Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation using elderly donors

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Living donor liver transplant in acute on chronic liver failure grade 3: Who not to transplant

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Liver transplantation(LT)offers definitive treatment for acute on chronic liver failure(ACLF) patients. This study was done to analyze and compare the outcomes of living donor LT(LDLT) in patients with ACLF versus Chronic liver disease(CLD) and within the grades of ACLF. Factors affecting mortality in patients with ACLF and ACLF grade3 (ACLF3) following LDLT were also derived.

METHODS

Records of adult LDLT between 1/2/2017 and 30/9/2021 were analyzed. ACLF was classified based on EASL-CLIF definition. Post-transplant outcomes of ACLF were compared with CLD and within ACLF grades. Post LDLT mortality predictors were identified in ACLF and ACLF3 patients.

RESULTS

Out of 853 patients who had LT in that period; 704 patients with CLD and 103 with ACLF [of which 54 (52.42%) had ACLF3] underwent LDLT. The one month and one-year post LDLT mortality was 8.81% and 9.80% in CLD; 19.42% and 31.06% in ACLF; and 25.92% and 38.89% in ACLF3 respectively. On log regression analysis, use of grafts from older donors and pre-operative respiratory failure in recipients was associated with poor survival in ACLF, while respiratory failure was a predictor of poor survival in ACLF3 following LDLT.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes following LDLT are poorer in ACLF as compared to after CLD. Higher donor age and preoperative respiratory failure with PF Ratio<200 were associated with poor survival post LDLT in ACLF and ACLF3.

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in patients over 50 years old: Why age should not be a barrier

INTRODUCTION

Given the global aging population, the average age of liver donors is increasing. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of grafts from pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) in liver donors aged > 50 years.

METHODS

The medical records of liver donors were retrospectively reviewed. The donors underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) from January 2011 to May 2019 or PLDRH from March 2016 to May 2019. We divided the donors into three groups: PLDRH donors aged ≥50 (n = 26; Group 1) and aged < 50 (n = 257; Group 2), and CDRH donors aged ≥50 years (n = 66; Group 3).

RESULTS

Operation time (p < .01) and hospital stay (p < .01) were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 3. Other postoperative outcomes of donors including graft anatomical variation, graft weight, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and hepatic steatosis were similar among the three groups. Although no postoperative complications occurred in Groups 1 and 3, they were detected in 17 cases (6.6%) in Group 2. No postoperative complications were detected among the recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

PLDRH was feasible and safe in donors aged over 50 years, with outcomes similar to those for donors aged <50 years. PLDRH should not be avoided solely based on the donor's age ≥50 years.

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.

Living-Donor Liver Transplant and Improved Post-Transplant Survival in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the leading indication of liver transplantation (LT) among autoimmune liver disease patients. There is a scarcity of studies comparing survival outcomes between living-donor liver transplants (LDLT)s and deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) in this population. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we compared 4679 DDLTs and 805 LDLTs. Our outcome of interest was post-LT patient survival and post-LT graft survival. A stepwise multivariate analysis was performed, adjusting for recipient age, gender, diabetes mellitus, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, race, and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score; donor' age and sex were also included to the analysis. According to univariate and multivariate analysis, LDLT had a patient and graft survival benefit compared to DDLT (HR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92; p < 0.002). LDLT patient survival (95.2%, 92.6%, 90.1%, and 81.9%) and graft survival (94.1%, 91.1%, 88.5%, and 80.5%) at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were significantly better than DDLT patient survival (93.2%, 87.6%, 83.3%, and 72.7%) and graft survival (92.1%, 86.5%, 82.1%, and 70.9%) (p < 0.001) in the same interval. Variables including donor and recipient age, male recipient gender, MELD score, diabetes mellitus, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma were associated with mortality and graft failure in PSC patients. Interestingly, Asians were more protected than Whites (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; p < 0.047), and cholangiocarcinoma was associated with the highest hazard of mortality (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.71-2.50; p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. LDLT in PSC patients were associated with greater post-transplant patient and graft survival compared to DDLT patients.

Impact of donor age on recipient morbidity and mortality after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Evidence for use of graft from older donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been conflicting. This study aims to clarify the impact of donor age on recipient morbidity and mortality after adult LDLT.

METHODS

A total of 90 live liver donors and recipients who underwent primary adult-to-adult LDLT were divided into three groups according to donor age: donors in 20s (D-20s) group, donors in 30s and 40s (D-30s and 40s) group and donors in 50s & 60s (D-50s and 60s) group. Multivariate analyses were conducted to look for independent risk/prognostic factors. Donor age was analysed as a continuous variable to determine an optimal cut off.

RESULTS

Overall donor morbidity was 4/90 (4.44%), major donor morbidity was 1/90 (1.11%) and there was no donor mortality. Recipients in the D-20s group had better 1-, 3- and 5-year recipient survival than recipients in the D-50s and 60s group (96%, 91%, 91% versus 73%, 58%, 58%, respectively) (P = 0.020). Donor age was identified to be an independently significant risk factor for increased major complications (P = 0.007) and prognostic factor for reduced overall survival (P = 0.014). The optimal donor age cut off was determined to be 46.5 years old.

CONCLUSION

Older donors are associated with poorer recipient outcomes after adult-to-adult LDLT. Usage of liver grafts from older donors should be carefully considered when choosing liver grafts for patients undergoing LDLT.

Healthy Spouses can be Considered as Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

Spousal donors have gradually been accepted as an alternative living liver donors to alleviate the organ shortage and prevent donations from children. No information is available regarding the effects of spousal donation on donor safety and recipient outcomes. Our purpose in this study was to determine how spousal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) affect donor safety and recipient outcomes compared with those of LDLT from children.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 656 patients, including spouses and children, who underwent a right or extended right hepatectomy for living liver donation between January 2009 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Spouses represented 18.8% (n = 123) of living liver donors. Female donors comprised 78.9% (n = 97) of spousal donors, and the proportion of male donors in the children group was 72.6% (n = 387). The mean donor operation time of the spousal group was shorter than that of the children group (330 min vs. 358 min; P = 0.011), and the complication rate in the spousal group was lower than that in the children group (12.2% vs. 22.9%; P = 0.006). However, there were no differences in severe complication rates, hospitalization, or liver function tests between the 2 groups at 3 months after donor surgery. The overall survival of recipients in the spousal group was not reduced compared to that of recipients in the children group.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that, with careful selection, spousal donation is feasible and safe in LDLT.

Risk Factors for Development of Biliary Stricture After Liver Transplant in Adult Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Identification of risk factors for biliary stricture after liver transplant and its potential prevention is crucial to improve the outcomes and reduce the complications. We retrospectively analyzed donor and recipient characteristics with intraoperative and postoperative parameters to identify the risk factors for development of post-transplant anastomotic and nonanastomotic biliary strictures with additional analysis of the time onset of those strictures. A total of 412 patients were included in this study. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 79 (35) months (range, 1-152 months). Biliary stricture was diagnosed in 84 patients (20.4%). Multivariate analysis indicated that postoperative biliary leakage (odd ratio [OR], 3.94; P = .001), acute cellular rejection (OR, 3.05; P < .001), donor age older than 47.5 years (OR, 2.05; P = .032), preoperative recipient platelet value < 77.5 × 10³/mL (OR, 1.91; P = .023), University of Wisconsin solution (OR, 1.73; P = .041)), recipient male sex (OR, 1.78; P = .072), portal/arterial flow ratio > 4 (OR, 1.76; P = .083), and intraoperative bleeding > 2850 mL (OR, 1.70; P = .053) were independent risk factors for biliary stricture regardless of the time of their appearance. Multiple risk factors for biliary stricture were determined in this study. Some of these risk factors are preventable, and implementation of strategies to eliminate some of those factors should reduce the development of post-transplant biliary stricture.

Impact of age on the incidence of complications after liver transplantation: A single-center retrospective study

Background and objective

Advances in surgical technique, postoperative management, and immunosuppressive therapy have led to a steady increase in the number of patients undergoing organ transplantation. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between young and elderly patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) at a single university hospital.

Method

The medical records of 253 patients who underwent LT between January 2010 and July 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those younger than 65 years (group Y, n = 231) and those older than 65 years (group O, n = 22). Data on patient demographics, perioperative management, and postoperative complications were collected.

Results

The patients’ baseline characteristics, including underlying diseases and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, were not different between groups. Preoperative laboratory findings were not significantly different between the two groups, except for hemoglobin level. The total amounts of infused fluid and packed red blood cells were higher in group O than in group Y. The postoperative plasma creatinine level was higher in group O than in group Y; however, the incidence of postoperative complications was not considerably different between the two groups. In addition, there was no difference in the survival rate after LT depending on age.

Conclusion

With the development of medical technology, LT in elderly patients is not an operation to be avoided, and the prognosis is expected to improve. Therefore, continuous efforts to understand the disease characteristics and physical differences in elderly patients who require LT are essential.

Impact of Donor Age on the Outcome of Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Special Consideration to the Feasibility of Using Elderly Donors

BACKGROUND

The use of elderly donors (≥60 y) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety of surgery for elderly donors and the impact of donor age on LDLT outcomes.

METHODS

We, retrospectively, reviewed 470 cases of LDLT at Kumamoto University Hospital from December 1998 to March 2017.

RESULTS

Donors were divided into 5 groups according to age: 20-29 (n = 109), 30-39 (n = 157), 40-49 (n = 87), 50-59 (n = 81), and ≥60 (n = 36). At our institution, elderly donor candidates required additional preoperative work-up. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications and duration of postoperative hospital stay among the 5 donor groups. Regardless of graft type, elderly donors were comparable to younger donor groups (<30 y) in postoperative recovery of liver function. Risk-adjusted overall survival rates of recipients among donor groups were not significantly different. Additionally, donor age was not significantly associated with 6-month graft survival of adult and pediatric recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly candidates ≥60 years of age can safely be selected as LDLT donors after meticulous preoperative work-up.

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.

Impact of Donor Age on Recipient Survival in Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of donor age on recipient outcome after living-donor partial liver transplantation (LDLT).

BACKGROUND

Donor age is a well-known prognostic factor in deceased donor liver transplantation; however, its role in LDLT remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 315 consecutive cases of primary adult-to-adult LDLT in our center between April 2006 and March 2014. Recipients were divided into 5 groups according to the donor age: D-20s (n = 60); D-30s (n = 72); D-40s (n = 57); D-50s (n = 94); and D-60s (n = 32). The recipient survival and the association with various clinical factors were investigated.

RESULTS

Recipient survival proportions were significantly higher in D-20s compared with all the other groups (P = 0.008, < 0.001, < 0.001, and = 0.006, vs D-30s, -40s, -50s, and -60s, respectively), whereas there was no association between recipient survival and their own age. There are 3 typical relationships between donors and recipients in adult-to-adult LDLT: from child-to-parent, between spouses/siblings, and from parent-to-child. The overall survival in child-to-parent was significantly higher than in spouses/siblings (P = 0.002) and in parent-to-child (P = 0.005), despite significantly higher recipient age in child-to-parent [59 (42-69) years, P < 0.001]. Contrastingly, parent-to-child exhibited the lowest survival, despite the youngest recipient age [26 (20-43) years, P < 0.001]. In addition, younger donor age exhibited significantly better recipient survival both in hepatitis C virus-related and in non-hepatitis C virus diseases. Univariate and multivariate analyses both demonstrated that donor age and graft-type (right-sided livers) are independent prognostic factors for recipient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor age is an independent, strong prognostic factor in adult-to-adult LDLT.

Influence of donor liver telomere and G-tail on clinical outcome after living donor liver transplantation

It has been reported that donor age affects patient outcomes after liver transplantation, and that telomere length is associated with age. However, to our knowledge, the impact of donor age and donor liver telomere length in liver transplantation has not been well investigated. This study aimed to clarify the influence of the length of telomere and G-tail from donor livers on the outcomes of living donors and recipients after living donor liver transplantation. The length of telomere and G-tail derived from blood samples and liver tissues of 55 living donors, measured using the hybridization protection assay. The length of telomeres from blood samples was inversely correlated with ages, whereas G-tail length from blood samples and telomere and G-tail lengths from liver tissues were not correlated with ages. Age, telomere, and G-tail length from blood did not affect postoperative liver failure and early liver regeneration of donors. On the other hand, the longer the liver telomere, the poorer the liver regeneration tended to be, especially with significant difference in donor who underwent right hemihepatectomy. We found that the survival rate of recipients who received liver graft with longer telomeres was inferior to that of those who received liver graft with shorter ones. An elderly donor, longer liver telomere, and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score were identified as independent risk factors for recipient survival after transplantation. In conclusion, telomere shortening in healthy liver does not correlate with age, whereas longer liver telomeres negatively influence donor liver regeneration and recipient survival after living donor liver transplantation. These results can direct future studies and investigations on telomere shortening in the clinical and experimental transplant setting.

Recipient Outcomes with Younger Donors Undergoing Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Introduction

The impact of donor age on liver transplantation is well known. Data on an appropriate donor age cut-off for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with a background of hepatitis C (HCV) is generally limited. The objective of this study was to determine whether limiting donor age to less than 35 years improved outcomes in patients with HCV-related end-stage liver disease (ESLD).

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 169 patients who underwent LDLT for HCV-related ESLD. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received grafts from donors ≤ 35 (Group 1) or > 35 (Group 2) years of age. Kaplan Meier curves were used to determine survival. Uni and multivariate analysis were performed to determine independent predictors of mortality.

Results

Mean donor age was 25.1 ± 5.2 and 40.1 ± 3.4 years (P < 0.0001). Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) was seen in 11.7% patients in Group 1 versus 29.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.02). A significant difference in mortality was present between the two groups, i.e., 33.3% versus 15.8% (P = 0.04). The estimated four-year overall survival (OS) was 78% and 64% (P = 0.03). Upon doing univariate analysis, the donor age (P = 0.04) and EAD (P = 0.006) were found to be significant variables for mortality. On multivariate analysis, EAD was the only independent predictor of mortality (Hazard ratio: 2.6; confidence interval: 1.1 - 5.8; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Opting for younger donors (≤ 35 years) for HCV-related ESLD patients lowers the risk of EAD and improves overall survival.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

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.

Feasibility of using marginal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for end-stage liver disease caused by related risk factors when liver resection is contraindicated. Additionally, despite the decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) over the past two decades, the absolute number of HBsAg-positive people has increased, leading to an increase in HBV-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Consequently, a large demand exists for LT. While the wait time for patients on the donor list is, to some degree, shorter due to the development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), there is still a shortage of liver grafts. Furthermore, recipients often suffer from emergent conditions, such as liver dysfunction or even hepatic encephalopathy, which can lead to a limited choice in grafts. To expand the pool of available liver grafts, one option is the use of organs that were previously considered “unusable” by many, which are often labeled “marginal” organs. Many previous studies have reported on the possibilities of using marginal grafts in orthotopic LT; however, there is still a lack of discussion on this topic, especially regarding the feasibility of using marginal grafts in LDLT. Therefore, the present review aimed to summarize the feasibility of using marginal liver grafts for LDLT and discuss the possibility of expanding the application of these grafts.

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.

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.

Graft selection strategy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: When both hemiliver grafts meet volumetric criteria

To ensure donor safety in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the left and caudate lobe (LL) is the preferred graft choice. However, patient prognosis may still be poor even if graft volume (GV) selection criteria are met. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of right lobe (RL) donation when the LL graft selection criteria are met. Consecutive donors (n = 135) with preoperative LL graft volumetric GV/standard liver volume (SLV) of ≥35% and RL remnant of ≥35% were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into 2 groups: LL graft and RL graft. Recipient's body surface area (BSA), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and the donor's age were higher in the RL group. The donor's BSA and preoperative volumetric GV/SLV of the LL graft were smaller in the RL group. The predicted score (calculated using data for graft size, donor age, MELD score, and the presence of portosystemic shunt, which correlated well with graft function and with 6-month graft survival) of the RL group, was significantly lower if the LL graft were used, but using the actual RL graft improved the score equal to that of the LL group. Six-month and 12-month graft survival rates did not differ between the 2 groups. In patients with a poor prognosis, a larger RL graft improved the predicted score and survival was equal to that of patients who received LL grafts. In conclusion, graft selection by GV, donor age, and recipient MELD score improves outcomes in LDLT. Liver Transplantation 22 914-922 2016 AASLD.

How important is donor age in liver transplantation?

The age of liver donors has been increasing in the past several years because of a donor shortage. In the United States, 33% of donors are age 50 years or older, as are more than 50% in some European countries. The impact of donor age on liver transplantation (LT) has been analyzed in several studies with contradictory conclusions. Nevertheless, recent analyses of the largest databases demonstrate that having an older donor is a risk factor for graft failure. Donor age is included as a risk factor in the more relevant graft survival scores, such as the Donor Risk Index, donor age and Model for End-stage Liver Disease, Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation, and the Balance of Risk. The use of old donors is related to an increased rate of biliary complications and hepatitis C virus-related graft failure. Although liver function does not seem to be significantly affected by age, the incidence of several liver diseases increases with age, and the capacity of the liver to manage or overcome liver diseases or external injuries decreases. In this paper, the importance of age in LT outcomes, the role of donor age as a risk factor, and the influence of aging on liver regeneration are reviewed.

Outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation in 321 recipients

We conducted a retrospective investigation in order to clarify whether selecting the type of liver graft had an impact on outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT). Data from the medical records of the donors and the recipients of 321 consecutive cases of AALDLT performed between April 2004 and March 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Our general criteria for selecting the type of liver graft was that a left graft was preferentially selected when the estimated volume of the left graft was ≥35% of the standard liver volume of the recipient, and that a right graft was selected only when the estimated remnant liver volume of the donor was ≥35% of the total liver volume. In this series, 177 left grafts, 136 right grafts, and 8 posterior grafts were used. The left grafts tended to have 2 or more arteries, whereas the right grafts tended to have 2 or more bile duct orifices. The graft survival curves and the incidences of severe complications were comparable between the AALDLT using right grafts and the AALDLT using left grafts. The preoperative estimation of graft size hardly enabled us to predict severe posttransplant complication. Moreover, small-for-size graft syndrome occurred regardless of the estimated graft volumes. Instead, donor age was a significant risk factor for small-for-size graft syndrome. In conclusion, left grafts should be more aggressively used for the sake of donors' safety. The use of hepatic grafts from older donors should be avoided if possible in order to circumvent troublesome posttransplant complications.

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.