Quality of life of living donors before and after living donor liver transplantation

Multi-center living liver donor quality of life survey up to 20 years after donor hepatectomy and association with surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

We implemented a multicenter interview with the donors to investigate Quality of Life (QoL) up to 20 years following donation.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively. Complications were graded by Dindo-Clavien classification.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 16.1 years. Out of 485 donors, 272 responded (56.1%). The majority (>90%) reported they are in excellent/good overall health and positive or no impact of donation on professional life. Length of stay (LOS) was associated with impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality (both p = 0.046). Major complication was not associated with current physical condition or return to baseline normalcy (p = 0.06). Seventy-five (27.5%) reported unsure or no to donate again. None of the parameters were associated with donation again response. Faster return to baseline functionality, and more positive impact on professional life were reported in the last decade, likely secondary to less complication rates (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This the longest follow up reports after living liver donation among German and Turkish populations. Although subject to recall bias, LOS was associated with negative impact on professional life and return to baseline functionality. Regret feelings were higher than literature. These long-term effects should be incorporated into donor discussions.

Mothers' Experiences With Pregnancy and Childbirth Following Pediatric Living Liver Transplant Donation: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Half of pediatric living liver transplantation donors are mothers, including women of reproductive age. Reports on pregnancy and childbirth after living donor liver transplantation are limited to medical aspects, and mothers' experiences remain unclear. We describe the experiences of women who became pregnant and gave birth after living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

We used a qualitative descriptive approach. Eleven women who became pregnant and delivered following pediatric living liver transplant donation participated in face-to-face, in-depth interviews. Data collected via semi-structured interviews were assessed using an inductive qualitative analysis. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

RESULTS

Women's experiences with pregnancy and childbirth following pediatric living liver transplant donation were categorized as follows: explanation and consultation on pregnancy and childbirth after liver donation; physical and mental burden after liver donation; concern about the effects of donor surgery on pregnancy and childbirth; consideration for own body; concern about the physical condition of my child, who is the recipient; and the presence of health professionals with which to easily consult.

CONCLUSION

After donation, mothers are physically burdened and experiences anxiety about the physical condition of the recipient as well as about pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore, continuous psychosocial support is necessary.

Changes in the quality of life of living liver donors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehending the physical, psychological, social benefits, and harm associated with liver donation is critical in promoting practices to maintain donors' long-term health. However, changes in quality of life among living liver donors pre- and post-donation have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies examined the quality of life changes among living liver donors pre- and post-donation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINHAL with full text, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were mainly searched for full-text articles from inception till December 2018 to identify studies assessing the quality of life of living liver donors. The methodological quality of the included studies was examined. The quality of life post-donation at five assessment points, ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥ 24 months were compared with the pre-donation, respectively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2215 records, and a total of 15 articles (13 studies) with 715 donors were included in this meta-analysis. Physical functioning scores at ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥24 months post-donation were significantly lower than pre-donation [overall standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.67, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.49; p ≤]. Significantly higher level of pain was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -1.05; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.85; p < 0.00001). Also, a significantly higher level of anxiety was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07; p = 0.01), but there were no significant changes in general psychological state and depression. A significant reduction in donors' social quality of life (SMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -4.75, 0.48; p = 0.02) was found at ≤1-month post-donation, and recovery to pre-donation levels occurred at 3 months post-donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donation was associated with a decline in physical functioning, which was sustained for longer than 2 years post-donation. Impaired social and psychological quality of life affected donors for 1-3 months after their donation. The quality of life of living liver donors has become a pressing issue requiring more attention from doctors and nurses within the transplant team. However, multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of living liver donors.

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), 2 patients undergo surgery, and the advantages and disadvantages for both patients should be considered. This study evaluated the long-term quality of life in living liver donors, and its impact on their activities of daily living focusing on mood and mental health. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 101 living liver donors (69 female and 32 male patients, median age of 36.8 years) were surveyed at a median time of 61.8 months after liver donation (range 7-169 months). The generic Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the Questionnaire of Physical Activity (IPAQ) were used. The results of SF-36 were compared to a matched control group (n=72) using the Wilcoxon test; the SF-36, the PHQ-9, and the IPAQ scores were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Linear regression model was used to check for dependencies between variables of interest. The IPAQ results were compared between the study group and the general Polish population. RESULTS There were no significant differences in the SF-36 domains between the study group and control group except body pain, which was higher in the living liver donor group (P<0.05). In 30.6% of patients, the PHQ-9 survey revealed mood disturbances. The PHQ-9 scores were higher in female-donors (P<0.05). Both summary scores of the SF-36 correlated to the PHQ-9 (P<0.001). In 89.1% of patients, physical activity was below the population norm and was lower in female donors than in male donors (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS LDLT had no impact on donors' physical and mental health. Physical activity of living liver donors was lower than that of the general population. The SF-36 and the IPAQ measures seem to be reliable in the care of living liver donors. The PHQ-9 survey results and the inclination to depression of female living liver donors requires further study.

Beliefs of Living Donors About Recipients' End-Stage Liver Failure and Surgery for Organ Donation

BACKGROUND

The concept of beliefs could provide a basis for how donors may perceive recipients' end-stage liver failure (ESLF) and surgery for organ donation. However, there is no such quantitative study. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore beliefs of living donors about recipients' ESLF and surgery for organ donation.

METHODS

The sample comprised 16 living donors who donated a part of their liver to a patient who had ESLF. The data were analyzed by following established procedures for inductive qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis showed that donors' beliefs can be viewed in a number of groups. Beliefs about recipients' ESLF included diverse explanations for ESLF (blaming oneself and physicians) and physical symptoms (developmental slowing down). Beliefs about being a donor included reasons for being a donor (performing a good deed, being healed), barriers to being a donor (other people being ignorant and selfish), ways to manage these barriers (following one's gut feeling), and factors facilitating being a donor (the feeling that one does not have many people to leave behind). Beliefs about surgery for organ donation included physical effects (pain, feeling stiff). Beliefs about organ donation included views that general organ donation should be encouraged and that people's awareness should be raised.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing psychological perspectives could help to interpret some beliefs. Nevertheless, other beliefs, not previously reported, could be considered as targets for individual consultations/psycho-educational programs for fostering emotional well-being.

Long-term health-related quality of life in living liver donors: A south Asian experience

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL), changes in lifestyle, and complications in living liver donors at a single transplant center from southern India.

METHODS

A total of 64 consecutive living liver donors from 2008 to 2011 were evaluated; 46 of 64 donors completed the short form 36 (SF-36) via telephonic interviews or clinic consultations. Mean follow-up was 48 months (range: 37-84 months).

RESULTS

There was no mortality in the donors evaluated. Overall morbidity was 23%, which included wound infections (4.3%), incisional hernia (2.1%), biliary leak (4.3%), and nonspecific complaints regarding the incision site (15.2%). All 46 donors who completed the SF-36 had no change in career path or predonation lifestyle. A total of 40 of 46 (87%) donors had no limitations, decrements, or disability in any domain, while six of 46 (13%) had these in some domains of which general health (GH) was most severely affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor hepatectomy is safe with acceptable morbidity and excellent long-term HRQOL with no change in career path or significant alteration of lifestyle for donors.

Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects

Even if reproductive medicine has been remarkably successful during the past few decades, with the introduction of in vitro fertilization in the late 1970s and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the early 1990s, it has been repeatedly mocked by infertility due to an absolute uterine factor. No treatment has been available for the women suffering from an absent or dysfunctional uterus, in terms of carrying a pregnancy. Approximately one in 500 women suffer from absolute uterine infertility, and the option so far to become a mother has been to either adopt or utilize gestational surrogacy. As of today, a total of eleven cases of human uterus transplantations have been reported worldwide, conducted in three different countries. The results of these initial experimental cases far exceed what might be expected of a novel surgical method. Many more uterus transplantations are to be expected in the near future, as other research teams' preparations are being ready to be put into clinical practice. In this review, we summarize the current worldwide experience of uterus transplantation as a treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility and the future prospects of human uterus transplantation.

Getting Used to Being a Patient: The Postoperative Experience of Living Liver Transplant Donors

Context—

Living donor liver transplant is a viable option for eligible persons in need of a liver transplant, but little is known about the hospitalization experience of patients undergoing hepatectomy for transplant donation.

Objective—

To explore the hospital experience of patients recovering from donor hepatectomy.

Design—

A qualitative interpretive descriptive design was used to understand the hospital experience of patients recovering from donor hepatectomy. Semistructured interviews, conducted before discharge, were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Coding was performed independently, then jointly by investigators to reach consensus on emerging themes.

Setting—

Major university hospital in the Northeastern United States.

Sample—

Adults (>18 years of age) whose primary language was English or Spanish and who could provide written informed consent.

Results—

The sample consisted of 15 participants who had a mean age of 34.6 years; half were women. Most were white and college educated. The relationship of the donors to recipients varied from immediate family to altruistic donors. “Getting used to being a patient” was the major theme that captured the patients' postoperative experience. Four subthemes explained the experience: regaining consciousness, all those tubes, expecting horrible pain, and feeling special and cared for. These were described in the context of an “amazing and impressive” transplant team.

Conclusion—

As healthy donors are getting used to being patients, these results provide clinicians with a deeper understanding of the transplant experience from the donor's perspective so that care can be tailored to meet their unique needs.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS).

RESULTS

Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%,

MCS

10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

Clinical outcomes and evaluation of the quality of life of living donors for pediatric liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 100 donors

There are few reports about the quality of life (QOL) and morbidities of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) donors. We evaluated the potential morbidities and identified the predictive factors regarding the QOL of living donors after pediatric LDLT. This cross-sectional study was a single-center analysis of 100 donors for pediatric LDLT. The severity of morbidities was assessed with the Clavien classification, the QOL was investigated with the short form-36 (SF-36), and the decision-making process regarding donation was analyzed with questionnaires. The median follow-up period was 3.8 years (range, 2.2-6.0 years). A total of 13% of the donors developed postoperative complications of Clavien grades I (7%), II (3%), and IIIA (3%). There was no grade IV morbidity or mortality. Eighty-one donors responded to the questionnaire and SF-36. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the donors had difficulty in the decision-making process, and suggested that it may be necessary to administer multistep informed consent. We identified unique predictive risk factors for lower SF-36 scores in the donors, which were the time to donation (more than 4 weeks) and the predonation self-oriented perception. The donors who have risk factors require enhanced pre- and post-donation psychological care.

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.

Health-related quality of life changes following major and minor hepatic resection: the impact of complications and postoperative anemia

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the health-related quality-of-life (QOL) changes in patients following major liver resection for malignancy.

METHODS

QOL parameters were recorded prospectively at baseline (preoperative), and through 6 months of follow-up using various instruments.

RESULTS

Major complications occurred in 10 of 41 patients. At the initial outpatient visit, patients reported decreased global QOL with increased fatigue compared with baseline, which normalized at 6 weeks' follow-up and remained stable at 6 months. Those with major complications reported increased severity of pain over baseline at initial follow-up and at 6 months. Patients anemic at the time of discharge had worse physical QOL at 6 weeks, but levels similar to nonanemic patients at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Major complications are associated with increased reporting of pain persisting at 6 months. Attention to pain control, especially among patients with major complications, may improve QOL after major hepatic resection.

Long-term quality of life of donors after living donor liver transplantation

The aims of this study were to investigate the long-term effects of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of donors with the Short Form 36 health survey and to determine the risk factors for poor outcomes. Between June 1990 and June 2004, LDLT was performed 1000 times at Kyoto University Hospital. In July 2005, 997 of the 1000 donors were contacted by mail so that data on their HRQOL could be collected. In all, 578 donors responded (ie, there was a 58.0% response rate). The norm-based HRQOL scores for donors were better than the scores for Japanese norms across all time periods. All scores were similar for left lobe donors (n = 367) and right lobe donors (n = 211). For all donors, a multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, the number of months until recovery to the preoperative health status, hospital visits due to donation-related symptoms, rest from work related to donation in the past month, and the existence of 2 or more comorbidities were significantly associated with decreased HRQOL scores. Postoperative complications and recipient mortality were not predictors of poor HRQOL. In conclusion, HRQOL was better for both right lobe donors and left lobe donors versus the Japanese norm population in the long term (mean postdonation period = 6.8 years). However, the prolongation of symptoms or sequelae related to donation lowered mental health or social functioning. The emergence of comorbidities after donation also significantly affected HRQOL in the long term. Careful follow-up and sustained counseling are required for donors with risk factors for lower HRQOL.

Influence of kinship on donors' mental burden in living donor liver transplantation

In the context of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), German transplantation law stipulates that donor candidates should primarily be relatives of the recipients or persons with distinct and close relationships. In this study, we investigated the influence of the relationship between the donor and the recipient on the donor's emotional strain before transplantation. Donors were categorized according to the following subgroups: (1) parents donating for their children, (2) children donating for their parents, (3) siblings, (4) spouses, (5) other relatives, and (6) nonrelatives. The sample consisted of 168 donor candidates. Anxiety (F = 2.8, P = 0.02), depression (F = 2.6, P = 0.03), and emotional quality of life (F = 3.1, P = 0.01) differed significantly according to the relationship between the donor and the recipient. In comparison with healthy controls, parents donating for their children were significantly less stressed before LDLT and demonstrated fewer anxiety (P < 0.01) and depression symptoms (P < 0.05). Adult children donating for their parents demonstrated the highest mental burden and the lowest emotional quality of life. However, this was not due to the responsibility of these children for their own families because differences between donors with children and donors without children could not be ascertained. This group should be given special attention before LDLT and during follow-up visits, and psychological help should be provided when it is necessary.

Quality of life and psychological outcome of donors after living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate the health related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological outcome of donors after living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS: Participants were 92 consecutive liver transplant donors who underwent hepatectomy without middle hepatic vein at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2007 and September 2010. HRQoL was measured using the Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and psychological symptoms were measured using the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Data collected from donors were compared to previously published data from the general population. Clinical and demographic data were collected from medical records and questionnaires.

RESULTS: The general health score of the SF-36 was significantly lower in females (59.78 ± 12.25) than in males (75.83 ± 22.09). Donors more than 40 years old scored higher in social functioning (85.71 ± 14.59) and mental health (82.61 ± 20.00) than those younger than 40 (75.00 ± 12.13, 68.89 ± 12.98; social functioning and mental health, respectively). Donors who had surgery more than two years prior to the study scored highest in physical functioning (P = 0.001) and bodily pain (P = 0.042) while those less than one year from surgery scored lowest. The health of the liver recipient significantly influenced the general health (P = 0.042), social functioning (P = 0.010), and role-emotional (P = 0.028) of donors. Donors with full-time employment scored highest in role-physical (P = 0.005), vitality (P = 0.001), social functioning (P = 0.016), mental health (P < 0.001), the physical component summary scale (P < 0.001), and the mental component summary scale (MCS) (P < 0.001). Psychological measures indicated that donors were healthier than the general population in obsessive-compulsive behavior, interpersonal sensitivity, phobic anxiety, and paranoid ideation. The MCS of the SF-36 was significantly correlated with most symptom scores of the SCL-90-R.

CONCLUSION: HRQoL and psychological outcome were favorable in living liver transplant donors after donation. Specifically, gender, age, time since operation, recipient health condition, and employment after donation, influenced postoperative quality of life.

Living-donor liver transplantation: impact on donor's health-related quality of life

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the health-related quality of life of living liver donors after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in 55 living liver donors operated on at our center between 2002 and 2009 was assessed using the German Version of the 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

Donors after full right-lobe hepatectomy (n=18) scored similarly to and without statistically significant difference from the German reference population, whereas donors after left lateral segmentectomy (n=37) revealed statistically significant higher average score values (P<.005) in the categories of physical functioning, bodily pain, and general health compared with the German reference population. In the analysis between donors after full right-lobe hepatectomy and donors after left lateral segmentectomy no statistically significant difference was observed in any of the SF-36 categories. Postoperative complications of the donors and postoperative recipient mortality were particularly revealing regarding HRQOL. Donors who developed postoperative complications presented a lower HRQOL, especially in the categories of role physical, bodily pain, and social functioning, where statistically significant differences (P<.005) were observed. Similarly, postoperative recipient mortality correlated with lower mean score values in all SF-36 categories, but a statistically significant difference (P<.005) was reached only in the categories of role emotional and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Donors did not regret their decision to donate, because HRQOL was not negatively affected by the donation procedure. Living liver donors scored as well as or even better than the German reference population, but it was clearly shown that the development of postoperative donor complications and the postoperative recipient mortality had a negative effect on the HRQOL of donors.

Health-related quality of life in living liver donors after transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has recently emerged as an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with end-stage liver disease. In the meantime, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the donors is becoming better appreciated. Here we aimed to review the current literature and summarize the effects of liver donation on the long-term HRQoL of living donors.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed using "donors", "living donor liver transplantation", "health-related quality of life", and "donation" was performed, and all the information was collected.

RESULTS

The varied postoperative outcomes of liver donors are attributive to the different evaluation instruments used. On the whole, donors experienced good long-term physical and mental well-being with a few complaining of compromised quality of life due to mild symptoms or psychiatric problems. The psychosocial dimension has received increasing attention with the vocational, interpersonal and financial impact of liver donation on donors mostly studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, donors have a good HRQoL after LDLT. Nevertheless, to achieve an ideal donor outcome, further work is necessary to minimize the negative effects as well as to incorporate recent progress in regenerative medicine.

Epidural analgesia provides better pain management after live liver donation: a retrospective study

Despite the increase in surgical volumes of live liver donation, there has been very little documentation of the postoperative pain experience. The primary aim of this study was to examine the difference in acute postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects between patients who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for pain control after live liver donation surgery. A retrospective chart review was performed of 226 consecutive patients who underwent right living donor hepatic surgery at the Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Patients who received as their primary postoperative analgesic modality IV PCA (n = 158) were compared to patients who received PCEA (n = 68). Demographic profiles for the 2 groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and body mass index at the time of surgery. For the first 3 postoperative days, pain intensity was significantly lower in patients who received epidural analgesia (P < 0.01). Clinically significant moderate pain (defined as a Numeric Rating Scale pain score >4) was reported more frequently in the IV PCA group (P < 0.05) along with increased sedation (P < 0.05). Pruritus was reported more frequently in the PCEA group of patients compared to the IV PCA group (P < 0.05). Significant between-group differences were not found for the incidence of postoperative vomiting, the time at which patients began fluid intake, the time to initial ambulation, or the length of hospital stay. In conclusion, epidural analgesia provides better postoperative pain relief, less sedation, but more pruritus than IV PCA after live liver donation.

Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases the shortage of liver grafts for patients in need of a liver transplant, but it involves 2 patients: a recipient and a living donor. Despite the magnitude of the procedure for LDLT donors, only a few studies have investigated the effect of LDLT on the quality of life (QOL) of donors. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE database to identify peer-reviewed articles assessing QOL in adults after LDLT donation. Nineteen studies describing 768 unique donors met our inclusion criteria for this review. The median number of donors enrolled in each study was 30 (range = 10-143), and the median follow-up period was 10.4 months (range = 3-51.3 months). Before donation, donor QOL was significantly better than that in control adult populations across all measured QOL domains. Within the first 3 months after donation, the physical domains of QOL were significantly worse than the predonation levels, but they returned to baseline levels within 6 months for the majority of patients (80%-93%). Mental domains of QOL remained unchanged throughout the donation process. Common donor concerns after LDLT included bloating, loss of muscle tone, poor body image, and fatigue. In conclusion, according to our review of the existing literature, most LDLT donors return to their baseline QOL within 6 months. However, there is a lack of long-term data on donor QOL after LDLT, and few standardized assessments include measures of common patient concerns. Additional studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive risk profile for LDLT that includes a rigorous assessment of donor QOL.

Mental and physical quality of life in actual living liver donors versus potential living liver donors: a prospective, controlled, multicenter study

In a quasi-experimental design, we investigated the quality of life (QOL) in actual liver donors (n = 43) and potential liver donors (n = 33) before and 3 months after liver transplantation. This is the first study in this field combining a prospective design with an adequate control group. Potential donors served as a control group because they also had a relative in need of a liver transplant and were as emotionally involved with the recipient as actual donors, but they were not subjected to the donor operation. Groups did not differ in age, gender, marital status, donor-recipient relationship, urgency of transplantation, or recipient group (adult versus child). Actual donors showed decreased physical QOL, whereas potential donors were not affected. However, for both groups, a decrease in anxiety was found. Furthermore, actual donors showed a better mental QOL postoperatively than potential donors. The recipients of these 2 groups did not differ with respect to postoperative complications. Furthermore, the groups did not report a different caregiver burden, but actual donors showed higher self-esteem. Because of the surgery, the worsening of physical symptoms in actual donors was expected. It is remarkable, however, that although actual donors still showed a limited physical QOL 3 months after the operation, in both groups, a similar reduction in anxiety could be observed, and actual donors even demonstrated a better mental QOL postoperatively than potential donors. The latter might be due to a psychological benefit that actual donors derived from the fact that they were able to help the recipients.

Addition of adult-to-adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost

Using outcomes data from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis exploring the costs and benefits of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A multistage Markov decision analysis model was developed with treatment, including medical management only (strategy 1), waiting list with possible deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT; strategy 2), and waiting list with possible LDLT or DDLT (strategy 3) over 10 years. Decompensated cirrhosis with medical management offered survival of 2.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while costing an average of $65,068, waiting list with possible DDLT offered 4.4-QALY survival and a mean cost of $151,613, and waiting list with possible DDLT or LDLT offered 4.9-QALY survival and a mean cost of $208,149. Strategy 2 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $35,976 over strategy 1, whereas strategy 3 produced an ICER of $106,788 over strategy 2. On average, strategy 3 cost $47,693 more per QALY than strategy 1. Both DDLT and LDLT were cost-effective compared to medical management of cirrhosis over our 10-year study period. The addition of LDLT to a standard waiting list DDLT program is effective at improving recipient survival and preventing waiting list deaths but at a greater cost.

Health-related quality of life: return to baseline after major and minor liver resection

BACKGROUND

Assessment of quality of life (QOL) after a major operation has become increasingly pertinent to patient care and may be as important as long-term survival in cancer patients. No current study has evaluated the long-term quality-of-life effects or the time to return to baseline quality of life in oncology patients undergoing hepatic resection for cancer. Thus, the aim of our study was to evaluate that the time to return to baseline QOL after major and minor hepatectomy is similar to other major abdominal operations.

METHODS

A prospective study of 32 patients with malignant liver tumors completed the FACT-Hep, FACT-FHSI-8, EORTC QLQ-C30, Profile of Mood States, EORTC QLQ-Pan26, and Global Rating Scale at the time of consent, discharge, first postoperative visit, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent major (>2 segments) and 8 minor hepatectomy. Patients who underwent major hepatectomy demonstrated a significant loss in FACT-physical and functional scores at first postoperative visit and 6 weeks (P = .04) with return to baseline at 3 months. Similar nadir in all quality-of-life assessment scores were observed for POMS, EORTC QLQ-C30, FHSI-8, and certain global rating scales at 6 weeks, with a return to baseline at 3 months. For minor hepatectomy, the nadir for most quality-of-life scores occurred at the first postoperative visit with a return to baseline at 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing major hepatectomy return to their baseline quality of life at 3 months with a progressive and sustained increase in physical, emotional, and global rating scale at 6 months. This study is the first one to demonstrate that major hepatectomy can be performed with short-term adverse QOL effects and long-term improvements in overall QOL.

Quality of life following organ transplantation

Organ transplantation is a procedure that can save and prolong the life of individuals with end-stage heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas and small bowel diseases. The goal of transplantation is not only to ensure their survival, but also to offer patients the sort of health they enjoyed before the disease, achieving a good balance between the functional efficacy of the graft and the patient's psychological and physical integrity. Quality of life (QoL) assessments are used to evaluate the physical, psychological and social domains of health, seen as distinct areas that are influenced by a person's experiences, beliefs, expectations and perceptions, and QoL is emerging as a new medical indicator in transplantation medicine too. This review considers changes in overall QoL after organ transplantation, paying special attention to living donor transplantation, pediatric transplantation and particular aspects of QoL after surgery, e.g. sexual function, pregnancy, schooling, sport and work.

Psychosocial aspects of pediatric living donor liver transplantation

While the medical aspects of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been investigated to a comparatively large degree, only in recent years have psychosocial aspects like donors' quality of life and attitude towards living donation been dealt with. In the course of a retrospective study, we examined 36 pediatric living liver donors at an average of 4.5 +/- 2.8 years postoperatively. The donation's impact on the family was considered "very high," "high," or "average" by 48% of the donors. The physical impact of the donation was regarded as being higher than the emotional impact. Subjective full recovery was achieved at an average of 4.5 months postoperatively. All patients stated that they would donate again. Donors' quality of life, as assessed with the 36-Item Short-Form Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-36), was significantly higher than the German normative sample. Anxiety and depression, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-German version, were significantly lower compared to healthy controls. However, 14 patients (39%) described persistent, mostly physical, symptoms more than 1 yr postoperatively. In conclusion, the study's findings may enable clinicians to achieve a better understanding of living donors' situations, both pre- and postoperatively, and may help to assess the psychosocial risk of LDLT. Knowledge of possible ongoing problems may facilitate intervention at an early stage and should be included among the information given to potential living liver donors. Prospective studies using more specific instruments with an emphasis on the long-term psychosocial outcome of LDLT are needed for future research.

Donor quality of life before and after adult-to-adult right liver live donor liver transplantation

Donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is a major surgical operation for the benefit of the recipient. Justification of procedure mandates knowledge of the possible physical and psychological negative effects on the donor. We prospectively and longitudinally quantified donor quality of life using generic and condition-specific questionnaires up to 1 year. The generic questionnaires were the Karnofsky Performance Status scale and the Chinese (Hong Kong) version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Survey, which measures 8 health concepts: 4 physical components and 4 mental components. Within 1 year, 30 consecutive donors were included. These 11 male and 19 female donors (36.7% and 63.3%, respectively) had a median age of 35 years (range, 21-56 years). There was no donor mortality or major complications. Donor quality-of-life worsening was most significant in the first 3 postoperative months, particularly among the physical components. The physical and mental components returned to the previous levels in 6 to 12 months' time, though the Karnofsky performance scores were slightly lower at 1 year (P = 0.011). Twenty-six (86.7%) donors declared that they would donate again if there were such a need and it were technically possible. It was noticed that older donors were more likely to express unwillingness to donate again. In conclusion, the temporary worsening of donor quality of life substantiates ALDLT as an acceptable treatment modality.

Impact of Liver Donation on Quality of Life and Physical and Psychological Distress

Our objectives were to assess the characteristics of donors for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to examine the impact of donation on LDLT donor quality of life (QOL) regarding physical and psychological distress.

METHODS

Data were collected from a mailed survey or an interview using a cross-sectional prospective study design. We used the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF), Physical Symptom Disturbance Scale, and Psychological Distress Scale. LDLT donors were recruited from a teaching hospital located in a metropolitan area of northern Taiwan.

RESULTS

The 35 LDLT donors have a mean age 34.0 +/- 8.6 years and were recruited at a median of 25.9 months after donation (range, 0.6-92 months). The average scores in the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF scale ranged from 13.5 to 14.9. LDLT Donors reported higher QOL scores in social and environment domains but lower scores in physical and psychological domains than healthy adults. Numbers of physical symptoms experienced by each donor ranged from one (n = 4) to 27 (n = 2). Feeling throbbing, itching or numbness around the wound was the most common physical symptom disturbance reported by donors (n = 26, 74%). Approximately 40% of the donors reported having one to three metrics of psychological distresses. "Easily feel distress and angry" was the most common psychological distress reported by 57% (n = 20) of donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that liver donation had a mild negative impact on donors physical and psychological facets of QOL. These results may assist professionals to provide appropriate clinical management.

Live donor liver transplantation

With ever-increasing demand for liver replacement, supply of organs is the limiting factor and a significant number of patients die while waiting. Live donor liver transplantation has emerged as an important option for many patients, particularly small pediatric patients and those adults that are disadvantaged by the current deceased donor allocation system. Ideally there would be no need to subject perfectly healthy people in the prime of their lives to a potentially life-threatening operation to procure transplantable organs. Donor safety is imperative and cannot be compromised regardless of the implication for the intended recipient. The evolution of split liver transplantation is the basis upon which live donor transplantation has become possible. The live donor procedures are considerably more complex than whole organ decreased donor transplantation and there are unique considerations involved in the assessment of any specific recipient and donor. Donor selection and evaluation have become highly specialized. The critical issue of size matching is determined by both the actual size of the donor graft and the recipient as well as the degree of recipient portal hypertension. The outcomes after live donor liver transplantation have been at least comparable to those of deceased donor transplantation. Nevertheless, all efforts should be made to improve deceased donor donation so as to minimize the need for live donors. Transplant physicians, particularly surgeons, must take responsibility for regulating and overseeing these procedures.

[Living donor liver transplantation from the perspective of the donor: results of a psychosomatic investigation]

OBJECTIVES

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been gaining importance in the treatment of endstage liver disease in adults. Thus far, only few empirical studies have been published on the psychosocial situation of donors who are faced with the risk of medical complications after resection of the right hepatic lobe. The aims were to describe the clinical problems before and after transplantation and to contribute to the discussion of ethical issues based on empirical findings.

METHODS

In the present overview, the pre-/post-transplant and follow-up periods are characterized from a psychosocial point of view using actual psychosocial and medical findings in living donors of the right hepatic lobe.

RESULTS

Before LDLT, 11 % of potential donors were not recommended for the transplantation due to marked ambivalence about the operation. After donation 26 % of donors showed high values for anxious depression and physical complaints despite low rates of surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical psychosomatic evaluations of potential donors it is important to provide donors an opportunity to report any misgivings and anxieties as openly as possible. The psychosocial impairment and physical complaints of some donors after transplantation are yet not clearly understood. More psychosocial studies in this field will be necessary to investigate ethical questions and to develop criteria for an evidence-based medical care of living donors.

Predictors of candidate maturation among potential living donors

The shortage of deceased donor allografts and improved outcomes in partial organ transplantation have led to widespread application of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Donor selection limits overall utilization of this technique and predictors of candidate maturation have been inadequately studied to date. We therefore collected data on 237 consecutive potential donors including their age, sex, ethnicity, relationship to the recipient, education, employment and religious beliefs and practices. Of these 237 candidates, 91 (38%) were excluded for medical and psychosocial reasons, 53 (22%) withdrew from the process predonation and 93 (39%) underwent partial liver donation. In multivariate analyses, the relationship between the donor and the recipient was highly predictive of successful donation. For pediatric recipients, no parents voluntarily withdrew from the evaluation process. For adult recipients, spouses are the most likely to donate, followed by parents, children and siblings. Additional predictors for donation included self-description as religious but not regularly practicing, part-time employment and higher education. Race, ethnicity, gender and age did not predict donation in multivariate analysis. Further understanding of the complex decision to donate may improve donation rates as well as permit more efficient and cost-effective donor evaluation strategies.

To do or not to do living donor hepatectomy in Jehovah's Witnesses: single institution experience of the first 13 resections

Living donor liver transplantation has come to be an acceptable alternative to deceased donor transplants. Several ethical issues related to living donation have been raised in the face of reported perioperative morbidity and mortality. We report our experience in 13 consecutive Jehovah's Witness (JW) donor hepatectomies. From June 1999 to April 2004, 13 adult JW donors underwent donor hepatectomies at the USC-University Hospital. Nine donors underwent right lobectomy with a 62% mean volume of the liver resected. Four donors underwent a left lateral segmentectomy with a mean volume of 17.8%. Cell scavenging techniques, acute normovolemic hemodilution and fractionated products were used. The mean hospital stay was 6.2 days. All donors are alive and well at a median follow-up time of 3 years and 4 months. Live liver donation can be done safely in JW population if performed within a comprehensive bloodless surgery program.

Living-related liver transplantation: implication for the anaesthetist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living donor liver transplantation, originally introduced about a decade ago to overcome paediatric cadaveric organ shortage, has rapidly gained acceptance within the transplant community and is nowadays almost routinely applied to the growing number of adult and paediatric patients awaiting a live-saving liver transplantation. In fact its introduction has contributed to a continuing decrease of waiting list deaths.

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk of potential complications and even death for the donor increases with the extent of liver tissue resected. Better preoperative evaluation of suitability, refinement of surgical technique and smarter anaesthetic management, based on extended knowledge of underlying pathophysiology, have made the procedure safer for donors, with low morbidity and even lower mortality rates, tending towards zero in experienced centres. Despite these improvements, a certain risk is inherent. Yet from an ethical point of view it has to remain unacceptable especially because donors are otherwise healthy people and their only motives are altruistic. The procedure of living donor liver transplantation like conventional liver transplantation involves various disciplines, each of which contributes in a specific manner. There is a broad scope of issues that anaesthetists are responsible for and these largely depend on the department and hospital requirements. These issues may range from perioperative anaesthetic management and pain relief, to--and there are definite continental differences--the coordination of donor evaluation, intensive care management, postoperative complication management, as well as psychological support for donors, recipients and their relatives.

SUMMARY

In this paper we review and summarize the potential impact of findings and advances made in this particular field as described by the most important articles published during the past year.