Impact of Donor Age on the Outcome of Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Special Consideration to the Feasibility of Using Elderly Donors

Current Understanding of Marginal Grafts in Liver Transplantation

End-stage liver disease (ESLD), stemming from a spectrum of chronic liver pathologies including chronic liver failure, acute cirrhosis decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma, imposes a significant global healthcare burden. Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment for ESLD. However, the escalating mortality on transplant waitlists has prompted the utilization of marginal liver grafts in LT procedures. These grafts primarily encompass elderly livers, steatotic livers, livers from donation after circulatory death, split livers and those infected with the hepatitis virus. While the expansion of the donor pool offers promise, it also introduces concomitant risks. These encompass graft failure, biliary and cardiovascular complications, the recurrence of liver disease and reduced patient and graft survival. Consequently, various established strategies, ranging from improved donor-recipient matching to surgical interventions, have emerged to mitigate these risks. This article undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape, evaluating the viability of diverse marginal liver grafts. Additionally, it synthesizes approaches aimed at enhancing the quality of such marginal liver grafts. The overarching objective is to augment the donor pool and ameliorate the risk factors associated with the shortage of liver grafts.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Outcomes of sexagenarian living liver donors in Korea: A multicenter study

The safety of elderly living liver donors and recipient outcomes are always of concern. In the present study, the effects of age in 2 donor groups, a 60+years old group and a 50-59 years old group (referred to as the 60s and 50s donor groups, respectively), on living donor liver transplantation were compared regarding donor safety and recipient outcomes. We retrospectively identified 209 patients 50 years and above of age at 9 centers from 2005 to 2017 in Korea. The 60s donor group represented 10% (n=21) of donor patients. One case in each group was a left liver graft, respectively, and the others were right liver grafts. Postoperative complications were more common in the 60s donor group, but the proportion of Clavien-Dindo grade III in the 60s donor group did not differ from that in the 50s donor group. In-hospital mortality did not occur among donors, and donor mortality was not reported during the observation period. Postoperative total bilirubin and hospitalization in recipients of the 60s donor group were higher and longer than in recipients of the 50s donor group, respectively. Although the cumulative overall survival of the recipients in the 60s donor group was significantly lower than that of the 50s donor group, a difference was not observed in graft survival. Multivariate analysis showed that increased living liver donors age, the coexistence of HCC, and increased intraoperative blood loss during the recipient operation were important predisposing factors for patient death. Present study suggests that highly selected elderly living donors (≥60 y) can safely donate with similar recipient graft survival rates though the recipient overall patient survival is inferior compared to the 50s donor group.

Elevated Alfa-Fetoprotein and Des-Gamma-Carboxy Prothrombin Levels Predict Poor Outcomes After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond the Japan Criteria

AIM

The Japan criteria (Milan criteria + 5-5-500 rule) was established recently to select cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation. We evaluated factors associated with poor prognosis after liver transplantation and investigated whether a further extension of the criteria would be worthwhile.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 86 patients who underwent liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma at Kumamoto University Hospital since 2004; 69 patients (80.2%) met the Japan criteria (the JC^IN group), and 17 patients (19.8%) did not (the JC^OUT group).

RESULTS

The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of the JC^IN group (92.2%) were significantly better than that of the JC^OUT group (39.2%; P < .001). In univariable analysis, alfa-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin were significant independent factors associated with cancer-specific survival rates. According to the receiver operating characteristic curves, the cutoff values of alfa-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin that predicted hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation were 756 ng/mL and 1976 mAU/mL, respectively. The JC^OUT group was divided into 2 subgroups according to alfa-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin: low risk (alfa-fetoprotein level <756 ng/mL and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin level <1976 mAU/mL) and high risk (alfa-fetoprotein level ≥756 ng/mL and/or des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin level ≥1976 mAU/mL). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate in the low-risk group (67.5%) was significantly better than that in the high-risk group (0%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Alfa-fetoprotein levels of <756 ng/mL and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin levels of <1976 mAU/mL may help identify cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who do not meet the Japan criteria but still benefit from liver transplantation.

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.

Optimizing pre-donation physiologic evaluation for enhanced recovery after living liver donation - Systematic review and multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

While preoperative physiologic evaluation of live liver donors is routinely performed to ensure donor safety and minimize complications, the optimal approach to this evaluation is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to identify predonation physiologic evaluation strategies to improve postoperative short-term outcomes, enhance donor's recovery, and reduce length of stay. We also aim to provide multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

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

METHODS

The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, and the recommendations were formulated using GRADE approach and experts' opinion. The search included retrospective or prospective studies, describing outcomes of physiologic evaluation predonation. The outcomes of interest were length of stay, postoperative complications (POC), recovery after donation, and mortality. PROSERO protocol ID CRD42021260662.

RESULTS

Of 1386 articles screened, only three retrospective cohort studies met eligibility criteria. Two studies demonstrated no impact of age (< 70 years) on POC. Increased body mass index's (BMI) association with POC was present in one study (23.8 vs 21.7 kg/m2 , OR 1.67 (1.14-2.48), P = .01) and absent in another (< 30 vs 30-35 kg/m2 , P = .61). One study demonstrated decreased risk for postdonation subclinical hepatic dysfunction in donors with higher normal platelet count (PLT). None of the studies noted donor death. Given the scarce data on predonation physiologic testing, the expert panel recommended a battery of tests to guide clinical practice and future investigations.

CONCLUSION

Advancing age (60-69 years) is not a contraindication for liver donation. There is insufficient evidence for a specific predonation BMI cut-off. Abbreviated predonation physiologic testing is recommended in all candidates. Comprehensive testing is recommended in high-risk candidates while considering the pretest probability in various populations (Quality of evidence; Low to Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Impact of donor age on recipient morbidity and mortality after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Evidence for use of graft from older donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been conflicting. This study aims to clarify the impact of donor age on recipient morbidity and mortality after adult LDLT.

METHODS

A total of 90 live liver donors and recipients who underwent primary adult-to-adult LDLT were divided into three groups according to donor age: donors in 20s (D-20s) group, donors in 30s and 40s (D-30s and 40s) group and donors in 50s & 60s (D-50s and 60s) group. Multivariate analyses were conducted to look for independent risk/prognostic factors. Donor age was analysed as a continuous variable to determine an optimal cut off.

RESULTS

Overall donor morbidity was 4/90 (4.44%), major donor morbidity was 1/90 (1.11%) and there was no donor mortality. Recipients in the D-20s group had better 1-, 3- and 5-year recipient survival than recipients in the D-50s and 60s group (96%, 91%, 91% versus 73%, 58%, 58%, respectively) (P = 0.020). Donor age was identified to be an independently significant risk factor for increased major complications (P = 0.007) and prognostic factor for reduced overall survival (P = 0.014). The optimal donor age cut off was determined to be 46.5 years old.

CONCLUSION

Older donors are associated with poorer recipient outcomes after adult-to-adult LDLT. Usage of liver grafts from older donors should be carefully considered when choosing liver grafts for patients undergoing LDLT.

Textbook outcome among voluntary donors undergoing major living donor hepatectomy

Purpose

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure of outcome and provides superior assessment of quality of care after surgery. TO after major living donor hepatectomy (MLDH) has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of TO and its associated factors, after MLDH.

Methods

This was a single center retrospective review of living liver donors who underwent MLDH between 2012 and 2021 (n = 1022). The rate of TO and its associated factors was determined.

Results

Among 1022 living donors (of whom 693 [67.8%] were males, median age 26 [range, 18–54] years), TO was achieved in 714 (69.9%) with no donor mortality. Majority of donors met the cutoffs for individual outcome measures: 908 (88.8%) for no major complications, 904 (88.5%) for ICU stay ≤ 2 days, 900 (88.1%) for hospital stay ≤ 10 days, 990 (96.9%) for no perioperative blood transfusion, 1004 (98.2%) for no 30-day re-admission, and 1014 (99.2%) for no post-hepatectomy liver failure. Early donation era (before streamlining of donor operative pathways) was associated with failure to achieve TO [OR 1.4, CI 1.1–1.9, P = 0.006]. TO was achieved in 506/755 (67%) donors in the early donation era versus 208/267 (77.9%) in the later period (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Despite zero mortality and low complication rate, TO was achieved in approximately 70% donors. TO was modifiable and improved with changes in donor operative pathway.

Healthy Spouses can be Considered as Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

Spousal donors have gradually been accepted as an alternative living liver donors to alleviate the organ shortage and prevent donations from children. No information is available regarding the effects of spousal donation on donor safety and recipient outcomes. Our purpose in this study was to determine how spousal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) affect donor safety and recipient outcomes compared with those of LDLT from children.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 656 patients, including spouses and children, who underwent a right or extended right hepatectomy for living liver donation between January 2009 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Spouses represented 18.8% (n = 123) of living liver donors. Female donors comprised 78.9% (n = 97) of spousal donors, and the proportion of male donors in the children group was 72.6% (n = 387). The mean donor operation time of the spousal group was shorter than that of the children group (330 min vs. 358 min; P = 0.011), and the complication rate in the spousal group was lower than that in the children group (12.2% vs. 22.9%; P = 0.006). However, there were no differences in severe complication rates, hospitalization, or liver function tests between the 2 groups at 3 months after donor surgery. The overall survival of recipients in the spousal group was not reduced compared to that of recipients in the children group.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that, with careful selection, spousal donation is feasible and safe in LDLT.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Evolution of Frequency, Outcomes, Center Volumes, and Factors Associated With Outcomes

Recent modifications in organ allocation policies and increases in chronic liver diseases may have resulted in important changes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. We examined the trends, outcomes, and factors associated with outcomes in adult LDLT. United Network for Organ Sharing data on 2566 adult LDLT recipients who received transplants from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2019, were analyzed. LDLT graft and patient survival rates were compared with propensity score-matched deceased donor liver transplantation recipients by the Kaplan-Meier curve estimator. The association between preceding LDLT frequency and subsequent outcomes were assessed by Cox proportional hazards mixed effects modeling. After a stable annual frequency of LDLTs from 2010 to 2014 (~200 per year), the number of LDLTs doubled to 440 in 2019. The 1-year and 5-year graft survival rates for LDLT recipients were 88.4% and 78.1%, respectively, compared with 92.5% and 80.7% in the propensity score-matched donation after brain death recipients (P = 0.005), respectively. Older donor age and recipient diabetes mellitus and life support requirement were significantly associated with graft failure among LDLT recipients (P values <0.05). Average preceding LDLT frequencies of <3 per year, 3 to 20 per year, and >20 per year resulted in 1-year graft survival rates of 82%, 88% to 89%, and 93%, respectively (P values <0.05). There were 3 living donor deaths (0.12%). The frequency of LDLTs has doubled during the past decade, with good outcomes and acceptable donor safety profiles. However, there appear to be varying threshold transplant frequencies (volume/unit time) associated with acceptable (88%-89%) and aspirational (93%) 1-year graft survival rates. These data should be reassuring and encourage LDLT practice as efforts continue to expand the donor pool.