Living donor liver transplantation in India

Practice patterns and considerations in liver transplantation from living donors with high BMI: A review

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) is a valuable solution to the shortage of donor organs for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, the eligibility of obese donors for LDLT remains a subject of debate. This literature review explores global practices and perceptions of LDLT, identifies donor eligibility criteria, and discusses special considerations and ethical caveats. The review highlights the need for standardized guidelines for donor selection, considering the global distribution of Body mass index and variations in population-specific criteria. It also emphasizes the importance of non-invasive testing and pre-operative optimization of liver steatosis for select obese donors. Furthermore, the review examines the outcomes and complications associated with obese donors in LDLT. The findings of this review contribute to the ongoing discussion on the inclusion of obese donors in LDLT and provide insights for future research and guideline development.

A brief history of liver transplantation and transplant anesthesia

In this review, we describe the major milestones in the development of organ transplantation with a specific focus on hepatic transplantation. For many years, the barriers preventing successful organ transplantation in humans seemed insurmountable. Although advances in surgical technique provided the technical ability to perform organ transplantation, limited understanding of immunology prevented successful organ transplantation. The breakthrough to success was the result of several significant discoveries between 1950 and 1980 involving improved surgical techniques, the development of effective preservative solutions, and the suppression of cellular immunity to prevent graft rejection. After that, technical innovations and laboratory and clinical research developed rapidly. However, these advances alone could not have led to improved transplant outcomes without parallel advances in anesthesia and critical care. With increasing organ demand, it proved necessary to expand the donor pool, which has been achieved with the use of living donors, split grafts, extended criteria organs, and organs obtained through donation after cardiac death. Given this increased access to organs and organ resources, the number of transplantations performed every year has increased dramatically. New regulatory organizations and transplant societies provide critical oversight to ensure equitable organ distribution and a high standard of care and also perform outcome analyses. Establishing dedicated transplant anesthesia teams results in improved organ transplantation outcomes and provides a foundation for developing new standards for other subspecialties in anesthesiology, critical care, and medicine overall. Through a century of discovery, the success we enjoy at the present time is the result of the work of well-organized multidisciplinary teams following standardized protocols and thereby saving thousands of lives worldwide each year. With continuing innovation, the future is bright.

Is a Preservation Solution for Living Donor Liver Transplantation Needed? Adding a New Chapter in LDLT!

Preservation solutions are required for organ viability in deceased donor liver transplantation (LT). However, their role in live donor LT (LDLT) has not been standardized.

Methods

Eighty adult recipients who underwent right lobe LDLT at the Department of Liver Transplantation Surgery, Gambat, Pakistan, were studied. Based on shorter cold ischemia time and no back table reconstruction work, recipients were assigned to receive "no preservation solution" (cases/non-histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate group; n = 40) or "HTK group" (controls; n = 40). Early allograft dysfunction (bilirubin, transaminases, and international normalized ratio), postoperative complications (biliary and vascular), hospital stay, and 1-y survival were reported. The direct cost was also reported.

Results

Demographics and clinical characteristics were comparable in the 2 groups. Comparing cases versus controls, mean bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and international normalized ratio on postoperative day 7 were similar in the 2 groups. Five (12.5%) cases and 4 (10%) controls developed early allograft dysfunction (P = 0.72). Post-LT complications (biliary leak 2.5% in cases versus 0 in control), strictures (15% in cases versus 17.5% in controls), hepatic artery thrombosis (2.5% versus 00%)' and portal vein thrombosis (0 versus 2.5%) were comparable. Mean hospital stay (10.80 + 2.36 and 11.78 + 2.91 d) and 30 d mortality (2.5% versus 5%) were also comparable. Finally, 1-y survival based on Kaplan-Meier analysis was comparable in both groups (ie, 92.5%; non-HTK group versus 90%; HTK group) (P = 0.71). The direct cost of using a non-HTK-based approach was less than the HTK solution.

Conclusion

In a selected cohort of right lobe LDLT recipients, preservation solutions can be avoided safely with comparable outcomes.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Budd-Chiari Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There are unique technical and management challenges associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for Budd-Chiari Syndrome (BCS). The outcomes of LDLT for BCS in comparison to other indications remain unclear and warrant elucidation.

METHODS

Data of 24 BCS patients who underwent LDLT between January 2012 and June 2019 were analyzed. There were 20 adults and 4 children. The early and long-term outcomes of adult LDLT BCS patients were compared to a control group of LDLT patients for other indications and matched using propensity scoring methodology.

RESULTS

Primary BCS was observed in 18 (90%) patients. Caval replacement was performed in 7 (35%) patients. Early and late hepatic venous outflow tract (HVOT) complications were seen in 1 (5%) and 3 (15%) patients. Preoperative acute kidney injury was identified as a risk factor for mortality in the BCS cohort (p = 0.013). On comparison, BCS recipients were younger with fewer comorbidities, more large volume ascites and higher rates of PVT. They also had longer cold ischemia time, increased blood loss and transfusion requirements, increased hospital stay, and higher late outflow complications. The 1-year and 3-year survivals were similar to non-BCS cohort (84.2% vs. 94% and 71.3% vs. 91.9%, respectively, log rank test p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

LDLT is a good option for symptomatic BCS who have failed non-transplant interventions. The clinical and risk factor profile of BCS recipients is distinct from non-BCS recipients. By following an algorithmic management protocol, we show on propensity-score matched analysis that outcomes of LDLT for BCS are similar to non-BCS indications.

Living donor liver transplant outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: does a decrease in case volume impact the overall outcomes?

Background

High-volume centers (HVCs) are classically associated with better outcomes. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a decrease in the regular liver transplantation (LT) activity at our center. This study analyzed the effect of the decline in LT on posttransplant patient outcomes at our HVC.

Methods

We compared the surgical outcomes of patients who underwent LT during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020) with outcomes in the pre-pandemic calendar year (April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020).

Results

During the 6 months of pandemic lockdown, 60 patients underwent LT (43 adults and 17 children) while 228 patients underwent LT (178 adults and 50 children) during the pre-pandemic calendar year. Patients in the pandemic group had significantly higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (24.39±9.55 vs. 21.14±9.17, P=0.034), Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores (11.46±2.32 vs. 10.25±2.24, P=0.03), and incidence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (30.2% vs. 10.2%, P=0.002). Despite performing LT in sicker patients with COVID-19-related challenges, the 30-day (14% vs. 18.5%, P=0.479), 3-month (16.3% vs. 20.2%, P=0.557), and 6-month mortality rates (23.3% vs. 28.7%, P=0.477) were lower, but not statistically significant when compared to the pre-pandemic cohort.

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown the number of LT procedures performed at our HVC declined by half because prevailing conditions allowed LT in very sick patients only. Despite these changes, outcomes were not inferior during the pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic calendar year. Greater individualization of patient care contributed to non-inferior outcomes in these sick recipients.

Safety assessment of RhD-positive red cell transfusion in RhD-negative liver-transplant recipients: Single-centre report from India

Background & objectives:

The number of blood components required during a liver-transplant surgery is significant. It is challenging for blood transfusion services to provide the required RhD-negative red blood cells (RBCs) for recipients during the peri-operative period. This retrospective study presents safety data of transfusing RhD-positive RBCs in RhD-negative living donor liver-transplant (LDLT) recipients during the peri-operative period with six-month follow up for risk of developing alloantibodies.

Methods:

All RhD-negative patients who underwent LDLT and were transfused ABO-compatible but RhD-positive RBC units between January 2012 and May 2018 were included in the study. Twenty one RhD-negative patients who received a total of 167 RhD-positive RBCs peri-operatively were chosen for alloantibody screening. All the patients were started on triple immunosuppression drugs as per the standard hospital protocol. Blood grouping, cross-match and antibody screening were done by column agglutination technique.

Results:

Post-transplant antibody screen (weekly for 12 wk) was negative, and none of the patients developed anti-D alloantibodies till their last follow up (mean 21 months).

Interpretation & conclusions:

Our observations suggest that it may be safe to use RhD-positive RBCs peri-operatively in RhD-negative LDLT recipients with low risk of alloimmunization.

Patient blood management in India - Review of current practices and feasibility of applying appropriate standard of care guidelines. A position paper by an interdisciplinary expert group

In a developing country like India, with limited resources and access to healthcare facilities, dealing with massive hemorrhage is a major challenge. This challenge gets compounded by pre-existing anemia, hemostatic disorders, and logistic issues of timely transfer of such patients from peripheral hospitals to centers with adequate resources and management expertise. Despite the awareness amongst healthcare providers regarding management modalities of bleeding patients, no uniform Patient Blood Management (PBM) or perioperative bleeding management protocols have been implemented in India, yet. In light of this, an interdisciplinary expert group came together, comprising of experts working in transfusion medicine, hematology, obstetrics, anesthesiology and intensive care, to review current practices in management of bleeding in Indian healthcare institutions and evaluating the feasibility of implementing uniform PBM guidelines. The specific intent was to perform a gap analysis between the ideal and the current status in terms of practices and resources. The expert group identified interdisciplinary education in PBM and bleeding management, bleeding history, viscoelastic and platelet function testing, and the implementation of validated, setting-specific bleeding management protocols (algorithms) as important tools in PBM and perioperative bleeding management. Here, trauma, major surgery, postpartum hemorrhage, cardiac and liver surgery are the most common clinical settings associated with massive blood loss. Accordingly, PBM should be implemented as a multidisciplinary and practically applicable concept in India in a timely manner in order to optimize the use the precious resource blood and to increase patients' safety.

Exploring new frontiers: Organ transplant anaesthesia or bariatric anaesthesia

Unlike previous years, Anaesthesiology today is a major speciality encompassing many areas of modern medicine. Advent of various surgical sub-specialities resulted into the emergence of anaesthesia sub-specialities, as every group of surgery has specific need. Choosing the best-suited speciality is a complex matter. For that, one needs to have an idea about each one of them. A postgraduate anaesthesiology student does not have adequate exposure to choose the speciality. This article will give an overview of two important sub-specialities i.e., Organ Transplant Anaesthesia and Bariatric Anaesthesia.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in South Asia: Single Center Experience on Intermediate-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is paucity of data on intermediate-term post liver transplant outcomes from South Asia. The objective of this study was to determine survival outcomes in patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in a busy liver transplant center in Pakistan.

METHODS

This study was a review of patients who underwent LDLT between 2012 and 2016. A total of 321 patients were included in this study. Early (within 90 days) and late (>90 days) morbidity and mortality was assessed. Estimated 1- and 4-year survival was determined.

RESULTS

Median age was 48 (18-73) years. Male to female ratio was 4.5:1. Out of total 346 complications, 184 (57.3%) patients developed 276 (79.7%) complications in early post-transplant period, whereas there were 70 (21.3%) late complications. Most common early complication was pleural effusion in 46 (16.6%) patients. Biliary complications were the most common late complication and were seen in 31/70 (44.2%) patients. Overall 21.4% patients had a biliary complication. The 3-month mortality was 14%. The estimated 1- and 4-year OS for a MELD cutoff of 30 was 84.5 versus 72 and 80 versus 57% (P = 0.01). There was no donor mortality.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable intermediate-term post-transplant outcomes were achieved with LDLT. There is a need to improve outcomes in high-MELD patients.

Utilization of hepatitis B core antibody positive grafts in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Utilization of liver grafts from hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive donors carries the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in recipients because of post-transplant immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who had received liver grafts from anti-HBc positive live donors between 2006 and 2016 at our institute.

RESULTS

Out of 22 recipients [all males, mean age 45.4 years (range 18-64 years)], four patients were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive preoperatively and received entecavir post-transplantation. One among these patients who temporarily stopped entecavir had a recurrence of hepatitis B 39 months post-transplantation. Among the 13 non-immune [hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) < 10 mIU/mL] recipients, eight were prescribed lamivudine (100 mg daily) as monoprophylaxis. Four compliant patients remain negative for HBV so far. Out of the remaining four, two died secondary to sepsis unrelated to hepatitis B; two were non-compliant and developed reactivation of hepatitis B. Lamivudine was missed out in five non-immune patients; three of them developed hepatitis B reactivation while two remain negative. Anti-HBs titer was immune in five patients. Over a period of 4 to 8 years follow up, three remain immune without prophylaxis, while two expired due to causes unrelated to hepatitis B. Following the detection of hepatitis B infection, five patients have been started on tenofovir 300 mg once daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-HBc positive liver grafts can be safely used for live donor liver transplantation. If the recipients are immune preoperatively, they can be merely followed up without HBV prophylaxis. However, it is extremely important to prophylactically treat the non-immune recipients with an antiviral agent lifelong.

Live donor liver transplantation for alcoholic hepatitis

Liver transplantation is a definitive therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease and cirrhosis, with improvement in survival and quality of life. Patients are carefully screened and selected for this modality of treatment to achieve maximum survival benefit. For example, a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma is a candidate if he or she is within Milan criteria and has no significant comorbidity. Similarly, patients with alcoholic cirrhosis are transplant candidates if they are deemed to have been rehabilitated from abusive alcohol consumption and are at low risk for recidivism. More recently, carefully selected patients with alcoholic hepatitis have been successfully transplanted. The preferred transplantation modality is cadaveric liver transplantation. However, living donor liver transplantation is carried out if there is no cadaveric liver organ allocation system, or if the patient is deemed to be at low priority for cadaveric organ transplantation based on the allocation system. Living donor liver transplantation for alcoholic hepatitis needs to be addressed with this background in mind.