Selection and outcome of the potential live liver donor

Graft Inflow Modulation by Splenic Artery Ligation for Portal Hyperperfusion Does Not Decrease Rates of Early Allograft Dysfunction in Adult Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare the rates of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) in patients undergoing elective adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) with and without graft portal inflow modulation (GIM) for portal hyperperfusion. The secondary objectives were to compare time to normalization of bilirubin and International Normalized Ratio, day 14 ascitic output more than 1 L, small-for-size syndrome, intensive care unit/high dependency unit and total hospital stay, and 90-day morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND

GIM can prevent EAD in ALDLT patients with portal hyperperfusion.

METHODS

A single-center randomized trial with and without GIM for portal hyperperfusion by splenic artery ligation (SAL) in ALDLT was performed. After reperfusion, patients with portal venous pressure (PVP)>15 mm Hg with a gradient (PVP-central venous pressure) of ≥7 mm Hg and/or portal venous flow (PVF) >250 mL/min/100 g of liver were randomized into 2 groups: GIM and No GIM.

RESULTS

75 of 209 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, and 38 underwent GIM. Baseline PVF and PVP were comparable between the GIM and no GIM groups. SAL significantly reduced the PVF and PVP ( P <0.001). There were no significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analysis, with a Graft to Recipient Weight Ratio ≤0.8, there were no significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SAL significantly decreased PVP and PVF but did not decrease rates of EAD in adult LDLT.

Optimization of surgical evaluation algorithms for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established and endorsed alternative for deceased donor liver transplantation with better recipient outcomes. Nevertheless, while extensive evaluation of potential donors is crucial, evaluation algorithms differ between transplant centres and guidelines.

METHODS

We included 317 individuals evaluated for LDLT between 07/2007-07/2022 in a retrospective analysis. The evaluation process was analysed to identify the key reasons for declining 77 potential donors. Additionally, 146 donors that underwent LDLT were analysed regarding risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

The main reasons for donor refusal were liver volumetry (40.3 %) and metabolic factors including obesity or steatotic liver disease (20.8 %). Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) identified 63.6 % of all declined donors; CECT combined with assessment of medical history, physical examination, blood testing and ultrasonography, identified 87.0 % of declined potential donors. Associated with this selection, complication rates in donors were low (≥II in 17.1 %; none with ≥IVb). Notably, higher age was a risk factor for developing a complication ≥II after hemi-hepatectomy (p = 0.0373).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a progressive 4-step evaluation algorithm that begins with a very basic assessment combined with up-front CECT. This early phase of testing is expected to identify nearly 90 % of ineligible donors, thereby conserving critical resources, time and money, as well as minimising burden for potential donors.

FUNDING

J.M.W. received funding by grant We-4675/6-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in Bonn, Germany.

Temporary Portocaval Shunt Provides Superior Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Reduces Blood Loss and Duration of Surgery in Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, blood loss, renal function, and duration of surgery with and without temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS) in live donor liver transplantation (LT) recipients. Secondary objectives were postoperative early graft dysfunction, morbidity, mortality, total intensive care unit, and hospital stay.

BACKGROUND

Blood loss during recipient hepatectomy for LT remains a major concern. Routine use of TPCS during LT is not yet elucidated.

METHODS

This study is a single-center, open-label, randomized control trial. The sample size was calculated based on intraoperative blood loss. After exclusion, a total of 60 patients, 30 in each arm (TPCS vs no TPCS) were recruited in the trial.

RESULTS

The baseline recipient and donor characteristics were comparable between the groups. The median intraoperative blood loss ( P = 0.004) and blood product transfusions ( P < 0.05) were significantly less in the TPCS group. The TPCS group had significantly improved intraoperative hemodynamics in the anhepatic phase as compared with the no TPCS group ( P < 0.0001), requiring significantly less vasopressor support. This led to significantly better renal function as evidenced by higher intraoperative urine output in the TPCS group ( P = 0.002). Because of technical simplicity, the TPCS group had significantly fewer inferior vena cava injuries (3.3 vs 26.7%, P = 0.026) and substantially shorter hepatectomy time and total duration of surgery (529.4 ± 35.54 vs 606.83 ± 48.13 min, P < 0.0001). The time taken for normalization of lactate in the immediate postoperative period was significantly shorter in the TPCS group (median, 6 vs 13 h; P = 0.04). Although postoperative endotoxemia, major morbidity, 90-day mortality, total intensive care unit, and hospital stay were comparable between both groups, tolerance to enteral feed was earlier in the TPCS group.

CONCLUSIONS

In live donor LT, TPCS is a simple and effective technique that provides superior intraoperative hemodynamics and reduces blood loss and duration of surgery.

Lifestyle Optimization Leads to Superior Liver Regeneration in Live Liver Donors and Decreases Early Allograft Dysfunction in Recipients: A Randomized Control Trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current randomized control trial was to assess the efficacy of donor lifestyle optimization on liver regeneration and outcome following live donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

Live liver donors (LLDs) who were fit with no or minimal steatosis were randomized to receive either a customized low-calorie diet with calorie intake equalling their basal requirement along with exercise for 2 weeks before surgery versus to continue their normal routine lifestyle. Primary objectives were the difference in the day of normalization of serum bilirubin and PT-International normalized ratio and the percentage growth of the liver at postoperative day 7 and 14. Secondary objectives were differences in intraoperative liver biopsy, liver-regeneration markers, blood loss, hospital stay, the complication rate in LLDs, and rates of early graft dysfunction (EGD) in recipients.

RESULTS

Sixty-two consecutive LLDs were randomized (28 in intervention vs. 34 in control). Baseline parameters and graft parameters were similar in both groups. LLDs in the intervention arm had significantly decreased calorie intake ( P <0.005), abdominal girth ( P <0.005), BMI ( P =0.05), and weight ( P <0.0005). The mean blood loss ( P =0.038), day of normalization of bilirubin ( P =0.005) and International normalized ratio ( P =0.061), postoperative peak aspartate transaminase ( P =0.003), Alanine transaminase ( P =0.025), and steatosis ( P <0.005) were significantly less in the intervention group. There was significantly higher volume regeneration ( P =0.03) in donors in the intervention arm. The levels of TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-10 levels were significantly higher, while the TGF-β level was lower in donors in the intervention group. The rate of EGD was significantly higher in recipients in the control group ( P =0.043).

CONCLUSION

Lifestyle optimization of LLD is simple to comply with, improves liver regeneration in LLDs, and decreases EGD in recipients, thus can enhance donor safety and outcomes in live donor liver transplantation.

Advances and innovations in living donor liver transplant techniques, matching and surgical training: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference

The practice of LDLT currently delivers limited impact in western transplant centers. The American Society of Transplantation organized a virtual consensus conference in October 2021 to identify barriers and gaps to LDLT growth, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to foster safe expansion of LDLT in the United States. This article reports the findings and recommendations regarding innovations and advances in approaches to donor-recipient matching challenges, the technical aspects of the donor and recipient operations, and surgical training. Among these themes, the barriers deemed most influential/detrimental to LDLT expansion in the United States included: (1) prohibitive issues related to donor age, graft size, insufficient donor remnant, and ABO incompatibility; (2) lack of acknowledgment and awareness of the excellent outcomes and benefits of LDLT; (3) ambiguous messaging regarding LDLT to patients and hospital leadership; and (4) a limited number of proficient LDLT surgeons across the United States. Donor-recipient mismatching may be circumvented by way of liver paired exchange. The creation of a national registry to generate granular data on donor-recipient matching will guide the practice of liver paired exchange. The surgical challenges to LDLT are addressed herein and focuses on the development of robust training pathways resulting in proficiency in donor and recipient surgery. Utilizing strong mentorship/collaboration programs with novel training practices under the auspices of established training and certification bodies will add to the breadth and depth of training.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Expanding donor pool for live donor liver transplantation: utilization of donors with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis after optimization

INTRODUCTION

Potential live liver donors with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are rejected upfront for donation in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Herein, we share our experience of the feasibility of live liver donation in donors with NASH after successful donor optimization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 410 consecutive donor hepatectomies from June 2011 to January 2018 were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, NASH was diagnosed histopathologically in 17 donors. Four donors were rejected in view of grade 2 fibrosis on histology. Out of remaining 13 donors, six became eligible for donation following lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, and target weight reduction of ≥5%. Reversal of NASH was confirmed on repeat liver biopsy in all the 6 donors. Five out of 6 underwent right lobe (without MHV) donor hepatectomies, while one had left lobe donation. These donors had significantly higher peak bilirubin levels in the immediate post-operative period as compared to other non-NASH donors (4.00 ± 0.32 vs. 2.57 ± 1.77 mg/dL, p = 0.043). In addition, post-hepatectomy normalization of hyperbilirubinemia, if any, was slower in donors with NASH (7 ± 1.3 vs. 5 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.016). However, none of these donors had post-hepatectomy liver failure. All these donors were discharged after an average hospital stay of 8 ± 1.7 days. Their respective recipients had uneventful post-operative courses without complications. Both the recipients and donors are having satisfactory liver functions after 46.7 ± 10.2 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Scrupulous selection of live liver donors with NASH can open a door for expanding the organ pool in LDLT after a successful donor optimization program.

Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio can Preempt Development of Sepsis After Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Development of sepsis is a major contributor to poor outcomes after liver transplant. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an easily calculable inflammatory biomarker. We aim to utilize NLR to diagnose and predict the onset of sepsis in patients undergoing living donor liver transplants (LDLT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis of the perioperative course of 314 consecutive adult patients who underwent elective ABO compatible LDLT was done. Patients were divided into two cohorts; those who developed sepsis and a control group. Sepsis was defined by the combination of SIRS and clinical/radiological suspicion of infection. NLR was calculated by dividing the percentage of neutrophils by the percentage of lymphocytes in peripheral blood.

RESULTS

ostoperatively, 127 out of 314 patients (40.5%) having at least one episode of sepsis were included in the septic cohort and were compared to the 187 (59.5%) patients in the control group. Demographic and baseline characteristics, including NLR (13.74 ± 0.99 vs. 12.65 ± 0.57, P = 0.294) were comparable preoperatively. The NLR of the septic cohort was significantly higher than the control cohort (15.01 ± 1.67 vs. 9.98 ± 0.63, P = 0.001) 3 days prior to sepsis and remained significantly higher till the day of sepsis. The area under the cover was maximum for NLR 1 day prior to the development of sepsis (r = 0.707) with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 62.4%, 62.2%, 51.4%, and 72.0%, respectively, at a cutoff of 8.5.

CONCLUSION

NLR is a useful tool in diagnosing and pre-empting development of sepsis in LDLT.

Safety and Threshold Analysis of Preoperative Platelets in Right Lobe Living Donors for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Low perioperative platelet count is a powerful independent risk factor for posthepatectomy liver failure. Usually, categorical effect of thrombocytopenia was taken into account; upper thresholds were not studied in depth, exclusively in living liver donors.

METHODS

Living liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy were included. Preoperative characteristics of donors were identified and examined to predict posthepatectomy liver failure. To eliminate selection bias, one-to-one propensity score matching was performed.

RESULTS

There were a total of 139 living donors and 40 (29%) donors developed posthepatectomy liver failure in the aftermath of the operation. Remnant liver volume ratio and preoperative platelet count were identified as adjustable independent risk factors (OR: 0.89 and 0.99, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99 and 0.98-0.99, respectively). After propensity score matching, odds ratio of preoperative platelet count was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative platelet count, in addition to remnant liver volume ratio, can be used as a surrogate marker to predict the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure in living liver right lobe donors. Probability curves figured out from logistic regression analysis, in this regard, provided an explicit perspective of platelets having a decisive role on liver donor safety. Thus, remaining in safer remnant liver volume ratio limits with respect to preoperative platelet count should be addressed in safe donor selection strategies.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Live Donor Liver Transplantation: It's Time to Redefine?

BACKGROUND

An ideal definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains elusive. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of existing EAD definitions, identify the predictors of early graft loss due to EAD, and formulate a new definition, estimating EAD-related mortality in LDLT recipients.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients undergoing elective LDLT were analyzed. Patients with technical (vascular, biliary) complications and biopsy-proven rejections were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 19 deaths due to EAD of a total of 304 patients. On applying the existing definitions of EAD, we revealed their limitations of being either too broad with low specificity or too restrictive with low sensitivity in patients with LDLT. A new definition of EAD-LDLT (total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, international normalized ratio [INR] > 1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7) was derived after doing a multivariate analysis. In receiver operator characteristics analysis, an AUC for EAD-LDLT was 0.86. The calibration and internal cross-validation of the new model confirmed its predictability.

CONCLUSION

The new model of EAD-LDLT, based on total bilirubin >10 mg/dL, INR >1.6 and serum urea >100 mg/dL, for five consecutive days after day 7, has a better predictive value for mortality due to EAD in LDLT recipients.

The impact of older age on long term survival in living donor liver transplantation: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of the end-stage liver disease in the elderly patients indicating a liver transplantation (LT) has been increasing. There is no universally accepted upper age limit for LT candidates but the functional status of older patients is important in pre-LT evaluation. This study aimed to examine the impact of older age on survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHOD

A total of 171 LDLT recipients were assessed in two groups: age ≥65 and < 65. To eliminate selection bias propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and 56 of 171 recipients were included in this study.

RESULTS

There were 20 recipients in the older group and 36 in the younger. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 65.0%, 60.0%, and 60.0% in group 1; 88.9%, 84.7%, and 71.4% in group 2, respectively. The 1-year survival was significantly lower in the older recipients; however, overall survival rates were similar between the groups. Of the 56 recipients, 15 (27%) deaths were observed in overall, and 11 (20%) in 1-year follow-up. The univariate regression analysis after PSM revealed that MELD score affected 1- year survival and the multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥65 years and MELD score were the predictors of 1-year survival.

CONCLUSION

At first sight, before PSM, survival appeared to be worse for older recipients. However, we have shown that there were confounding effects of clinical variables in the preliminary evaluation. After the elimination of this bias with PSM, This study highlights that older recipients have similar outcomes as youngers in LDLT for long-term survival.

Circuitous Path to Live Donor Liver Transplantation from the Coordinator's Perspective

Background: The live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) process is circuitous and requires a considerable amount of coordination and matching in multiple aspects that the literature does not completely address. From the coordinators' perspective, we systematically analyzed the time and risk factors associated with interruptions in the LDLT process. Methods: In this retrospective single center study, we reviewed the medical records of wait-listed hospitalized patients and potential live donors who arrived for evaluation. We analyzed several characteristics of transplant candidates, including landmark time points of accompanied live donation evaluation processes, time of eventual LDLT, and root causes of not implementing LDLT. Results: From January 2014 to January 2021, 417 patients (342 adults and 75 pediatric patients) were enrolled, of which 331 (79.4%) patients completed the live donor evaluation process, and 205 (49.2%) received LDLT. The median time from being wait-listed to the appearance of a potential live donor was 19.0 (interquartile range 4.0-58.0) days, and the median time from the appearance of the donor to an LDLT or a deceased donor liver transplantation was 68.0 (28.0-188.0) days. The 1-year mortality rate for patients on the waiting list was 34.3%. Presence of hepatitis B virus, encephalopathy, and hypertension as well as increased total bilirubin were risk factors associated with not implementing LDLT, and biliary atresia was a positive predictor. The primary barriers to LDLT were a patient's critical illness, donor's physical conditions, motivation for live donation, and stable condition while on the waiting list. Conclusions: Transplant candidates with potential live liver donors do not necessarily receive LDLT. The process requires time, and the most common reason for LDLT failure was critical diseases. Aggressive medical support and tailored management policies for these transplantable patients might help reduce their loss during the process.

Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%.

METHODS

Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1).

CONCLUSION

A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Randomized control trial on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in live liver donors: Are three doses enough?

INTRODUCTION

The duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis following live liver donor hepatectomy (LDH) is not known.

METHODS

This is a double-blind equivalence trial. All consecutive LDH were randomized into: group A (three doses) and group B (nine doses) of perioperative antibiotics (piperacillin + tazobactam - 4.5 g intravenous) at fixed 8 hourly intervals. Primary end point was incidence of infective complications as per CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) criteria. Secondary end points were liver function tests, total leukocyte count, international normalized ratio, hospital stay, morbidity, and cost analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six LDHs were enrolled. A total of 19.8% (n = 25) experienced postoperative complications, 11 (17.7%) in group A and 14 (21.9%) in group B (P = .561). Infective complications were seen in 11 donors (8.1%), five in group A and six in group B (P = .79). A total of 8.1% of donors required continuation/up-gradation of antibiotics in group A and 9.4% in group B. Return to soft diet was delayed in group B (P = .039). Median hospital stay and cost were similar.

CONCLUSION

Three doses of perioperative antibiotic are equally effective in preventing infective complications.

Single Orifice Outflow Reconstruction: Refining the Venous Outflow in Modified Right Lobe Live Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

MHV reconstruction is essential to avoid anterior sector congestion in adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a modified right lobe graft.

AIMS

The objective of this study is to evaluate the graft and patient outcomes with single orifice outflow reconstruction technique (SORT) (RHV + neo-MHV combined reconstruction on IVC) vs. dual outflow reconstruction technique (DORT) (RHV and neo-MHV separately reconstructed on IVC) in a modified right lobe LDLT.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing LDLT from June 2011 to August 2018 were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: SORT (n = 207) and DORT (n = 108). The perioperative morbidity and mortality were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in baseline preoperative characteristics. Intraoperatively, warm ischemia time (27 vs. 45 min, p < 0.001), anhepatic phase (132 vs. 159 min, p < 0.001), and operative time (680 vs. 840 min, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in SORT group. SORT group also had significantly lower GRWR (0.92 vs. 1.06, p < 0.001) and higher portal flow (2.4 vs. 2.7 L/min, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, SORT group had lower peak AST (177 vs. 209 IU/L, p < 0.001), ALT (163 vs. 189 IU/L, p = 0.004), creatinine levels (0.98 vs. 1.10, p = 0.01), rate of severe sepsis (13.7% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.03), major morbidity (50.7% vs. 62.6%, p = 0.03), shorter ICU (9 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001), and hospital stay (21 vs. 26 days, p = 0.03). Overall survival rates were comparable.

CONCLUSION

A SORT leads to improved early graft function and perioperative morbidity in modified right lobe LDLT in spite of having lower GRWR and higher portal flow.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in Indian patients- Is the scenario different?

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been controversial in terms of selection and outcome. We share our experience of LDLT for HCC in Indian patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LDLT for HCC discovered either preoperatively or incidentally on explant pathology was done. Preoperative characteristics and explant histopathology findings were recorded. Overall, recurrence-free survival and factors predicting recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eleven LDLT were performed between June 2011 and October 2019. HCC constituted 6.5% (n = 53) of transplant activity. Forty had preoperative diagnosis, while 13 were detected incidentally. The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 18 for patients with HCC. Only in 10 patients (19%), HCC was the primary indication for liver transplant (LT), and the rest had undergone transplant for progressive decompensation. Thirty-two patients were within up-to-7, while 21 were outside up-to-7 criteria. Overall 5-year survival was 85.4% and recurrence-free survival was 83.3% after a median follow-up of 35 months (13-59). This was similar to LDLT for other indications (81.2% at 5 years). Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score was best able to predict recurrence (p = 0.03) with odds ratio of 6.8.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC in India present late for liver transplant. Most patients have some form of decompensation before they undergo LT. In selected patients, overall survival was comparable with other indications for LDLT with acceptable recurrence rates. RETREAT score was best to predict recurrence.

Biliary Reconstruction in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: The All-Knots-Outside Technique

Biliary complications (BCs) following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can lead to significant morbidity and occasional mortality. The present study describes our experience of the all-knots-outside technique (AKOT) of biliary reconstruction (BR) and its impact on BCs. A retrospective analysis was performed using prospectively collected data of 330 consecutive adult patients undergoing LDLT from July 2011 to February 2018 with a minimal follow-up of 24 months. Only 2.8% required hepaticojejunostomy and were excluded. In an initial 122 patients, BR was performed with the standard technique (ST), and AKOT was performed in the subsequent 208 patients. In the AKOT group, a single anastomosis was attempted even for multiple ducts whenever feasible. A major BC was defined as requiring endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical interventions. In the AKOT group, significantly more patients received a left lobe graft (5.7% versus 18.3%; P = 0.001), had shorter warm ischemia time (44.6 versus 27 minutes; P < 0.001), and had a left hepatic artery (LHA) in the right lobe that was used for arterial reconstruction (48 [39.3%] versus 122 [58.6%]; P = 0.003). The incidence of BCs in the entire cohort was 47 (14.2%). For the ST versus AKOT groups, the overall BCs (27/122 [22.1%] versus 20/208 [9.6%]; P = 0.003) and major BCs (20.5% versus 6.7%; P < 0.001) decreased significantly. In the multivariate analysis, the number of bile ducts (hazard ratio [HR], 4.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-10.78; P = 0.003), number of anastomoses (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.03-4.02; P = 0.04), and technique of anastomosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.68; P = 0.002) predicted BCs. In conclusion, in adult LDLT, with standardization of the donor and recipient surgery, preferential use of LHA for right lobe arterial reconstruction, reduction in the number of anastomoses, and AKOT for BR significantly decreased the incidence of BCs.

A Long-Term Prospective Study of Quality of Life, Abdominal Symptoms, and Cosmesis of Donors After Hepatectomy for Live-Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive assessment of quality of life of live liver donors is required for adequate donor outcome reporting, but there is a lack of prospective data. Assessment of all aspects of liver donation over a long period is a necessity to have complete understanding of the donation process.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of liver donors operated between March 2012 to August 2013, examined donors (n = 52) from predonation to five years after the donation. Participants were administered 'World Health Organization quality of life Brief and questionnaires' regarding their attitude predonation, their overall well-being in terms of abdominal symptoms, cosmesis, and satisfaction with donation and consent process at predefined time points till five years after donation. The weight of the donors was recorded at predefined time points.

RESULTS

The donors whose recipients died were less likely to continue with the study (8.9% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). After surgery, physical domain took 2 years to reach to predonation level while psychological and social relationship domains took 3 months and 1 month, respectively; environmental domain remained stable throughout. Even after recovery and discharge from hospital, donors experienced abdominal symptoms for a long period of time, but as the time increased from donation the reporting of symptoms decreased. Body image scores (12 ± 2.46 at 3 months vs. 14.9 ± 3.16 at five years, P < 0.001) and cosmesis scores (14.6 ± 3.67 at 3 months vs. 18.75 ± 3 at five years, P < 0.001) significantly improved over time. There was significant weight gain in donors (65.2 ± 6.1 kg predonation vs. 70.69 ± 2.4 kg at 2 years P < 0.001). Donors understood the consent process well, but did not use it for decision making. Overall, they showed a high level of satisfaction in the donation process.

CONCLUSION

Donors have good quality of life and show steady recovery in all aspects. Recipient death affects attitude towards donation process.

Indian National Association for the Study of Liver Consensus Statement on Acute Liver Failure (Part-2): Management of Acute Liver Failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is not an uncommon complication of a common disease such as acute hepatitis. Viral hepatitis followed by antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity are the commonest causes of ALF in India. Clinically, such patients present with appearance of jaundice, encephalopathy, and coagulopathy. Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and cerebral edema are central and most important clinical event in the course of ALF, followed by superadded infections, and determine the outcome in these patients. The pathogenesis of encephalopathy and cerebral edema in ALF is unique and multifactorial. Ammonia plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis, and several therapies aim to correct this abnormality. The role of newer ammonia-lowering agents is still evolving. These patients are best managed at a tertiary care hospital with facility for liver transplantation (LT). Aggressive intensive medical management has been documented to salvage a substantial proportion of patients. In those with poor prognostic factors, LT is the only effective therapy that has been shown to improve survival. However, recognizing suitable patients with poor prognosis has remained a challenge. Close monitoring, early identification and treatment of complications, and couseling for transplant form the first-line approach to manage such patients. Recent research shows that use of dynamic prognostic models is better for selecting patients undergoing liver transplantation and timely transplant can save life of patients with ALF with poor prognostic factors.

Preoperative Alanine Aminotransferase and Remnant Liver Volume Predict Liver Regeneration After Live Donor Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Regeneration of the remnant liver in early postoperative period determines the outcome in live liver donors (LLDs). The aim of the current study is to evaluate the factors that influence liver regeneration following live donor hepatectomy.

METHODS

Total liver volume (TLV), estimated graft volume (EGV), and remnant liver volume (RLV) were calculated preoperatively in a prospective study of 154 LLDs. Absolute and percentage growth of remnant liver (regeneration index) in donor was estimated at 7th postoperative day (POD) by computed tomography (CT) volumetric analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen donors underwent right hepatectomy (RH), 29 underwent left hepatectomy (LH), 6 donors had left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), and one had right posterior sectionectomy. The median percentage growth of remnant liver at the end of the first week was 46.14% (51.74%, 35.32%, and 17.38% for RH, LH, and LLS, respectively). On univariate analysis, female donors (p = 0.051), RH graft (p = 0.001), no steatosis on ultrasonography (p = 0.042), lower TLV (p = 0.029), RLV (p = < 0.001), RLV-to-body weight ratio (RLVBWR) (p = < 0.001), preoperative alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level (p = 0.017), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (p = 0.035) and higher POD 7 alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (p = 0.033), and POD 7 gamma-glutamyl transferase GGT (p = 0.006) were found to be predictors of greater liver regeneration. Among them, lower RLV (P = 0.008), RLVBWR (p = 0.011), and preoperative ALT level (p = 0.021) were most significant factors predictive of liver regeneration on logistic regression analysis with backward elimination.

CONCLUSION

The liver regenerates rapidly in LLDs following hepatectomy. Low RLV, RLVBWR, and preoperative ALT levels were predictors of liver regeneration in the first week following donor hepatectomy.

Three-Dimensional Volumetric Assessment of Graft Volume in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Does It Minimise Errors of Estimation?

BACKGROUND

Accurate volumetric assessment of graft and remnant liver is essential in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for optimal clinical outcome in both donors and recipients. Recently, three-dimensional (3D) volumetry is proposed over conventional computed tomography (CT) volumetry to minimise errors. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation of estimated graft volume (EGV) by both the methods with actual graft weight (AGW).

METHODS

One hundred fifty-four consecutive donors were enrolled prospectively. Conventional CT volumetry (semiautomatic) and 3D volumetry were performed using Myrian software. Total liver volume (TLV), EGV, and remnant liver volume (RLV) were assessed using both methods and correlated with intraoperatively measured AGW as the reference standard. Error of estimation was calculated accordingly.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen donors underwent right hepatectomy excluding middle hepatic vein (MHV), twenty-nine donors had left hepatectomy including MHV and six donors underwent left lateral sectionectomy. The median EGV on CT and 3D volumetry was 628.5 ml (140-1300) and 634.5 ml (156-1349), respectively. The median AGW was 647 gm (200-1004). Both CT and 3D volumetry showed strong correlation with AGW (correlation coefficients: 0.834 and 0.856, respectively). Linear correlation is as follows: (a) AGW = 99.75 + 0.818 × EGV (CT) and (b) AGW = 96.03 + 0.835 × EGV (3D). The mean percentage error for CT and 3D volumetry was 14.2 ± 12.5% and 12.2 ± 11.8%, respectively. The overall accuracy of estimation of EGV improved using 3D software (P=0.015). For the subgroup of types of graft, the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.062, 0.214 and 0.463 for right, left and left lateral grafts, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both conventional CT and 3D volumetric methods strongly correlate with AGW in donors of LDLT, whereas overall accuracy of estimation of graft weight improved marginally by 3D volumetry.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute Liver Failure: Donor Safety and Recipient Outcome

In countries where deceased organ donation is sparse, emergency living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only lifesaving option in select patients with acute liver failure (ALF). The aim of the current study is living liver donor safety and recipient outcomes following LDLT for ALF. A total of 410 patients underwent LDLT between March 2011 and February 2018, out of which 61 (14.9%) were for ALF. All satisfied the King's College criteria (KCC). Median admission to transplant time was 48 hours (range, 24-80.5 hours), and median living donor evaluation time was 18 hours (14-20 hours). Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 37 (32-40) with more than two-thirds having grade 3 or 4 encephalopathy and 70% being on mechanical ventilation. The most common etiology was viral (37%). Median jaundice-to-encephalopathy time was 15 (9-29) days. Preoperative culture was positive in 47.5%. There was no difference in the complication rate among emergency and elective living liver donors (13.1% versus 21.2%; P = 0.19). There was no donor mortality. For patients who met the KCC but did not undergo LT, survival was 22.8% (29/127). The 5-year post-LT actuarial survival was 65.57% with a median follow-up of 35 months. On multivariate analysis, postoperative worsening of cerebral edema (CE; hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-6.31), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS; HR, 16.7; 95% CI, 2.05-136.7), preoperative culture positivity (HR, 6.54; 95% CI, 2.24-19.07), and a longer anhepatic phase duration (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) predicted poor outcomes. In conclusion, emergency LDLT is lifesaving in selected patients with ALF. Outcomes of emergency living liver donation were comparable to that of elective donors. Postoperative worsening of CE, preoperative SIRS, and sepsis predicted outcome after LDLT for ALF.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Overview, Imaging Technique, and Diagnostic Considerations

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to discuss the process of becoming a liver donor, describe the surgical methods used for transplantation, and critically review preoperative and intraoperative imaging techniques. CONCLUSION. Radiologists play a vital role in ensuring the safety of living liver donors; however, consensus guidelines do not exist for imaging protocol or reporting. Standardization would provide more consistent image quality across centers, improve communication with the transplant team, and facilitate data mining for quality assurance and research.

Explant portal vein for reconstructing middle hepatic vein in right lobe living donor liver transplantation-outcome analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to study the four week patency rates of the reconstructed neo middle hepatic vein specifically using the explant portal vein (PV) in right hemiliver live donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We hypothesized that short term patency of the neo-MHV should result in good graft and patient outcomes.

METHODS

Pre, intra and post operative variables were prospectively collected for 88 consecutive patients undergoing right hemiliver LDLT from January 2014 to October 2015.

RESULTS

Explant PV was used to reconstruct neo-MHV in 76 (86.4%, 76/88) patients. Neo MHV patency rate at 28 days with explant PV was 89.4% (59/66) and with other conduit (PTFE) was 90.9% (10/11). All occlusions were detected after 7 days. There was no impact of the patency of the neo-MHV on the incidence of early allograft dysfunction, sepsis, rejection, morbidity or mortality, despite the contribution of the anterior sector to the graft volume being more than 50% in close to two-thirds of patients.

CONCLUSION

The reconstructed neo-MHV has excellent short term patency rates at 4 weeks. Perhaps due to the absence of early occlusions, there was no impact on graft or patient outcomes in the study population.

Donor Safety in Adult-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience of 356 Cases

Background

As an important means to tackle the worldwide shortage of liver grafts, adult-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-ALDLT) is the most massive operation a healthy person could undergo, so donor safety is of prime importance. However, most previous research focused on recipients, while complications in donors have not been fully described or investigated.

Material/Methods

To investigate donor safety in terms of postoperative complications, the clinical data of 356 A-ALDLT donors in our center from January 2002 to September 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into a pre-2008 group (before January 2008) and a post-2008 group (after January 2008). Donor safety was evaluated with regard to the type, frequency, and severity of postoperative complications.

Results

There were no donor deaths in our center during this period. The overall complication rate was 23.0% (82/356). The proportion of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 51.2% (42/82), 25.6% (21/82), 22.0% (18/82), and 1.2% (1/82), respectively. In all the donors, the incidence of Clavien I, II, III, and IV complications was 11.8% (42/356), 5.9% (21/356), 5.1% (18/356), and 0.3% (1/356), respectively. The overall complication rate in the post-2008 group was significantly lower than that in the pre-2008 group (18.1% (41/227) vs. 32.6% (42/129), P<0.01). Biliary complications were the most common, with an incidence of 8.4% (30/356).

Conclusions

The risk to A-ALDLT donors is controllable and acceptable with improvement in preoperative assessment and liver surgery.