Living-donor liver transplantation in the United States: identifying donors at risk for perioperative complications

The Impact of Donor Body Mass Index on Safety and Outcomes in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An Analysis of the National United States Database

Background

The prevalence of obesity is rising in the general population. Donor obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) may potentially reduce the donor pool and impact outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods

We utilized the national transplant database to investigate the impact of donor obesity on donor and recipient outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of all LDLTs performed in the United States between January 2010 and June 2023. Outcomes of interest were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Patient and graft survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional analysis.

Results

Six hundred seventy-four donors with obesity and 3498 donors without obesity were analyzed. Donors with obesity had higher rates of readmission within 1 y of donation (15.9% versus 11.6%; P = 0.003). The risk of readmission was significantly different between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation (8.8% versus 5.9%; P = 0.036). Donor body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.460; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.129-1.999; P = 0.004) and preoperative alkaline phosphatase levels (OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.000-1.011; P = 0.038) were independent predictors of donor readmission. High LDLT center volume was associated with reduced odds of donor readmission (OR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.373-0.694; P < 0.001). Graft and recipient survival was comparable.

Conclusions

Selection of living donors with obesity may be a potential avenue to increase the available donor pool without compromising recipient outcomes; however, they are at an increased risk for readmission between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation. The reason for readmission requires further study.

Donor Safety First: Postoperative Hepatectomy Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become a popular treatment option because some countries lack a deceased organ program and the growing demand for liver transplants. Although postoperative outcomes are similar to deceased donor liver transplants, there is still an element of risk to the donor. The Clavien-Dindo classification system has been used to standardize reporting across different institutions and surgeons to categorize surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, 207 living donors underwent hepatectomies at our center. All donors underwent a 3-step process of mandatory screening. Postsurgical complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

A total of 207 donor hepatectomies for LDLT were performed during our study period. Most donors (92.8%) were aged between 18 and 39 years. The most common type of graft used was a right lobe without the middle hepatic vein (82.6%). Most donors (91.7%) experienced an intraoperative blood loss of ≤500 mL. A total of 140 patients had an ordinary postoperative course. Grade 1 complications were observed in 16.9%, grade 2 in 12.1%, and grade 3 in 3.4% of the remaining patients. No grade 4 or grade 5 (patient death) complications were observed in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor liver transplantation remains the most practiced liver transplant surgery in Pakistan. Our findings highlight the safety of the LDLT program with minimal risk of significant complications. The study also underscores the importance of careful screening and monitoring of living donors and the need for standardized reporting of surgical outcomes using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.

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.

Prognostic Factors of Liver Transplantation for HCC: Comparative Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of the review study is investigation of the prognostic factors of the liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A literature review has been made, especially in countries where dominantly living donor liver transplantation is performed, such as Turkey. Liver transplantation from deceased donor and from living donor has been evaluated about as advantages and disadvantages, and their effects on prognosis have been compared. In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma series of Koç University Liver Transplantation center has been presented.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is still the best treatment option with 5-year 50% survival rate for hepatocellular carcinoma even in patient who has locally advanced tumor. The patient's survival is not only an important issue but also the living donor's safety is controversial particularly when expectation of recipient's 5-year survival is below 50% due to donor complication.

CONCLUSION

Detailed preoperative examination, appropriate patient selection, and timing of surgery are seen the most important issues in liver transplant's patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Trends and Health Care Outcomes Among Living Liver Donors: Are We Ready to Expand the Donor Pool With Living Liver Donations?

We studied the trends and various outcomes, including the readmission rates, health care utilization, and complications among living liver donors (LLDs) in the United States. We queried the National Database for data from 2010 to 2017 for all LLDs. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day readmission rates. The secondary outcomes included health care use (length of stay [LOS], cost of care), index admission, and calendar-year mortality. Logistic regression models were fit for various outcomes. A total of 1316 LLDs underwent hepatectomy during the study period. The median donor age was 35.0 years (interquartile range, 27.4-43.6), and donors were predominantly women (54.2%). The trend of LLD surgeries remained stable at large medical centers (85.3%). The 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were low at 5% and 5.9%, respectively. Older age (50 years and older; 8%; confidence interval [CI], 0.6%-15.9%; P = 0.03) and hepatectomy at small to medium-sized hospitals were associated with increased index LOS (13.4%; 95% CI, 3.1%-24.7%; P = 0.01). Moreover, older age of donor (-11.3%; 95% CI, -20.3% to -1.4%; P = 0.03), Elixhauser score ≥3 (17%; 95% CI, 1.2%-35.3%; P = 0.03), and Medicaid insurance (24.5%; 95% CI, 1.2%-53.1%; P = 0.04) were also associated with increased cost. The overall rate of any complications during index admission was 42.8%. Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19-2.23) was an independent predictor of post-LLD complications. There was no index admission or calendar-year mortality reported during the study period. This is the largest national report of LLDs to date, showing that the trend of LLD surgeries is stable in the United States. With established safety, fewer complications, and less health care utilization, LLDs can be a potential source of continuation of liver transplantation in the context of changing liver allocation policies in the United States.

Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%.

METHODS

Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1).

CONCLUSION

A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

A comparative study of postoperative outcomes between minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy and open living donor hepatectomy: The Korean organ transplantation registry

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy in comparison with the open procedure, using Korean Organ Transplantation Registry data.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected data of all 1,694 living liver donors (1,071 men, 623 women) who underwent donor hepatectomy between April 2014 and December 2017. The donors were grouped on the basis of procedure type to the minimally invasive procedure group (n = 304) or to the open procedure group (n = 1,390) and analyzed the relationships between clinical data and complications.

RESULTS

No donors died after the procedure. The overall complication rates after operation in the minimally invasive procedure group and the open procedure group were 6.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Biliary complications were the most frequent events in both groups (minimally invasive procedure group, 2.4%; open procedure group, 1.6%). The majority of complications occurred within 7 days after surgery in both groups. The duration of hospitalization was shorter in the minimally invasive procedure group than in the open procedure group (9.04 ± 3.78 days versus 10.29 ± 4.01 days; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on its similar outcomes in our study, minimally invasive donor hepatectomy cannot be an alternative option compared with the open procedure method. To overcome this, we need to ensure better surgical safety, such as lower complication rate and shorter duration of hospitalization.

Liver Living Donation for Cancer Patients: Benefits, Risks, Justification

LDLT covers all standard indications for liver transplantation, and the results are similar or even better than for standard DDLT. Due to the donor shortage and long waiting time, LDLT has become a relevant option for patients with liver tumors, provided the expected five-year survival rate is comparable to that of patients receiving a DDLT. Nowadays, LDLT offers the possibility to extend the standard morphometric selection by considering the biological parameters. In the setting of LDLT, we are not only faced with surgical morbidity in the donor, but long-term non-medical problems like psychological complications and financial burden also have to be considered. On the other hand, the benefits to the donor are mainly social and psychological. In LDLT, the donor's altruism is the fundamental ethical principle and it is based on the principles of (1) beneficence (doing good), (2) non-maleficence (avoiding harm), (3) respect for autonomy, and (4) respect for justice (promoting fairness). On top of that, the concept of double equipoise of living organ donation evaluates the relationship between the recipient's need, the donor's risk, and the recipient's outcome. It considers each donor-recipient pair as a unit, analyzing whether the specific recipient's benefit justifies the specific donor's risk in particular oncologic indications. In this light, it is essential to seek adequate informed consent focused on risk, benefits and outcome benefits of both donor and recipient supported by an independent living donor advocate. Finally, the transplant team must protect donors from donation if harm does not justify the expected benefit to the recipient.

Our Living Donor Protocol for Liver Transplant: A SingleCenter Experience

OBJECTIVES

The shortage of deceased donor organs is a limiting factor in transplant. The growing discrepancy between the wait list demand versus the supply of deceased donor organs has created an incentive for consideration of living donor liver transplant as an alternative. Here, we describe our evaluation process and donor complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 1988, we have performed 659 (449 living donor and 210 deceased donor) liver transplants. The most important evaluation criteria is the relationship between donor and recipient, and we require thatthe donor must be related to the recipient. The evaluation protocol has 5 stages. Donor complications were defined as simple, moderate, and severe.

RESULTS

We retrospectively investigated data for 1387 candidates, and 938 (67.7%) were rejected; subsequently, 449 living donor liver transplants were performed. There were no complications in 398 of the donors (88.7%). Total complication rate was 11.3%. Simple complications were seen in 31 patients (6.9%). Moderate complications were seen in 19 patients (4.2%). We had only 1 severe complication, ie, organ failure from unspecified liver necrosis, which resulted in death.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between donor and recipient and donor safety should be the primary focus for living donor liver transplant. Donor selection should be made carefully to minimize complications and provide adequately functional grafts.

Bi-organ paired exchange-Sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap.

Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients

Even after 2 decades of experience in laparoscopic hepatectomy, data on purely laparoscopic approach for donor hepatectomy in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are limited. We report our initial experience of a purely laparoscopic approach for donor hepatectomy for adult recipients to explore its potential application in the management of donors. We did a retrospective data analysis of 54 consecutive patients operated on between May 2013 and February 2015. There were 41 right, 10 extended right, and 3 left hepatectomies. The median operative time was 436 minutes (range 294-684 minutes), and warm ischemia time was 6 minutes (2-12 minutes). Estimated blood loss was 300 mL (10-850 mL), and none of the patients required intraoperative transfusion. Four cases were converted to open laparotomy. The major complication rate was 16.7%, and biliary complication was the most frequent cause. Patients with normal anatomy had a major complication rate of 9.3% as compared with 45.5% in patients with anatomic variations. All patients recovered, and there was no mortality. In conclusion, a purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy for adult LDLT recipients seems to be a feasible option; with careful patient selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, it may afford results comparable to the open method.

Readdressing the Middle Hepatic Vein in Right Lobe Liver Donation: Triangle of Safety

For equipoising donor safety and optimal recipient outcomes, we adopted an algorithmic "triangle of safety" approach to retrieve 3 types of right lobe liver grafts (RLGs), namely, the modified extended right lobe graft (MERLG), the partial right lobe graft (PRLG), and the modified right lobe graft (MRLG). Reconstruction to achieve a single wide anterior sector outflow was ensured in all patients. We present donor and recipient outcomes based on our approach in 665 right lobe (RL) living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) performed from January 2013 to August 2015. There were 347 patients who received a MERLG, 117 who received a PRLG, and 201 who received a MRLG. A right lobe graft (RLG) with a middle hepatic vein was retrieved only in 3 out of 18 donors with steatosis >10%. Cold ischemia time was significantly more and remnant volume was less in the MRLG group. Of the donors, 29.3% had complications (26% Clavien-Dindo grade I, II) with no statistically significant difference among the groups. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was higher in the MERLG group. There were 34 out of 39 with a graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of <0.7% who received a MERLG with inflow modulation. Out of 4 patients who developed small-for-size syndrome in this group, 2 died. The 90-day patient survival rate was similar among different GRWRs and types of RLG. In conclusion, a selective and tailored approach for RL donor hepatectomy based on optimal functional volume and metabolic demands not only addresses the key issue of double equipoise in LDLT but also creates a safe path for extending the limits.

Low Preoperative Platelet Count Predicts Risk of Subclinical Posthepatectomy Liver Failure in Right Lobe Donors for Liver Transplantation

Living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is a common procedure in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation, but it is associated with a higher risk of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) compared with left hepatectomy because of a smaller remnant. We identified risk factors for PHLF and other complications in LDRH, verified the appropriateness of the criteria, and explored the possibility of adjusting the minimum remnant liver volume (RLV) based on individual risk. Between October 2005 and November 2017, 254 donors undergoing LDRH at Kyoto University Hospital were enrolled. Clinical data were collected retrospectively. All complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. No donors had grade 4 or 5 complications or clinically significant grade B or C PHLF. Grade A PHLF occurred in 30 donors (11.8%). Male sex (P = 0.01), lower preoperative platelet count (PLT; P = 0.01), higher prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (P = 0.03), higher total bilirubin (P = 0.01), smaller RLV (P = 0.03), and greater blood loss (P = 0.04) were associated with increased risk of PHLF in the univariate analysis, whereas PLT, RLV, and blood loss remained significant in the multivariate analysis. Grade 2 or 3 complications were observed in 32 (12.6%) donors. Higher body mass index (BMI; P = 0.002) and larger blood loss (P = 0.02) were identified as risk factors for complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 2) in univariate analysis. Only BMI remained significant in the multivariate analysis. In conclusion, LDRH is performed safely with acceptable morbidity under the current criteria. Minimum RLV may be marginally adjusted by PLT and reducing intraoperative blood loss minimizes PHLF risk. Liver Transplantation 00 000-000 2018 AASLD.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.

Should living donor liver transplantation be an option when deceased donation is not?

When a liver transplantation candidate is declined for listing to receive a deceased organ, sometimes a loved one comes forward and offers to be a living donor. This raises the ethical question of whether a patient who is not eligible for deceased donor liver transplantation should be eligible for living donor liver transplantation. We compare living organ donation in kidney and liver transplantation and explore key ethical concepts of justice, fairness, and societal trust. Ultimately, because there is no alternative life-preserving therapy in end-stage liver disease, and because transplantation with a living donor organ does not involve removing a resource from the common pool of transplant organs, we argue that a standard of "slightly less benefit" than that required for deceased transplantation should be used to determine the acceptability of living donor liver transplantation.

Right lobe living donors ages 55 years old and older in liver transplantation

The evidence is insufficient for safe use of elderly donors in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of right lobe LDLT by donor age (≥55 versus < 55 years). All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy at the authors' institution between March 2008 and December 2015 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an age ≥ 55 years and group B with an age of <55 years. The selection criteria for elderly donor were preservation of middle hepatic vein, remnant liver volume ≥30%, and no or mild fatty liver. The matching criteria of recipients for the elderly donor grafts were Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of <25, graft-to-recipient weight ratio of >0.8%, and body mass index of <25 kg/m² . Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and the outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up were compared. A total of 42 donors were enrolled in group A and 498 in group B. No significant differences in operative parameters were observed between the 2 groups. The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin levels made no difference between the 2 groups. The peak international normalized ratio level was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P = 0.001). All donors recovered completely with no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. All recipients of grafts from donors in group A showed good initial function with no significant differences in 1-year graft and patient survival or biliary complications between 2 groups. These results provide clinical evidence for feasibility of right hepatectomy in living donors aged ≥ 55 years without compromising donor safety or recipient outcomes. Liver Transplantation 23 1305-1311 2017 AASLD.

Analysis of risk factors affecting coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy in a newly established liver transplant center

OBJECTIVE

As might be expected, living donor liver surgery is associated with serious morbidity and mortality risks. Coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy is an important risk factor affecting morbidity. In this study, risk factors affecting the development of coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy was evaluated in a newly-established liver transplant center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of 46 liver donors to whom hepatectomy was applied in Medipol Universty of School of Medicine Department of Organ Transplantation between April 2014 and July 2015 was made. Coagulopathy was defined as prothrombin time ≥15 sec. or platelet count <80000/mm³ on postoperative day 3. Donors were separated into 2 groups as those with (n=24) and without (n=22) coagulopathy. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors acting on coagulopathy were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the intergroup analysis, it was seen that remnant liver volume, remnant liver volume % and remnant liver volume to body weight ratio were factors associated with coagulopathy. The cut-off values for these 3 parameters were calculated as 773.5 cm³, 40.5% and 0.915 cm³/kg, respectively. Only remnant liver volume % was determined as a risk factor for coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy on multiple logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that the most important risk factors affecting coagulopathy after donor hepatectomy were the parameters associated with remnant liver volume.

Evaluation of donor workups and exclusions in a single-center experience of living donor liver transplantation

The process of evaluating potential donors in liver transplantation is important to ensure donor safety and provide optimal recipient outcomes. However, there has been no report about donor exclusion rates and reasons for such exclusion in Korea. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the outcomes of potential living liver donor evaluation in a major living donor liver transplantation center. From July 2011 to June 2015, prospectively collected data of 726 potential donors for 588 matched recipients were subsequently evaluated. Among 726 potential donors, 374 potential donors (51.5%) finally reached donation; 352 potential donors (48.5%) were excluded for various reasons. Donor reasons were 29.8%, including medical problems, withdrawal of consent, graft volume issues, and identification of a better suitable donor. Recipient reasons were 20.7%, including recipient death or recovery, allocation to deceased donor, and progressions of hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 38 (5.2%) potential donors had a fatty liver. Among them, 15 (39.5%) potential donors tried short-term weight reduction and eventually were able to donate. In conclusion, the main reasons for donor exclusion were medical problems and withdrawal of consent. Therefore, thorough medical screening and careful examination for donor voluntarism are important in the donor evaluation process. Liver Transplantation 23 614-624 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure

Before liver transplantation became widely applicable as a treatment option, the mortality rate for acute liver failure was as high as 85%. Today, acute liver failure is a relatively common transplant indication in some settings, but the results of liver transplantation in this context appear to be worse than those for chronic forms of liver disease. In this review, we discuss the indications and contraindications for urgent liver transplantation. In particular, we consider the roles of auxiliary, ABO-incompatible, and urgent living donor liver transplantation and address the management of a «status 1» patient with total hepatectomy and portocaval shunt for toxic liver syndrome.

The donor advocacy team: a risk management program for living organ, tissue, and cell transplant donors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although the incidence of living donor death is low in Japan, statistics show one living liver donor death in more than 7000 living liver transplants. Thus, medical transplant personnel must recognize that the death of a living organ or tissue transplant donor can occur and develop an appropriate risk management program.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We describe how Nagasaki University Hospital established and implemented a Donor Advocacy Team (DAT) program: a risk management program for initiation in the event of serious, persistent, or fatal impairment of an organ, tissue, or cell transplantation from a living donor.

DISCUSSION

The purposes of the DAT program are as follows: 1. To disclose official information without delay. 2. To provide physical and psychological care to the patient experiencing impairment and their family. 3. To provide psychological care to the medical staff in charge of the transplant. 4. To standardize the responses of the diagnosis and treatment department staff and other hospital staff. 5. To minimize the damage that the whole medical transplantation system may suffer and leverage the occurrence for improvement. To address (1) and (5), actions, such as reporting and responses to the government, mass media, transplant-related societies, and organ transplant networks, have been established to ensure implementation.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation With Older (≥50 Years) Versus Younger (<50 Years) Donors: Does Age Matter?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with grafts from older versus younger donors.

INTRODUCTION

Using older donor grafts for adult LDLT may help expand the donor pool. However, the risks of LDLT with older donors remain controversial, and many centers are reluctant to use live donors aged 45 years or older for adult LDLT.

METHODS

Outcomes of patients receiving a LDLT graft from donors aged 50 years or older (n = 91) were compared with those receiving a live donor graft from donors younger than 50 years (n = 378).

RESULTS

Incidences of biliary (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 23%; P = 0.89) and major complications (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 24%; P = 1) were similar between both groups of recipients. No difference was observed in 30-day recipient mortality (LDLT <50: 3% vs LDLT ≥50: 0%; P = 0.13). The 1- (90% vs 90%), 5- (82% vs 73%), and 10- (71% vs 58%) year graft survival was statistically similar between both groups (P = 0.075). Likewise, patient survival after 1- (92% vs 96%), 5- (83% vs 79%), and 10- (76% vs 69%) years was also similar (P = 0.686). Overall, donors rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b) within 30 days was low (n = 2.3%) and not different in older versus younger donors (P = 1). Donor median hospital stay in both groups was identical [LDLT <50: 6 (4-17) vs LDLT ≥50: 6 (4-14) days; P = 0.65]. No donor death occurred and all donors had full recovery and returned to baseline activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Right lobe LDLT with donors aged 50 years or older results in acceptable recipient outcome without increased donor morbidity or mortality. Potential live donors should not be declined on the basis of age alone.

Donor Safety in Adult-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience of 356 Cases

Background

As an important means to tackle the worldwide shortage of liver grafts, adult-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-ALDLT) is the most massive operation a healthy person could undergo, so donor safety is of prime importance. However, most previous research focused on recipients, while complications in donors have not been fully described or investigated.

Material/Methods

To investigate donor safety in terms of postoperative complications, the clinical data of 356 A-ALDLT donors in our center from January 2002 to September 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into a pre-2008 group (before January 2008) and a post-2008 group (after January 2008). Donor safety was evaluated with regard to the type, frequency, and severity of postoperative complications.

Results

There were no donor deaths in our center during this period. The overall complication rate was 23.0% (82/356). The proportion of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 51.2% (42/82), 25.6% (21/82), 22.0% (18/82), and 1.2% (1/82), respectively. In all the donors, the incidence of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 11.8% (42/356), 5.9% (21/356), 5.1% (18/356), and 0.3% (1/356), respectively. The overall complication rate in the post-2008 group was significantly lower than that in the pre-2008 group (18.1% (41/227) vs. 32.6% (42/129), P<0.01). Biliary complications were the most common, with an incidence of 8.4% (30/356).

Conclusions

The risk to A-ALDLT donors is controllable and acceptable with improvement in preoperative assessment and liver surgery.

Use of a Right Lateral Sector Graft in Living Donor Liver Transplantation Is Feasible, but Special Caution Is Needed With Respect to Liver Anatomy

Right lateral sector (RLS) grafting has been introduced to enlarge the potential donor pool for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, evidence of its feasibility is limited. Data from 437 LDLTs carried out between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. LDLTs using a right liver graft (n = 251) were compared with those using a RLS graft (RLSG; n = 28). No donor mortality occurred, and the major complication rates were similar between the two groups. Postoperative liver function preservation was better in the RLSG donors. Concerning the recipients, the mortality and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. The complication rate for the recipients was higher when more than two arterial or biliary anastomoses were necessary. A systematic literature search identified four reports on LDLT using RLSGs. Among 66 LDLTs, including the present series, there were no cases of donor death, and the rates of major and minor complications in the donors were 6% and 29%, respectively. The major complication and overall mortality rates in the recipients were 29% and 6%, respectively. LDLT using an RLSG is feasible, with an acceptable survival rate among the recipients.

Epidemiology of Bloodstream Infections in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Liver Transplant Recipients

Although some studies have examined the epidemiology of bloodstream infections after liver transplantation, they were based in single centers and did not identify bloodstream infections treated in other hospitals.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined a cohort of 7912 adult liver transplant recipients from 24 transplant centers using 2004 to 2012 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification billing data from 3 State Inpatient Databases, and identified bloodstream infections, inpatient death, and cumulative 1-year hospital costs. Multilevel Cox regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with bloodstream infections and death.

RESULTS

Bloodstream infections were identified in 29% (n = 2326) of liver transplant recipients, with a range of 19% to 40% across transplant centers. Only 63% of bloodstream infections occurring more than 100 days posttransplant were identified at the original transplant center. Bloodstream infections were associated with posttransplant laparotomy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.52), prior liver transplant (aHR, 1.42), increasing age (aHR, 1.07/decade), and some comorbidities. Death was associated with bloodstream infections with and without septic shock (aHR, 10.96 and 3.71, respectively), transplant failure or rejection (aHR, 1.41), posttransplant laparotomy (aHR, 1.40), prior solid-organ transplant (aHR, 1.48), increasing age (aHR, 1.15/decade), and hepatitis C cirrhosis (aHR, 1.20). The risk of bloodstream infections and death varied across transplant centers. Median 1-year cumulative hospital costs were higher for patients who developed bloodstream infections within 1 year of transplant compared with patients who were bloodstream infection-free (US $229 806 vs US $111 313; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bloodstream infections are common and costly complications after liver transplantation that are associated with a markedly increased risk of death. The incidence and risk of developing bloodstream infections may vary across transplant centers.

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Transplant surgery is facing a shortage of deceased donor organs. In response, the criteria for organ donation have been extended, and an increasing number of organs from older donors are being used. For recipients, the benefits of transplantation are great, and the growing ageing population has led to increasing numbers of elderly patients being accepted for transplantation.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed to investigate the impact of age of donors and recipients in abdominal organ transplantation, and to highlight aspects of the fine balance in donor and recipient selection and screening, as well as allocation policies fair to young and old alike.

RESULTS

Overall, kidney and liver transplantation from older deceased donors have good outcomes, but are not as good as those from younger donors. Careful donor selection based on risk indices, and potentially biomarkers, special allocation schemes to match elderly donors with elderly recipients, and vigorous recipient selection, allows good outcomes with increasing age of both donors and recipients. The results of live kidney donation have been excellent for donor and recipient, and there is a trend towards inclusion of older donors. Future strategies, including personalized immunosuppression for older recipients as well as machine preservation and reconditioning of donor organs, are promising ways to improve the outcome of transplantation between older donors and older recipients.

CONCLUSION

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly is a clinical reality. Outcomes are good, but can be optimized by using strategies that modify donor risk factors and recipient co-morbidities, and personalized approaches to organ allocation and immunosuppression.

A multicenter study of 30 days complications after deceased donor liver transplantation in the model for end-stage liver disease score era

Knowledge of risk factors for posttransplant complications is likely to improve patient outcomes. Few large studies of all early postoperative complications after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) exist. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective, cohort study of 30-day complications, their risk factors, and the impact on outcomes after DDLT. Three centers contributed data for 450 DDLTs performed from January 2005 through December 2009. Data included donor, recipient, transplant, and outcome variables. All 30-day postoperative complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo system. Complications per patient and severe (≥ grade III) complications were primary outcomes. Death within 30 days, complication occurrence, length of stay (LOS), and graft and patient survival were secondary outcomes. Multivariate associations of risk factors with complications and complications with LOS, graft survival, and patient survival were examined. Mean number of complications/patient was 3.3 ± 3.9. At least 1 complication occurred in 79.3%, and severe complications occurred in 62.8% of recipients. Mean LOS was 16.2 ± 22.9 days. Graft and patient survival rates were 84% and 86%, respectively, at 1 year and 74% and 76%, respectively, at 3 years. Hospitalization, critical care, ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy before transplant and transfusions during transplant were the significant predictors of complications (not the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score). Both number and severity of complications had a significant impact on LOS and graft and patient survival. Structured reporting of risk-adjusted complications rates after DDLT is likely to improve patient care and transplant center benchmarking. Despite the accomplished reductions in transfusions during DDLT, opportunities exist for further reductions. With increasing transplantation of sicker patients, reduction in complications would require multidisciplinary efforts and institutional commitment. Pretransplant risk characteristics for complications must factor in during payer contracting.

Getting Used to Being a Patient: The Postoperative Experience of Living Liver Transplant Donors

Context—

Living donor liver transplant is a viable option for eligible persons in need of a liver transplant, but little is known about the hospitalization experience of patients undergoing hepatectomy for transplant donation.

Objective—

To explore the hospital experience of patients recovering from donor hepatectomy.

Design—

A qualitative interpretive descriptive design was used to understand the hospital experience of patients recovering from donor hepatectomy. Semistructured interviews, conducted before discharge, were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Coding was performed independently, then jointly by investigators to reach consensus on emerging themes.

Setting—

Major university hospital in the Northeastern United States.

Sample—

Adults (>18 years of age) whose primary language was English or Spanish and who could provide written informed consent.

Results—

The sample consisted of 15 participants who had a mean age of 34.6 years; half were women. Most were white and college educated. The relationship of the donors to recipients varied from immediate family to altruistic donors. “Getting used to being a patient” was the major theme that captured the patients' postoperative experience. Four subthemes explained the experience: regaining consciousness, all those tubes, expecting horrible pain, and feeling special and cared for. These were described in the context of an “amazing and impressive” transplant team.

Conclusion—

As healthy donors are getting used to being patients, these results provide clinicians with a deeper understanding of the transplant experience from the donor's perspective so that care can be tailored to meet their unique needs.

Better innovate than compromise: a novel hepatic outflow reconstruction technique in pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Pediatric LDLT using donors with unfavorable vascular anatomy is challenging in terms of donor safety, and complexity of reconstruction in the recipient. We describe an innovative technique of hepatic venous outflow reconstruction involving the recipient RHV, in the presence of a rudimentary RHV in the donor. The postoperative course of the donor and recipient was uneventful with satisfactory venous outflow in both. This technique avoided the use of prosthetic material, an important consideration given the recipient age and requirement for growth. This shows that donors previously considered unsuitable for donation can be utilized safely as long as principles of vascular anastomosis are adhered to. Moreover, it highlights that innovation is sometimes necessary to avoid compromise in donor safety.

Major complications of adult right lobe living liver donors

BACKGROUND

The right lobe of the liver is generally preferred for living donor liver transplantation in adult patients with end-stage liver disease. It is important to know the preoperative factors relating to the major postoperative complications. We therefore evaluated the possible risk factors for predicting postoperative complications in right lobe liver donors.

METHODS

Data from 378 donors who had undergone right lobe hepatectomy at our center were evaluated retrospectively. The factors we evaluated included donor age, gender, body mass index (BMI), remnant liver volume, operation time, history of previous abdominal surgery, inclusion of the middle hepatic vein and variations in the portal and bile systems.

RESULTS

Of the 378 donors, 219 were male and 159 female. None of the donors died, but 124 (32.8%) donors experienced complications including major complications (Clavien scores III and IV) in 27 (7.1%). Univariate analysis showed that complications were significantly associated with male gender and higher BMI (P<0.05), but not with donor age, remnant liver volume, operation time, graft with middle hepatic vein, variations in the portal and bile systems and previous abdominal surgery (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that major complications were significantly associated with male gender (P=0.005) and higher BMI (P=0.029). Moreover, the Chi-square test showed that there were significant relationships between major complications and male gender (P=0.010, X2=6.614, df=1) and BMI >25 kg/m2 (P=0.031, X2=8.562, df=1). Of the 96 male donors with BMI >25 kg/m2, 14 (14.6%) with major complications had significantly smaller mean remnant liver volume than those (82, 85.4%) without major complications (32.50%+/-4.45% vs 34.63%+/-3.11%, P=0.029).

CONCLUSION

Male donors with BMI >25 kg/m2 and a remnant liver volume ≤32.50% had a significantly increased risk for major complications.

Successful living donor liver transplantation between septuagenarians

We report a case of a 76-year-old female who underwent living donor right hepatectomy for her 75-year-old husband with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. With her voluntary decision, full medical and psychiatric assessment was performed. The operative time was 130 min in the donor and 399 min in the recipient. Both the donor and recipient had an uneventful recovery and were discharged on days 7 and 10, respectively with normal liver function. The couple has had no complication so far and is currently doing well in good health 26 months after living donor liver transplantation.

Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Adult-to-adult living donors and recipients were studied to characterize patterns of liver growth and identify associated factors in a multicenter study. Three hundred and fifty donors and 353 recipients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) receiving transplants between March 2003 and February 2010 were included. Potential predictors of 3-month liver volume included total and standard liver volumes (TLV and SLV), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (in recipients), the remnant and graft size, remnant-to-donor and graft-to-recipient weight ratios (RDWR and GRWR), remnant/TLV, and graft/SLV. Among donors, 3-month absolute growth was 676 ± 251 g (mean ± SD), and percentage reconstitution was 80% ± 13%. Among recipients, GRWR was 1.3% ± 0.4% (8 < 0.8%). Graft weight was 60% ± 13% of SLV. Three-month absolute growth was 549 ± 267 g, and percentage reconstitution was 93% ± 18%. Predictors of greater 3-month liver volume included larger patient size (donors and recipients), larger graft volume (recipients), and larger TLV (donors). Donors with the smallest remnant/TLV ratios had larger than expected growth but also had higher postoperative bilirubin and international normalized ratio at 7 and 30 days. In a combined donor-recipient analysis, donors had smaller 3-month liver volumes than recipients adjusted for patient size, remnant or graft volume, and TLV or SLV (P = 0.004). Recipient graft failure in the first 90 days was predicted by poor graft function at day 7 (HR = 4.50, P = 0.001) but not by GRWR or graft fraction (P > 0.90 for each). Both donors and recipients had rapid yet incomplete restoration of tissue mass in the first 3 months, and this confirmed previous reports. Recipients achieved a greater percentage of expected total volume. Patient size and recipient graft volume significantly influenced 3-month volumes. Importantly, donor liver volume is a critical predictor of the rate of regeneration, and donor remnant fraction affects postresection function. Liver Transpl 21:79-88, 2015. © 2014 AASLD.

Big data in organ transplantation: registries and administrative claims

The field of organ transplantation benefits from large, comprehensive, transplant-specific national data sets available to researchers. In addition to the widely used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)-based registries (the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data sets) and United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data sets, there are other publicly available national data sets, not specific to transplantation, which have historically been underutilized in the field of transplantation. Of particular interest are the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and State Inpatient Databases, produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The USRDS database provides extensive data relevant to studies of kidney transplantation. Linkage of publicly available data sets to external data sources such as private claims or pharmacy data provides further resources for registry-based research. Although these resources can transcend some limitations of OPTN-based registry data, they come with their own limitations, which must be understood to avoid biased inference. This review discusses different registry-based data sources available in the United States, as well as the proper design and conduct of registry-based research.

Importance of donor-recipient age gradient to the prediction of graft outcome after living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE

Advanced donor age is a well-known risk factor for poor graft function after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In addition, advanced recipient age has a significant impact because of the high prevalence of comorbidities. We investigated the relationship between donor-recipient age gradient (DRAG) and the posttransplant outcomes in LDLT.

METHODS

We included 821 consecutive adult recipients who underwent LDLT from June 1997 to May 2011. According to the value of DRAG, they were divided into 2 groups: Negative years (the donor was younger than the recipient) and positive years (the donor was older than the recipient). These groups were further divided into subgroups (≤-21, -20 to -1, 0 to 20, and ≥21 years). We collected retrospectively patient characteristics, laboratory results, medical and surgical complications, and graft loss.

RESULTS

The positive DRAG group had higher level of posttransplant alkaline phosphatase, but a lower incidence of biliary complications. The negative DRAG group, particularly DRAG ≤ -21 years was associated with the superior 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year graft survivals. Recipients with DRAG ≥ 21 showed persistently inferior graft survival during the observation period. In cases of young donors, transplants utilizing lower DRAG seen between young donors and older recipients showed more favorable graft survival than that of young-to-young transplants.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that DRAG and a fixed donor age limit could be significant factors to predict graft survival after LDLT. Patients should carefully consider the worse graft survival if the donor is older than the recipient by ≥20.

Selection and outcomes of living donors with a remnant volume less than 30% after right hepatectomy

The evidence for defining a safe minimal remnant volume after living donor hepatectomy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of living donors with a remnant/total volume ratio (RTVR) < 30% after right hepatectomy according to the following selection criteria: the preservation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV), an age < 50 years, and no or mild fatty changes in healthy adults. All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy preserving the MHV at our institution between January 2005 and September 2011 were divided into 2 groups: group A with an RTVR < 30% and group B with an RTVR ≥ 30%. Perioperative data, complications by the Clavien classification, and outcomes with at least 15.1 months' follow-up were compared. Twenty-eight donors were enrolled in group A, and 260 were enrolled in group B. The estimated liver volume was strongly correlated with the actual graft weight (R(2)  = 0.608, P < 0.001). The calculated donation liver volume and the RTVR were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively). The peak postoperative aspartate aminotransferase levels, alanine aminotransferase levels, and international normalized ratios did not differ between the 2 groups. The peak total bilirubin level was higher for group A versus group B (P = 0.04). The hospital stay was longer for group A versus group B (P < 0.001). All donors recovered completely, and there were no significant differences in overall complications between the 2 groups. In conclusion, right hepatectomy preserving the MHV with an RTVR < 30% can be safely indicated for carefully selected living donors less than 50 years old with no or mild fatty changes.

Potential for deceased donation not optimally exploited: donor action data from six countries

BACKGROUND

Most countries today promote living donation as an alternative to challenge the organ shortage from deceased donors. This seems justifiable provided the potential for deceased donation is optimally exploited.

METHODS

We used the Donor Action (DA) Medical Record Review (MRR) methodology in six countries, to measure whether the potential for heart-beating (HB) deceased donors was adequately converted to donation. Medical record review data were collected from 52,383 patients who died in 605 critical care units in 227 hospitals between January 2007 and December 2009.

RESULTS

On a total of 17,903 ventilated patients aged younger than 76 years and without contraindications to HB donation, 4,855 cases met criteria for brain death (BD) diagnosis and were considered potential HB donors. On average, 24.8±15.9% was not identified as potential donor, 21.9% of identified cases was not referred as such to a procurement team, and in 11.3% of identified cases, no approached was offered with the option to donate. Average consent rates/family approaches or registry consultation was 69.1±14.5%, and average conversion of potential into actual donors was 42.1±7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 57% of deceased potential donors in the study cohort were missed along the donation pathway because of nonidentification, no referral, no approach of relatives, or objections to donate. In countries with lower donation rates, expectedly more potential donors are missed proportionally. Efforts to increase the organ pool should therefore focus on optimizing clinical practices in deceased organ donation in addition to promoting living organ donation.

Improving outcomes of living-donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Complication rates of living-donor right hepatectomy remain a matter of major concern. The aim of this study was to achieve near-zero morbidity for living-donor right hepatectomy in a single centre.

METHODS

All living donors who underwent right hepatectomy between January 2005 and September 2011 were enrolled in this retrospective study. During this interval, modifications in surgical technique and management included upper midline laparotomy, use of wound protectors, hanging manoeuvre during parenchymal transection using Glisson's approach, no intraoperative cholangiography, no intensive care unit stay after surgery, no central venous catheterization, and reduction in systemic heparin dose before graft removal. Donor characteristics, operative outcomes and complications graded according to Clavien's classification were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 300 donors were enrolled and these were divided into three groups of 100 operated on in consecutive time periods. Groups were comparable with regard to donor characteristics. The overall complication rate was 16·0 per cent, with no deaths. From group 1 to group 3, the duration of operation (P < 0·001), length of hospital stay (P < 0·001), and rate of overall (P < 0·001) and grade IIIb (P = 0·019) complications decreased significantly. In the most recent group, the morbidity rate was 3·0 per cent without any major complications, reoperation or blood transfusions. All donors recovered completely.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that near-zero morbidity may be reached after right hepatectomy in carefully selected living donors by continuous refinement of surgical technique and management.

Donor safety and remnant liver volume in living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To evaluate the relationship between donor safety and remnant liver volume in right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS: From July 2001 to January 2009, our liver transplant centers carried out 197 LDLTs. The clinical data from 151 cases of adult right lobe living donors (not including the middle hepatic vein) were analyzed. The conditions of the three groups of donors were well matched in terms of the studied parameters. The donors’ preoperative data, intraoperative and postoperative data were calculated for the three groups: Group 1 remnant liver volume (RLV) < 35%, group 2 RLV 36%-40%, and group 3 RLV > 40%. Comparisons included the different remnant liver volumes on postoperative liver function recovery and the impact of systemic conditions. Correlations between remnant liver volume and post-operative complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS: The donors’ anthroposomatology data, operation time, and preoperative donor blood test indicators were calculated for the three groups. No significant differences were observed between the donors’ gender, age, height, weight, and operation time. According to the Chengdu standard liver volume formula, the total liver volume of group 1 was 1072.88 ± 131.06 mL, group 2 was 1043.84 ± 97.11 mL, and group 3 was 1065.33 ± 136.02 mL. The three groups showed no statistically significant differences. When the volume of the remnant liver was less than 35% of the total liver volume, the volume of the remnant had a significant effect on the recovery of liver function and intensive care unit time. In addition, the occurrence of complications was closely related to the remnant liver volume. When the volume of the remnant liver was more than 35% of the total liver volume, the remnant volume change had no significant effect on donor recovery.

CONCLUSION: To ensure donor safety, the remnant liver volume should be greater than the standard liver volume (35%) in right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

Temporary auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation using a small graft for familial amyloid polyneuropathy

Donor shortage is a major issue in liver transplantation. We have successfully performed temporary auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) using a small volume graft procured from a living donor for recipients with familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP). The aim of this study was to evaluate this procedure by comparing it with standard living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We compared 13 recipients undergoing this procedure with 23 recipients undergoing a standard LDLT for the treatment of FAP. The estimated donor graft volume and the graft volume/recipient's standard liver volume ratio were significantly smaller in the temporary APOLT group than in the standard LDLT group. Postoperative complications were comparable, although the hospital stay was longer in the temporary APOLT group. All the patients safely underwent a remnant native liver resection about 2 months after their first operation in the temporary APOLT group. No symptoms related to FAP developed before the remnant liver resection, and no significant differences in graft and patient survival were observed between the two groups. We successfully performed temporary APOLT using a small volume liver graft without postoperative liver failure for FAP. Temporary APOLT for FAP might be a useful alternative procedure for expanding the donor pool for LDLT.

Safety of living donor liver transplantation using older donors

BACKGROUND

There is limited information concerning older donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In the present study, we attempted to clarify whether it is safe to use older donors in LDLT.

METHODS

A total of 129 cases were reviewed in the present study. Donors and recipients were divided into group A (donors aged ≥ 50 y, n=21) and group B (donors aged <50 y, n=108). The pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables of the two groups were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Donors' complication rates were 38.10% and 28.70% for groups A and B, respectively (P=0.719). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y survival rates were 90%, 80%, and 66% for group A and 86%, 83%, and 75% for group B, respectively (P=0.573). Similar Clavien III or more complication rates for recipients were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that LDLT using older donors had no negative influence on the outcomes of both donors and recipients.

Challenges and Outcome of Left-lobe Liver Transplants in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplants

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant (LDLT) frequently depend on using the right-lobes of the donor for obtaining adequate graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of over 0.8% in the recipient. However, left-lobes remain an important option in adults, since the morbidity in the donor is considerably less with left donor hepatectomy when compared with right side liver resection. Further benefits of left-lobes in LDLT include more predictable anatomy of the left hepatic duct and left portal vein, which are usually long and single resulting in easier anastomosis in the recipient. Likewise, left-lobe grafts are easier to implant with an excellent venous outflow through the combined orifice of left and middle hepatic vein, as opposed to the complex hepatic vein reconstruction required in right-lobe grafts. However, left hepatic artery is often multiple unlike the right hepatic artery. The holy grail of left-lobe transplants is avoidance of small for size syndrome (SFSS) in the recipients. The strategies for overcoming SFSS currently depend on circumventing portal hyperperfusion in the graft. Measurement of portal pressure and modulating it if high, by splenic artery ligation, splenectomy, or hemiportocaval shunts are proving successful in avoiding SFSS. The future aim in adult LDLT should be to use the left-lobe as much as possible for the benefit of the donor at the same time avoiding SFSS even at very low GRWR for the benefit of the recipient.

A psychosocial evaluation process for living liver donors: the University of Rochester model

OBJECTIVE

The donation of livers by living donors entails complex processes, both surgically and psychosocially, potentially involving risks in both domains. Thorough psychosocial evaluation is necessary to minimize those risks, yet little has been written about the donor assessment process. This article describes one such process, utilized by a transplant program in upstate New York.

METHOD

Donor candidates undergo multiple psychosocial interviews early in the overall transplant evaluation process. Evaluators subsequently meet as a group, along with an independent ethicist, to determine psychosocial candidacy prior to final medical/surgical clearance.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2007, 416 donor candidates initiated and/or underwent full evaluation, resulting in a 17.5% surgery and 55.5% exclusion rate among those individuals. Of those ruled out, 20.8% were for (medical or psychosocial) reasons associated with the recipient, and 8.7% were for donor-related psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSION

Given the primacy ofpsychosocial and ethical issues in living liver donor candidate evaluation, the multiple interview process, followed by team discussion and overseen by an ethicist removed from other transplant program functions, has advantages as a donor assessment model.

Estimates of early death, acute liver failure, and long-term mortality among live liver donors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We sought to estimate the risk of perioperative mortality or acute liver failure for live liver donors in the United States and avoid selection or ascertainment biases and sample size limitations.

METHODS

We followed up 4111 live liver donors in the United States between April 1994 and March 2011 for a mean of 7.6 years; deaths were determined from the Social Security Death Master File. Survival data were compared with those from live kidney donors and healthy participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III.

RESULTS

Seven donors had early deaths (1.7 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-3.5); risk of death did not vary with age of the liver recipient (1.7 per 1000 for adults vs 1.6 per 1000 for pediatric recipients; P = .9) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 1.5 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .8). There were 11 catastrophic events (early deaths or acute liver failures; 2.9 per 1000; 95% CI, 1.5-5.1); similarly, risk did not vary with recipient age (3.1 per 1000 adult vs 1.6 per 1000 pediatric; P = .4) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 3.3 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .9). Long-term mortality of live liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donors and NHANES participants (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1.4% at 11 years, respectively; P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of early death among live liver donors in the United States is 1.7 per 1000 donors. Mortality of live liver donors does not differ from that of healthy, matched individuals over a mean of 7.6 years.