Living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatitis C virus-related diseases

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

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

LEVERSON G, FOLEY D, D. MEZRICH J, KANMAZ T, M. ANDAÇOĞLU O, M. D’ALESSANDRO A, S. ACARLI K, KALAYOĞLU M, A. FERNANDEZ L. A comparison of rates and severity of chronic kidney disease in deceased-donor and living-donor liver transplant recipients: times matter

BACKGROUND/AIM

The progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in recipients of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) compared to deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) has not been studied in the literature. We hypothesize that CKD stage progression in LDLT recipients is reduced compared to that of their DDLT counterparts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken including 999 adult, single-organ, primary liver transplant recipients (218 LDLT and 781 DDLT) at 2 centers between January 2003 and December 2012, in which CKD progression and regression were evaluated within the first 3 years after transplantation.

RESULTS

Waiting time from evaluation to transplantation was significantly lower in LDLT patients compared to recipients of DDLT. CKD stage progression from preoperative transplant evaluation to transplantation was significantly greater in DDLT. Deceased-donor liver transplant recipients continued to have higher rates of clinically significant renal disease progression (from stage I–II to stage III–V) across multiple time points over the first 3 years posttransplant. Furthermore, a greater degree of CKD regression was observed in recipients of LDLT.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that LDLT provides excellent graft and patient survival, significantly reducing the overall incidence of clinically significant CKD stage progression when compared to DDLT. Moreover, there is a significantly higher incidence of CKD stage regression in LDLT compared to DDLT. These observations were maintained in both high and low model for end-stage liver disease(MELD)populations. This observation likely reflects earlier access to transplantation in LDLT as one of the contributing factors to preventing CKD progression.

Live donor liver transplantation with older donors: Increased long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence

Using our prospectively collected database all adult hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients receiving an adult-to-adult LDLT between October 2000 and May 2014 were identified. Outcome of LDLT with grafts from younger (<50 years=128) vs older donors (≥50 years=31) was compared. Post-transplant graft function, postoperative complications and incidence of HCV recurrence were evaluated. Long-term graft and patient survival was calculated. No difference in graft function was observed between younger and older grafts. Overall complications were similar between both groups. The severity of complications determined by the Dindo-Clavien score was similar. Graft loss from HCV recurrence was significantly less frequent in younger grafts (18% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Young vs older livers had a trend toward improved 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival (89% vs 87%, 77% vs 69%, 70% vs 55%, P = 0.096), while patient survival was comparable between both groups (91% vs 90%, 78% vs 69%, 71% vs 60%, P = 0.25). In conclusion, LDLT with older vs younger grafts are more frequently associated with long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence. Differences in graft survival might be more prominent with prolonged (≥5-year) follow-up. Living donor-recipient matching is particularly important for younger HCV-positive recipients.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Hepatitis C: New challenges in liver transplantation

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

Scoring systems predict the prognosis of acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure: an evidence-based review

Acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure is a devastating condition that is associated with mortality rates of over 50% and is consequent to acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B in patients with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment to lower mortality rate, but there is a great imbalance between donation and potential recipients. An early and accurate prognostic system based on the integration of laboratory indicators, clinical events and some mathematic logistic equations is needed to optimize treatment for patients. As parts of the scoring systems, the MELD was the most common and the donor-MELD was the most innovative for patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation. This review aims to highlight the various features and prognostic capabilities of these scoring systems.

Recurrent hepatitis C virus infection and outcome after living-donor liver transplant

OBJECTIVES

In living-donor liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C virus infection, outcomes of recurrent hepatitis C virus infection and fibrosis progression are not well documented. We evaluated fibrosis progression, response to pegylated interferon treatment, and long-term graft survival in living-donor liver transplant recipients who had hepatitis C virus infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 48 transplant recipients, including 29 recipients who had follow-up liver biopsy ≥ 6 months after transplant, histology and clinical courses were reviewed. Outcomes were evaluated for patients grouped into slow and rapid fibrosis groups. Treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin was assessed in 18 patients.

RESULTS

Clinical features were similar between recipients with slow or rapid fibrosis. The time interval from transplant to recurrence of hepatitis C virus infection was significantly shorter in the recipients with rapid fibrosis. Recipients with rapid fibrosis had significantly greater confluent necrosis, acidophil bodies, and fibrosis score than recipients with slow fibrosis. Graft survival rates were similar between patients with slow or rapid fibrosis. Cumulative proportion of long-term graft survival was 60% at 7 years after transplant. Sustained virologic response was noted in 5 of 18 patients (28%) who received pegylated interferon and ribavirin.

CONCLUSIONS

In recipients of living-donor liver transplant with early recurrence of hepatitis C have worse fibrosis progression but graft survival was not affected. Therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin achieved sustained virologic response only in a small proportion of the patients.

[Liver transplantation with living donor : current aspects, perspectives and significance in Germany]

More than 20 years ago living donor liver transplantation was introduced into clinical practice. Specifics of this method were developed initially for children and later on for adults particularly in regions where a liver transplantation program using deceased donors was not readily available. The most sensitive aspect of living donation, namely the danger to a healthy relative in order to perform the transplantation is immanent in the system and, thus, it is definitively a secondary option as compared to deceased organ donation. Following worldwide initial euphoria the numbers have markedly decreased in the western world since the start of the new millennium. In Asian countries in particular, much work has been done to optimize the procedure so that the donor safety and the outcome quality for the recipient have been impressively demonstrated in large patient populations. There is still a severe donor organ shortage and the option to allocate an optimal (partial) organ on an individual basis by living donation has given new impact to the discussion about a further rise in the profile of living donations here as well. The new version of the German transplantation legislation implemented in summer 2012 requires a number of conditions with respect to insurance for living donors. The current state and perspectives are presented here.