Anonymous living liver donation: donor profiles and outcomes

American perspectives for LDLT in 2024

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was first performed in the US in 1989, primarily benefiting pediatric patients. Its adoption for adults faced setbacks after a donor death in 2001, causing widespread risk aversion. Despite ethical justification and demonstrated safety, LDLT remains underutilized, with fewer than 10% of liver transplants being LDLT. Recent trends indicate improved access to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) due to increased organ donation and technological advances like Normothermic Regional Perfusion (NRP). However, LDLT remains critical, especially for pediatric patients and specific adult populations who benefit significantly from it. Barriers to LDLT include public and clinician apprehensions about donor risks, despite studies showing low-complication rates. Non-directed donations and broader social media engagement have increased donor pools, though the volume of LDLT in the US remains lower than in Asia due to limited training and experience. The A2ALL consortium has been pivotal in studying LDLT safety and outcomes. Currently, around 40 US centers perform LDLT, with high-volume centers leading by example. Training paradigms for LDLT are evolving, with initiatives like the ASTS LDLT master class aiming to enhance surgical expertise. While LDLT is embedded in US liver-transplant practices, its expansion is hampered by risk aversion and the availability of DDLT. Nonetheless, LDLT is essential for addressing the supply-demand mismatch in liver transplantation.

The aim of donor safety: surgical approaches and current results

Living liver donation (LLD) has been suggested as a potential solution to reduce the waitlist mortality for liver transplantation (LT) recipients by facilitating living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring both donor and recipient safety is a critical aspect of LDLT. An accurate understanding of the complexity and extend of safety outcomes of the donor is imperative to maintain the high-quality standard this medical program requires. This review seeks to outline safety outcome parameters of interest for donors. Early postoperative mortality is very low with no significant differences comparing left lobe to right lobe LLD. Complications most commonly are biliary (leakage or strictures), bleeding, respiratory or pulmonary, gastrointestinal or infectious. Return to full-time work and quality of life are essential parameters in the mid and long term. As evidence continues to accumulate, outcomes may evolve with the expansion of minimal invasive surgery practice and currently laparoscopic approach is recommended in large experienced centers. By offering safer operations that require fewer incisions or liver resections, living liver donations can be further encouraged, and the perception of the procedure can be improved. Rational consideration of the safety of the donor and in-depth discussion and evaluation with the patient is of utmost importance.

Prevalence and factors associated with depression and anxiety in living liver donors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the prevalence and factors associated with depression and anxiety in living liver donors after liver transplantation.

METHODS

Five English language electronic databases and four Chinese language electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2023. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed the study quality. The pooled prevalence was calculated using STATA software (version 14.0). We performed a narrative review to summarize the factors associated with depression and anxiety in living liver donors after liver transplantation. The protocol of this study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database, registration number: CRD42021290071.

RESULTS

This study included 39 articles involving 18,577 participants. The pooled prevalence was 6.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) (4.1-8.9%)] for depression in living liver donors, and 10.0% [95% CI (4.0-18.1%)] for anxiety. Prevalence of clinically significant depressive or anxiety symptoms was higher (15.7% and 17.4%) compared with disorders (2.7% and 2.2%). The prevalence of depression and anxiety was highest within 3 months post-donation. Specifically, female donors, serious postoperative complications, and recipients' poor health/death have been reported as factors having a negative influence on depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Collected evidence showed that the overall prevalence of depression or anxiety of living liver donors was high. Therefore, early detection and timely treatment of psychological disorders are crucial to promote positive psychiatric health outcomes and ensure the quality of life of living liver donors.

Can non-directed living liver donation help improve access to grafts and correct socioeconomic disparities in pediatric liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND

Each year, children die awaiting LT as the demand for grafts exceeds the available supply. Candidates with public health insurance are significantly less likely to undergo both deceased donor LT and D-LLD LT. ND-LLD is another option to gain access to a graft. The aim of this study was to evaluate if recipient insurance type is associated with likelihood of D-LLD versus ND-LLD LT.

METHODS

The SRTR/OPTN database was reviewed for pediatric LDLT performed between January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion era) and December 31, 2019 at centers that performed ≥1 ND-LLD LDLT during the study period. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess relationship between type of living donor (directed vs. non-directed) and recipient insurance.

RESULTS

Of 299 pediatric LDLT, 46 (15%) were from ND-LLD performed at 18 transplant centers. Fifty-nine percent of ND-LLD recipients had public insurance in comparison to 40% of D-LLD recipients (p = .02). Public insurance was associated with greater odds of ND-LLD in comparison to D-LLD upon multivariable logistic regression (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.23-4.58, p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

ND-LLD allows additional children to receive LTs and may help address some of the socioeconomic disparity in pediatric LDLT, but currently account for only a minority of LDLT and are only performed at a few institutions. Initiatives to improve access to both D-LLD and ND-LLD transplants are needed.

Anonymity: What does it mean and why is it important to anonymous living liver donors?

Anonymous living organ donation has recently become more common in select transplantation programs, with donors voluntarily offering a kidney or a lobe of their liver to those in need. These anonymous donations may be directed to a specific recipient or nondirected, and anonymity may be one way or reciprocal. Given their unique situation, we interviewed a cohort of anonymous living liver donors and explored their opinions surrounding anonymity and its implications in living liver donation. A total of 26 anonymous donors completed a semistructured qualitative interview consisting of questions regarding their experiences as a living liver donor. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for common themes, specifically those pertaining to the donor's perceptions and experiences with anonymity. Five main themes related to anonymity were identified: (1) the moral importance of an unencumbered gift, (2) wanting internal satisfaction rather than seeking external accolades, (3) anonymity as a protection against potential negative outcomes in the recipient, (4) feelings of ambivalence toward meeting the recipient, and (5) concerns about negative perceptions among their own friends and family. These insights into the range of donors' attitudes toward anonymity will help improve awareness and provide the best possible mental and physical care for the anonymous donor.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

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

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

Anonymous living liver donor perspectives on the role of family in their donation experience

Anonymous living organ donation is an understudied but rapidly expanding sector in organ transplantation, in which donors choose to donate anonymously to a recipient in need. The family members and close support network of living donors often play a crucial role in the donation process, and their influence likely has a large impact on the decision to donate as well as the donor's physical and psychosocial state. However, there is limited data examining the impact donor families have on the anonymous donor, and in turn, the impact donation has on donors' families. To assess this, we analyzed a semi-structured qualitative interview on living donor experiences with 26 anonymous living liver donors for common themes concerning donor families. Responses surrounding donor families were grouped into three major categories: (1) family reactions to donation, ranging from (a) pride/support, (b) fear/worry, and (c) jealousy/anger; (2) the impact of donation on donor-family relationships, including (a) positive impacts, (b) negative impacts, (c) a positive ripple effect; (3) gaps in institutional support for donor families. This study provides unique information on anonymous living liver donor perceptions related to their families and will help improve existing programs to accommodate donor family needs and cater to donor relationships.

Challenging the Traditional Paradigm of Supply and Demand in Pediatric Liver Transplantation Through Nondirected Living Donation: A Case Series

A gap exists between the demand for pediatric liver transplantation and the supply of appropriate size-matched donors. We describe our center's experience with pediatric liver transplantation using anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD). First-time pediatric liver transplant candidates listed at our center between January 2012 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by donor graft type, and recipients of ND-LLD grafts were described. A total of 13 ND-LLD pediatric liver transplantations were performed, including 8 left lateral segments, 4 left lobes, and 1 right lobe. Of the ND-LLD recipients, 5 had no directed living donor evaluated, whereas the remaining 8 (62%) had all potential directed donors ruled out during the evaluation process. Recipient and graft survival were 100% during a median follow-up time of 445 (range, 70-986) days. Of ND-LLDs, 69% were previous living kidney donors, and 1 ND-LLD went on to donate a kidney after liver donation. Of the ND-LLDs, 46% were approved prior to the recipient being listed. Over time, the proportion of living donor transplants performed, specifically from ND-LLDs, increased, and the number of children on the waiting list decreased. The introduction of ND-LLDs to a pediatric liver transplant program can expand the benefit of living donor liver transplantation to children without a suitable directed living donor while achieving excellent outcomes for both the recipients and 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.

Anonymous Living Liver Donation: Literature Review and Case Series Report

Background

Anonymous living liver donations (ALLDs) raise ethical concerns regarding the donors' motivations. Thus, ALLDs are not as widely accepted as directed donations from friends and family. Literature on ALLDs is limited. Understanding this particular group of individuals is crucial, as they could further help mitigate the shortage of liver grafts worldwide.

Methods

A literature review was performed to identify current definitions, ethical considerations, different approaches, and barriers to ALLD worldwide. Furthermore, we present our current experience after the establishment of a protocol to enable an ALLD program in our center and surveyed potential donors to better understand their motives throughout the process.

Results

Literature regarding ALLD is scarce. Canada leads the experience with the majority of case reports published to date. Survey-based evaluation of this unique group of individuals reflects the selflessness nature of anonymous living donors and shows that most of them experience the donation as a positive and life-changing event. In our experience, 41 individuals initiated the process of ALLD during the study period. Most were lost to follow-up or deemed ineligible. Five candidates fully completed the donation process and successfully underwent living liver donation. Given that 2 candidates have a follow-up period <3 mo from donation, we have only included data on the first 3 donors in this analysis. Eight individuals (19.5%) responded to the survey with respondents sharing similar reasons for initiating ALLD but varied and multifactorial reasons for terminating.

Conclusions

Different institutional protocols can be used to accomplish ALLD, including the one utilized by our institution. Adopting policies to allow for ALLDs and reducing modifiable factors that contribute to ending donation has the potential to increase grafts and decrease wait times.Supplemental Visual Abstract: http://links.lww.com/TP/C251.

Health-related quality of life after anonymous nondirected living liver donation: A multicenter collaboration

Literature on living nondirected liver donation is sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLDs). ND-LLDs at 3 centers: University of Alberta (n = 12), University of Colorado (n = 12), and University of Southern California (n = 12), were surveyed. Thirty donors (83%) responded to the Donor Quality of Life (USC DQLS) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Most respondents (n = 15, 50%) donated their left lateral segment, 27% right lobe, and 23% left lobe. The majority were female (67%) and mean age was 38.9 ± 11.2 years at donation. Median follow-up was 1.1 (interquartile range 0.4-3.3) years. Approximately 37% had previously donated a kidney. Eleven experienced ≥1 postoperative complication, with only 1 Clavien-Dindo IIIb. Most reported minimal impact on school or work performance, all felt positive or neutral about their overall health since donation, and none expressed postdonation regrets. No donor reported impacts on health insurability, and 3 of 4 respondents attempting to purchase life insurance postdonation were successful. ND-LLD SF-36 outcomes were similar to US population norms. Overall, ND-LLDs demonstrated acceptable HR-QOL after donation and are appropriate candidates for partial liver donation. Based on evaluation of donation impact, consideration should be given to postdonation support strategies.

Global experience and perspective on anonymous nondirected live donation in living donor liver transplantation

Anonymous nondirected living liver donation (ANLLD), sometimes referred to as "altruistic" donation, occurs when a biologically unrelated person comes forward to donate a portion of his/her liver to a transplant candidate who is unknown to the donor. Here, we explore the current status of ANLLD with special consideration of published reports; US experience; impact on donor psychosocial outcomes; barriers to donation; and current global trends with respect to ethical considerations. Between 1998 and 2019, 105 anonymous nondirected living liver donor (ND-LLD) transplants have been documented in the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Sixteen donors (15%) were reported to experience a postoperative complication. Currently, 89 donors remain alive (85%), 16 (15%) have unknown status, and none are confirmed deceased. Although there are only a handful of case series, these data suggest that ANLLD is a feasible option. While there are no liver-specific data, studies involving anonymous nondirected kidney donors suggest that anonymous donation does not adversely impact psychosocial outcomes in donors or recipients. There are substantial financial burdens and ethical considerations related to ANLLD. Further studies are required to assess donor demographics, psychosocial motivations, long-term health-related quality of life, and financial impact of ANLLD.

Living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As experience grows, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an effective treatment option to overcome the deceased donor organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Donor safety is the highest priority in LDLT. Strict donor selection according to structured protocols and center experience are the main factors that determine donor safety. However, with increased experience, many centers have explored increasing organ availability within living donation by means of ABO incompatible LDLT, dual graft LDLT, and anonymous living donation. Also, this growing experience in LDLT has allowed the transplant community to cautiously explore the role of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria and patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

SUMMARY

LDLT has become established as a viable strategy to ameliorate the organ shortage experienced by centers around the world. Improved understanding of this technique has allowed the improved utilization of live donor graft resources, without compromising donor safety. Moreover, LDLT may offer some advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and a unique opportunity to assess the broader applicability of liver transplantation.

Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Death rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous individuals who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship, so called anonymous live liver donation (A-LLD).

METHODS

Candidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact.

RESULTS

A total of 50 A-LLD liver transplants were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal support in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was 6 days. One donor experienced a Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first and only report of the characteristics, motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

LAY SUMMARY

We report a unique experience with 50 living donors who volunteered to donate to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (anonymous living donors). This report is the first to discuss motivations, strategies and facilitators that may mitigate physical, social and ethical risk factors in this patient population. With rigorous protocols, anonymous liver donation and recipient outcomes are excellent; with appropriate clinical expertise and system facilitators in place, our experience suggests that other centers may consider the procedure for its significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

The experiences of parents and caregiver(s) whose child received an organ from a living anonymous liver donor

BACKGROUND

Anonymous living donor transplantation is a potential strategy to address the shortage of available organs for transplant. A living anonymous donor (LAD) is a donor with no biological connection and whose identity is unknown to the recipient. This study captured the lived experiences of pediatric liver transplant recipient families whose child received an organ from a LAD.

METHODS

Qualitative data collection and analysis were guided by a theoretical framework of phenomenology. Data analysis highlighted themes through an inductive process of reviewing transcript paragraphs to code for significant statements that represented key concepts and captured depth of experience.

RESULTS

A total of nine interviews were conducted with 10 participants. Data analysis yielded themes of emotional turbulence through their transplant journey. Pre-transplant experiences were characterized by feelings of helplessness and desperation. Receiving a LAD transplant prompted shock, relief, and acceptance of the donation. Post-transplant experiences were characterized by altered life-perspectives and varied levels of connectedness to the donor, marked by gratitude and concern for donor well-being.

CONCLUSION

Anonymous donation in liver transplantation is perceived by recipient families as a remarkable gift and a viable donor option. Our preliminary findings can be used to inform strategy development regarding future delivery of care.

Superior Outcomes and Reduced Wait Times in Pediatric Recipients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasingly used to bridge the gap between the current supply and demand imbalance for deceased donor organs to provide lifesaving liver transplantation.

Methods

Outcomes of 135 children who underwent LDLT were compared with 158 recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at the largest pediatric liver transplant program in Canada.

Results

Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger than deceased donor recipients (P ≤ 0.001), less likely to require dialysis pretransplant (P < 0.002) and had shorter wait time duration when the primary indication was cholestatic liver disease (P = 0.003). The LDLT donors were either related genetically or emotionally (79%), or unrelated (21%) to the pediatric recipients. One-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (97%, 94%, and 94%) compared with DDLT (92%, 87%, and 80%; log-rank P = 0.02) recipients, as were graft survival rates (96%, 93%, and 93% for LDLT versus 89%, 81.4%, and 70%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.001). Medical and surgical complications were not statistically different between groups. Graft failure was higher in recipients of DDLT (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 6.58) than in the LDLT group after adjustment for clinical characteristics and propensity score.

Conclusions

Living donor liver transplantation provides superior outcomes for children and is an excellent and effective strategy to increase the chances of receiving a liver transplant.

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.

Twenty Years After Enactment of the Organ Transplant Law in Japan: Why Are There Still So Few Deceased Donors?

BACKGROUND

Twenty years have passed since the 1997 enactment of the Organ Transplant Law in Japan, but the number of deceased donors remains extremely low. In this study we examine why deceased donation has continued to remain so infrequent.

METHODS

This investigation was a secondary analysis of published data from the Japan Organ Transplant Network, 2016 Fact Book of Organ Transplantation in Japan, and International Registry on Organ Donation and Transplantation.

RESULTS

In the past 20 years, donation intent declarations, knowledge, and respect for family member's wishes have increased, whereas resistance toward transplantation has decreased. Despite this, the traditional perspective on corpses of gotai manzoku (ie, the soul cannot be put to rest without being physically intact and without defect), the family-centricism, and reward-seeking altruism have not changed much. Living organ transplants have alleviated the organ deficiency somewhat, and the law requiring family consent seems to have contributed to the observed small increase in deceased donors.

CONCLUSION

The number of deceased donors is unlikely to increase suddenly. However, 8 strategies are proposed to increase the number of deceased donors, including: increasing the number of donor procurement coordinators and establishing a training system; increasing the number of organ procurement facilities; creating hub transplant centers and training transplant surgeons; implementing radical reform in public education; reducing workload and improving education of emergency physicians, neurosurgeons, and pediatricians; revisiting the stringent standards of brain-death determination; revisiting the registration process; and considering development of a Japanese version of organ procurement organizations as well as revisions to the Organ Transplant Law. The Japanese government and academic societies must work together to increase the number of deceased donors in Japan.

Psychosocial Outcomes 3 to 10 Years After Donation in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short term and rely largely on quality-of-life measures not specific to donation. We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived physical, emotional, and socioeconomic outcomes.

METHODS

Individuals donating 3 to 10 years previously at 9 centers were eligible for telephone surveys. Survey responses were examined descriptively. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct donor groups based on response profiles across psychosocial domains. Potential predictors of response profiles were evaluated with regression analysis.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen donors (66%) participated (M = 5.8 years postdonation, SD = 1.9). Fifteen percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns, and 7%-60% reported socioeconomic concerns (eg, insurance difficulties, financial expenditures). However, on average, donors experienced high psychological growth, and 90% felt positively about donation. Cluster analysis revealed 5 donor groups. One group showed high psychological benefit, with little endorsement of physical or socioeconomic concerns (15% of donors). Four groups showed less favorable profiles, with varying combinations of difficulties. The largest such group showed high endorsement of physical concerns and financial expenditures, and only modest psychological benefit (31% of donors). Men and nonHispanic whites were most likely to have unfavorable response profiles (Ps < 0.01). Compared with donors aged 19 to 30 years, older donors were less likely to have unfavorable profiles; these differences were significant for donors in the >40 to 50 year age group (Ps < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Even many years postdonation, donors report adverse physical and socioeconomic effects, but positive emotional effects as well. Identification of response profiles and predictors may improve targeting of postdonation surveillance and care.

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.

Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy-the Toronto approach, tips and tricks

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. Nevertheless, it has not been extensively accepted in North America or Europe as it has been in Asia. At the University of Toronto we initiated our LDLT program in 2000 and since then our program has grown each year, representing today the largest LDLT program in North America. Our right-lobe LDLT experience from 2000-2014 includes 474 right lobes. Only 30% of our grafts have included the middle hepatic vein. We present excellent outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival which is not different to that achieved with deceased donor liver transplantation. In the present study we will discuss the evolution, challenges and current practices of our LDLT program. We will discuss what is and has been the program philosophy. We will also discuss how we evaluate our donors and the extensive workup we do before a donor is accepted for live donation. Furthermore we will discuss some tips and tricks of how we perform the right hepatectomy for live donation.

Practices for Supporting and Confirming Decision-Making Involved in Kidney and Liver Donation by Related Living Donors in Japan: A Nationwide Survey

This nationwide survey investigated the actual practices for supporting and confirming the decision-making involved in related living-organ donations in Japan, focusing on organ type and program size differences. Answers to a questionnaire survey were collected from 89 of the 126 (71%) kidney and 30 of the 35 (86%) liver transplantation programs in Japan that were involved in living-donor transplantations in 2013. In 70% of the kidney and 90% of the liver transplantation programs, all donors underwent "third-party" interviews to confirm their voluntariness. The most common third parties were psychiatrists (90% and 83%, respectively). Many programs engaged in practices to support decision-making by donor candidates, including guaranteeing the right to withdraw consent to donate (70% and 100%, respectively) and prescribing a set "cooling-off period" (88% and 100%, respectively). Most donors were offered care by mental health specialists (86% and 93%, respectively). Third parties were designated by more of the larger kidney transplant programs compared with the smaller programs. In conclusion, the actual practices supporting and confirming the decision to donate a living organ varied depending on the organ concerned and the number of patients in the program.

Liver, pancreas and small bowel transplantation: current ethical issues

We describe the medical state of the art in liver, pancreas and small bowel transplantation, and portray the ethical issues. Although most ethical questions related to these transplantations are not specific for liver, pancreas and small bowel, they do challenge ethical analysis as well as new policies and clinical procedures. Firstly, outcomes continue to be of utmost concern, as information is only limited available, is developing over time and is surrounded by many uncertainties. Secondly, characteristics of donors and recipients should be carefully evaluated. The question of what qualifies a donor and a recipient should be considered against the background of a quest for extended criteria, embracing marginal cases, and a judgment with regard to what counts as a good enough outcome. Thirdly, ethical principles of autonomy and fairness are pushed, given the circumstance of severe scarcity, towards limits that can easily be crossed.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term health status of donors after right hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes for ALDLT donors are unknown.

METHODS

ALDLT donors undergoing right hepatectomy from April 1998 to June 2007 were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, satisfaction (1-10/worst-best scale), self-esteem, willingness to donate again, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, donor files and cholecystectomy specimens were reviewed. Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three donors were contacted (median age: 36 years; median follow-up: 69 months). 39 (47%) were free of symptoms. The remaining 44 (53%) reported: intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (31%), gastroesophageal reflux associated with left liver hypertrophy (9%), incisional discomfort requiring pain medications (6%), severe depression requiring hospitalization (4%), rib pain affecting lifestyle (2%), and exacerbation of psoriasis (1%). Median satisfaction score was 8. Self-esteem diminished in 5%. Thirty-nine (47%) recommended improvements particularly more detailed informed donor consent and a centralized living donor liver registry. Seventy-eight (94%) were willing to donate again. There were no differences between donors with and without complaints with respect to: donor age, gender, early complications and follow-up time, young-to-old donation, recipient diagnosis of malignancy and death of the recipient. Noninflamed donor cholecystectomy specimens correlated with intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALDLT donors are at risk for long-term complaints that are neither reflected nor related to early complications. This information should be included in both the donor evaluation and the ALDLT decision-making process.

Living donor hepatectomy: the importance of the residual liver volume

Living liver donation is a successful treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Most adults are provided with a right lobe graft to ensure a generous recipient liver volume. Some centers are re-exploring the use of smaller left lobe grafts to potentially reduce the donor risk. However, the evidence showing that the donor risk is lower with left lobe donation is inconsistent, and most previous studies have been limited by potential learning curve effects, small sample sizes, or poorly matched comparison groups. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a case-control study. Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent left hepatectomy (LH; n = 4) or left lateral segmentectomy (LLS; n = 41) were compared with matched controls who underwent right hepatectomy (RH) or extended right hepatectomy (ERH). The overall complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (31%-37%). There were no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were more grade 3 complications for the RH patients (13.3%) and the ERH patients (15.6%) versus the LH/LLS patients (2.2%). The extent of the liver resection significantly correlated with the peak international normalized ratio (INR), the days to INR normalization, and the peak bilirubin level. A univariate analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy, the spared volume percentage, and the peak bilirubin level were strongly associated with grade 3 complications. A higher peak bilirubin level, which correlated with a lower residual liver volume, was associated with grade 3 complications in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). RH and grade 3 complications were associated with an increased length of stay (>7 days) in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between the residual liver volume and liver dysfunction, serious adverse postoperative events, and longer hospital stays. Donor safety should be the first priority of all living liver donor programs. We propose that the surgical procedure removing the smallest amount of the liver required to provide adequate recipient graft function should become the standard of care for living liver donation.

Health-related quality of life in living liver donors after transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has recently emerged as an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with end-stage liver disease. In the meantime, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the donors is becoming better appreciated. Here we aimed to review the current literature and summarize the effects of liver donation on the long-term HRQoL of living donors.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed using "donors", "living donor liver transplantation", "health-related quality of life", and "donation" was performed, and all the information was collected.

RESULTS

The varied postoperative outcomes of liver donors are attributive to the different evaluation instruments used. On the whole, donors experienced good long-term physical and mental well-being with a few complaining of compromised quality of life due to mild symptoms or psychiatric problems. The psychosocial dimension has received increasing attention with the vocational, interpersonal and financial impact of liver donation on donors mostly studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, donors have a good HRQoL after LDLT. Nevertheless, to achieve an ideal donor outcome, further work is necessary to minimize the negative effects as well as to incorporate recent progress in regenerative medicine.

New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation

In the literature, varying terminology for living organ donation can be found. However, there seems to be a need for a new classification to avoid confusion. Therefore, we assessed existing terminology in the light of current living organ donation practices and suggest a more straightforward classification. We propose to concentrate on the degree of specificity with which donors identify intended recipients and to subsequently verify whether the donation to these recipients occurs directly or indirectly. According to this approach, one could distinguish between "specified" and "unspecified" donation. Within specified donation, a distinction can be made between "direct" and "indirect" donation.