Gender-specific differences associated with living donor liver transplantation: a review study

Perioperative Considerations Regarding Sex in Solid Organ Transplantation

Sex plays a pivotal role in all stages of the organ transplant process. In the preoperative phase, sex can affect being listed or considered for a transplant, and sex/size matching of organs is necessary for some organ transplants, thereby affecting organ availability. In the postoperative period, sex has a profound impact on complications as well as graft survival. Sex-related differences in organ transplantation are likely multifactorial related to biological and social characteristics. This article provides an overview of the impact of sex on various types of solid organ transplant, including kidney, pancreas, liver, lung, and heart transplants.

Sex and racial disparities in living donor liver transplantation in the United States

Sex and racial disparities in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) have been described, but this has not been well studied in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We aim to examine these disparities in the US LDLT population and identify potential predictors of these differences. From 2002 to 2021, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network database was queried to characterize the adult LDLT population and evaluate differences between LDLT and DDLT recipients with regard to sex and race. Donor demographics, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and socioeconomic data were all included. Of the 4961 LDLT and 99,984 DDLT recipients, males received the majority of LDLT (55% vs. 45%, p < 0.001) and DDLT (67% vs. 33%, p < 0.001) compared to females. There was a significant difference in race between male and female LDLT recipients ( p < 0.001); 84% of male recipients were White and 78% of females. In both groups, females had lower levels of education and were less likely to have private insurance. There were more female living donors (N = 2545, 51%); 50% of female donors donated to males but only 40% of males donated to females. Donor-recipient relationships varied significantly by sex ( p < 0.001); males received more donations from spouses (62% vs. 39%) and siblings (60% vs. 40%). In the LDLT population, significant disparities exist with respect to sex and race that disadvantage women, but these disparities are less pronounced than in the DDLT population. Although further studies are needed, complex clinical and socioeconomic differences as well as donor factors may explain these variations.

Meta-analysis of donor-recipient gender profile in paediatric living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Paediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has gained popularity due to limited deceased donor organ supply. Some studies report inequalities in donor and recipient gender profiles, but data are sparse. We evaluated LDLT donor-recipient gender profiles, comparing country income categories and gender disparity level.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review, searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for publications dated January 2006-September 2021. We included full-text English articles reporting gender in ≥40 universally sampled donor-recipient pairs. Search terms were permutations of 'liver transplant', 'living donor' and 'paediatric'. Countries were grouped as high/middle/low-income economies based on World Bank criteria and into groups based on deviation from gender parity in Gender Development Index (GDI) values (group 1 indicating closest to gender parity, group 5 indicating furthest). Proportions analysis with corresponding 95% CI were used for analysis of dichotomous variables, with significance when 95% CI did not cross 0.5. Data are reported as female proportion (%) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Of 12 525 studies identified, 14 retrospective studies (12 countries; 6152 recipients and 6138 donors) fulfilled study inclusion criteria. Male recipient preponderance was seen in lower middle-income countries (all were also GDI group 5) (39.3 (95% CI 34.7 to 44.0)) and female recipient preponderance in GDI groups 1 and 3. Female donor preponderance was seen overall (57.4% (95% CI 55.1 to 59.6)), in middle income countries and in three of four GDI groups represented.

CONCLUSION

There are significant imbalances in recipient-donor gender profiles in paediatric LDLT that are not well explained. The reasons for overall female donor preponderance across income tiers must be scrutinised.

The fundamentals of sex-based disparity in liver transplantation: Understanding can lead to change

Liver transplantation (LT) is the definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, women are disadvantaged at every stage of the LT process. We conducted a literature review to increase the understanding of this disparity. Hormonal differences, psychological factors, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score inequalities are some pretransplantation factors that contribute to this disparity. In the posttransplantation setting, women have differing risk than men in most major outcomes (perioperative complications, rejection, long-term renal dysfunction, and malignancy) and assessing the two groups together is disadvantageous. Herein, we propose interventions including standardized criteria for LT referral, using an alternate MELD, education for support of women, and motivating women to seek living donors. Understanding sex-based differences will allow us to improve access, tailor management, and improve overall outcomes for all patients, particularly women.

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.

Perioperative Considerations Regarding Sex in Solid Organ Transplantation

Sex plays a role in all stages of the organ transplant process, including listing, sex/size matching of organs, complications, graft survival, and mortality. Sex-related differences in organ transplantation are likely multifactorial related to biological and social characteristics. More information is needed to determine how sex-related differences can lead to improved outcomes for future donors and recipients of solid organs. This article provides an overview on the impact of sex on various types of solid organ transplant, including kidney, pancreas, liver, lung, and heart transplants.

Emergency Department Visits After Kidney, Liver, and Heart Transplantation in a Hospital of a University in Turkey: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

In our country, there are few publications evaluating emergency department visits among kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients. Here, we examined emergency department visits of transplant recipients after initial hospital discharge following organ transplant performed in a medical faculty hospital in Ankara, Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed hospital records of 1144 transplant recipients (700 kidney, 332 liver, and 112 heart) who underwent living-donor and deceased-donor organ transplant procedures in a university hospital between 2007 and 2017 and were admitted to the emergency department during the same period.

RESULTS

The study population (1144 organ transplants) consisted of kidney (61.2%), liver (29.0%), and heart (9.8%) transplant recipients. Among them, 67.9% of kidney transplant recipients and 62.0% of liver transplant recipients were male, whereas 65.2% of heart transplant recipients were female. Average ages were 32.8 ± 15.5, 24.26 ± 21.6, and 29.9 ± 18.7 years, respectively. Among all groups, 41.4% visited the emergency department within 2 years after transplant. Median time to emergency department visit for kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients was 4.7 months, 3.5 months, and 11.5 months, respectively. Emergency department admissions were due to complaints of abdominal/pelvic pain, fever, nausea/vomiting, hypertension, and nonspecific chest pain. Among all groups, the main diagnoses were most commonly classified by fluid and electrolyte disorders, abnormal results of renal function, urinary tract infections, and acute respiratory infections. One-third of patients were hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-quarter of kidney transplant recipients, one-fifth of liver transplant recipients, and one-tenth of heart transplant recipients visited the emergency department within 30 days of transplantation. Considering that one-third were rehospitalized, the recipients could be targeted for better transitions of care and for earlier or more frequent outpatient follow-up and also be informed about what symptoms are not normal and in which situations they should seek emergency care.

Gender Imbalance and the Relationship Between Living Donors and Recipients in Liver Transplantations in an Organ Transplant Center in Turkey

OBJECTIVES

Because of the scarcity of publications on gender differences and the relationship between living donors and recipients in liver transplant procedures, we carried out this study with the objective to examine the gender distribution of donors and recipients and the relationships between donors and recipients in living related-donor liver transplants performed in a university hospital in Ankara, Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the data of 549 patients who underwent living related-donor and deceased-donor liver transplant procedures conducted in a university hospital between 1988 and 2017 and the 409 living donors.

RESULTS

Males constituted 53.1% of the 409 living related liver donors and 63.6% of the living liver recipients. We found that 72.9% of the deceased-donor liver transplant recipients were also male. Of living related donors, 91.4% were blood relatives, with 74.8% being first-degree relatives. The most common donor-recipient relation was mother to son. Analyses of interspousal donations showed a significant difference between husband to wife and vice versa (7 vs 17; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most recipients and donors in living related-donor liver transplants were males with a young predominance. It is not known whether this might be related to biologic, psychologic, or socio cultural features of patients, gender issues, or economic factors. Further research with qualitative components on the influential factors, including gender, is needed.

Psychosocial Variables Associated with Immunosuppressive Medication Non-Adherence after Renal Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medication is regarded as an important factor for graft rejection and loss after successful renal transplantation. Yet, results on prevalence and relationship with psychosocial parameters are heterogeneous. The main aim of this study was to investigate the association of immunosuppressive medication non-adherence and psychosocial factors.

METHODS

In 330 adult renal transplant recipients (≥12 months posttransplantation), health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, social support, and subjective medication experiences were assessed, and their associations with patient-reported non-adherence was evaluated.

RESULTS

33.6% of the patients admitted to be partially non-adherent. Non-adherence was associated with younger age, poorer social support, lower mental, but higher physical health-related quality of life. There was no association with depression and anxiety. However, high proportions of clinically relevant depression and anxiety symptoms were apparent in both adherent and non-adherent patients.

CONCLUSION

In the posttransplant follow-up, kidney recipients with lower perceived social support, lower mental and higher physical health-related quality of life, and younger age can be regarded as a risk group for immunosuppressive medication non-adherence. In follow-up contacts with kidney transplant patients, physicians may pay attention to these factors. Furthermore, psychosocial interventions to optimize immunosuppressive medication adherence can be designed on the basis of this information, especially including subjectively perceived physical health-related quality of life and fostering social support seems to be of importance.

Gender Mainstreaming and Transplant Surgery

BACKGROUND

Gender differences in medicine are gaining in importance. In transplant surgery, not only the patient's gender but also that of the donor play an important role in the outcome of transplantation due to sociocultural and genetic factors.

METHODS

This review article gives an overview of the latest investigations into gender-related influences in the field of visceral transplantation. For this purpose, a systematic review of the literature was performed.

RESULTS

In general, women are less often evaluated for and subjected to transplantation worldwide. Significantly poorer outcome can be observed in women with liver transplantation following hepatitis C cirrhosis. Furthermore, female renal grafts are less favorable in terms of outcome and survival. Gender disparities affect transplant medicine due to subtle gender-specific immunological factors. Sociocultural factors also lead to differences in the clinical treatment of men and women, which may influence overall survival.

CONCLUSION

For a better understanding of gender-specific differences in transplant medicine and a possible improvement in outcome, further research in this field is necessary.

Outcomes in liver transplantation: does sex matter?

A growing literature has highlighted important differences in transplant-related outcomes between men and women. In the United States there are fewer women than men on the liver transplant waitlist and women are two times less likely to receive a deceased or living-related liver transplant. Sex-based differences exist not only in waitlist but also in post-transplant outcomes, particularly in some specific liver diseases, such as hepatitis C. In the era of individualized medicine, recognition of these differences in the approach to pre and post-liver transplant care may impact short and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in a patient with micro-invasive cervical cancer after two liver transplantations

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgical techniques and immunosuppressive therapy have improved graft survival in transplant recipients. However, intense long-term immunosuppression increases the incidence of cancer in these patients compared with the general population, not least because of viral infections. Cervical cancer is the third most common malignancy worldwide. In early invasive cervical cancer, surgery is the treatment of choice.

CASE

In 2010, we performed a laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) in a 42-year-old patient with micro-invasive cervical adenocarcinoma (FIGO stage IA1) who had undergone two liver transplantations in 2006 and 2008. The patient was followed up for 18 months after surgery. Despite upper abdominal adhesions and minor difficulties in inserting the Veress needle, the pneumoperitoneum was created safely. The procedure was completed within 157 minutes without any intraoperative complications. Blood loss was less than 100 mL. Postoperative course was uncomplicated with minimal fluctuations in liver function markers. Immunosuppressive therapy was continued without modification. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 9. No complications or recurrence were reported during the 18-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach is a justifiable form of surgical management in the treatment of a liver transplant recipient with early-stage cervical cancer.

Use of living donor liver transplantation varies with the availability of deceased donor liver transplantation

The demographics of patients in the United States who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus patients who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are interesting with respect to the demographics of the donor service areas (DSAs). We examined adult recipients of primary, non-status 1 liver-only transplants from 2003 to 2009. The likelihood of undergoing LDLT was compared to the likelihood of undergoing DDLT by multivariate logistic regression. We examined the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for undergoing LDLT versus DDLT for patients with the same diagnosis and blood type after we stratified the DSAs into quintiles by the median match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. LDLT was performed for 1497 of 32,927 liver transplants (4.5%). LDLT decreased in frequency by approximately 30% from 2003 to 2009. In comparison with DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients were younger and had higher albumin levels, lower body mass indices, and lower match MELD scores. Females had increased odds of LDLT in comparison with males (OR = 1.74, P < 0.001). Patients with MELD exception scores were less likely to undergo LDLT (OR = 0.22, P < 0.001). Patients with cholestatic liver disease (adjusted OR = 2.04, P < 0.001) or malignant neoplasms other than hepatocellular carcinoma (adjusted OR = 3.33, P < 0.001) were more likely than patients with hepatitis C virus to undergo LDLT. Other characteristics associated with decreased odds of LDLT were black race (adjusted OR = 0.41, P < 0.001) and government insurance (adjusted OR = 0.51, P < 0.001). LDLT was more frequent in DSAs with high median MELD scores; the adjusted OR for LDLT was 38 for the DSAs in the highest quintile (P < 0.001). In conclusion, there are significant differences associated with race, insurance, sex, MELD exceptions, and DSA MELD scores between patients who undergo LDLT and patients who undergo DDLT. These differences can be hypothesized to be driven in part by the relative availability of LDLT versus DDLT at both the patient level and the DSA level.

Motives and decision making of potential living liver donors: comparisons between gender, relationships and ambivalence

The motives and decision making of potential living liver donors are critical areas for transplant clinicians evaluating these candidates to understand, yet these topics remain relatively unstudied. Thus, we surveyed 77 prospective living liver donors at the point of donation evaluation using structured instruments to gather more information on their approach to and concerns about donation. We collected information on donation decision making, motives for donation and anticipated social and physical concerns about postdonation outcomes. We examined three additional characteristics of donors: gender, the relationship of the donor to the intended recipient and the presence of ambivalence about donation. Women had more concerns about their family/social responsibilities. Those donating to nonimmediate family were more likely to have been asked to donate but less likely to feel they had to donate. However, ambivalent donors were the most distinct having difficulties and concerns across most areas from their motivations for donating, to deciding to be tested and to donate, to concerns about the postdonation outcomes. We discuss the clinical relevance of these findings to donor evaluation and preparation.