Split liver grafts can benefit both pediatric and adult liver transplant recipients and programs

Update on liver transplantation-newer aspects

Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only therapeutic option offering gold standard treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and acute liver failure (ALF), as well as for certain early-stage liver tumors. Currently, the greatest challenge facing LT is the simple fact that there are not enough adequate livers for all the potential patients that could benefit from LT. Despite efforts to expand the donor pool to include living and deceased donors, organ shortage is still a major problem in many countries. To solve this problem, the use of marginal liver grafts has become an inevitable choice. Although the definition of marginal grafts or criteria for expanded donor selection has not been clarified yet, they are usually defined as grafts that may potentially cause primary nonfunction, impaired function, or late loss of function. These include steatotic livers, older donors, donors with positive viral serology, split livers, and donation after cardiac death (DCD). Therefore, to get the best outcome from these liver grafts, donor-recipient selection should be vigilant. Alcohol- related liver disease (ALD) is one of the most common indications for LT in Europe and North America. Traditionally, LT for alcoholic liver disease was kept limited for patients who have achieved 6 months of abstinence, in part due to social and ethical concerns regarding the use of a limited resource. However, the majority of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis who fail medical therapy will not live long enough to meet this requirement. Besides, the initial results of early liver transplantation (ELT) without waiting for 6 months of abstinence period are satisfactory in severe alcoholic hepatitis (SAH). It will be important to take care of these patients from a newer perspective.

Is there an ethical obligation to split every donor liver? Scarce resources, medical factors, and ethical reasoning

SLT has the potential to counter the worldwide shortage of donor organs. Although the preferred recipients of SLT are usually pediatric patients, a more stringent ethical argument than the fundamental prioritization of children is to demonstrate that SLT of deceased donor organs could increase access to this potentially lifesaving resource for all patients, including children. Several empirical studies show that SLT also makes it possible to achieve similar outcomes to WLT in adults if several factors are observed. In general, it can be regarded as ethically permissible to insist on splitting a donor liver if, in an individual case, SLT is expected to have a similar outcome to that of WLT. The question is therefore no longer whether, but under what conditions SLT is able to achieve similar results to WLT. One of the main challenges of the current debate is the restricted comparability of the available data. We therefore have an ethical obligation to improve the available empirical data by implementing prospective clinical studies, SLT programs, and national registries. The introduction of 2 modes of allocation-one for patients willing to accept both SLT and WLT, and a second for patients only willing to accept WLT-would help to resolve the issue of patient autonomy in the case of mandatory splitting policy.