Long-Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Ethical challenges in organ transplantation for Syrian refugees in Türkiye

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on the ethical issues encountered in living donor organ transplants performed on refugees and asylum seekers. This study investigates the ethical challenges faced by Syrian refugees under temporary protection in Türkiye who engage in living donor organ transplants.

METHODS

From April to July 2022 in Istanbul, the research employed a qualitative design involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 27 participants, including organ donors and recipients. The analysis utilized a thematic analytic method.

RESULTS

The findings elucidate two principal themes related to ethical concerns: justice and autonomy. Under the justice theme, several sub-themes emerged, highlighting the multifaceted challenges Syrian refugees face in accessing healthcare services. These include migration and language barriers, significantly impeding their ability to understand medical procedures and rights. Financial difficulties and restricted movement within the country further complicate their access to necessary healthcare. Despite these hurdles, refugees benefit from free access to organ transplantation services and medications, a policy underscoring Türkiye's commitment to healthcare equity for protected populations. The autonomy theme addresses the ethical handling of donor consent and motivation. The results indicate that Syrian refugees undergo a transplantation process free from coercion, with rigorous oversight by organ transplant ethics committees ensuring the prevention of donor abuse. However, despite these protective measures, challenges persist in the informed consent process, primarily due to language barriers that hinder effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. While the efforts of healthcare professionals to assist are recognized as alleviating some difficulties, the broader issues of access to comprehensive health services remain a significant concern. These barriers suggest a need for enhanced linguistic and financial support to improve healthcare accessibility for refugees.

CONCLUSIONS

This study posits that the healthcare framework provided by Türkiye to Syrians under temporary protection can serve as a model for international human rights and social justice. However, it also emphasizes the importance of addressing the persistent obstacles that limit healthcare access for asylum seekers. Recommendations for policy enhancements focus on improving language services, increasing financial support, and expanding the accessibility of comprehensive health services to ensure equitable health outcomes for refugees.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is an established life-saving procedure. The field of LT has changed in the past 10 years from several perspectives, with the expansion of indications, transplantation of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, evolution of transplant oncology, the use of donations after cardiac death, new surgical techniques, and prioritisation of recipients on the waiting list. In addition, the advent of organ perfusion machines, the recognition of new forms of rejection, and the attention paid to the transition from paediatric to adult patients, have all improved the management of LT recipients. The purpose of the EASL guidelines presented here is not to cover all aspects of LT but to focus on developments since the previous EASL guidelines published in 2016.

Expanding Opportunities for Living Donation: Recommendations From the 2023 Santander Summit to Ensure Donor Protections, Informed Decision Making, and Equitable Access

A strategic vision toward global convergence in transplantation must encourage and remove barriers to living organ donation and transplantation. Here, we discuss deliberations of a working group of the 2023 Santander Summit charged with formulating recommendations for the safe expansion of living donor kidney transplantation and living donor liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor kidney transplantation has grown to be the preferred treatment for advanced kidney failure. Living donor liver transplantation emerged more recently as a strategy to reduce waitlist mortality, with adoption influenced by cultural factors, regional policies, clinical team experience, and the maturity of regional deceased donor transplant systems. Barriers to living donor transplantation span domains of education, infrastructure, risk assessment/risk communication, and financial burden to donors. Paired donor exchange is a growing option for overcoming incompatibilities to transplantation but is variably used across and within countries. Effectively expanding access to living donor transplantation requires multifaceted strategies, including improved education and outreach, and measures to enhance efficiency, transparency, and shared decision making in donor candidate evaluation. Efforts toward global dissemination and vigilant oversight of best practices and international standards for the assessment, informed consent, approval, and monitoring of living donors are needed. Fostering greater participation in paired exchange requires eliminating disincentives and logistical obstacles for transplant programs and patients, and establishing an ethical and legal framework grounded in World Health Organization Guiding Principles. Sharing of best practices from successful countries and programs to jurisdictions with emerging practices is vital to safely expand the practice of living donation worldwide and bring the field together globally.

Robotic donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

Robotic donor hepatectomy introduces a new era in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), combining advancements in minimally invasive surgery with superior precision and ergonomics. The beginning of LDLT in 1989 aimed to address the scarcity of deceased donor livers, a situation intensified by the technical and ethical challenges associated with this procedure. The integration of robotic systems since 2010s has broadened the scope and impact of liver transplantation, enhancing outcomes significantly for both donors and recipients. This review discusses the significant advancements in robotic surgery, the ongoing challenges such as cost and training needs, and the future toward global standardization and the integration of artificial intelligence. As this technology continues to evolve, it holds the potential to become the new global standard, ensuring safer procedures and enhanced outcomes for patients worldwide.

Future of U.S. living donor liver transplant: Donor and recipient criteria, transplant indications, transplant oncology, liver paired exchange, and non-directed donor graft allocation

In the United States, living donor liver transplant (LDLT), from both directed and nondirected living donors, has expanded over the past several years. LDLT is viewed as an important opportunity to expand the overall donor pool for liver transplantation (LT), shorten waiting times for a life-prolonging LT surgery, and reduce LT waitlist mortality. The LT community's focus on LDLT expansion in the United States is fostering discussions around future opportunities, which include the safe expansion of donor and recipient candidate eligibility criteria, broadening indications for LDLT including applications in transplant oncology, developing national initiatives around liver paired exchange, and maintaining vigilance to living donor and recipient candidate risk/benefit equipoise. Potential opportunities for expanding living liver donor and recipient candidate criteria include using donors with more than minimal hepatic steatosis, evaluating older donors, performing LDLT in older recipients to facilitate timely transplantation, and providing candidates who would benefit from an LT, but may otherwise have limited access (ie, lower MELD scores), an avenue to receive a life-prolonging organ. Expansion opportunities for LDLT are particularly robust in the transplant oncology realm, including leveraging LDLT for patients with advanced HCC beyond Milan, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and nonresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. With ongoing investment in the deliberate growth of LDLT surgical expertise, experience, and technical advances in the United States, the LT community's future vision to increase transplant access to more patients with end-stage liver disease and selected oncology patients may be successfully realized.

Steatosis, inflammation, fibroprogression, and cirrhosis in remnant liver post-liver donation

Background and Aim

This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted on living liver donors focusing on "long-term remnant liver health" specifically looking at steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis using multiparametric ultra sonological evaluation and noninvasive blood tests.

Methods

Multiparametric ultrasound evaluation included assessment of shear wave elastography (fibrosis), sound speed plane wave ultrasound, attenuation plane wave ultrasound (steatosis), and viscosity plane wave ultrasound (inflammation). Blood test based APRI and FIB-4 were calculated. Liver biopsy was performed if noninvasive evaluation pointed toward clinically relevant fibro progression (F4).

Results

Out of 36 donors, significant fibrosis (>F2) was found in 11 donors (30.5%), seven donors (19.4%) had severe fibrosis (>F3), and two donors had shear wave elastography values suggestive of cirrhosis(F4). Of these two, one donor was extensively evaluated and was found to have biopsy proven cirrhosis with endoscopic evidence of portal hypertension. The prevalence of fatty liver disease in our study group was 50%.

Conclusion

We report the first liver donor cohort with fibroprogression and cirrhosis occurring in the remnant liver. Our donor cohort with a significant proportion having steatosis and fibroprogression underscores the importance of regular follow-up of liver donors and evaluation of remnant liver.

Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

For individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.

Long-term medical and quality of life outcomes among voluntary liver donors

BACKGROUND

Long-term medical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in voluntary liver donors remain under investigated. The objective of the current study was to report long-term medical outcomes and re-evaluate QOL in living liver donors.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between 2012 and 2018. We investigated long-term outcomes in 7 domains. These include medical problems, surgical procedures, work-related issues, pregnancy outcomes, psychiatric interventions, willingness to donate again, and long-term mortality. QOL was evaluated using short-form 36.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.4 months (53.3-83.7). Among 698 donors, 80 (11.5%) experienced medical problems, 4 (0.6%) had work-related issues, and 20 (2.9%) needed psychiatric assistance. Surgery was performed in 49 donors (7%), and females were more likely to have undergone incisional hernia repair (5.8% vs 1.9%, P = .006). There were 79 postdonation pregnancies including 41 normal vaginal deliveries (51.9%), 35 cesarean sections (44.3%), and 3 miscarriages (3.8%). Willingness to donate again was reported by 658 donors (94.3%). Donors whose recipients were alive were more likely to donate again (95.5% vs 90.5%, P = .01). There were 3 deaths (0.4%) in the long-term. The mean physical composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 86.7 ± 13.9 and 76.5 ± 20.9 (P = .001), and the mean mental composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 92.1 ± 13.5 and 80.7 ± 16 (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The overall long-term outlook in living liver donors is promising. QOL parameters might deteriorate over time and frequent re-evaluation might be considered.

Autoimmune Hepatitis on a Living Liver Donor: An Unexpected Long-Term Complication

In Western countries, deceased donor liver transplantation remains the standard of care for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donor liver transplantation is a viable and feasible strategy for patients with end-stage liver disease designed to mitigate the deceased organ shortage. Donor safety is the primary concern because liver donors, ideally, should not have any complication. We report a case of middle-aged woman without a history of chronic liver disease who developed autoimmune hepatitis more than 20 years after live liver donation. Changes in these patients' liver enzymes should prompt swift referral to an hepatologist for initial liver disease work-up.

A fair exchange: why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated

Every year, hundreds of patients in England die whilst waiting for a kidney transplant, and this is evidence that the current system of altruistic-based donation is not sufficient to address the shortage of kidneys available for transplant. To address this problem, we propose a monopsony system whereby kidney donors can opt-in to receive financial compensation, whilst still preserving the right of individuals to donate without receiving any compensation. A monopsony system describes a market structure where there is only one 'buyer'-in this case the National Health Service. By doing so, several hundred lives could be saved each year in England, wait times for a kidney transplant could be significantly reduced, and it would lessen the burden on dialysis services. Furthermore, compensation would help alleviate the common disincentives to living kidney donation, such as its potential associated health and psychological costs, and it would also help to increase awareness of living kidney donation. The proposed system would also result in significant cost savings that could then be redirected towards preventing kidney disease and reducing health disparities. While concerns about exploitation, coercion, and the 'crowding out' of altruistic donors exist, we believe that careful implementation can mitigate these issues. Therefore, we recommend piloting financial compensation for living kidney donors at a transplant centre in England.

A systematic review of the factors significantly influencing the quality of life of living liver donors

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature on factors influencing the quality of life in living liver donors post-donation and to provide a reference for developing targeted interventions in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic search guided by the PRISMA 2020 approach was performed on specific databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL with full text, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses databases. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from inception to October 2022 covering cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies on factors affecting the quality of life of living liver donors after donation were included in this systematic review. The methodological quality of the studies was examined using a modified version of the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool.

Results

A total of 6,576 studies were retrieved, and 16 eligible studies were finally included. Four types of independent influencing factors: sociodemographic (gender, donor age, education, ethnicity, and marital status), donation-related (length of hospital stay and number of hospitalizations/hospital visits related to donation surgery, recipient outcome, time from donation, complications, donation decision, ambivalence about donating, donor-recipient relationship), health-related (body mass index and pre-donation physical symptoms), and psychosocial (pre-donation physical and mental score, household income, anxiety, depression), were extracted from the included studies. Several studies consistently identified old age, recipient death, recent donation, postoperative complications experienced by donors, and donor concerns about their well-being as negative influencing factors on physical function. Female donors, low education levels, longer hospital stays, and/or more hospital visits due to donation, poor recipient outcome, recent donation, pre-donation concerns regarding their well-being, and first-degree relative and spouse/partner donors were reported in several studies as negative predictors for psychological status. Factors affecting social function were considered by only two included articles.

Conclusions

The quality of life of living liver donors could be affected by both donation surgery and psychosocial factors. Based on the above-influencing factors, clinical nurses can develop targeted interventions to improve the quality of life of living liver donors.

Anxiety, pain intensity, and decision regret of living liver donors during postoperative period

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore and examine the relationship between anxiety, acute pain intensity, and decision regret of living liver donors in the postoperative stage.

METHODS

This is a prospective correlational study. Data were collected consecutively for one year (from September 2017 to September 2018) at a medical center in northern Taiwan. Information about anxiety and acute pain intensity was collected preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 3 and POD 7. Satisfaction with pain management and decision regret was inquired about on POD 7.

RESULTS

Data of 57 consecutive living liver donors (56.1 % male, mean age 34.12 ± 9.92 years) were analyzed. Living liver donors experienced moderate anxiety and acute pain levels in the postoperative period. The mean score of decision regret was 12.63 (range 0-60), indicating a low level of regret. The acute pain intensity decreased significantly between POD 3 and POD 7 (p < .001); however, the anxiety level slightly increased (p = .031). Older and married living liver donors had higher anxiety levels. The satisfaction level of pain management was negatively correlated with the POD 7 acute pain intensity (r = -0.26, p = .049) and decision regret (r = -0.37, p = .005), but it was positively correlated with POD 7 anxiety (r = 0.38, p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative period was hard for living liver donors as they would experience moderate acute pain and anxiety. Although the decision regret was low, the satisfaction level of pain management would negatively affect it. Therefore, the effectiveness of pain management and anxiety management should be continually ensured in the postoperative period.

Multi-center living liver donor quality of life survey up to 20 years after donor hepatectomy and association with surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

We implemented a multicenter interview with the donors to investigate Quality of Life (QoL) up to 20 years following donation.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively. Complications were graded by Dindo-Clavien classification.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 16.1 years. Out of 485 donors, 272 responded (56.1%). The majority (>90%) reported they are in excellent/good overall health and positive or no impact of donation on professional life. Length of stay (LOS) was associated with impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality (both p = 0.046). Major complication was not associated with current physical condition or return to baseline normalcy (p = 0.06). Seventy-five (27.5%) reported unsure or no to donate again. None of the parameters were associated with donation again response. Faster return to baseline functionality, and more positive impact on professional life were reported in the last decade, likely secondary to less complication rates (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This the longest follow up reports after living liver donation among German and Turkish populations. Although subject to recall bias, LOS was associated with negative impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality. Regret feelings were higher than literature. These long-term effects should be incorporated into donor discussions.

Donor Autonomy and Self-Sacrifice in Living Organ Donation: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View

Clinical teams understandably wish to minimise risks to living kidney donors undergoing surgery, but are often faced with uncertainty about the extent of risk, or donors who wish to proceed despite those risks. Here we explore how these difficult decisions may be approached and consider the conflicts between autonomy and paternalism, the place of self-sacrifice and consideration of risks and benefits. Donor autonomy should be considered as in the context of the depth and strength of feeling, understanding risk and competing influences. Discussion of risks could be improved by using absolute risk, supra-regional MDMs and including the risks to the clinical team as well as the donor. The psychological effects on the donor of poor outcomes for the untransplanted recipient should also be taken into account. There is a lack of detailed data on the risks to the donor who has significant co-morbidities.

Outcomes of living liver donors are worse than those of matched healthy controls

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Donor death is the most serious complication of living liver donation but is reported rarely. We investigated the actual mortality of living liver donors (LLDs) compared with matched control groups based on analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance Services (NHIS) database.

METHODS

This cohort study included 12,372 LLDs who donated a liver graft between 2002 and 2018, and were registered in the Korean Network for Organ Sharing. They were compared to 3 matched control groups selected from the Korean NHIS and comprising a total of 123,710 individuals: healthy population (Group I); general population without comorbidities (Group II); and general population with comorbidities (Group III).

RESULTS

In this population, 78.5% of living liver donors were 20-39 years old, and 64.7% of all donors were male. Eighty-nine donors (0.7%) in the LLD group died (68 males and 21 females), a mortality rate (/1,000 person-years) of 0.91 (0.74-1.12). Mortality rate ratio and the adjusted hazard ratio of the LLD group was 2.03 (1.61-2.55) and 1.71 (1.31-2.25) compared to Control Group I, 0.75 (0.60-0.93) and 0.63 (0.49-0.82) compared to Control Group II, and 0.58 (0.46-0.71) and 0.49 (0.39-0.60) compared to Control Group III. LLD group, depression, and lower income were risk factors for adjusted mortality. The incidence of liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the LLD group was significantly higher than in Control Group I.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of the LLD group were worse than those of the matched healthy control group despite the small number of deaths and medical morbidities in this group. LLDs should receive careful medical attention for an extended period after donation.

LAY SUMMARY

The incidence of mortality, liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the living liver donor group was significantly higher than in the matched healthy group. Careful donor evaluation and selection processes can improve donor safety and enable safe living donor liver transplantation.

Extreme living donation: A single center simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience with long-term outcomes under literature review

Objective: Living liver and kidney donor surgeries are major surgical procedures applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks not providing any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. In this study, we aimed to share our simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience under literature review in this worldwide rare practice.

Material and Methods: Between January 2007 and February 2018, a total of 1109 living donor nephrectomies and 867 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to living-related donors. Eight donors who were simultaneous or sequential living liver-kidney donors in this time period were retrospectively reviewed and presented with their minimum 2- year follow-up.

Results: Of the 8 donors, 3 of them were simultaneous and 5 of them were sequential liver-kidney donation. All of them were close relatives. Mean age was 39 (26-61) years and mean BMI was 25.7 (17.7-40). In 3 donors, right lobe, in 4 donors, left lateral sector, and in 1 donor, left lobe hepatectomy were performed. Median hospital stay was 9 (7-13) days. Two donors experienced early and late postoperative complications (Grade 3b and Grade 1). No mortality and no other long-term complication occurred.

Conclusion: Expansion of the donor pool by utilizing grafts from living donors is a globally-accepted proposition since it provides safety and successful outcomes. Simultaneous or sequential liver and kidney donation from the same donor seems to be a reasonable option for combined liver-kidney transplant recipients in special circumstances with acceptable outcomes.

Long-term Survival of 10,116 Korean Live Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term mortality of Korean live liver donors using data from a national donor registry by comparing it with the mortality of the general population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although live liver donors generally have a healthy status, their long-term mortality has not been properly addressed in a large donor registry.

METHODS

Data of 10,116 live liver donors were drawn from a mandated national registry of Korean live liver donors between 2000 and 2015. Matched controls were selected from the Korean National Health Insurance System-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC). Median (range) follow-up of liver donors was 5.7 (0-15.9) years. Donors were 1:3 individually matched to controls by sex and 5-year age group; potential controls were from the whole NHIS-NSC (Control 1) or from NHIS-NSC after excluding people with contraindications to be organ donors (Control 2) (donor, n = 7538; Control 1, n = 28,248; Control 2, n = 28,248).

RESULTS

Fifty-three deaths occurred after donation. Ten-year cumulative mortality of live liver donors was 0.9%. The most common cause of death was suicide (n = 19) followed by cancer (n = 9) and traffic accident (n = 7). In the matched control analysis, overall risk of death was significantly lower in donors than in Control 1 (P < 0.001), but higher than in Control 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver donors have increased long-term mortality risk compared to similar healthy controls without contraindications to be organ donors. Therefore, long-term follow-up, including psychosocial support, is needed for live liver donors.

Post-operative outcomes in anonymous living liver donors: What motivates individuals to donate to strangers

Anonymous living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a strategy to address the shortage of available transplantable livers; however, few studies have been conducted on this population. The objective of this study was to describe the motivations and medical, psychosocial, and financial outcomes of anonymous living liver donors. Between 2010-2019, 116 anonymous living liver donors were evaluated, 59 (51.7%) of whom proceeded to surgery. A subset of 21 anonymous donors were matched to biologically/emotionally related donors according to age, gender, race, and duration since surgery. A medical chart review and post-surgical interviews were performed to assess medical and financial outcomes. The primary motivation for donors was an unselfish desire to help others (43, 72.9%). A total of 13 (22%) anonymous donors experienced complications. Of these, 7 (11.9%) were grade I Clavien-Dindo classification, 5 (8.5%) grade II, and 1 was grade III (1.7%); and no patients had grade IV-V Clavien-Dindo complications. Increased anxiety was reported by 3 (5.1%) donors, and one donor reported clinical levels of depression (1.7%). Within the matched controls, anonymous donors were not significantly different to biologically/emotionally related donors with regard to surgical complications, psychosocial, or financial outcomes. Allowing a greater number of anonymous donors may facilitate the reduction of the waitlist for liver transplant candidates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Meta-Analysis on the Incidence of Donor Related Depression after Liver Transplant

AIM

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasing, yet gaps exist in the understanding of psychological wellbeing of donors after liver transplant. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for donor-related depression after liver transplantation.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Medline and Embase database. Articles assessing incidence of depression in LDLT donors were included. Incidence was pooled after Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation. For risk factors, dichotomous variables were analyzed with generalized linear model while a conventional meta regression with logit transformation was conducted for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Of 1,069 abstracts, 40 articles underwent full-text review. 17 articles were included. The pooled incidence of depression among 1,888 LT donors was 7.66% (CI: 4.47% - 12.80%). Depression rates were significantly higher in Asian compared to Western studies (RR: 1.73, CI: 1.19 - 2.52, p=0.0039). Female gender (p<0.001), Caucasian ethnicity (p=0.047), employment status (p<0.001) and lower education levels (p=0.044) were significantly associated with depression. Donor relationship with recipients was not a significant risk factor.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT remains a core aspect of the treatment of end-stage liver disease. However, the high depression rates after LT suggest that there remains room for improvement in the care of donors' mental health post-transplant.

Depression, anxiety, and associated psychological outcomes in living organ transplant donors: A systematic review

With increasing demands for living organ donations, understanding the prevalence of depression and anxiety, which are the commonest psychiatric disorders in donors following organ transplantation, will serve to improve psychiatric care to safeguard donors' mental wellbeing. This descriptive systematic review examines all observational studies in English investigating prevalence of depression and anxiety in adult transplant donors using bibliographic databases. Sixty-two papers were included (kidney, n = 25; liver, n = 25; bone marrow, n = 7; uterus, n = 2; lung, n = 1; kidney and lung concurrently, n = 2). Post-transplantation depression and anxiety prevalence rates (Depression: 0-46.9%, Anxiety: 0-66.7%) did not differ significantly from pre-transplantation and were largely comparable to the general population. Other psychiatric disorders observed included bipolar disorder, conversion disorder, adjustment disorder and sleep disorder. Other psychological outcomes observed included lower quality of life, lower satisfaction of life and regret after donation. Pre-donation risk factors such as poor physical/psychological health status, and post-donation risk factors such as complicated post-surgical recovery and poor physical/psychological health in recipients were identified, predisposing donors to poor psychological outcomes. Individuals with risk factors should be monitored and provided with social support, psychoeducation, psychotherapy and long-term follow up. Future studies should adopt consistent methodological approaches to improve comparability between various studies. More research investigating poor psychological outcomes in other organ donors besides kidney and liver donors, donors who have past psychiatric history, unrelated and parent donors is warranted.

Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura After Live Liver Donation: Villain or Scapegoat?

Living donor liver transplantation is a complex surgery, where the donor’s safety is of paramount importance. Despite all precautions, donor morbidity may be inevitable, and long-term follow-up data attest to this fact. However, being a “past donor” all ailments are intuitively attributed to the donation process, which may not always be the case. We present the case of a 47-year-old lady, who developed thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus 18 months following her liver donation, when she detected to be anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) positive. She developed neurological signs and was managed successfully with therapeutic plasma exchange and steroids. She was discharged home on immunosuppression and remains well on follow-up. We present the medical and social issues that were addressed in the case and highlight the need for a more stringent follow-up protocol in those who are ANA positive. This would also help detect morbidities that may be unrelated to the donation process.

Comparison of the effects of intravenous propofol and inhalational desflurane on the quality of early recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

We compared early recovery outcomes between living kidney donors who received total intravenous (IV) propofol versus inhalational desflurane during hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.

DESIGN

A single-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Study participants were enrolled between October 2019 and February 2020. A total of 80 living donors were randomly assigned to an intravenous propofol group (n=40) or a desflurane group (n=40).

INTERVENTION

Propofol group received intravenous propofol and desflurane group received desflurane, as a maintenance anaesthetic.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The quality of postoperative functional recovery was primarily assessed using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40K) questionnaire on postoperative day 1. Secondarily, ambulation, pain score, rescue analgesics, complications and total hospital stay were assessed postoperatively.

RESULTS

Our study population included 35 males and 45 females. The mean age was 46±13 years. The global QoR-40K score (161 (154-173) vs 152 (136-161) points, respectively, p=0.001) and all five subdimension scores (physical comfort, 49 (45-53) vs 45 (42-48) points, respectively, p=0.003; emotional state, 39 (37-41) vs 37 (33-41) points, respectively, p=0.005; psychological support, 30 (26-34) vs 28 (26-32) points, respectively, p=0.04; physical independence, 16 (11-18) vs 12 (8-14) points, respectively, p=0.004; and pain, 31 (28-33) vs 29 (25-31) points, respectively, p=0.021) were significantly higher in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The early ambulation success rate and numbers of early and total steps were higher, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was lower, in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The total hospital stay after surgery was shorter in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous propofol may enhance the quality of postoperative recovery in comparison to desflurane in living kidney donors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0004365.

Characteristics of Psychosocial Factors in Liver Transplantation Candidates with Alcoholic Liver Disease before Transplantation: A Retrospective Study in a Single Center in Taiwan

Liver transplantation (LT) is an essential treatment for end-stage alcoholic liver disease (ALD). The patients’ psychosocial condition plays a vital role in post-transplantation prognosis. A survey of the candidates’ psychosocial wellbeing is necessary before LT. This study aims to investigate the psychosocial characteristics, including the depression degree, family function, alcohol use duration, and alcohol abstinence period, of LT candidates with ALD. In addition, 451 candidates for LT due to ALD were enrolled. They received psychosocial evaluations, including depression scale (Hamilton depression rating scale) and family functioning assessment (adaptability, partnership, growth, affection, resolve (APGAR) index). The test scores were analyzed according to age, alcohol use duration, and alcohol abstinence period. The Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D) score and the family APGAR index score differentiated significantly according to the age, alcohol use duration, and abstinence period of the LT candidates. The patients with shorter alcohol use duration tended to have more severe depressive symptoms and poorer family support. The younger patients showed a significantly shorter abstinence period, more severe depression, and poorer family functioning than older patients. The younger ALD patients and patients with shorter alcohol use duration showed an increased severity of depression before transplantation. They need more mental health care over time.

Complications and outcomes of 890 living liver donor hepatectomies at a single center: risks of saving loved one's life

Objectives

Living liver donor surgery is a major surgical procedure applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks and does not provide any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative complication of our living liver donors to figure out the risks of donation.

Material and Methods

Between November, 2006 and December, 2018, a total of 939 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to the living-related donors. Eight hundred and ninety donors with a minimum 1-year follow-up were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Of the 890 donors, 519 (58.3%) were males and 371 (41.7%) were females. Mean age was 35 years (18-64) and mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m² (17.7-40). Right donor hepatectomy was performed to 601 (67.5%), left donor hepatectomy to 28 (3.2%) and left lateral sector hepatectomy to 261 (29.3%) of the donors. Of the 890 donors, 174 (19.5%) donors experienced a total of 204 early and late complications including life- threatening and nearly life- threatening complications in 26 (2.9%) of them. Intraoperative complication occurred in 4 (0.5%) donors. Right donors hepatectomy complication rate (23.3%) was higher than left donor (14.3%) and left lateral sector donor hepatectomy (11.5%).

Conclusion

All donor candidates should be well-informed not only on the details of early and late complications of living liver donation, also possible outcomes of the recipient. In addition to detailed physical evaluation, preoperative psychosocial evaluation is also mandatory. Comprehensive donor evaluation, surgical experience, surgical technique, close postoperative follow-up and establishing a good dialog with the donor allows better outcomes.

The Mount Sinai Patient-Centered Preoperative Criteria Meant to Optimize Outcomes Are Less of a Barrier to Care Than WPATH SOC 7 Criteria Before Transgender-Specific Surgery

Objectives: With expanding coverage of gender-affirming care in the United States, many insurers default to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care 7 (SOC 7) to establish eligibility requirements for surgery coverage. Informed by bariatric and transplant surgery evaluation models, the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery (CTMS) developed patient-centered criteria to assess readiness for surgery, focusing on concerns that could impair recovery. To make recommendations for the next version of the WPATH SOC, SOC 8, we compared Mount Sinai patient-centered surgical readiness criteria with the WPATH SOC 7 criteria. Methods: Data were extracted from a deidentified data set developed as part the quality dashboard for CTMS. The data set included all patients seeking vaginoplasty who were evaluated by a single mental health provider, from July 2016 through August 2018, and who completed the full CTMS assessment. The number of patients eligible for surgery based on the Mount Sinai CTMS criteria was compared with the number of patients eligible for surgery according to WPATH SOC 7 criteria. Results: Of 139 patients identified, 63 (45%) were ready for surgery immediately based on the Mount Sinai patient-centered model. By contrast, only 21 (15%) out of the 139 met criteria for surgery based on WPATH SOC 7. Fifty patients (40%) were ready for surgery as per Mount Sinai patient-centered readiness review but not WPATH criteria. Conclusion: An assessment designed to better prepare patients for surgery may also result in fewer barriers to care than existing criteria used by insurance companies in the United States.

Changes in the quality of life of living liver donors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehending the physical, psychological, social benefits, and harm associated with liver donation is critical in promoting practices to maintain donors' long-term health. However, changes in quality of life among living liver donors pre- and post-donation have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies examined the quality of life changes among living liver donors pre- and post-donation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINHAL with full text, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were mainly searched for full-text articles from inception till December 2018 to identify studies assessing the quality of life of living liver donors. The methodological quality of the included studies was examined. The quality of life post-donation at five assessment points, ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥ 24 months were compared with the pre-donation, respectively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2215 records, and a total of 15 articles (13 studies) with 715 donors were included in this meta-analysis. Physical functioning scores at ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥24 months post-donation were significantly lower than pre-donation [overall standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.67, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.49; p ≤]. Significantly higher level of pain was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -1.05; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.85; p < 0.00001). Also, a significantly higher level of anxiety was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07; p = 0.01), but there were no significant changes in general psychological state and depression. A significant reduction in donors' social quality of life (SMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -4.75, 0.48; p = 0.02) was found at ≤1-month post-donation, and recovery to pre-donation levels occurred at 3 months post-donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donation was associated with a decline in physical functioning, which was sustained for longer than 2 years post-donation. Impaired social and psychological quality of life affected donors for 1-3 months after their donation. The quality of life of living liver donors has become a pressing issue requiring more attention from doctors and nurses within the transplant team. However, multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of living liver donors.

Is Cholecystectomy Really Harmful? A Long-Term Quality of Life Study in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an accepted option for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, it potentially carries the risk of donor morbi-mortality, as well as long-term functional impairment. Cholecystectomy is performed routinely in the donor intervention, but the long-term effect on gastrointestinal (GI)-related quality of life (QoL) has never been explored previously. This study evaluated living donors' overall, abdominal wall-related, activity-level, and GI-related QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 21 living liver donors (LLD) (57% women, mean age 45 ± 9 years) were compared to a control group (29 patients) undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyps (45% women, mean age of 46 ± 7 years). LLD and controls (Ctl) were divided into 2 age groups: LLD-Y and Ctl-Y (25-45 years); and LLD-O and Ctl-O (46-65 years). Generic SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, EuraHS for abdominal wall status assessment, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire were performed. Standard age-adjusted Portuguese population SF-36 scores were used.

RESULTS

Global QoL results were better than Portuguese population scores and not inferior when compared to controls, scoring higher in the LLD-Y group in domains as vitality and mental health (P < .05). The abdominal wall impact was minimal among LLD. The activity level was significantly higher in LLD-Y than in Ctl-Y. Overall GI-related QoL was very close to the maximum score, and GI symptoms were significantly less in LLD-O compared with Ctl-O.

CONCLUSION

LDLT had no impact on donors' general, abdominal wall-related QoL or activity level. The performance of cholecystectomy apparently had no impact on the development of GI-related symptoms.

Clinical Features and Long-Term Outcomes of Living Donors of Liver Transplantation Who Developed Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND In the field of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it is important to ensure donor's psychological well-being. We report on clinical features and long-term outcomes of LDLT donors who developed psychiatric disorders after their donor operations. Additionally, we compare patient backgrounds, as well as surgical and perioperative aspects between LDLT donors with and without postoperative psychiatric complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between November 1998 and March 2018, we identified 254 LDLT donors at our hospital. Among these, we investigated those who had newly developed psychiatric complications and required psychiatric treatment after donor operation. RESULTS The median duration of follow-up was 4 years. Sixty-five donors were lost to follow-up. Eight donors (3.1%) developed postoperative psychiatric complications, including major depressive disorder in 4, panic disorder in 2, conversion disorder and panic disorder in 1, and adjustment disorder in 1. The median duration from donor surgery to psychiatric diagnosis was 104.5 days (range, 12 to 657 days) and the median treatment duration was 18 months (range, 3 to 168 months). Of those, 3 donors required psychiatric treatment over 10 years, and 4 donors remained under treatment. The duration of hospital stay after donor operation was significantly longer and perioperative complications with Clavien classification greater than grade IIIa were more frequent in donors with psychiatric complications than in those without psychiatric complications (P=0.02 and P=0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment for psychiatric disorders by psychiatrists and psychologists are important during LDLT donor follow-up. Minimization of physiological complications might be important to prevent postoperative psychiatric complications in LDLT donors.

Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (AoCLF) represents a newly defined entity in patients with liver disease leading to multiple organ failures and increased mortality. To date, no universally accepted definition exists, and different academic societies developed guidelines on the early diagnosis and classification of AoCLF. Recently published trials focused on factors associated with a poor outcome and on the development of severity scores aimed to identify patients who may benefit for advanced monitoring and treatment. No specific therapies are demonstrated to improve survival, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment associated with improved outcome. Our review focuses on current evidence for early diagnosis and prognostication of disease in patients with AoCLF, as well of criteria for intensive care unit admission, indication, and futility markers of LT, as well as bridging therapy and optimal timing of surgery.

Presumed Consent: A Potential Tool for Countries Experiencing an Organ Donation Crisis

BACKGROUND

There is currently an inadequate supply of allografts to meet the number of transplant candidates worldwide. A number of controversial policies, including implementation of a presumed consent organ donation system, have been considered to rectify the organ donation crisis.

AIMS

A secondary retrospective data analysis aimed to assess the impact of switching to a presumed consent organ donation model on organ donation rates.

METHODS

Deceased organ donation rates were compared before and after countries adopted presumed consent.

RESULTS

Six countries met entry criteria. All six countries had an increase in liver donation rates, while 4 out of the six countries had an increase in kidney donation rates. The overall mean (± SD) liver donation rate was 3.23 (± 0.97) per million population (pmp) before the transition and 6.46 (± 1.81) pmp after the transition (p < 0.0001). The overall mean (± SD) kidney donation rate was 17.94 (± 3.34) pmp before the transition and 26.58 (± 4.23) pmp after the transition (p < 0.0001). The percentage increase in liver and kidney donation rates varied among countries, ranging from 28 to 1186%.

CONCLUSION

The transition from explicit to presumed consent was associated with a significant increase in liver donation rates in all countries that met our criteria, while the effect on kidney donation rates was partially realized. Although presumed consent alone is unlikely to explain the increase in donation rates, the adoption of such a policy may prove to be a worthwhile risk for countries experiencing consistently low organ donation rates.

Longterm Impact of Living Liver Donation: A Self-Report of the Donation Experience

Outcomes for adult-to-adult living liver donors (LDs) are largely based on short-term data drawn from single-center studies. The aim of this study was to determine how living liver donation (LLD) impacts self-reported quality-of-life (QOL) up to 6 years after donation in a sample of residents from New York State. New York transplant programs are state-mandated to track LDs as part of a quality assurance and patient safety effort. Donor-reported QOL within 1 year of donation and longitudinal data over a 10-year period were analyzed. Self-reported surveys include the following domains: employment, finances, health/life insurance, activities of daily living, physical/emotional health, donor experience, relationships, and LD opinions. There were 220 LDs in New York (2004-2013) who completed a survey over the 10-year period with many donors completing surveys at several points in time. Overall, longterm LDs remain as comfortable about LLD as they were during the first year after donation (95%). The majority of LDs reported feeling as well as before LLD (72%). At 1 year after donation, 60% of subjects self-reported medical problems, and 30% reported emotional issues. However, the majority reported that they would willingly donate again. In conclusion, LDs remain satisfied with their decision to donate over time. A minority of LDs report longterm medical and emotional issues. The conclusions provide information for educational interventions to improve informed choice to those considering donation.

Multicenter investigation of the reliability and validity of the live donor assessment tool as an enhancement to the psychosocial evaluation of living donors

The live donor assessment tool (LDAT) is the first psychosocial assessment tool developed to standardize live donor psychosocial evaluations. A multicenter study was conducted to explore reliability and validity of the LDAT and determine its ability to enhance the psychosocial evaluation beyond its center of origin. Four transplant programs participated, each with their own team of evaluators and unique demographics. Liver and kidney living donors (LDs) undergoing both standard psychosocial evaluation and LDAT from June 2015 to September 2016 were studied. LDAT interrater reliability, associations between LDAT scores and psychosocial evaluation outcome, and psychosocial outcomes postdonation were tested. 386 LD evaluations were compared and had a mean LDAT score of 67.34 ± 7.57. In 140 LDs with two LDATs by different observers, the interrater scores correlated (r = 0.63). LDAT scores at each center and overall stratified to the conventional grouping of psychosocial risk level. LDAT scores of 131 subjects who proceeded with donation were expectedly lower in LDs requiring postdonation counseling (t = -2.78, P = .01). The LDAT had good reliability between raters and predicted outcome of the psychosocial evaluation across centers. It can be used to standardize language among clinicians to communicate psychosocial risk of LD candidates and assist teams when anticipating postdonation psychosocial needs.

Health-related quality of life of living liver donors 1 year after donation

Background

Improving the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of living liver donors post-donation is an important aspect of care quality. Analyzing the HRQOL of living liver donors prospectively could help improve our understanding of the recovery of HRQOL and help improve the quality of donor care. In this study, we examined the HRQOL of living liver donors at pre-donation and at 1-year post-donation and analyzed the effect of pre- and post-donation factors on the donors' physical and mental HRQOL.

Methods

This was a prospective study. During the enrollment period (August 2013 to December 2015), 68 living liver donors completed the study questionnaires 5 times: at pre-donation and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-donation. The Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form-36, which yields both physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, was used to measure the HRQOL. The pre- and post-donation factors included donation ambivalence, recipients' physical condition, post-donation complications, and recipients' survival status.

Results

Participants' mean PCS scores were 43.59 and 56.50 at 1 and 12 months after donation, respectively, whereas their mean MCS scores were 46.89 and 46.28, respectively. The mean PCS score was worse at 1 month after donation but improved significantly over time (P<0.05); conversely, the MCS was quite stable over time (P>0.05). A good PCS score was associated with no surgical complications of donation (coefficient =2.87, P=0.02), whereas a poor MCS score was associated with an education of less than a bachelor's degree (coefficient =-3.60, P=0.004), a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in the recipient (coefficient =-0.13, P=0.03), and recipient death (coefficient =-3.48, P=0.03). Pre-donation ambivalence and sense of coherence were not significant predictors of the PCS or MCS scores.

Conclusions

The impact of living liver donation on HRQOL was strongest in the early stages of the post-surgery period for the physical domain. Health-care professionals should carefully manage and monitor the progress of surgical outcomes, particularly in high-risk groups such as donors with a low education level or donors whose recipients have severe illness or end up dying after the surgery. Doing so may allow for suitable intervention opportunities to improve the HRQOL of living liver donors.

The Meaning of Being a Living Kidney, Liver, or Stem Cell Donor-A Meta-Ethnography

BACKGROUND

Studies on living donors from the donors' perspective show that the donation process involves both positive and negative feelings involving vulnerability. Qualitative studies of living kidney, liver, and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donors have not previously been merged in the same analysis. Therefore, our aim was to synthesize current knowledge of these donors' experiences to deepen understanding of the meaning of being a living donor for the purpose of saving or extending someone's life.

METHODS

The meta-ethnography steps presented by Noblit and Hare in 1988 were used.

RESULTS

Forty-one qualitative studies from 1968 to 2016 that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The studies comprised experiences of over 670 donors. The time since donation varied from 2 days to 29 years. A majority of the studies, 25 of 41, were on living kidney donors. The synthesis revealed that the essential meaning of being a donor is doing what one feels one has to do, involving 6 themes; A sense of responsibility, loneliness and abandonment, suffering, pride and gratitude, a sense of togetherness, and a life changing event.

CONCLUSIONS

The main issue is that one donates irrespective of what one donates. The relationship to the recipient determines the motives for donation. The deeper insight into the donors' experiences provides implications for their psychological care.

Living donor liver transplantation: post-operative imaging follow-up of right lobe liver donors

PURPOSE

To identify long-term post-operative imaging findings resulting from right lobe liver donation.

METHODS

This retrospective imaging review consisted of 42 adults (20 males, 22 females, mean age 36.6 years, range 18.7-55.9 years) who underwent right lobe liver donation with pre- and post-operative imaging between 1999 and 2006. The mean follow-up period was 30.2 months (range 12.3-69.6 months). Follow-up imaging evaluation included assessment of the biliary tree, particularly isolated bile ducts draining to and terminating at the cut surface (orphan ducts). Three-dimensional volumetry of the liver remnant was also assessed.

RESULTS

After liver donation, 29/42 (69%) participants demonstrated orphan ducts on follow-up imaging (95% confidence interval 52.9% to 82.4%). In those patients with orphan ducts, the main draining ducts were normal in 70% and dilated in 69%. Nearly all right lobe liver donors with orphan ducts had no clinical symptoms on follow-up (28/29); the only liver donor with clinical symptoms on follow-up was subsequently diagnosed with primary biliary cirrhosis. Mean regenerated liver volume was approximately 93%, with mean pre-operative total liver volume of 1552 ml (median 1504 ml, range 1040-2520 ml) and mean post-operative total liver volume of 1446 ml (median 1455 ml, range 964-2090 ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Orphan ducts are changes that may be seen after liver donation. The presence of these findings in the absence of clinical symptoms or abnormal hepatic chemistries does not require further work-up and should not be considered pathologic.

Prevalence and Predictors of Patient-Reported Long-term Mental and Physical Health After Donation in the Adult-to-Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prospective and longitudinal studies have examined liver donors' medical outcomes beyond the first 1 to 2 years postdonation. There is no analogous longitudinal evidence on long-term psychosocial outcomes, including patient-reported clinically significant mental health problems and perceptions of physical well-being. We examined prevalence, descriptive characteristics, and predictors of diagnosable mental health conditions and self-reported physical health problems, including fatigue and pain, in the long-term years after liver donation.

METHODS

Donors from 9 centers who initially completed telephone interviews at 3 to 10 years postdonation (mean, 5.8 years; SD, 1.9) were reinterviewed annually for 2 years using validated measures. Outcomes were examined descriptively. Repeated-measures regression analyses evaluated potential predictors and correlates of outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 517 donors initially interviewed (66% of those eligible), 424 (82%) were reassessed at least once. Prevalence rates of major depression and clinically significant pain were similar to general population norms; average fatigue levels were better than norms. All prevalence rates showed little temporal change. Anxiety and alcohol use disorder rates exceeded normative rates at 1 or more assessments. Longer postdonation hospitalization, female sex, higher body mass index, concerns about donation-related health effects, and burdensome donation-related financial costs were associated with increased risk for most outcomes (P's < 0.05). Men were at higher risk for alcohol use disorder (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety and alcohol use disorders were more common than would be expected; they may warrant increased research attention and clinical surveillance. Surveillance for long-term problems in the areas assessed may be optimized by targeting donors at higher risk based on identified predictors and correlates.

Fatigue, Pain, and Other Physical Symptoms of Living Liver Donors in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

Little is known about living liver donors' perceptions of their physical well-being following the procedure. We collected data on donor fatigue, pain, and other relevant physical outcomes as part of the prospective, multicenter Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study consortium. A total of 271 (91%) of 297 eligible donors were interviewed at least once before donation and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after donation using validated measures when available. Repeated measures regression models were used to identify potential predictors of worse physical outcomes. We found that donors reported more fatigue immediately after surgery that improved by 2 years after donation, but not to predonation levels. A similar pattern was seen across a number of other physical outcomes. Abdominal or back pain and interference from their pain were rated relatively low on average at all study points. However, 21% of donors did report clinically significant pain at some point during postdonation study follow-up. Across multiple outcomes, female donors, donors whose recipients died, donors with longer hospital stays after surgery, and those whose families discouraged donation were at risk for worse physical well-being outcomes. In conclusion, although not readily modifiable, we have identified risk factors that may help identify donors at risk for worse physical outcomes for targeted intervention. Liver Transplantation 00 000-000 2018 AASLD.

Substance Use and Psychosocial Functioning in a Sample of Liver Transplant Recipients with Alcohol-Related Liver Disease

Despite the frequency of liver transplantation in alcoholic recipients, the burden of co-occurring psychosocial comorbidities remains poorly defined.

METHODS

A survey study was conducted to examine demographic, substance use, mental health, and social support variables among liver transplant (LT) recipients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) (LT-ALD: n  =  67). Survey completers (n  =  67) were compared to a sample of liver transplant recipients without ALD (LT: n  =  134).

RESULTS

Survey participants (n  =  67) were predominately male, in their mid-fifties, and were retired or on disability. Alcohol consumption during the 6 months prior to transplant was reported by more than a third of participants. Alcohol consumption post-transplant was reported by 21.2% of respondents, with 4.5% of participants reporting "at-risk" levels of post-transplant alcohol use. Illicit drug use prior to transplant was reported by nearly half of participants (47.8%), and 16.4% reported illicit drug use post-transplant. Approximately half of the sample reported a history of cigarette smoking, and one-third of respondents (29.2%) reported current cigarette smoking. Participants frequently endorsed mental health symptoms consistent with moderate to severe depression (22.4%) and anxiety (17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite relatively low rates of problematic alcohol use post-transplant, there is a significant burden of disability, substance use, and psychiatric symptomatology in this population.

The Living Donor Collective: A Scientific Registry for Living Donors

In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.