Outcome of using small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation recipients with high model for end-stage liver disease scores: a single center experience

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Adults With High Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) at high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores are not well characterized in the United States.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data in adults listed for their first liver transplant alone between 2002 and 2021. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of MELD score (<20, 20-24, 25-29, and ≥30) and patient/graft survival after LDLT and the association of donor type (living versus deceased) on outcomes stratified by MELD.

RESULTS

There were 4495 LDLTs included with 5.9% at MELD 25-29 and 1.9% at MELD ≥30. LDLTs at MELD 25-29 and ≥30 LDLT have substantially increased since 2010 and 2015, respectively. Patient survival at MELD ≥30 was not different versus MELD <20: adjusted hazard ratio 1.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.88). However, graft survival was worse: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.68). Compared with deceased-donor liver transplant, LDLT led to superior patient survival at MELD <20 (aHR 0.92; P = 0.024) and 20-24 (aHR 0.70; P < 0.001), equivalent patient survival at MELD 25-29 (aHR 0.97; P = 0.843), but worse graft survival at MELD ≥30 (aHR 1.68, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient survival remains acceptable, the benefits of LDLT may be lost at MELD ≥30.

Comparing High- and Low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Living-Donor Liver Transplantation to Determine Clinical Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (CHALICE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have demonstrated that low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients have better outcomes with improved patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. LDLT recipients gain the most from being transplanted at MELD <25-30; however, some existing data have outlined that LDLT may provide equivalent outcomes in high-MELD and low-MELD patients, although the term "high" MELD is arbitrarily defined in the literature and various cut-off scores are outlined between 20 and 30, although most commonly, the dividing threshold is 25. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare LDLT in high-MELD with that in low-MELD recipients to determine patient survival and graft survival, as well as perioperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

Following PROSPERO registration CRD-42021261501, a systematic database search was conducted for the published literature between 1990 and 2021 and yielded a total of 10 studies with 2183 LT recipients; 490 were HM-LDLT recipients and 1693 were LM-LDLT recipients.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years post-transplant (5-year HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.79; p-value 0.40) and graft survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.72, 1.63; p-value 0.71). No differences were observed in the rates of major morbidity, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, wound infection and rejection; however, the HM-LDLT group had higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The high-MELD LDLT group had similar patient and graft survival and morbidities to the low-MELD LDLT group, despite being at higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay. The data, primarily sourced from high-volume Asian centers, underscore the feasibility of living donations for liver allografts in high-MELD patients. Given the rising demand for liver allografts, it is sensible to incorporate these insights into U.S. transplant practices.

Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata.

CONCLUSIONS

The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

D-MELD, the Product of Donor Age and Preoperative MELD, Predicts Surgical Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Especially in the Recipients With HCV-positive and Smaller Grafts

BACKGROUND

Appropriate donor-recipient match has not been explored well in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) unlike deceased-donor liver transplantation. In this study, we evaluate the donor-recipient match using D-MELD (donor age × recipient Modified for End-stage Liver Disease [MELD] score) as a predictor of surgical outcomes in LDLT, paying attention to graft size and hepatitis C virus (HCV) status.

PATIENT AND METHODS

The 120 consecutive recipients who received adult-to-adult LDLT from March 2002 to December 2014 were divided into the two groups according to D-MELD score: D-MELD <1000 (low-D-MELD: n = 101) and D-MELD ≥1000 (high-D-MELD: n = 19).

RESULTS

The 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-DM group than in low-DM group: 36.8% versus 14.9% (P = .046). In the HCV-positive recipients, the 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in high-DM group (n = 6) than in low-DM group (n = 37): 66.7% versus 13.5% (P = .012), and the 3-year survival rate was significantly lower in high-DM group than in the low-DM group: 33.3% versus 56.8% (P = .01). In the recipients with left graft, the 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the high-DM group (n = 8) than in the low-DM group (n = 41): 50% versus 14.6% (P = .044), and total bilirubin level on postoperative day 14 was significantly higher in the high-DM group than in the low-DM group: 17.4 mg/dL versus 9.2 mg/dL (P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

It was clarified that D-MELD could predict early and long-term surgical outcomes in the recipients who were HCV-positive and who had smaller grafts.

Smaller grafts do not imply early recurrence in recipients transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma: A Chinese experience

Liver graft size has long been a critical issue in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We analyzed China Liver Transplant Registry data (January 2007–December 2009), identifying 295 patients who underwent LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The recipients were divided into two groups: A, graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) ≤ 0.8% (n = 56); B, GRWR > 0.8% (n = 239). We evaluated donor, recipient, and operative factors and analyzed survival outcome and the risk factors affecting overall and recurrence survival. As a result, the overall survival rates of group B were significantly higher than that of group A (p = 0.009); the corresponding tumor-free survival rates did not differ significantly (p = 0.133). The overall survival rates among the 151 recipients who met the Hangzhou criteria did not differ significantly (p = 0.953), nor did the corresponding tumor-free survival rates (p = 0.893). Multivariate analysis determined that GRWR was a significant risk factor for poor survival but not for early recurrence. In conclusion, small grafts may predict poorer survival outcome but do not indicate earlier HCC recurrence in recipients transplanted for HCC, and survival outcome with smaller grafts is merely acceptable in selected recipients.

Outcomes Between Elderly and Young Hepatocellular Carcinoma Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients: A Single-Center Experience

Although older age theoretically might be a negative risk factor for liver transplantation (LT) outcomes, age alone should not exclude a patient from waiting list. This study is to investigate the outcomes of elderly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients which meet Milan criteria.A retrospective study was performed in a single liver transplantation center. Demographic and clinical data of 110 HCC LDLT recipients from January 2004 to December 2012 were collected and analyzed, including 31 elderly recipients in group E (≥ 60 years) and 79 younger recipients in group Y (<60 years).Recipients' age between 2 groups were significantly different (65.4  ±  4.8 vs 49.9  ±  5.9, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in preoperative demographic data as well as postoperative liver function. Complication rates, length of ICU and hospital stay, graft loss, and mortality were similar in both groups, as well as the 1-, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates (77.4%, and 64.5% vs 82.8%, and 44.6%, P = 0.458; 94.7%, and 80.7% vs 98.6%, and 85.9%, P = 0.661). When recipients were further stratified into group E1, E2, Y1, and Y2, no significant difference was found in 1-, and 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates. In multivariate analysis, recipients' age was not a predictor for long-term survival.Following rigorous listing criteria, if overall clinical conditions and comorbidities allowed, elderly HCC recipients achieved similar LDLT outcomes and survival rates with the younger HCC recipients.

Small-for-size syndrome in living-donor liver transplantation using a left lobe graft

In living-donor liver transplantation with a left lobe graft, which can reduce the burden on the donor compared to right lobe graft, the main problem is small-for-size (SFS) syndrome. SFS syndrome is a multifactorial disease that includes aspects related to the graft size, graft quality, recipient factors and even technical issues. The main pathophysiology of SFS syndrome is the sinusoidal microcirculatory disturbance induced by shear stress, which is caused by excessive portal inflow into the smaller graft. The donor age, the presence of steatosis of the graft and a poor recipient status are all risk factors for SFS syndrome. To resolve SFS syndrome, portal inflow modulation, splenectomy, splenic artery modulation and outflow modulation have been developed. It is important to establish strict criteria for managing SFS syndrome. Using pharmacological interventions and/or therapeutic approaches that promote liver regeneration could increase the adequate outcomes in SFS liver transplantation. Left lobe liver transplantation could be adopted in Western countries to help resolve the organ shortage.