Hepatitis C disease severity in living versus deceased donor liver transplant recipients: an extended observation study

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and HCV Patients: An Initial Umbrella Review

Background: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become a widely accepted alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Nevertheless, the available meta-analyses shed light on a perplexing issue regarding which transplant is better. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review to summarize and evaluate the evidence from current meta-analyses. Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 1 June 2024. The methodological quality of each included meta-analysis was evaluated using AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). Results: The search identified 10 meta-analyses from 486 individual articles, including cohort studies and observational studies. Regrettably, the quality of these meta-analyses ranged from critically low to moderate. Receipt of LDLT offers a survival advantage to the patients with HCC compared with DDLT but with a higher complication rate. However, high-quality studies are required in the future to validate our assertions owing to the low certainty of the evidence. Conclusions: Despite the complication risks, LDLT remains a cost-effective option without compromising patient and graft survival, especially for HCC patients. Extensive, well-designed studies are essential to validate these conclusions.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 - 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 - 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 - 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 - 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 - 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 - 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Increased survival in hepatitis c patients who underwent living donor liver transplant: a case-control study with propensity score matching

Purpose

There is no consensus regarding the difference in outcomes of HCV in patients who receive living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aims of this study were to compare characteristics between LDLT and DDLT groups and to identify risk factors affecting patient survival.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the multicenter records of 192 HCV RNA-positive patients who underwent liver transplantation.

Results

Thirty-five patients underwent DDLT, and 146 underwent LDLT. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were 66.7%, 63.0%, and 63.0% in the DDLT group and 86.1%, 82.3%, and 79.5% in the LDLT group (P = 0.024), respectively. After propensity matching, the patient survival curve of the LDLT group was higher than that of the DDLT group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in patient survival between the 2 groups (P = 0.061). Recipient age ≥ 60 years, LDLT, and use of tacrolimus were positively associated with patient survival in multivariate analyses.

Conclusion

LDLT appears to be suitable for HCV-infected patients if appropriate living donor is available.

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

Drug Metabolism, Drug Interactions, and Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Living Donor Liver Transplant Patients

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) fills a critically needed gap in the number of livers available for transplant. However, little is known about the functional recovery of the liver in the donor and in the recipient after surgery. Given that both donor and recipients are treated with several drugs, it is important to characterize the time course of recovery of hepatic synthetic, metabolic, and excretory function in these patients. In the absence of data from LDLT, information on the effect of liver disease on the pharmacokinetics of medications can be used as guidance for drug dosing in LDLT patients.

Impact of donor-recipient genetic relationship on outcome of living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a valuable option for expanding the donor pool, especially in localities where deceased organ harvesting is not allowed. In addition, rejection rates were found to be lower in LDLT, which is attributed to the fact that LDLT is usually performed between relatives. However, the impact of genetic relation on the outcome of LDLT has not been studied. In this study, we examined the difference in rejection rates between LDLT from genetically related (GR) donors and genetically unrelated (GUR) donors. All cases that underwent LDLT during the period from May 2004 until May 2014 were included in the study. The study group was divided into 2 groups: LDLT from GR donors and LDLT from GUR donors. A total of 308 patients were included in the study: 212 from GR donors and 96 from GUR donors. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing was not included in the workup for matching donors and recipients. GUR donors were wives (36; 11.7%), sons-in-law (7; 2.3%), brothers-in-law (12; 3.9%), sisters-in-law (1; 0.3%), and unrelated (38; 12.3%). The incidence of acute rejection in the GR group was 17.4% and 26.3% in the GUR group (P value = 0.07). However, there was a significant difference in the incidence of chronic rejection (CR) between the 2 groups: 7% in GR group and 14.7% in the GUR group (P value = 0.03). In terms of overall survival, there was no significant difference between both groups. LDLT from the GUR donors is not associated with a higher incidence of acute cellular rejection. However, CR was significantly lower when grafts were procured from GR donors. HLA matching may be recommended before LDLT from GUR donors. Liver Transplantation 23:43-49 2017 AASLD.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Management of Hepatitis C Post-liver Transplantation: a Comprehensive Review

Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common cause of chronic liver disease, and HCV-related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma are the leading causes for liver transplantation in the Western world. Recurrent infection of the transplanted liver allograft is universal in patients with detectable HCV viremia at the time of transplant and can cause a spectrum of disease, ranging from asymptomatic chronic infection to an aggressive fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Recurrent HCV is more aggressive in the post-transplant population and is a leading cause of allograft loss, morbidity, and mortality. Historically, treatment of recurrent HCV has been limited by low rates of treatment success and high side effect profiles. Over the past few years, promising new therapies have emerged for the treatment of HCV that have high rates of sustained virological response without the need for interferon based regimens. In addition to being highly effective, these treatments have higher rates of adherence and a lower side effect profile. The purpose of this review is to summarize current therapies in recurrent HCV infection, to review the recent advances in therapy, and to highlight areas of ongoing research.

Hepatitis C: New challenges in liver transplantation

In an era of great achievements in liver transplantation, hepatitis C viral infection (HCV) remains an unsolved problem. As a leading indication for liver transplantation in Western countries, HCV poses a significant burden both before and after transplantation. Post-transplant disease recurrence occurs in nearly all patients with detectable pretransplant viremia, compromising the lifesaving significance of transplantation. Many factors involving the donor, recipient and virus have been evaluated throughout the literature, although few have been fully elucidated and implemented in actual clinical practice. Antiviral therapy has been recognized as a cornerstone of HCV infection control; however, experience and success are diminished following transplantation in a challenging cohort of patients with liver cirrhosis. Current therapeutic protocols surpass those used previously, both in sustained viral response and side-effect profile. In this article we review the most relevant and contemporary scientific evidence regarding hepatitis C infection and liver transplantation, with special attention dedicated to novel, more efficient and safer antiviral regimens.

Post-transplant course of hepatitis C after living donor liver transplantation in association with polymorphisms near IFNL3

Donor genotype for polymorphisms near IFNL3 influences hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy responsiveness. This relationship has not been studied in a sample of HCV-infected living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients in the United States (US). We investigated the association of donor and recipient genotypes near the IFNL3 gene at a large US liver transplant center. Recipient homozygosity for rs12979860 C was associated with increased sustained virologic response (SVR) in antiviral treatment-experienced patients pretransplant (P = 0.055). Consistently, donor homozygosity for rs12979860 C was also associated with increased SVR in patients who received post-transplant antiviral therapy (P = 0.048). Transplantation of an rs12979860 CC graft confers a favorable post-transplant antiviral response among HCV-positive recipients in an LDLT setting. Recipients with the favorable rs12979860 genotype receiving antiviral therapy before transplant are also more likely to achieve SVR. The effect of genotype status in the era of direct-acting antiviral agents will require future study.