Experience after the evaluation of 700 potential donors for living donor liver transplantation in a single center

Perspectives and Tools in Liver Graft Assessment: A Transformative Era in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation is a critical and evolving field in modern medicine, offering life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease and other hepatic conditions. Despite its transformative potential, transplantation faces persistent challenges, including a global organ shortage, increasing liver disease prevalence, and significant waitlist mortality rates. Current donor evaluation practices often discard potentially viable livers, underscoring the need for refined graft assessment tools. This review explores advancements in graft evaluation and utilization aimed at expanding the donor pool and optimizing outcomes. Emerging technologies, such as imaging techniques, dynamic functional tests, and biomarkers, are increasingly critical for donor assessment, especially for marginal grafts. Machine learning and artificial intelligence, exemplified by tools like LiverColor, promise to revolutionize donor-recipient matching and liver viability predictions, while bioengineered liver grafts offer a future solution to the organ shortage. Advances in perfusion techniques are improving graft preservation and function, particularly for donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts. While challenges remain-such as graft rejection, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and recurrence of liver disease-technological and procedural advancements are driving significant improvements in graft allocation, preservation, and post-transplant outcomes. This review highlights the transformative potential of integrating modern technologies and multidisciplinary approaches to expand the donor pool and improve equity and survival rates in liver transplantation.

Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Conventional and Speckle Tracking Echocardiographic Parameters in Living Liver Donors

Introduction We aimed to assess whether partial hepatectomy has an influence on conventional and speckle tracking parameters on echocardiography in living liver donors in the early postoperative period. Methods This study was a retrospective study to investigate the cardiac effects of liver donation after the transplant operation in a high-volume liver transplant center. Ninety living liver donors were included in the study. The echocardiographic images were obtained from 90 living liver donors before and five to seven days after the operation. The echocardiographic examinations were evaluated with a Philips Epiq 7 ultrasound system (Philips Ultrasound; Bothell, WA, USA) by experienced cardiologists in accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography. These included M-mode, two-dimensional imaging, tissue Doppler assessment at the septal and lateral mitral annulus, and strain imaging in all patients at rest in the left decubitus position. The changes in echocardiographic parameters in living liver donors were analyzed. Paired T-test was used to assess significant differences. Results The left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular (RV) GLS, and RV free wall LS, reservoir phase of left atrial strain (LAS-r), conduit phase of LAS (LAS-cd) did not show significant changes after the operation (for all, p>0.05). However, the absolute atrial contraction phase of LAS (LAS-ct) mean value increased significantly (14.2±8.8 vs 16.6±8.3, p=0.025) postoperatively. Among the conventional echo parameters, isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT) and the E/A ratio demonstrated notable postoperative alterations. The mean IVRT (87.3 ± 22.4 vs. 80.8 ± 18.1, p=0.014) and E/A ratio (1.5 ± 0.5 vs. 1.3 ± 0.3, p=0.012) exhibited a postoperative decline. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate the effect of partial hepatectomy on cardiac functions by echocardiography in living liver donors, and there was no deterioration in the functions of both the ventricles and left atrium.

Donor Evaluation Protocol for Live and Deceased Donors

Donor evaluation is a critical step before proceeding with liver transplantation (LT) in both deceased donor LT (DDLT) and living donor LT (LDLT). A good, healthy graft is necessary for the success of the transplantation. Other issues in selecting a donor include the transmission of infections and malignancies from the donor. Because of the scarcity of cadaver organs, an increasing number of extended-criteria donors, or 'marginal donors', are being utilized. LDLT also has potential risks to the donor, and donor safety needs to be kept in mind before proceeding with LT. The current review highlights the factors to be considered during donor evaluation for living and deceased donors before LT.

High-resolution MR imaging with gadoxetate disodium for the comprehensive evaluation of potential living liver donors

OBJECTIVE

Several major transplantation centers have used composite multimodality evaluation for the preoperative evaluation of potential living liver donors. This approach can be time-consuming and, although rare, can cause complications. We aimed to demonstrate the clinical feasibility of our comprehensive preoperative MR protocol for the preoperative assessment of living liver donor candidates instead of composite multimodality evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive living liver donor candidates underwent multiphasic liver CT and comprehensive donor protocol MR examinations for preoperative evaluation in a single large-volume liver transplantation (LT) center. Three blinded abdominal radiologists reviewed the CT and MR images for vascular and biliary variations. The strength of agreement between CT and MR angiography was assessed using the kappa index. The detection rate of biliary anatomical variations was calculated. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant steatosis (>5%) were calculated. The estimated total volume and right lobe volumes measured by MR volumetry were compared with the corresponding CT volumetry measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Among the 35 patients, 26 underwent LT. The measurement of agreement showed a moderate to substantial agreement between CT and MR angiography interpretations (kappa values, 0.47-0.79; p < 0.001). Combining T2-weighted and T1-weighted MR cholangiography techniques detected all biliary anatomical variations in 9 of the 26 patients. MR-proton density fat fraction showed a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and a specificity of 91.3% (21/23) for detecting pathologically determined steatosis (>5%). MR volumetry reached an excellent agreement with CT volumetry (reviewers 1 and 2: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Our one-stop comprehensive liver donor MR imaging protocol can provide complete information regarding hepatic vascular and biliary anatomies, hepatic parenchymal quality, and liver volume for living liver donor candidates and can replace composite multimodality evaluation.

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.

A systematic review of auxiliary liver transplantation of small for size grafts in patients with chronic liver disease

Background & Aims

The shortage of liver grafts continues to worsen. Because the expanded use of small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) would substantially alleviate this shortage, we aimed to analyse the available knowledge on auxiliary liver transplantation (ALT) with SFSGs in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) to identify opportunities to develop ALT with SFSGs in patients with CLD.

Methods

This is a systematic review on ALT using SFSGs in patients with CLD. The review was completed by updates obtained from the authors of the retained reports.

Results

Heterotopic ALT was performed in 26 cases between 1980 and 2017, none for SFGS stricto sensu, and auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) in 27 cases (from 1999 to 2021), all for SFSG. In APOLT cases, partial native liver resection was performed in most of cases, whereas the second-stage remnant native liver hepatectomy was performed in 9 cases only. The median graft-to-body weight ratio was 0.55, requiring perioperative or intraoperative portal modulation in 16 cases. At least 1 complication occurred in 24 patients following the transplant procedure (morbidity rate, 89%). Four patients (4/27, 15%) died after the APOLT procedure. At the long term, 19 (70%) patients were alive and well at 13 months to 24 years (median, 4.5 years) including 18 with the APOLT graft in place and 1 following retransplantation.

Conclusions

Despite high postoperative morbidity, and highly reported technical variability, the APOLT technique is a promising technique to use SFSGs in patients with CLD, achieving satisfactory long-term results. The results need to be confirmed on a larger scale, and a standardised technique could lead to even better results.

Lay summary

At the cost of a high postoperative morbidity, the long-term results of APOLT for small-for-size grafts are good. Standardisation of the procedure and of portal modulation remain needed.

•

Using a small-for-size graft is a risk factor of small-for-size syndrome.

•

Auxiliary liver transplantation can be orthotopic or heterotopic.

•

In auxiliary transplantation, the remnant native liver prevents small-for-size syndrome.

•

Transplantation with a small-for-size graft requires individually tailored portal modulation.

•

Auxiliary liver transplantation might substantially increase the number of available grafts.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obesity among adult donors are major challenges to living donor liver transplantation: A single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

Obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are rampant in South East Asia. There is paucity of data exploring its' impact on donor suitability for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We aimed to describe and examine the factors related to non-utilization of potential donors in our LDLT programme.

METHODS

This is an analysis of prospectively collected data on potential donors for an adult LDLT programme, between January 2017 and December 2019.

RESULTS

Fifty-five donors for 33 potential recipients were evaluated. The mean age was 31.6 ± 8.5 years, 52.7% were female and the ethnic divisions were: Chinese (50.9%), Indian (25.5%) and Malay (23.6%). The mean body mass index (BMI) among potential donors was 25.1 ± 4.0 kg/m²; 25.5% of donors had normal BMI, 23.6% were overweight and 50.9% were obese. Using the CAP modality of Fibroscan®, we identified the following grades of hepatic steatosis: 36.6% S0, 19.5% S1, 2.4% S2 and 41.5% S3. The non-utilization rate of our donors was 74.5% (41/55) and the main reasons were significant hepatic steatosis and/or obesity. Compared to suitable donors, unsuitable donors had significantly greater mean BMI, mean CAP scores, higher rates of dyslipidaemia and NAFLD.

CONCLUSION

NAFLD and obesity represent major challenges to an emerging LDLT programme in Malaysia.

Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry

BACKGROUND

To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency.

RESULTS

For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

Assessment of the global practice of living donor liver transplantation

Criteria that drive the selection and utilization of living liver donors are limited. Herein, the global availability of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and components of donor selection and utilization were assessed via an international survey. There were 124 respondents representing 41 countries, including 47 from Asia/Middle East (A/ME), 20 from Europe, and 57 from the Americas. Responses were obtained from 94.9% of countries with ≥10 LDLT cases/year. Most centers (82.3%) have defined donor age criteria (median 18-60 years), while preset recipient MELD cutoffs (median 18-30) were only reported in 54.8% of programs. Overall, 67.5% of programs have preset donor BMI (body mass index) ranges (median 18-30), and the mean acceptable macrosteatosis was highest for A/ME (20.2 ± 9.2%) and lowest for Americas (16.5 ± 8.4%, P = 0.04). Americas (56.1%) and European (60.0%) programs were more likely to consider anonymous donors versus A/ME programs (27.7%, P = 0.01). There were no differences in consideration of complex anatomical variations. Most programs (75.9%) perform donor surgery via an open approach, and A/ME programs are more likely to use microscopic arterial reconstruction. Despite variations in practice, key aspects of living donor selection were identified. These findings provide a contemporary reference point as LDLT continues to expand into areas with limited access to liver transplantation.

Controlled attenuation parameter measured using transient elastography for the noninvasive assessment of macrovesicular steatosis in potential living liver donors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) measured using transient elastography (TE) for assessing macrovesicular steatosis (MaS) in potential living liver donors using same-day biopsy as a reference standard.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 204 living liver donor candidates who underwent TE and liver biopsy on the same day between July 2013 and June 2014. The histologic degree of MaS was determined. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to evaluate the performance of CAP for diagnosing MaS of >10%, and the optimal cutoff value was identified using the maximal Youden index.

RESULTS

Based on liver biopsy, 185 subjects had MaS of ≤10% and 19 had MaS of >10%. The CAP value was significantly correlated with the percentage of MaS on liver biopsy (r=0.635, P<0.001), and the median CAP value was significantly higher in subjects with MaS of >10% than in those with MaS of ≤10% (300 dB/m vs. 209 dB/m, P<0.001). The AUROC for diagnosing MaS of >10% by CAP was 0.938 (95% confidence interval, 0.896 to 0.967), and a CAP of >259 dB/m yielded a sensitivity of 84.2% and a specificity of 92.4%.

CONCLUSION

The CAP measured using TE was significantly correlated with MaS and accurately detected substantial MaS in potential living liver donors. The CAP is a promising tool for the noninvasive diagnosis of MaS and may be used to screen unsuitable living liver donor candidates.

[Is the alpps procedure justified in children?]

The authors have analyzed the indications and outcomes after ALPPS procedure considering modern literature data devoted to this surgery in pediatric patients. No data on post-resection liver failure, as well as unclear future liver remnant function make it possible to question the feasibility of such procedures in children.

Our Living Donor Protocol for Liver Transplant: A SingleCenter Experience

OBJECTIVES

The shortage of deceased donor organs is a limiting factor in transplant. The growing discrepancy between the wait list demand versus the supply of deceased donor organs has created an incentive for consideration of living donor liver transplant as an alternative. Here, we describe our evaluation process and donor complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 1988, we have performed 659 (449 living donor and 210 deceased donor) liver transplants. The most important evaluation criteria is the relationship between donor and recipient, and we require thatthe donor must be related to the recipient. The evaluation protocol has 5 stages. Donor complications were defined as simple, moderate, and severe.

RESULTS

We retrospectively investigated data for 1387 candidates, and 938 (67.7%) were rejected; subsequently, 449 living donor liver transplants were performed. There were no complications in 398 of the donors (88.7%). Total complication rate was 11.3%. Simple complications were seen in 31 patients (6.9%). Moderate complications were seen in 19 patients (4.2%). We had only 1 severe complication, ie, organ failure from unspecified liver necrosis, which resulted in death.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between donor and recipient and donor safety should be the primary focus for living donor liver transplant. Donor selection should be made carefully to minimize complications and provide adequately functional grafts.

A Survey on Awareness and Attitudes Toward Organ Donation Among Medical Professionals, Medical Students, Patients, and Relatives in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the level of knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation among doctors, nurses, medical students, patients, and relatives of patients at Dhaka Medical College Hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

METHODS

A cross sectional study was conducted at Dhaka Medical College Hospital among doctors, nurses, medical students, patients, and attendants (100 participants in each group). Participants completed a 20-item self-administered questionnaire that assessed levels of knowledge and attitudes regarding organ donation.

RESULTS

Among the 500 participants, 85% had heard about organ donation, but only 46% of doctors, 33% of nurses, and 41% of medical students could report the names of all the organs that can be donated. One-fourth (25.4%) had agreed to donate their organs (23% of doctors, 17% of nurses, 28% of medical students, 29% of patients, and 30% of attendants), and 26.0% did not agree to donate (17% of doctors, 19% of nurses, 16% of medical students, 42% of patients, and 36% of relatives). Less than half (43.8%) of participants reported that they would donate organs to help someone when they die. Among the entire sample, 16% reported that their family would be upset if they donated organs, and 12.6% reported that it was against their religion.

CONCLUSION

Although medical professionals have a better understanding of organ donation than nonmedical individuals, their attitudes toward organ donation are similar to that of the general population. A strategic approach should be taken to develop and launch public campaigns targeting both medical professionals and the general population to educate and raise awareness about organ donation.

Offspring Versus Nonoffspring to Parent Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Does Donor Relationship Matter?

BACKGROUND

Offspring (donor) to parent (recipient) transplant is the most common form of living donor liver transplant in the United States. In kidney transplantation, it has been suggested that female recipients of offspring living donor kidney allografts have inferior outcomes. It is unknown whether such a phenomenon also occurs following living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was completed of recipients of a living donor liver transplant from January 1998 to January 2018 in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were grouped as having received a living donor liver allograft from either an offspring or a nonoffspring, with exactly 3 HLA matches, as would be expected between an offspring and parent. Graft and patient survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 279 offspring to parent and 241 nonoffspring donor liver transplants were included in the analysis. Female recipients of offspring liver allografts had both inferior 10-year graft (52% versus 72%; P < 0.001) and patient survival (52% versus 81%; P < 0.001) compared with female recipients of nonoffspring allografts. No such difference in outcomes was discovered among male recipients. A stratified analysis of sex of offspring donors to female recipients demonstrated that donor male gender was associated with graft failure (HR = 2.87; P = 0.04) and mortality (hazard ratio = 3.89; P = 0.03). Again, this association was not seen with male recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among female recipients, offspring to parent living donor liver transplantation yields inferior long-term graft and patient survival. Furthermore, among offspring donors, male sex was strongly associated with inferior outcomes. These findings have significant implications for donor selection.

Application of 3-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has been used to support organ transplantations. However, whether it helps remains unclear. This study aimed to present and assess the application of 3D-printed liver models in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The 3D images were printed to touchable liver models with transparent liver parenchyma, specifically colored hepatic vessels, and biliary structures. A total of 30 consecutive recipients were enrolled in the study: 10 were operated on with the support of 3D printing (3D-printing group) and 20 (control group) were operated on without it. Detailed photographs and data of the cases in the 3D-printing group were presented. One patient underwent auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation using the left lobe graft, in which the abdominal cavity model was also printed to test whether the planned graft fit the recipient's abdominal cavity. The 3D-printed models facilitated surgical planning and procedures, particularly in the management of hepatic veins and in the prevention of large-for-size syndrome. The operative time of donors in the 3D-printing group was significantly shorter compared with the control group (2.3 ± 0.4 versus 3.0 ± 0.4 hours; P < 0.001). Inpatient costs for donors in the 3D-printing group were 17.1% lower than those in the control group (34.6 ± 6.6 versus 41.7 ± 10.4 thousand ¥; P = 0.03). In conclusion, in small infants and complicated pediatric LDLT patients, 3D-printed models can help minimize the risk of large-for-size syndrome and graft reduction. The 3D-printed models may be conducive to liver graft procurement and intraoperative assistance in pediatric LDLT.

Screening and evaluation of potential recipients and donors for living donor uterus transplantation: results from a single-center observational study

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience with the screening and selection of potential recipients and living donors of our uterus transplantation (UTx) program.

DESIGN

Part of an observational program.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Patients with absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI).

INTERVENTION(S)

Screening by e-mail and telephone, selection during surgical consultation, and preoperative investigations according to a multistep procedure for living donation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Age, cause of AUFI, exclusion reasons, and preoperative workup.

RESULT(S)

A total of 212 potential recipients expressed interest in participation. Among the 46 potential recipients and 49 directed donors were 4 potential recipients, each with 2 directed donors. Mean (range) age of potential recipients was 29.6 (19-41) years. Of the potential recipients, 39 (84.8%) had congenital AUFI and 7 (17.3%) had acquired AUFI. Ultimately, 15 potential recipients with 16 directed donors were selected for participation, with 1 potential recipient having 2 directed donors. Mean age of included potential recipients was 28.9 (22-35) years, and mean donor age was 51.3 (37-62) years. Fourteen potential recipients (93.3%) had congenital AUFI, and one potential recipient (6.7%) had undergone hysterectomy for obstetric complications.

CONCLUSION(S)

The number of potential candidates for UTx is not inconsiderable, with congenital AUFI being the leading cause of AUFI in our cohort. However, our findings highlight that large numbers of AUFI patients need to be screened, considering our exclusion rates were >50%, owing to ABO incompatibility, unavailability of a directed donor, and self-withdrawal. Moreover, meticulous preoperative screening, including in-depth psychological assessment, is mandatory to maximize living donor safety and UTx success.

A Worldwide Survey of Live Liver Donor Selection Policies at 24 Centers With a Combined Experience of 19 009 Adult Living Donor Liver Transplants

BACKGROUND

Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved with a focus on donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate.

METHODS

A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide. 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 LDLTs responded.

RESULTS

Centers were categorized into predominantly LDLT (18) or deceased donor liver transplantation (6), and high- (10) or low-volume (14) centers. At most centers, the minimum acceptable graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.7 or less (67%), and remnant was 30% (75%). The median upper limit of donor age was 60 years and body mass index of 33 kg/m. At 63% centers, age influenced the upper limit of body mass index inversely. Majority preferred aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase less than 50 IU/mL. Most accepted donors with nondebilitating mild mental or physical disability and rejected donors with treated coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident and nonbrain, nonskin primary malignancies. Opinions were divided about previous psychiatric illness, substance abuse and abdominal surgery. Most performed selective liver biopsy, commonly for steatosis, raised transaminases and 1 or more features of metabolic syndrome. On biopsy, all considered macrovesicular and 50% considered microvesicular steatosis important. Nearly all (92%) rejected donors for early fibrosis, and minority for nonspecific granuloma or mild inflammation. Most anatomical anomalies except portal vein type D/E were acceptable at high-volume centers. There was no standard policy for preoperative or peroperative cholangiogram.

CONCLUSIONS

This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization between centers, with potential expansion of the donor pool without compromising safety.

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.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma with live donors or extended criteria donors: a propensity score-matched comparison

Background

To compare patient survival after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from live donors (LD) or extended criteria donors (ECD).

Methods

Data from consecutive LT procedures for HCC involving either LD or ECD were reviewed. Patient survival was our primary outcome. Re-transplantation (Re-LT), ischemic type bile lesions (ITBL), and tumor recurrence represented secondary outcomes. The primary outcome was statistically analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression; logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analysis of the secondary outcomes. Propensity score was calculated based on patient age, sex, hepatitis C viral infection (HCV), laboratory model for end-stage liver disease (labMELD) score, bridging treatment, Milan criteria, α-fetoprotein levels, and tumor grade.

Results

The study evaluated 109 recipients undergoing LT from either LD (n=57) or ECD (n=52). LT procedure (hazard ratio [HR] 2.349, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.151-4.794, P=0.0190), age (HR 1.075, 95%CI 1.020-1.133, P=0.0074) and labMELD score (HR 1.082, 95%CI 1.021-1.147, P=0.0075) reached significance by Cox proportional hazards regression. After adjustment with the propensity score (stratification with 5 strata), the LT procedure was still significant (HR 2.401, 95%CI 1.114-5.175, P=0.0253). Tumor grade (odds ratio [OR] 9.628, 95%CI 1.120-82.752, P=0.0391), labMELD score (OR 1.224, 95%CI 1.019-1.471, P=0.0306), and Milan criteria (OR 6.375, 95%CI 1.239-32.796, P=0.0267) gained statistical significance by logistic regression analysis for Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence, respectively.

Conclusions

LT for HCC showed superior patient survival with ECD rather than LD grafts. Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the diverging criteria for the definition of ECD grafts represent a considerable limitation for the wide application of this policy.

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.

Portal Supply and Venous Drainage of the Caudate Lobe in the Healthy Human Liver: Virtual Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Volume Study

OBJECTIVE

The venous vascular anatomy of the caudate lobe is exceptional. The purpose of this study was to assess portal inflow and venous outflow volumes of the caudate lobe.

METHODS

Extrahepatic (provided by the first-order branches) versus intrahepatic (provided by the second- to third-order branches) portal inflow, as well as direct (via Spieghel veins) versus indirect (via hepatic veins) venous drainage patterns were analyzed in virtual 3-D liver maps in 140 potential live liver donors.

RESULTS

The caudate lobe has a greater intrahepatic than extrahepatic portal inflow volume (mean 55 ± 26 vs. 45 ± 26%: p = 0.0763), and a greater extrahepatic than intrahepatic venous drainage (mean 54-61 vs. 39-46%). Intrahepatic drainage based on mean estimated values showed the following distribution: middle > inferior (accessory) > right > left hepatic vein.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacrifice of extrahepatic caudate portal branches can be compensated by the intrahepatic portal supply. The dominant outflow via Spieghel veins and the negligible role of left hepatic vein in caudate venous drainage may suggest reconstruction of caudate outflow via Spieghel veins in instances of extended left hemiliver live donation not inclusive of the middle hepatic vein. The anatomical data and the real implication for living donors must be further verified by clinical studies.

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.

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.

Two-stage liver transplantation using auxiliary laparoscopically harvested grafts in adults: Emphasizing the concept of "hypersmall graft nursing"

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation is limited by the donor's risk in case of right liver donation and by the risk of small-for-size syndrome on the recipient in case of left lobe transplantation. This study aimed at evaluating the feasibility and results of two-stage liver transplantation using auxiliary hyper small grafts harvested laparoscopically and discussing relevant technical insights and issues that still need to be overcome.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis involving two patients operated at a tertiary referral center. The recipients underwent left lateral sectionectomy and then auxillary liver transplantation using laparoscopically harvested left lateral section. The native right liver was transiently left in place to sustain the initially small functional graft functional during its hypertrophy.

RESULTS

No donor experienced postoperative complication. After 7days, the hypertrophy rate was 112% (105-120). Doppler assessments during the first two postoperative weeks showed progressive portal vein inflow decrease in the right native livers and portal vein inflow increase in the grafts. Liver biopsies on postoperative day 7 showed no lesion of overperfusion. No recipient experienced liver failure or small-for-size syndrome. Second stage hepatectomy of the native liver was undertaken in one patient. In the other patient, biliary stenosis on postoperative day 30 precluded second stage hepatectomy. This patient required retransplantation after one year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The current strategy increases donor safety and may allow increasing the pool of available grafts. Refinements in the management of the native right liver are however required to improve the feasibility rate of this strategy.

Trends in Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Organ Donation: The Johns Hopkins Experience

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation is an increasingly important option for 17000 patients awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. However, adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation volumes peaked in 2001 (N=518), and have gradually fallen in 2002 (N=362), 2003 (N=321), and 2004 (N=323). Recent concerns about donor safety and ethical considerations have made careful analysis of donor availability and selection criteria critically important. We conducted a retrospective review of our active liver transplant recipient registry (N=251) and compared it to our living donor registry (N=231), which included all potential living donors before the selection process. Fifteen percent of recipients accounted for the majority (53%) of donor evaluations, whereas 42% of recipients did not have even a single donor evaluation. Recipient diagnosis appears to have a significant impact on donor availability, with donors rarely evaluated for patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. Careful and stringent selection criteria rule out 67% of potential donors.

Living donor liver transplantation in Europe

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) sparked significant interest in Europe when the first reports of its success from USA and Asia were made public. Many transplant programs initiated LDLT and some of them especially in Germany and Belgium became a point of reference for many patients and important contributors to the advancement of the field. After the initial enthusiasm, most of the European programs stopped performing LDLT and today the overall European activity is concentrated in a few centers and the number of living donor liver transplants is only a single digit fraction of the overall number of liver transplants performed. In this paper we analyse the present European activities and highlight the European contribution to the advancement of the field of LDLT.

The impact of metabolic syndrome and prevalent liver disease on living donor liver transplantation: a pressing need to expand the pool

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Organ shortage has been the ongoing obstacle to expanding liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is hoped to improve this shortage. The aim of the present study is to analyze the impact of metabolic syndrome and prevalent liver disease on living donations.

METHODS

From July 2007 to May 2012, 1065 potential living donors were evaluated according to a stepwise evaluation protocol. The age of the worked-up donors ranged from 18 to 45 years.

RESULTS

Only 190 (18%) were accepted for donation, and 875 (82%) were rejected. In total, 265 (24.9%) potential donors were excluded because of either diabetes or a body mass index >28. Some potential donors were excluded at initial screening because of incompatible blood groups (115; 10.8%), social reasons (40; 3.8%), or elevated liver enzymes (9; 1%). Eighty-five (8%) donors were excluded because of positive hepatitis serology. Steatosis resulted in the exclusion of 84 (8%) donors. In addition, 80 (7.5%) potential donors were rejected because of variations in biliary anatomy, and 20 (2%) were rejected because of aberrant vascular anatomy. Rejection due to biliary-related aberrancy decreased significantly in the second half of our program (11 vs. 4%, p = 0.001). In total, 110 (10.3%) potential donors were rejected because of insufficient remnant volume (<30%) as determined by CT volumetry, whereas 24 (2.2%) were rejected because of a graft-to-recipient body weight ratio less than 0.8%.

CONCLUSION

Metabolic syndrome and viral hepatitis negatively impacted our living donor pool. Expanding the donor pool requires the implementation of new strategies.

Histopathologic Findings of Cholecystectomy Specimens in Patients Who Underwent Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to discuss the macroscopic and microscopic properties of gallbladder specimens obtained from living liver donors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed the clinical and histopathological data of 1088 donors who underwent living donor hepatectomy between March 2005 and September 2014 at Inonu University Faculty of Medicine, Liver Transplantation Center. Age, sex, macroscopic, and microscopic properties of the gallbladder (bladder length, diameter, content, and histopathological properties) were recorded by 2 researchers.

RESULTS

A total of 1009 donors aged 17 to 66 years (31.1 ± 9.5) met the inclusion criteria, whereas 79 donors were excluded due to missing data. In total, 587 donors were male (30.5 ± 9.1 years [16-63 years]) and 422 were female (31.8 ± 9.8 years [18-66 years]). Preoperative tests revealed Gilbert syndrome in 3 subjects, whereas other donors' biochemical tests were within normal ranges. The macroscopic examination of gallbladders revealed mean gallbladder wall thickness, length, and width of 1.82 ± 0.8 mm (1-10 mm), 72 ± 11.4 mm (40-120 mm), and 52.5 ± 14 mm (15-90 mm), respectively. The microscopic gallbladder examination showed that 740 donors had a normal gallbladder, 193 had chronic cholecystitis (1 donor had antral metaplasia and 1 had intestinal metaplasia), 40 had cholesterolosis (1 donor had both tubular adenoma and intestinal metaplasia), 15 had minimal chronic cholecystitis (1 donor had pyloric metaplasia), 14 had cholelithiasis, 2 had adenomyosis, 2 had muscular hypertrophy, 1 had papillary hyperplasia, 1 had microdiverticulitis, and 1 had mucosal lymphatic ectasia.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study reflect the actual gallbladder pathologies that can be detected in healthy people. Clearer conclusions can be reached about the epidemiological data on gallbladder as the number of living liver donors increases in the future.

Risk of venous congestion in live donors of extended right liver graft

AIM: To investigate middle hepatic vein (MHV) management in adult living donor liver transplantation and safer remnant volumes (RV).

METHODS: There were 59 grafts with and 12 grafts without MHV (including 4 with MHV-5/8 reconstructions). All donors underwent our five-step protocol evaluation containing a preoperative protocol liver biopsy Congestive vs non-congestive RV, remnant-volume-body-weight ratios (RVBWR) and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in 71 right graft living donors. Dominant vs non-dominant MHV anatomy in total liver volume (d-MHV/TLV vs nd-MHV/TLV) was constellated with large/small congestion volumes (CV-index). Small for size (SFS) and non-SFS remnant considerations were based on standard cut-off- RVBWR and RV/TLV. Non-congestive RVBWR was based on non-congestive RV.

RESULTS: MHV and non-MHV remnants showed no significant differences in RV, RV/TLV, RVBWR, total bilirubin, or INR. SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% and non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% showed no significant differences either. RV and RVBWR for non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants were 550 ± 95 mL and 0.79 ± 0.1 mL vs 568 ± 97 mL and 0.79 ± 0.13, respectively (P = 0.423 and P = 0.919. Mean left RV/TLV was 35.8% ± 3.9%. Non-MHV (n = 59) and MHV-containing (n = 12) remnants (34.1% ± 3% vs 36% ± 4% respectively, P = 0.148. Eight SFS-remnants with RVBWR < 0.65 had a significantly smaller RV/TLV than 63 non-SFS-remnants with RVBWR ≥ 0.65 [SFS: RV/TLV 32.4% (range: 28%-35.7%) vs non-SFS: RV/TLV 36.2% (range: 26.1%-45.5%), P < 0.009. Six SFS-remnants with RV/TLV < 30% had significantly smaller RVBWR than 65 non-SFS-remnants with RV/TLV ≥ 30% (0.65 (range: 0.6-0.7) vs 0.8 (range: 0.6-1.27), P < 0.01. Two (2.8%) donors developed reversible liver failure. RVBWR and RV/TLV were concordant in 25%-33% of SFS and in 92%-94% of non-SFS remnants. MHV management options including complete MHV vs MHV-4A selective retention were necessary in n = 12 vs n = 2 remnants based on particularly risky congestive and non-congestive volume constellations.

CONCLUSION: MHV procurement should consider individual remnant congestive- and non-congestive volume components and anatomy characteristics, RVBWR-RV/TLV constellation enables the identification of marginally small remnants.

Combined Use of MR Fat Quantification and MR Elastography in Living Liver Donors: Can It Reduce the Need for Preoperative Liver Biopsy?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) fat quantification and MR elastography for the assessment of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in living liver donor candidates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement of informed consent was waived. Donors who underwent MR fat quantification and MR elastography at 1.5 T, followed by liver biopsy, were chronologically grouped into test and validation groups. In the test group (n = 362), MR fat fraction and liver stiffness were compared among donors with normal parenchyma (n = 244), simple steatosis (n = 71), steatosis with inflammatory activity (n = 21), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (n = 17), and fibrosis (n = 9). Diagnostic performance of the two techniques was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the detection of substantial steatosis (macrovesicular fat ≥ 10%) or fibrosis (≥F1) and was tested in a validation group (n = 34).

RESULTS

In the test group, donors with steatosis showed significantly higher fat fraction than donors without steatosis (P < .0001), and donors with fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis showed significantly higher liver stiffness values than donors without fibrosis (P < .0001). Areas under the curve were 0.93 (cutoff value > 5.8%) for MR fat quantification and 0.85 (cutoff value > 1.94 kPa) for MR elastography. By using those values, the combination of the two techniques could be used to detect substantial steatosis or fibrosis with 100% sensitivity (12 of 12 patients, 95% confidence interval: 73.4%, 100%) and 100% negative predictive value (15 of 15 patients, 95% confidence interval: 78.0%, 100%) in the validation group.

CONCLUSION

A combination of MR fat quantification and MR elastography can provide sufficient sensitivity to detect substantial steatosis or fibrosis (≥F1) in liver donor candidates.

[Hospital-based multicenter study in Spain, Mexico and Cuba on attitudes to living liver donation]

INTRODUCTION

Given the lack of a sufficient number of livers available for transplantation, living liver donation (LLD) is being developed in the Spanish-speaking world. To do this, it is essential that health workers in hospitals are in favor of such donation, given that they are a key component in this treatment and that their attitudes influence public opinion.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze attitude toward LLD among hospital personnel from healthcare centers in Spain and Latin America.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Ten hospitals were selected from the «International Donor Collaborative Project»: 3 from Spain, 5 from Mexico and 2 from Cuba. Random sampling stratified by type of service and job category was used. Attitudes to LLD were evaluated through a validated questionnaire on psychosocial aspects. The questionnaire was anonymous and self-administered. Statistical tests consisted of Student's T test, the chi-square test and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 2,618 employees surveyed, 85% (n=2,231) were in favor of related LLD; of these, 31% (n=804) were in favor of unrelated LLD. No association was found between the country of the interviewed, personal-social variables or work-related variables. The following factors were associated with a favorable attitude toward related LLD donation: having had personal experience of donation and transplantation (P<.001); being in favor of deceased donation (P<.001); believing that one might need a possible transplant (P<.001); being in favor of living kidney donation (P<.001); being willing to accept a liver from a living donor (P<.001); having discussed the matter of donation and transplantation within the family (P<.001) and with one's partner (P<.001); carrying out pro-social type activities (P<.001); being Catholic (P=.040); believing that one's religion is in favor of donation and transplantation (P<.001); and not being concerned about the possible mutilation of the body after donation (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital personnel from Spain and Latin America had a favorable attitude toward LLD, which was associated with factors directly and indirectly related to donation and transplantation, family and religious factors, and attitudes toward the body.

Problem of living liver donation in the absence of deceased liver transplantation program: Mansoura experience

We report our experience with potential donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which is the first report from an area where there is no legalized deceased donation program. This is a single center retrospective analysis of potential living donors (n = 1004) between May 2004 and December 2012. This report focuses on the analysis of causes, duration, cost, and various implications of donor exclusion (n = 792). Most of the transplant candidates (82.3%) had an experience with more than one excluded donor (median = 3). Some recipients travelled abroad for a deceased donor transplant (n = 12) and some died before finding a suitable donor (n = 14). The evaluation of an excluded donor is a time-consuming process (median = 3 d, range 1 d to 47 d). It is also a costly process with a median cost of approximately 70 USD (range 35 USD to 885 USD). From these results, living donor exclusion has negative implications on the patients and transplant program with ethical dilemmas and an economic impact. Many strategies are adopted by other centers to expand the donor pool; however, they are not all applicable in our locality. We conclude that an active legalized deceased donor transplantation program is necessary to overcome the shortage of available liver grafts in Egypt.

Expectations from imaging for pre-transplant evaluation of living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is a major surgical undertaking. Detailed pre-operative assessment of the vascular and biliary anatomy is crucial for safe and successful harvesting of the graft and transplantation. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are currently the imaging modalities of choice in pre-operative evaluation. These cross-sectional imaging techniques can reveal the vascular and biliary anatomy, assess the hepatic parenchyma and perform volumetric analysis. Knowledge of the broad indications and contraindications to qualify as a recipient for LDLT is essential for the radiologist reporting scans in a pre-transplant patient. Similarly, awareness of the various anatomical variations and pathological states in the donor is essential for the radiologist to generate a meaningful report of his/her observations. CT and MRI have largely replaced invasive techniques such as catheter angiography, percutaneous cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. In order to generate a meaningful report based on these pre-operative imaging scans, it is also mandatory for the radiologist to be aware of the surgeon’s perspective. We intend to provide a brief overview of the common surgical concepts of LDLT and give a detailed description of the minimum that a radiologist is expected to seek and report in CT and MR scans performed for LDLT related evaluation.

Hepatic steatosis in living liver donor candidates: preoperative assessment by using breath-hold triple-echo MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of both breath-hold T2*-corrected triple-echo spoiled gradient-echo water-fat separation magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (triple-echo imaging) and high-speed T2-corrected multiecho hydrogen 1 ((1)H) MR spectroscopy in the assessment of macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donor candidates by using histologic assessment as a reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study with waiver of the need to obtain informed consent. One hundred eighty-two liver donor candidates who had undergone preoperative triple-echo imaging and single-voxel (3 × 3 × 3 cm) MR spectroscopy performed with a 3.0-T imaging unit and who had also undergone histologic evaluation of macrovesicular steatosis were included in this study. In part 1 of the study (n = 84), the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to detect substantial (≥10%) macrovesicular steatosis. In part 2 of the study, with a different patient group (n = 98), diagnostic performance was evaluated by using the diagnostic cutoff values determined in part 1 of the study.

RESULTS

The correlation coefficients of triple-echo MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with macrovesicular steatosis were 0.886 and 0.887, respectively. The areas under the ROC curve for detection of substantial macrovesicular steatosis were 0.959 and 0.988, with cutoff values of 4.93% and 5.79%, respectively, and without a significant difference (P = .328). In the part 2 study group, sensitivity and specificity were 90.9% (10 of 11) and 86.2% (75 of 87) for triple-echo MR imaging and 90.9% (10 of 11) and 86.2% (75 of 87) for MR spectroscopy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Either breath-hold triple-echo MR imaging or MR spectroscopy can be used to detect substantial macrovesicular steatosis in living liver donor candidates. In the future, this may allow selective biopsy in candidates who are expected to have substantial macrovesicular steatosis on the basis of MR-based hepatic fat fraction.

Prerecovery liver biopsy in the brain-dead donor: a case-control study of logistics, safety, precision, and utility

Prerecovery liver biopsy (PLB) can potentially to decrease futile recovery and increase utilization of marginal brain-dead donor (BDD) livers. A case-control study was conducted to examine the logistics, safety, histological precision, and liver utilization associated with PLB in BDDs. Twenty-three cases between January 2008 and January 2013 were compared to 2 groups: 48 sequential and 69 clinically matched controls. Compared to the sequential controls, the cases were older (53 versus 46 years), heavier (30.2 versus 25.8 kg/m2), had higher prevalences of hypertension (78.3% versus 44.7%) and alcohol use (56.5% versus 23.4%), and a lower United Network for Organ Sharing expected organ yield (0.73 versus 0.81 livers/donor; P < 0.05 for all). Baseline characteristics were similar between cases and clinical controls. Donor management time was longer for the cases (22.4 hours) versus sequential controls (16.5 hours, P = 0.01) and clinical controls (15.9 hours, P = 0.01). Complications for cases (8.7%) were not different from either group of controls (18.8% for sequential controls, P = 0.46; 17.4% for clinical controls, P = 0.50). The agreement between the donor hospital and study pathologists was substantial regarding evaluation of steatosis (κ = 0.623) and fibrosis (κ = 0.627) and moderate regarding inflammation (κ = 0.495). The proportions of livers that were transplanted were similar for the cases and the clinical controls (60.9% versus 59.4%). In contrast, the proportion of donors for whom liver recovery was not attempted was higher (30.4% versus 8.7%), and the proportion of attempted liver recoveries that did not result in transplantation was lower (8.7% versus 31.9%). These differences were significant at P = 0.009. Overall, PLB is logistically feasible with only a minimal delay and is safe, its interpretation at donor hospitals is reproducible, and it appears to decrease futile liver recovery.

Donor rejection before living donor liver transplantation: causes and cost effective analysis in an egyptian transplant center

BACKGROUND

In the living donor liver transplant setting, the preoperative assessment of potential donors is important to ensure the donor safety.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify causes and costs of living liver-donors rejection in the donation process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2010 to June 2012, all potential living liver donors for 66 liver transplant candidates were screened at the Ain Shams Center for Organ Transplantation. Potential donors were evaluated in 3 phases, and their data were reviewed to determine the causes and at which phase the donors were rejected.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety two potential living liver donors, including 157 (81.7%) males, were screened for 66 potential recipients. Of these, 126 (65.6%) were disqualified for the donation. The causes of rejection were classified as surgical (9.5 %) or medical (90.5 %). Five donors (3.9 %) were rejected due to multiple causes. Factor V Leiden mutation was detected in 29 (23 %) rejected donors (P = 0.001), 25 (19.8 %) donors had positive results for hepatitis serology (P = 0.005), and 16 (12.7 %) tested positive for drug abuse. Portal vein trifurcation (n = 9, 7.1%) and small size liver graft estimated by CT volumetric analysis (n = 6, 4.8 %) were the main surgical causes which precluded the donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Among potential Egyptian living liver donors, Factor V Leiden mutation was a significant cause for live donor rejection. A stepwise approach to donor assessment was found to be cost-effective.

The role of the independent donor advocacy team in the case of a declined living donor candidate

Many controversies arise when living donor candidates present themselves for consideration as donors for urgent liver transplants. Nonparent living donors for urgent pediatric transplant recipients are a unique donor candidate population with specific considerations that need to be acknowledged and addressed by the independent donor advocacy team. Such a team educates about donation, identifies potential contraindications, examines the distant relationships between donor and recipient, and considers ethical issues about the ability to make an informed decision in an urgent situation. A center for living donation dealt with such ethical issues when a donor candidate with a distant relationship was evaluated for living donation. Multiple relative contraindications were identified, and the donor candidate was declined. Careful management by the independent donor advocacy team is necessary to ensure the psychosocial safety and to provide needed psychosocial support and intervention for donor candidates with psychological contraindications to donation. Standard follow-up protocols need to be developed for declined donor candidates.

Donor selection for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: well begun is half done

BACKGROUND

Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical center of evaluation. Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and the nonmaturation of potential into actual donors may sometimes prove fatal for patients with end-stage liver disease. On the contrary, a thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcomes in otherwise healthy donors. We aimed to study the reasons for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 was done.

RESULTS

Overall, 324 donors were evaluated for 219 potential recipients, and 171 (52.7%) donors were disqualified. Common reasons for donor nonmaturation included the following: (1) donor reluctance, 21%; (2) greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis, 16%; (3) assisted donor withdrawal, 14%; (4) inadequate remnant liver volume, 13%; and (5) psychosocial issues, 7%, and thrombophilia, 7%. Ten donors (6%) were turned down because of anatomic variations (8 biliary and 2 arterial anomalies). Donors older than 50 years and those with body mass index of more than 25 were less likely to be accepted for donation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that donor reluctance, hepatic steatosis, and assisted donor withdrawal are major reasons for nonmaturation of potential into actual donors. Anatomic variations and underlying medical conditions were not a major cause of donor rejection. A system in practice to recognize these factors early in the course of donor evaluation to improve the efficiency of the selection process and ensure donor safety is proposed.

Living-donor liver transplant using the right hepatic lobe without the right hepatic vein: solving the drainage problem

Although rare, major congenital defects of the hepatic veins are detectable at autopsy, advanced, noninvasive imaging techniques such as Doppler ultrasonography and multislice computed tomography can accurately define these anomalies. One of these anomalies is congenital absence of the main right hepatic vein. We present a 21-year-old woman living-liver donor candidate with congenital absence of the right hepatic vein who underwent an extended right donor hepatectomy. She was tested for transplant compatibility with her 45-year-old brother, who had chronic liver failure secondary to hepatitis B. Multislice computed tomography revealed an absence of the right hepatic vein, and the right hepatic lobe was drained by 4 inferior hepatic veins with diameters ranging from 4 to 8.4 mm. An extended right-donor hepatectomy was performed. A common-large opening drainage reconstruction model that included all of the inferior hepatic veins and middle hepatic vein was created using the saphenous vein and an aortic homograft. There were no postoperative complications related to hepatic venous drainage thanks to the common-large opening model. We demonstrate that a right donor hepatectomy is feasible in congenital absence of the right hepatic vein solving the drainage problem using common-large opening reconstruction technique.

Computer-assisted surgical planning in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation: how much does it help? A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Preoperative imaging and donor selection are cardinal components of adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate our three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography image-derived computer-assisted surgical planning (3D CASP) in ALDLT.

METHODS

Eighty-three consecutive ALDLTs (71 right and 12 left) were planned with 3D CASP. Graft, remnant, and total liver volume compliance were calculated and compared with actual intraoperative values. Computed risk analysis encompassing territorial liver mapping, functional (safely drained) volumes, and outflow congestion volumes in grafts and remnants allowed for the individualized management of the middle hepatic vein (MHV).

RESULTS

Graft volume compliance was 13.5%±4.4%. Three small-for-size (SFS) grafts with lethal SFS syndrome (SFSS) had nonsignificant volume compliance with maximal graft volume-body weight ratios of less than 0.83. Seven SFS grafts with reversible or absent SFSS showed maximal graft volume-body weight ratios of 0.9 to 1.16. Significant differences were identified for (a) virtual graft and remnant congestion volumes of risky versus nonrisky MHV types (49%±6% and 34%±7% vs. 29%±8% and 33%±12%, P<0.001 and P<0.02, respectively) and (b) virtual mean functional versus surgical volumes of grafts (527±119 vs. 963±176 mL, P<0.0001) and remnants (419±182 vs. 640±213 mL, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CASP allowed for (a) prevention of SFSS in extremely small grafts by predicting donor liver plasticity and (b) individualized MHV management for both donors and recipients based on functional graft/remnant volume analysis.

Day-of-surgery rejection of donors in living donor liver transplantation

AIM

To study diagnostic laparoscopy as a tool for excluding donors on the day of surgery in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

This study analyzed prospectively collected data from all potential donors for LDLT. All of the donors were subjected to a three-step donor evaluation protocol at our institution. Step one consisted of a clinical and social evaluation, including a liver profile, hepatitis markers, a renal profile, a complete blood count, and an abdominal ultrasound with Doppler. Step two involved tests to exclude liver diseases and to evaluate the donor's serological status. This step also included a radiological evaluation of the biliary anatomy and liver vascular anatomy using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and a computed tomography (CT) angiogram, respectively. A CT volumetric study was used to calculate the volume of the liver parenchyma. Step three included an ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Between November 2002 and May 2009, sixty-nine potential living donors were assessed by open exploration prior to harvesting the planned part of the liver. Between the end of May 2009 and October 2010, 30 potential living donors were assessed laparoscopically to determine whether to proceed with the abdominal incision to harvest part of the liver for donation.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine living donor liver transplants were attempted at our center between November 2002 and October 2010. Twelve of these procedures were aborted on the day of surgery (12.1%) due to donor findings, and eighty-seven were completed (87.9%). These 87 liver transplants were divided into the following groups: Group A, which included 65 transplants that were performed between November 2002 and May 2009, and Group B, which included 22 transplants that were performed between the end of May 2009 and October 2010. The demographic data for the two groups of donors were found to match; moreover, no significant difference was observed between the two groups of donors with respect to hospital stay, narcotic and non-narcotic analgesia requirements or the incidence of complications. Regarding the recipients, our study clearly revealed that there was no significant difference in either the incidence of different complications or the incidence of retransplantation between the two groups. Day-of-surgery donor assessment for LDLT procedures at our center has passed through two eras, open and laparoscopic. In the first era, sixty-nine LDLT procedures were attempted between November 2002 and May 2009. Upon open exploration of the donors on the day of surgery, sixty-five donors were found to have livers with a grossly normal appearance. Four donors out of 69 (5.7%) were rejected on the day of surgery because their livers were grossly fatty and pale. In the laparoscopic era, thirty LDLT procedures were attempted between the end of May 2009 and October 2010. After the laparoscopic assessment on the day of surgery, twenty-two transplantation procedures were completed (73.4%), and eight were aborted (26.6%). Our data showed that the levels of steatosis in the rejected donors were in the acceptable range. Moreover, the results of the liver biopsies of rejected donors were comparable between the group A and group B donors. The laparoscopic assessment of donors presents many advantages relative to the assessment of donors through open exploration; in particular, the laparoscopic assessment causes less pain, requires a shorter hospital stay and leads to far superior cosmetic results.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic assessment of donors in LDLT is a safe and acceptable procedure that avoids unnecessary large abdominal incisions and increases the chance of achieving donor safety.

Checking the harness: safety for living liver donors

1. Expertise in hepatobiliary surgery. 2. Donor selection criteria. 3. Selective liver biopsy in donors. 4. Accurate determination of hepatic volumes and anatomy. 5. Extent of donor hepatectomy. 6. Donor psychosocial evaluation. 7. Catastrophic events. 8. Long-term follow up.