Comparing 10-yr renal outcomes in deceased donor and living donor liver transplants

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.

LEVERSON G, FOLEY D, D. MEZRICH J, KANMAZ T, M. ANDAÇOĞLU O, M. D’ALESSANDRO A, S. ACARLI K, KALAYOĞLU M, A. FERNANDEZ L. A comparison of rates and severity of chronic kidney disease in deceased-donor and living-donor liver transplant recipients: times matter

Background/aim

The progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in recipients of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) compared to deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) has not been studied in the literature. We hypothesize that CKD stage progression in LDLT recipients is reduced compared to that of their DDLT counterparts.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was undertaken including 999 adult, single-organ, primary liver transplant recipients (218 LDLT and 781 DDLT) at 2 centers between January 2003 and December 2012, in which CKD progression and regression were evaluated within the first 3 years after transplantation.

Results

Waiting time from evaluation to transplantation was significantly lower in LDLT patients compared to recipients of DDLT. CKD stage progression from preoperative transplant evaluation to transplantation was significantly greater in DDLT. Deceased-donor liver transplant recipients continued to have higher rates of clinically significant renal disease progression (from stage I–II to stage III–V) across multiple time points over the first 3 years posttransplant. Furthermore, a greater degree of CKD regression was observed in recipients of LDLT.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that LDLT provides excellent graft and patient survival, significantly reducing the overall incidence of clinically significant CKD stage progression when compared to DDLT. Moreover, there is a significantly higher incidence of CKD stage regression in LDLT compared to DDLT. These observations were maintained in both high and low model for end-stage liver disease(MELD)populations. This observation likely reflects earlier access to transplantation in LDLT as one of the contributing factors to preventing CKD progression.

Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.

Results

Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 − 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 − 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 − 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 − 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 − 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 − 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.

Conclusions

LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.