impact of morbidity and arterial ischemia time

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of liver transplantation with hepatic arterial reconstruction using interposition saphenous vein conduits are not widely reported. Here, we share our experience using great saphenous vein conduits for hepatic arterial reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (n = 950). The saphenous vein conduits were used in 39 patients. We compared hepatic artery thrombosis, graft dysfunction, and 30-day and 1-year survival in the early (2012-2017) and late (2017-2020) transplant periods.

RESULTS

Among 39 patients (of whom 30 [76.9%] were males, median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was 24 [interquartile range, 17-27], median age was 50 [interquartile range, 43-54]), saphenous vein conduits were placed on supra celiac aorta in 7 (17.9%), infrarenal aorta in 25 (64.1%), and other arteries in 7 (17.9%) patients. The number of biliary and hepatic vein anastomoses, total arterial ischemia time, portal vein-hepatic artery reperfusion time, and duration of surgery was different in the 2 groups (P < .05). The 30-day mortality was 5/21 (23.8%) and 0 in the early and late periods (P = .05). The 30-day survival was >90% in patients with portal vein-hepatic artery reperfusion time <240 minutes, ≤2 grade 3 complications, no graft dysfunction, and later period of transplantation (P < .05). The 1-year survival with standard transplantation, transplantation with saphenous vein conduits in the early and late period was 87%, 62%, and 89% (P = .022).

CONCLUSION

Liver transplantation with saphenous vein conduits is associated with acceptable outcomes. Major complications and arterial ischemia times are major determinants of 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.

Imaging Evaluation of the Living Liver Donor: A Systems-Based Approach

Liver transplant is the definitive treatment of end-stage liver disease and early hepatocellular carcinoma. The number of liver transplant surgeries done is highly affected by the number and availability of deceased donor organs. Living donor liver transplantation has emerged as an alternative source of donors, increasing the availability of organs for transplant. Many factors must be considered when choosing living donor candidates to maintain a high level of donor safety and organ survival. To that end, potential donors undergo a rigorous pre-donation workup.

Impact of living donor liver transplantation on long-term cardiometabolic and graft outcomes in cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a leading indication for liver transplantation (LT). This study aimed to determine whether living donor LT (LDLT) recipients experienced less recurrent NASH, cirrhosis, and cardiometabolic complications compared to deceased donor LT (DDLT).

METHOD

Patients with LDLT and DDLT for NASH between February 2002 and May 2018 at University Health Network (UHN) were compared. Cox Proportional Hazard model was used to analyze overall survival (OS), Fine and Gray's Competing Risk models were conducted to analyze cumulative incidence of post LT outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine DDLTs and 66 LDLTs were performed for NASH cirrhosis. Time and rate of recurrence of NAFLD and NASH were comparable in both groups. Graft cirrhosis was more common in DDLT recipients (n = 14) versus LDLT (n = 0) (p < .0001). Significant fibrosis (Fibrosis ≥ F2) developed in 50 recipients (12 LDLT and 38 DDLT) post LT (DDLT vs. LDLT: HR = 1.00, 95% CI = (.52-1.93), p = .91) and there was no difference in time to significant fibrosis (p = .57). There was no difference in development of post-transplant diabetes, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancers. LDLT group had better renal function at 10 years (MDRD eGFR of 57.0 mL/min vs. 48.5 mL/min, p = .047). Both groups had a comparable OS (HR = 1.83 (95% CI = .92-3.62), p = .08).

CONCLUSION

Overall, LDLT recipients had significantly better renal function by virtue of having early transplantation in their disease course. LDLT was also associated with significantly less graft cirrhosis, although OS and cardiometabolic outcomes were comparable between LDLT and DDLT.

Maximizing utility of nondirected living liver donor grafts using machine learning

Objective

There is an unmet need for optimizing hepatic allograft allocation from nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD).

Materials and method

Using OPTN living donor liver transplant (LDLT) data (1/1/2000-12/31/2019), we identified 6328 LDLTs (4621 right, 644 left, 1063 left-lateral grafts). Random forest survival models were constructed to predict 10-year graft survival for each of the 3 graft types.

Results

Donor-to-recipient body surface area ratio was an important predictor in all 3 models. Other predictors in all 3 models were: malignant diagnosis, medical location at LDLT (inpatient/ICU), and moderate ascites. Biliary atresia was important in left and left-lateral graft models. Re-transplant was important in right graft models. C-index for 10-year graft survival predictions for the 3 models were: 0.70 (left-lateral); 0.63 (left); 0.61 (right). Similar C-indices were found for 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survivals. Comparison of model predictions to actual 10-year graft survivals demonstrated that the predicted upper quartile survival group in each model had significantly better actual 10-year graft survival compared to the lower quartiles (p<0.005).

Conclusion

When applied in clinical context, our models assist with the identification and stratification of potential recipients for hepatic grafts from ND-LLD based on predicted graft survivals, while accounting for complex donor-recipient interactions. These analyses highlight the unmet need for granular data collection and machine learning modeling to identify potential recipients who have the best predicted transplant outcomes with ND-LLD grafts.

Living-Donor Liver Transplant and Improved Post-Transplant Survival in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the leading indication of liver transplantation (LT) among autoimmune liver disease patients. There is a scarcity of studies comparing survival outcomes between living-donor liver transplants (LDLT)s and deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) in this population. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we compared 4679 DDLTs and 805 LDLTs. Our outcome of interest was post-LT patient survival and post-LT graft survival. A stepwise multivariate analysis was performed, adjusting for recipient age, gender, diabetes mellitus, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, race, and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score; donor' age and sex were also included to the analysis. According to univariate and multivariate analysis, LDLT had a patient and graft survival benefit compared to DDLT (HR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92; p < 0.002). LDLT patient survival (95.2%, 92.6%, 90.1%, and 81.9%) and graft survival (94.1%, 91.1%, 88.5%, and 80.5%) at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were significantly better than DDLT patient survival (93.2%, 87.6%, 83.3%, and 72.7%) and graft survival (92.1%, 86.5%, 82.1%, and 70.9%) (p < 0.001) in the same interval. Variables including donor and recipient age, male recipient gender, MELD score, diabetes mellitus, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma were associated with mortality and graft failure in PSC patients. Interestingly, Asians were more protected than Whites (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; p < 0.047), and cholangiocarcinoma was associated with the highest hazard of mortality (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.71-2.50; p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. LDLT in PSC patients were associated with greater post-transplant patient and graft survival compared to DDLT patients.

A survey of transplant providers regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to living donor liver transplantation in the United States

INTRODUCTION

A successful living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is the culmination of a multifaceted process coordinated among key stakeholders.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic survey of US liver transplant (LT) centers (August 26, 2021-October 10, 2021) regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators of LDLT to learn how to expand LDLT safely and effectively in preparation for the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Liver Transplant Consensus Conference.

RESULTS

Responses were received from staff at 58 programs (40.1% of US LT centers). There is interest in broadening LDLT (100% of LDLT centers, 66.7% of non-LDLT centers) with high level of agreement that LDLT mitigates donor shortage (93.3% of respondents) and that it should be offered to all suitable candidates (87.5% of respondents), though LDLT was less often endorsed as the best first option (29.5% of respondents). Key barriers at non-LDLT centers were institutional factors and surgical expertise, whereas those at LDLT centers focused on waitlist candidate and donor factors. Heterogeneity in candidate selection for LDLT, candidate reluctance to pursue LDLT, high donor exclusion rate, and disparities in access were important barriers.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study may help guide current and future expansion of LDLT more efficiently in the US. These efforts require clear and cohesive messaging regarding LDLT benefits, engagement of the public community, and dedicated resources to equitably increase LDLT access.

Incidence and risk factors of subclinical rejection after pediatric liver transplantation, and impact on allograft fibrosis

INTRODUCTION

Subclinical rejection (SCR) is a common injury in protocol biopsy after pediatric liver transplantation (pLT), but its effect on the recipient is not clearly understood. We herein investigated the incidence and risk factors involved in SCR and analyzed the relationship between SCR and allograft fibrosis (AF).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the biopsy results from 507 children between May 2013 and May 2019, and 352 patients underwent protocol biopsy 2 years after pLT, 203 underwent protocol biopsy 5 years after pLT, and 48 underwent protocol biopsy both 2 and 5 years after pLT.

RESULTS

The incidence of SCR in the 5-year group was higher than that in the 2-year group (20.2% vs.13.4%, respectively, p = .033). The number of patients with mild and moderate SCR in the 5-year group was also higher than that in the 2-year group (p = .039). Logistic regression analysis showed that acute rejection before liver biopsy and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were independent risk factors for SCR in the two groups, and that the incidence and severity of AF in protocol biopsies at both periods in the SCR group were higher than those in the non-SCR group (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence and severity of SCR increased with the prolongation of protocol biopsy time. We postulate that acute rejection and DDLT are independent risk factors for SCR after transplantation. As the occurrence of SCR also augmented the incidence and severity of AF.

Impact of Older Donor Age on Recipient and Graft Survival After LDLT: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

The impact of selecting older donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States is incompletely studied, particularly in light of the recent expansion of LDLT nationally.

METHODS

Adult LDLTs from January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2019 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Multivariable Cox models evaluated living donor (LD) age as a predictor of LDLT recipient and graft survival. The impact of increasing donor age on recipient outcomes was compared between LD and deceased donor recipients. Donor postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 3539 LDLTs at 65 transplant centers during the study period. Despite the recent expansion of LDLT, the proportion of LDs aged ≥50 y was stable. There were no clinically significant differences in recipient or donor characteristics by LD age group. LD age ≥50 y was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.49 ( P = 0.012) for recipient survival and 1.61 ( P < 0.001) for graft survival (vs LDs aged 18-29 y). The negative impact of increasing donor age on graft survival was more profound after LDLT than deceased donor liver transplantation (interaction P = 0.019). There was a possible increased rate of early donor biliary complications for donors >55 y (7.1% versus 3.1% for age <40 y; P = 0.156).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing LD age is associated with decreased recipient and graft survival, although older donors still largely yield acceptable outcomes. Donor outcomes were not clearly impacted by increasing age, though this warrants further study.

Assessment of serum and drain fluid bilirubin concentrations in liver transplantation patients

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage is a major complication after liver transplantation and remains as a significant source of morbidity and mortality. In 2011, the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) defined bile leakage as a drain/serum bilirubin ratio ≥3. However, to our knowledge there is no literature assessing serum and drain bilirubin concentrations after liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to describe the natural postoperative changes in serum and drain fluid bilirubin concentrations in patients after liver transplantation.

METHODS

We included 32 patients who underwent liver transplantation at Kobe University Hospital from January 2007 to December 2020. We enrolled 34 living donors who had no complications as the control group.

RESULTS

The recipient serum total/direct bilirubin concentration were higher compared with the donors from postoperative day (POD) 1 to 5 with a statistical difference (P < .05). The recipient drain/serum total bilirubin ratio was lower than donors on POD 3 (0.89 ± 0.07 vs 1.53 ± 0.07: P < .0001), which was also confirmed by the recipient drain/serum direct bilirubin ratio (0.64 ± 0.10 vs 1.18 ± 0.09: P < .0001). On POD 3, the drain fluid volume (647.38 ± 89.47 vs 113.43 ± 86.8 mL: P < .001) and serum total bilirubin concentration (6.73 ± 0.61 vs 1.23 ± 0.60 mg/dL: P < .001) was higher in the recipients than in donors. Categorized in 2 groups, the higher drain fluid volume and bilirubin concentration recipients showed lower drain/serum total bilirubin ratio compared with the other group (P = .03) CONCLUSION: The drain/serum bilirubin ratio in the transplanted patients could be calculated lower compared with the hepatectomy patients because of high drain fluid volume and hyperbilirubinemia. Great care should be taken when assessing the bile leakage in liver transplant recipients using the ISGLS definition.

A qualitative systematic review of anonymous/unspecified living kidney and liver donors' perspectives

OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND

Anonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes.

RESULTS

12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.

Comparison of Biliary Complications Rates After Brain Death, Donation After Circulatory Death, and Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD), donation-after-brain-death (DBD), and living-donation (LD) are the three possible options for liver transplantation (LT), each with unique benefits and complication rates. We aimed to compare DCD-, DBD-, and LD-LT-specific graft survival and biliary complications (BC). We collected data on 138 DCD-, 3,027 DBD- and 318 LD-LTs adult recipients from a single center and analyzed patient/graft survival. BC (leak and anastomotic/non-anastomotic stricture (AS/NAS)) were analyzed in a subset of 414 patients. One-/five-year graft survival were 88.6%/70.0% for DCD-LT, 92.6%/79.9% for DBD-LT, and, 91.7%/82.9% for LD-LT. DCD-LTs had a 1.7-/1.3-fold adjusted risk of losing their graft compared to DBD-LT and LD-LT, respectively (p < 0.010/0.403). Bile leaks were present in 10.1% (DCD-LTs), 7.2% (DBD-LTs), and 36.2% (LD-LTs) (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.7/4.2, p = 0.402/<0.001). AS developed in 28.3% DCD-LTs, 18.1% DBD-LTs, and 43.5% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.5/1.8, p = 0.018/0.006). NAS was present in 15.2% DCD-LTs, 1.4% DBDs-LT, and 4.3% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.1/0.3, p = 0.001/0.005). LTs w/o BC had better liver graft survival compared to any other groups with BC. DCD-LT and LD-LT had excellent graft survival despite significantly higher BC rates compared to DBD-LT. DCD-LT represents a valid alternative whose importance should increase further with machine/perfusion systems.

Long-Term Suitability of Left Gastric Artery Inflow for Arterial Perfusion of Living Donor Right Lobe Grafts

Poorer than expected, living donor liver transplant outcomes are observed after recipient graft artery thrombosis. At grafting, the risk for later thrombosis is high if a dissected hepatic artery is used for standard reconstruction. Surgeon diagnosis of dissection requires nonstandard management with alternative technique in addition to microvascular expertise. Intimal flap repair with standard reconstruction is contingent on basis of a redo anastomosis. It is a suboptimal choice for living donor transplantation. Achieving goal graft arterial perfusion at first revascularization is crucial for superior outcomes. Managing dissection at grafting with nonstandard left gastric artery reconstruction is unreported. Our experience is limited, but this is our preferred alternative technique to standard hepatic artery reconstruction complicated by dissection. Here, we describe our two-case experience with left gastric arterialized grafts for management of dissection. Our living donor graft recipients with alternatively arterialized grafts are now 6- and 2-years posttransplant.

Liver Paired Exchange: Programmatic Hopes and Fears

The dearth of deceased liver donors has created a supply demand gap, necessitating creation of living donor liver transplantation. However, living donor liver transplantation has relied on directed donation, whereby many potential directed donors are rejected based on ABO blood group incompatibility, hepatic size incompatibility, or the need for biliary or arterial reconstruction during transplant surgery. Much like kidney paired exchange, liver paired exchange (LPE) circumvents these incompatibility issues by relying on anonymous, nondirected, or bridge donors that are better anatomical or histological matches for recipients. Although Asia has taken the lead in LPE, the process has only recently been adopted in North America, with the first successful surgery done in the United States in 2019. Our review article sheds light on the process of LPE and the success of LPE in the United States thus far and, additionally, highlights the several logistical and ethical challenges that must be considered as transplant centers adopt and scale up LPE across the United States to address the increased demand for liver allografts.

Utilizing Social Media to Identify Potential Living Donors: Learning from US Living Donor Programs

Purpose of Review

Living donor transplantation provides the best possible recipient outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Yet, identifying potential living donors can be a laborious and resource intensive task that heavily relies on the recipient’s means and social network. Social media has evolved to become a key tool in helping to bring recipients and potential living donors together given its ease of utilization, widespread access, and improved recipient’s comfort with public solicitation. However, in the USA, formal guidelines to direct the use of social media in this context are lacking.

Recent Findings

To better inform the landscape and opportunities utilizing social media in living donation, the OPTN Living Donor Committee surveyed US transplant programs to explore programs’ experiences and challenges when helping patients use social media to identify potential living donors (September 2019). A large majority of survey participants (N = 125/174, 72%) indicated that their program provided education to use social media to identify potential living donors and most programs tracking referral source confirmed an increase utilization over time. The use of social media was compounded with program and recipient’s challenges including concerns about privacy, inadequate technology access, and knowledge gaps. In this review, we discuss the results of this national survey and recent literature, and provide suggestions to inform program practices and guidance provided to patients wishing to use social media to identify potential living donors.

Summary

Transplant programs should become competent in the use of social media for potential living donor identification to empower patients interested in using this tool. Social media education should be provided to all patients regardless of voiced interest and, when appropriate, revisited at multiple time points. Programs should consider developing a “team of experts” that can provide focused education and support to patients embarking in social media living donor campaigns. Care should be taken to avoid exacerbating disparities in access to living donor transplantation. Effective and timely guidance to patients in the use of social media could enhance the identification of potential living donors.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation With Augmented Venous Outflow and Splenectomy: A Promised Land for Small Left Lobe Grafts

OBJECTIVE

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using small grafts, especially left lobe grafts (H1234-MHV) (LLG), continues to be a challenge due to small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). We herein demonstrate that with surgical modifications, outcomes with small grafts can be improved.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2020, we performed 130 adult LDLT using 61 (47%) LLG (H1234-MHV) in a single Enterprise. The median graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.84%, with graft-to-recipient weight ratio <0.7% accounting for 22%. Splenectomy was performed in 72 (56%) patients for inflow modulation before (n=50) or after (n=22) graft reperfusion. In LLG-LDLT, venous outflow was achieved using all three recipient hepatic veins. In right lobe graft (H5678) (RLG)-LDLT, the augmented graft right hepatic vein was anastomosed to the recipient's cava with a large cavotomy. Outcome measures include SFSS, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and survival.

RESULTS

Graft survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 94%, 90%, and 83%, respectively, with no differences between LLG (H1234-MHV) and RLG (H5678). Splenectomy significantly reduced portal flow without increasing the complication rate. Despite the aggressive use of small grafts, SFSS and EAD developed in only 1 (0.8%) and 18 (13.8%) patients, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression revealed model for end-stage liver disease score and LLG (H1234-MHV) as independent risk factors for EAD and splenectomy as a protective factor (odds ratio: 0.09; P =0.03). For LLG (H1234-MHV)-LDLT, patients who underwent prereperfusion splenectomy tended to have better 1-year graft survival than those receiving postreperfusion splenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

LLG (H1234-MHV) are feasible in adult LDLT with excellent outcomes comparable to RLG (H5678). Venous outflow augmentation and splenectomy help lower the threshold of using small-for-size grafts without compromising graft survival.

Which recipient pretransplant factors, such as MELD, renal function, sarcopenia, and recent sepsis influence suitability for and outcome after living donor liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Varied access to deceased donors across the globe has resulted in differential living donor liver transplant (LDLT) practices and lack of consensus over the influence of models for end stage liver disease (MELD), renal function, sarcopenia, or recent infection on short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Consider these risk factors in relation to patient selection and provide recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central.

METHODS

PRIMSA systematic review and GRADE.

PROSPERO ID

RD42021260809 RESULTS: MELD >25-30 alone is not a contraindication to LDLT, and multiple studies found no increase in short term mortality in high MELD patients. Contributing factors such as muscle mass, acute physiologic assessment and chronic health evaluation score, donor age, graft weight/recipient weight ratio, and inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft influence morbidity and mortality in high MELD patients. Higher mortality is observed with pretransplant renal dysfunction, but short-term mortality is rare. Sarcopenia and recent infection are not contraindications to LDLT. Morbidity and prolonged LOS are common, and more frequent in patients with renal dysfunction, nutritional deficiency or recent infection.

CONCLUSIONS

When individual risk factors are studied mortality is low and graft loss is infrequent, but morbidity is common. MELD, especially with concomitant risk factors, had the greatest influence on short term outcome, and recent infection had the least. A multidisciplinary team of experts should carefully assess patients with multiple risk factors, and an optimal graft is recommended.

Endoscopic Evaluation and Management of Cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare malignancy of the biliary tract with a relatively poor prognosis. As a gastroenterologist, our main role is to differentiate between benign and malignant biliary disease, help achieve a diagnosis, and palliate jaundice related to biliary obstruction. This article focuses on summarizing the various tools currently available for endoscopic evaluation and management of cholangiocarcinoma.

Recent Improvement in Survival Outcomes and Reappraisal of Prognostic Factors in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a significant advancement for the treatment of children with end-stage liver disease given the shortage of deceased donors. The ultimate goal of pediatric LDLT is to achieve complete donor safety and zero recipient mortality. We conducted a retrospective, single-center assessment of the outcomes as well as the clinical factors that may influence graft and patient survival after primary LDLTs performed between 1994 and 2020. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analyses. The trends for independent prognostic factors were analyzed according to the following treatment eras: 1, 1994 to 2002; 2, 2003 to 2011; and 3, 2012 to 2020. Primary LDLTs were performed on 287 children during the study period. Biliary atresia (BA; 52%), acute liver failure (ALF; 26%), and monogenic liver disease (11%) were the leading indications. There were 45 graft losses (16%) and 27 patient deaths (7%) in this population during the study period. During era 1 (n = 81), the cumulative survival rates at 1 and 5 years after LDLT were 90.1% and 81.5% for patients and 86.4% and 77.8% for grafts, respectively. During era 2 (n = 113), the corresponding rates were 92.9% and 92% for patients and 89.4% and 86.7% for grafts, respectively. During era 3 (n = 93), the corresponding rates were 100% and 98.6% for patients and 98.9% and 95.4% for grafts, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, primary diagnosis ALF, bloodstream infection, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease, and chronic rejection were found to be negative prognostic indicators for patient survival. Based on generalized care guidelines and center-oriented experiences, comprehensive advances in appropriate donor selection, refinement of surgical techniques, and meticulous medical management may eventually realize a zero-mortality rate in pediatric LDLT.

Assessment of long-term outcomes post living liver donation highlights the importance of scientific integrity when presenting transplant registry data

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.

Superior Long-Term Outcomes of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Cumulative Single-Center Cohort Study With 20 Years of Follow-Up

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Although both modalities have similar short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes are not well studied. We compared the 20-year outcomes of 668 adults who received LDLT with1596 DDLTs at the largest liver transplantation (LT) program in Canada. Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger and more often male than DDLT recipients (P < 0.001). Autoimmune diseases were more frequent in LDLT, whereas viral hepatitis and alcohol-related liver disease were more frequent in DDLT. LDLT recipients had lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = 0.008), spent less time on the waiting list (P < 0.001), and were less often inpatients at the time of LT (P < 0.001). In a nonadjusted analysis, 1-year, 10-year, and 20-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (93%, 74%, and 56%, respectively) versus DDLT (91%, 67%, and 46%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.02) as were graft survival rates LDLT (91%, 67%, and 50%, respectively) versus (90%, 65%, and 44.3%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.31). After multivariable adjustment, LDLT and DDLT were associated with a similar hazard of patient and graft survival. Our data of 20 years of follow-up of LDLT from a single, large Western center demonstrates excellent long-term outcomes for recipients of LDLT.

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.

BETTER LIVING DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANTATION PATIENT SURVIVAL COMPARED TO DECEASED DONOR — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT Background Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is the first choice, but living donor transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to be considered in special situations, such as lack of donated organs and emergencies. So far, there is no consensus on which transplantation method provides better survival and fewer complications, which is still an open point for discussion. Methods This meta-analysis compared the 1, 3, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates of LDLT and DDLT. We included studies published from April-2009 to June-2021 and adopted the generic model of the inverse of variance for the random effect of hazard ratios. The adequacy of the studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale — NOS (WELLS). Results For patient survival analysis, we included a total of 32,258 subjects. We found a statistically significant better survival for the LDLT group at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively: 1.35 HR (95%CI 1.10—1.66, P=0.005), 1.26 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.46, P=0.002) and 1.27 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.48, P=0.002). Our meta-analysis evaluated a total of 21,276 grafts. In the overall analysis, the 1-year survival was improved in favor of the LDLT group (1.36 HR, 95%CI 1.16—1.60, P<0.0001), while the 3-year survival (1.13 HR, 95%CI 0.96—1.33, P<0.13), and 5 (0.99 HR, 95%CI 0.74—1.33, P<0.96), did not differ significantly. Conclusion This metanalysis detected a statistically significant greater 1-, 3- and 5-years patient survival favoring LDLT compared to DDLT as well as a statistically significant difference better 1-year graft survival favoring the LDLT group.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy With/Without Fluorescence-Assisted Technology and Conventional Open Procedure: A Retrospective Study in Mainland China

Background: The application of laparoscopy in donor liver acquisition for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly popular in the past decade. Indole cyanide green (ICG) fluorescence technique is a new adjuvant method in surgery. The purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgery in living donor left lateral hepatectomy, and to evaluate the application of ICG in laparoscopy.

Methods: Donors received LDLT for left lateral lobe resection from November 2016 to November 2020 were selected and divided into pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (PLDH) group, fluorescence-assisted pure laparoscopy donor hepatectomy (FAPLDH) group and open donor hepatectomy (ODH) group. We compared perioperative data and prognosis of donors and recipients. Quality of life were evaluated by SF-36 questionnaires.

Results: The operation time of PLDH group (169.29 ± 26.68 min) was longer than FAPLDH group (154.34 ± 18.40 min) and ODH group (146.08 ± 25.39 min, p = 0.001). The blood loss was minimum in FAPLDH group (39.48 ± 10.46 mL), compared with PLDH group (52.44 ± 18.44 mL) and ODH group (108.80 ± 36.82 mL, p=0.001). The post-operative hospital stay was longer in PLDH group (5.30 ± 0.98 days) than FAPLDH group (4.81 ± 1.03 days) and ODH group (4.64 ± 1.20 days; p = 0.001). Quality of life of donors undergoing laparoscopic surgery was better.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic approaches for LDLT contribute to less blood loss, better cosmetic satisfaction. The fluorescence technique can further reduce bleeding and shorten operation time. In terms of quality of life, laparoscopic surgery is better than open surgery. Laparoscopy procedure for living-donor procurement with/without fluorescence-assist can be performed as safely as open surgery.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pure laparoscopic liver donor right hepatectomy (LLDRH) remains challenging, and its value is still unclear compared with open liver donor right hepatectomy (OLDRH). Objective: To provide comprehensive evidence about the safety and efficacy of LLDRH. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to July 2021. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to analyze the pooled data by using Review Manager Version 5.3. Results: A total of 1940 patients from 6 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. For perioperative outcomes of donors, LLDRH had a longer operative time than OLDRH (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 29.75 [4.23-55.26] minutes, P = .02), but it had lower overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67 [0.45-0.99], P = .04), fewer pulmonary complications (OR = 0.47 [0.29-0.76], P = .002), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1, P < .001) than OLDRH. However, major complications, biliary complications, portal vein problems, and intra-abdominal bleeding were comparable between the 2 groups. With regard to the postoperative data of recipients, the risks of biliary problems, hepatic artery problems, portal vein problems, hepatic vein problems, and postoperative liver failure were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: LLDRH for living donors is safe and effective, and it offers superior perioperative outcomes to OLDRH.

Virtual Monoenergetic Spectral Detector CT for Preoperative CT Angiography in Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) in pre-operative CT angiography of potential donors for living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT), and to determine the optimal energy level to maximize vascular signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR and CNR, respectively).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 29 CT angiography studies performed preoperatively in potential liver donors on a spectral detector CT scanner. All studies included arterial, early venous, and delayed venous phase imaging. Conventional polyenergetic images were generated for each patient, as well as virtual monoenergetic images in 10 keV increments from 40 -100 keV. Arteries (aorta and celiac, superior mesenteric, common hepatic, right and left hepatic arteries) were assessed on arterial phase images; portal venous system branches (splenic, superior mesenteric, main, right, and left portal veins) on early venous phase images; and hepatic veins on late venous phase images. Vascular attenuation, background parenchymal attenuation, and noise were measured on each set of virtual monoenergetic and conventional images.

RESULTS

Background hepatic and vascular noise decreased with increasing keV, with the lowest noise at 100 keV. Vascular SNR and CNR increased with decreasing keV and were highest at 40 keV, with statistical significance compared with conventional ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In preoperative CT angiography for potential liver donors, the optimal keV for assessing the vasculature to improve SNR and CNR is 40 keV. Use of low keV VMI in LDALT CT protocols may facilitate detection of vascular anatomical variants that can impact surgical planning.

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.

Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Reduced-size deceased donors and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can address the organ shortage for pediatric liver transplant candidates, but concerns regarding technical challenges and the risk of complications using these grafts have been raised. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for pediatric LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) via systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of pediatric (<18 y) LDLT and DDLT published between 2005 and 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine peri- and postoperative outcomes using fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Overall, 2518 abstracts were screened, and 10 studies met criteria for inclusion. In total, 1622 LDLT and 6326 DDLT pediatric patients from 4 continents were examined. LDLT resulted in superior patient survival when compared with DDLT at 1, 3, and 5 y post-LT (1-y hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.73, P < 0.0001). Similarly, LDLT resulted in superior graft survival at all time points post-LT when compared with DDLT (1-y hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI 0.46-0.68], P < 0.0001]. The OR for vascular complications was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39-1.39) and 1.31 (95% CI 0.92-1.86) for biliary complications in LDLT compared with DDLT, whereas LDLT was associated with lower rates of rejection (OR: 0.66 [95% CI 0.45-0.96], P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that LDLT may offer many advantages when compared with DDLT in children and suggests that LDLT should continue to be expanded to optimize outcomes for pediatric LT candidates.

Pregnancy Outcomes After Living Liver Donation: A Multi-Institutional Study

Nearly half of living liver donors in North America are women of child-bearing age. Fetal and maternal outcomes after donation are unknown. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of female living liver donors (aged 18-50 years at donation) from 6 transplant centers. Participants were surveyed about their pregnancies and fertility. Outcomes were compared between predonation and postdonation pregnancies. Generalized estimating equations were clustered on donor and adjusted for age at pregnancy, parity, and pregnancy year. Among the 276 donors surveyed, 151 donors responded (54.7% response rate) and reported 313 pregnancies; 168/199 (68.8%) of the predonation pregnancies and 82/114 (71.9%) of the postdonation pregnancies resulted in live births, whereas 16.6% and 24.6% resulted in miscarriage, respectively. Women with postdonation pregnancies were older (32.0 versus 26.7 years; P < 0.001) and more frequently reported abnormal liver enzymes during pregnancy (3.5% versus 0.0%; P = 0.02) and delivery via cesarean delivery (35.4% versus 19.7%; P = 0.01). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.98-6.08), miscarriage (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.78-3.24), combined endpoints of pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.36-4.49), or intrauterine growth restriction and preterm birth (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.19-4.3). Of the 49 women who attempted pregnancy after donation, 11 (22.5%) self-reported infertility; however, 8/11 (72.7%) eventually had live births. Aside from increased reporting of abnormal liver enzymes and cesarean deliveries, there was no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes before and after living liver donation. One-fifth of women who attempt pregnancy after liver donation reported infertility, and although the majority went on to successful live births, further exploration is needed to understand the contributing factors. Future research should continue to monitor this patient-centered outcome across a large cohort of donors.