Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur.

METHODS

In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier.

RESULTS

Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Optimal surgical workup to ensure safe recovery of the donor after living liver donation - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

The essential premise of living donor liver transplantation is the assurance that the donors will have a complication-free perioperative course and a prompt recovery. Selection of appropriate donors is the first step to support this premise and is based on tests that constitute the donor workup. The exclusion of liver pathologies and assessment of liver anatomy and volume in the donor candidate are the most important elements in the selection of the appropriate candidate.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is evidence to define an optimal donor surgical workup that would improve short-term outcomes of the donor after living liver donation.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel.

RESULTS

Although a liver biopsy remains the only method to exactly determine the percentage and type of steatosis and to detect other liver pathologies, its routine use is not supported. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) appear to be adequate for quantifying liver volume; the preference for one or the other is often based on center expertise. MRI is clearly a better technique to assess biliary anatomy, although aberrant biliary anatomy may not be clearly detected. MRI is also more accurate than CT in determining low grades of steatosis. CT angiography is the imaging test of choice to assess the vascular anatomy. There is no evidence of the need for catheter angiography in the modern evaluation of a living liver donor.

CONCLUSIONS

A donor liver biopsy is indicated if abnormalities are present in serological or imaging tests. Both MRI and CT imaging appear to be adequate methodologies. The routine use of catheter angiography is not supported in view of the adequacy of CT angiography in delineating liver vascular anatomy. No imaging modality available to quantify liver volume is superior to another. Biliary anatomy is better defined with MRI, although poor definition can be expected, particularly for abnormal ducts.

Optimizing pre-donation physiologic evaluation for enhanced recovery after living liver donation - Systematic review and multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

While preoperative physiologic evaluation of live liver donors is routinely performed to ensure donor safety and minimize complications, the optimal approach to this evaluation is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to identify predonation physiologic evaluation strategies to improve postoperative short-term outcomes, enhance donor's recovery, and reduce length of stay. We also aim to provide multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, and the recommendations were formulated using GRADE approach and experts' opinion. The search included retrospective or prospective studies, describing outcomes of physiologic evaluation predonation. The outcomes of interest were length of stay, postoperative complications (POC), recovery after donation, and mortality. PROSERO protocol ID CRD42021260662.

RESULTS

Of 1386 articles screened, only three retrospective cohort studies met eligibility criteria. Two studies demonstrated no impact of age (< 70 years) on POC. Increased body mass index's (BMI) association with POC was present in one study (23.8 vs 21.7 kg/m2 , OR 1.67 (1.14-2.48), P = .01) and absent in another (< 30 vs 30-35 kg/m2 , P = .61). One study demonstrated decreased risk for postdonation subclinical hepatic dysfunction in donors with higher normal platelet count (PLT). None of the studies noted donor death. Given the scarce data on predonation physiologic testing, the expert panel recommended a battery of tests to guide clinical practice and future investigations.

CONCLUSION

Advancing age (60-69 years) is not a contraindication for liver donation. There is insufficient evidence for a specific predonation BMI cut-off. Abbreviated predonation physiologic testing is recommended in all candidates. Comprehensive testing is recommended in high-risk candidates while considering the pretest probability in various populations (Quality of evidence; Low to Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Outcomes of right lobe donors with BMI≥30 for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Donor BMI above 30 is generally considered contraindication for donor hepatectomy. We compared the donor outcomes based on BMI threshold and weight loss.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All potential donors were identified and data were collected retrospectively. Steatosis was assessed based on liver-spleen Hounsfield unit difference and absolute liver intensity values. We compared BMI≥30 (n = 53) and BMI<30 (n = 64) donor outcomes. Donors with weight loss (WL) prior to surgery were also analyzed separately. Complications were graded by Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

All donors underwent open right donor hepatectomy. There was no difference between BMI≥30 and <30 groups except female predominance in BMI≥30 group (p = 0.006). Both groups had similar rates of complication rates in all categories, similar remnant volume, operative time, length of stay and similar postoperative liver function recovery (all p>0.05). On the other hand, donors with WL were more commonly male, had smaller graft size, and higher biliary complications rates compared to no-WL donors (all p<0.05). Multivariate binary logistics regression analysis revealed no association between BMI or WL and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that donors with BMI≥30 have similar outcomes compared to BMI<30 donors with our defined selection criterion, therefore BMI≥30 is not an absolute contraindication to donate right liver, provided that there is no significant steatosis and remnant liver is satisfactory. For potential overweight donors, WL down to BMI<30 is a reasonable target. Higher biliary complication rates after WL should be investigated further. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of Psychosocial Outcomes of Living Liver Donors in Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factors affecting psychosocial outcomes of living liver donors after liver transplantations.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, cross-sectional study. The sample consisted of living liver donors followed by 2 liver transplantation centers in 2 private hospitals in 2 different provinces, between August 2017 and October 2019. All the living liver donors were contacted without a time frame after donation and all the participants were evaluated once. The Beck Depression Scale, SF-36, General Self- Efficacy Scale, and Perceived Available Support Scale were used to collect data. The t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Pearson correlation analysis were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 34.31 ± 8.22 years. There was a positive, weak correlation between age and physical func- tion. Gender, marital status, financial status, and education levels significantly affected physical components, social function, vitality, depression, and self-efficacy scores. High depression levels negatively affected the physical component, self-efficacy, and social sup- port scores of the living liver donors. High self-efficacy positively affected social support.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that gender, marital status, employment status, and education levels were associated with psychosocial outcomes. The financial status was the main factor affecting each psychosocial variable. Financial status needs to be assessed in detail before and after the operation.

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.

Postoperative incision scars and cosmetic satisfaction of living liver donors

Cosmetic appearance is a major concern for living donors. However, little is known about the impact of a surgical scar on body image changes in living liver donors. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that cause displeasing upper midline incision scar, and to evaluate the overall satisfaction regarding body image and scarring after living donor hepatectomy.Donors who underwent right lobe hepatectomy were recruited. Exclusion criteria included reoperation, refusal to participate, and lost follow-up. All donors were invited to complete the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the body image questionnaire. According to the VSS results of upper midline incision scar, donors were divided into 2 groups: good scarring group (VSS ≤4) and bad scarring group (VSS >4). we compared the clinical outcomes, including the demographics, preoperation, intraoperation, and postoperation variables. The study also analyzed the results of the body image questionnaire.The proportion of male donors was 48.9%. The bad scarring group consisted of 63% of the donors. On multivariate analysis, being a male donor was found to be an independent predictor of a cosmetically displeasing upper midline incision scar with statistical significance. The results of body image questionnaires, there were significant differences in cosmetic score and confidence score among the 2 groups.The upper midline incision and male donors have higher rates of scarring in comparison with the transverse incision and female donors. Donors who reported having a higher satisfaction with their scar appearance usually had more self-confidence. However, the body image won't be affected. Medical staff should encourage donors to take active participation in wound care and continuously observe the impact of surgical scars on psychological changes in living liver donors.

Magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) is a viable alternative to liver biopsy for steatosis quantification in living liver donor transplantation

This study aimed to investigate whether magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) can be a viable noninvasive alternative to liver biopsy for the quantification of living liver donor steatosis. Hepatic steatosis for 143 donors was graded by MRI-PDFF. Study endpoints included liver volume regeneration in donors, recipient outcomes including length of hospital stay, deaths, primary non-function (PNF), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and small for size syndrome (SFSS). Correlation between MRI-PDFF determined donor steatosis and endpoints were analyzed. Donors had lower steatosis grade than non-donors. Donor remnant liver regenerated to an average of 82% of pre-donation volume by 101 ± 24 days with no complications. There was no correlation between percent liver regeneration and steatosis severity. Among recipients, 4 underwent redo-transplantation and 6 died, with no association with degree of steatosis. 52 recipients (36%) fulfilled criteria for EAD (driven by INR), with no difference in hepatic steatosis between groups. MRI-PDFF reliably predicted donor outcomes. Living donors with no or mild steatosis based on MRI-PDFF (ie, <20%) and meeting other criteria for donation can expect favorable post-surgical outcomes, including liver regeneration. Recipients had a low rate of death or retransplantation with no association between mild hepatic steatosis and EAD.

Histopathological features of incidental appendectomy specimens obtained from living liver donors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To determine the histopathological features of incidental appendectomy specimens obtained from living liver donors (LLDs) Materials and Methods: Between September 2005 and November 2018, 1910 LLDs underwent living donor hepatectomy at our institute. Incidental appendectomy together with living donor hepatectomy (LDH) was performed in 170 LLDs. The decision for incidental appendectomy was made by experienced gastrointestinal surgeons. Histopathological features of the appendectomy specimens were analyzed by two pathologists, and the following parameters were retrospectively evaluated: age, sex, appendix length (mm), appendix width (mm), presence of appendicitis, and unusual histopathological findings.

RESULTS

Histopathological findings from 97 male and 73 female LLDs aged between 18 and 64 (median: 30) years were retrospectively examined. The length of the appendix vermiformis ranged from 25 to 120 (median: 70) mm, whereas its width ranged from 4 to 13 (median: 6) mm. The following histopathological findings were observed: normal appendix vermiformis (n=137), fibrous obliteration (n=13), acute appendicitis (n=5), enterobius vermicularis (n=4), lymphoid hyperplasia (n=4), low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (n=2), mucinous cystadenoma (n=1), grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor (n=1), hyperplastic polyp (n=1), enterobius vermicularis with fibrous obliteration (n=1), and acute appendicitis with eosinophilic infiltration (n=1).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that a careful inspection of the abdominal cavity was useful, and appendectomy should be performed when required. In addition, even if the macroscopic appearance of the appendectomy specimens is normal, histopathological evaluations facilitate an early diagnosis of numerous unusual appendiceal diseases.

Comparison of postoperative coagulation profiles and outcome for sugammadex versus pyridostigmine in 992 living donors after living-donor hepatectomy

Donor safety is the major concern in living donor liver transplantation, although hepatic resection may be associated with postoperative coagulopathy. Recently, the use of sugammadex has been gradually increased, but sugammadex is known to prolong prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). We compared the postoperative coagulation profiles and outcomes of sugammadex versus pyridostigmine group in donors receiving living donor hepatectomy.Consecutive donor hepatectomy performed between September 2013 and August 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. For reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, donors received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or pyridostigmine 0.25 mg/kg. The primary end-points were laboratory findings (PT, aPTT, hemoglobin, platelet count) and clinically evaluated postoperative bleeding (relaparotomy for bleeding, cumulative volume collected in drains). Secondary outcomes were anesthesia time, postoperative hospital day.Of 992 donors, 383 treated with sugammadex and 609 treated with pyridostigmine for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. There were no significant differences between both groups for drop in hemoglobin and platelet, prolongation in PT, aPTT, and the amount of 24-h drain volume. Bleeding events within 24 h were reported in 2 (0.3%) for pyridostigmine group and 0 (0%) for sugammadex group (P = .262). Anesthesia time was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (438.8 ± 71.4 vs. 421.3 ± 62.3, P < .001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (P = .002).Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was not associated with increased bleeding tendency, but associated with reduced anesthesia time and hospital stay. Therefore, sugammadex may be safely used and will decrease morbidity in donor undergoing living-donor hepatectomy.

Revisiting donor risk over two decades of single-center experience: More attention on the impact of overweight

OBJECTIVE

Morbidity rates after living donor hepatectomy vary greatly among centers. Donor morbidity in a tertiary center over the past two decades was revisited.

METHODS

Clinical data and grading of complications were reviewed by a nontransplant surgeon based on Clavien 5 tier grading. Risk factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 473 consecutive living liver donors from 1997 to 2016 were included for analysis; 305 were right liver donors and 168 left liver donors, and the corresponding morbidity rates were 27.2% and 9.5%. The majority (81/99, 81.2%) of complications were grade I and II. Donors with morbidity compared with those without were significantly younger, nonoverweight body figure (BMI < 25), more as the right liver donors, and longer length of hospital stay. Right liver donation had significantly higher morbidity rates than did left liver donation in earlier periods (before 2011), but not thereafter. Multivariate modeling revealed that right lobe donation and overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) were significant factors associated with donor morbidity, with adjusted hazard ratios HR (95% confidence interval) of 3.401 (1.909-6.060) and 0.550 (0.304-0.996), respectively. Further, overweight was a paradoxical risk factor in right donor hepatectomy with HR 0.422 (0.209-0.851), but the effect was nonsignificant in left liver donors. Most complications in overweight donors were grade I and not specific to liver surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate was 20.9%. Overweight might be protective against morbidity in right hepatectomy and warrants further deliberation.

Mental health status after living donor hepatectomy

Donor safety and preservation of donor health after living liver donation are of paramount importance. In addition, the preoperative mental state of a donor is an important factor in determining the psychological impact of donor hepatectomy. Thus, we aimed to explore the mental health status of living liver donors after hepatectomy. We enrolled 60 donors who were scheduled to undergo living donor hepatectomy during the period January 2014 to March 2015 at a single medical center. Mental health status was measured before and 3 months after surgery using 3 self-report questionnaires, namely the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) to assess depressive symptoms, the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire to measure quality of life, and the Chinese Health Questionnaire (CHQ) to screen for minor psychiatric disorders. A comparison of the pre- and postdonation CES-D scores revealed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms after surgery (P = .031). There were significant improvements in the physical health domain (P = .031), the psychological health domain (P = .005), the social relationships domain (P = .005), and the environmental health domain (P = .010) of the WHOQOL-BREF. There were no significant changes in CHQ scores after donor hepatectomy (P = .136). All donors reported that they would donate again if required. Approximately one-third (33.3%) of donors experienced more pain than they had anticipated in the immediate postoperative period, and 20.0% of donors had complications after donor hepatectomy. Donor mental health status tended to improve as donors regained physical function during the 1st 3 months of recovery. Long-term monitoring of living donors' mental health is needed to minimize the adverse psychological outcomes of living liver donation.