Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in the United States

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver (ACLF) are distinct phenotypes of liver failure and, thus, need to be compared and contrasted for appropriate management. There has been a significant improvement in the outcomes of these patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Survival post-LT for ALF and ACLF ranges between 90% and 95% and 80% and 90% at 1 year, futility criteria have been described in both ALF and ACLF where organ failures define survival. Plasma exchange and continuous renal replacement therapy may serve as bridging therapies. Identifying the futility of LT is as necessary as the utility of LT in patients with ALF and ACLF. The role of regenerative therapies such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in ACLF and hepatocyte and xenotransplantation in both conditions remains uncertain. Measures to increase the donor pool through increasing deceased donor transplants in Asian countries, living donations in Western countries, auxiliary liver transplants, and ABO-incompatible liver transplants are necessary to improve the survival of these patients. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences in clinical characteristics and the timing and outcomes of LT for ALF and ACLF, briefly highlighting the role of bridging therapies and providing an overview of recent advances in the management of ALF and ACLF.

Acute liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a life-threatening disorder characterised by rapid deterioration of liver function, coagulopathy, and hepatic encephalopathy in the absence of pre-existing liver disease. The cause of ALF varies across the world. Common causes of ALF in adults include drug toxicity, hepatotropic and non-hepatotropic viruses, herbal and dietary supplements, antituberculosis drugs, and autoimmune hepatitis. The cause of liver failure affects the management and prognosis, and therefore extensive investigation for cause is strongly suggested. Sepsis with multiorgan failure and cerebral oedema remain the leading causes of death in patients with ALF and early identification and appropriate management can alter the course of ALF. Liver transplantation is the best current therapy, although the role of artificial liver support systems, particularly therapeutic plasma exchange, can be useful for patients with ALF, especially in non-transplant centres. In this Seminar, we discuss the cause, prognostic models, and management of ALF.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Outcomes Analyses of Pediatric Acute Liver Failure Subjects Listed for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

We characterized recent outcomes in US pediatric acute liver failure (PALF) subjects listed for liver transplantation (LT) using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database.

METHODS

Pediatric subjects listed for LT from 2002 to 2015 were assigned to the "PALF" group based on status 1/1A listing, INR >2, no hepatic artery thrombosis, and no primary graft nonfunction (N = 397). Subjects were assigned to the "non-PALF" group if listed with any status other than 1/1A (N = 4509).

RESULTS

The PALF group had more infants <3 months of age and males at listing for LT compared to the non-PALF group. Two-thirds of PALF subjects had an indeterminate etiology. LT waitlist survival was significantly worse in the PALF group compared to the non-PALF group. Likelihood of removal from the LT waitlist for being "too sick" was higher, while that of removal for "spontaneous recovery" was lower in PALF subjects. Post-LT short-term (30 days) and long-term (60 months) outcomes were also significantly worse in PALF versus non-PALF subjects. PALF subjects who underwent living-donor-liver-transplant (LDLT) had similar LT waitlist times and post-LT survival compared to those undergoing deceased-donor-liver-transplant (DDLT). Over the study period, we observed a decreased number of liver transplants, and increase in LT waitlist- and short-term post-LT-survival in PALF subjects.

CONCLUSION

LT waitlist and post-LT outcomes are worse in PALF subjects compared to non-PALF subjects. PALF subjects who undergo LDLT have similar waitlist times and post-LT outcomes compared to those undergoing DDLT.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Current status of adult liver transplantation: utilization of living donor versus deceased donor graft

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will summarize prior and recent studies comparing outcomes between living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) in adults and provide a rationale and framework for expanding living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Western countries to address the growing critical organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating superior survival outcomes in LDLT in addition to a multitude of other advantages including shorter cold ischemia times, opportunity for pretransplant medical optimization, and expansion of transplant eligibility. Additionally, these outcomes continue to improve with center volume and experience.

SUMMARY

LDLT in adults emerged in response to an effective donor organ shortage created by the critical discrepancy between donor graft supply and demand. Overcoming this organ shortage and an increasing waitlist mortality requires a liver transplant framework that fully integrates LDLT into liver disease management although continuing to fully maximize deceased donor graft utilization at experience, capable centers. Optimizing both living and deceased donor graft utilization will drastically increase patients' access to LT.

The role of living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a life-threatening illness that occurs in the absence of pre-existing liver disease. When symptoms seriously progress under continuous supportive medical care, liver transplantation becomes the only therapeutic strategy. However, the available sources of organs for liver transplantation differ worldwide. In regions in which organs from cadaveric donors are more common, deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is performed in this urgent situation. Conversely, in countries where cadaveric donors are scarce, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the only choice. Special considerations must be made for urgent LDLT for ALF, including the expedited evaluation of living donors, technical issues, and the limitations of ABO blood type combinations between recipients and donor candidates. In this review, we highlight the role of LDLT for ALF and the considerations that distinguish it from DDLT. LDLT is well-established as a life-saving procedure for ALF patients and there is often no alternative to LDLT, especially in countries where DDLT is not feasible. However, from a global perspective, an increase in the deceased donor pool might be an urgent and important necessity.

Liver transplantation and atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

AIM

To assess prevalence of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or incidence of AF following liver transplantation, and the trends of patient's outcomes overtime; to evaluate impact of pre-existing AF and post-operative AF on patient outcomes following liver transplantation.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database from inception through March 2018. We included studies that reported: (1) prevalence of pre-existing AF or incidence of AF following liver transplantation; or (2) outcomes of liver transplant recipients with AF. Effect estimates from the individual study were extracted and combined utilizing random-effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, No. CRD42018093644).

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies with a total of 38586 liver transplant patients were enrolled. Overall, the pooled estimated prevalence of pre-existing AF in patients undergoing liver transplantation was 5.4% (95%CI: 4.9%-5.9%) and pooled estimated incidence of AF following liver transplantation was 8.5% (95%CI: 5.2%-13.6%). Meta-regression analyses were performed and showed no significant correlations between year of study and either prevalence of pre-existing AF (P = 0.08) or post-operative AF after liver transplantation (P = 0.54). The pooled OR of mortality among liver transplant recipients with pre-existing AF was 2.34 (2 studies; 95%CI: 1.10-5.00). In addition, pre-existing AF is associated with postoperative cardiovascular complications among liver transplant recipients (3 studies; OR: 5.15, 95%CI: 2.67-9.92, I 2 = 64%). With limited studies, two studies suggested significant association between new-onset AF and poor clinical outcomes including mortality, cerebrovascular events, post-transplant acute kidney injury, and increased risk of graft failure among liver transplant recipients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The overall estimated prevalence of pre-existing AF and incidence of AF following liver transplantation are 5.4% and 8.5%, respectively. Incidence of AF following liver transplant does not seem to decrease overtime. Pre-existing AF and new-onset AF are potentially associated with poor clinical outcomes post liver transplantation.

Is Fulminant Hepatic Failure the Nemesis for Liver Transplant Centers? A Two Decade Psychosocial and Long-Term Outcome Study

Long-term outcomes in liver transplantation for acute liver failure (ALF) are poorly studied. The aim of the study was to identify psychosocial variables that affect adherence and late survival. Retrospective review of ALF liver transplant (LTx) patients between 1997 and 2017 (n = 47) was conducted. Psychosocial history, life stressors, and ability to participate in transplant were recorded. Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression. Eleven patients (31.5%) had poor adherence, four died, all from graft failure. Of 13 with fair and 12 with good adherence, two died, no adherence related. Poor adherence was associated with higher mortality (P = 0.04), but by Kaplan-Meier, their five- and 10-year survival was 78 and 54 per cent, versus fair and good adherence (five years, 83% P = 0.3). Participating in transplant decision improved survival (five years, 80%) versus not participating (five years, 61%; P = 0.03). Of 10 early deaths, three were neurologic and five of sepsis. Overall, one- and five-year survival was 78 and 69 per cent. ALF represents the nemesis of LTx programs. Psychosocial aspects pre-LTx, stressors, and poor adherence affected survival in this series. No improvement over two decades of ALF LTxs was observed. The ethics of transplanting these high-risk patients will be the subject of our future research.

Good outcome of living donor liver transplantation in drug-induced acute liver failure: A single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Drug-induced acute liver failure (ALF) is associated with high mortality. There is limited literature on results of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted at a tertiary care center in North India. All patients who received LDLT for drug-induced ALF were included. The data are shown as median (IQR).

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients (15 females and three males), aged 34 (25-45) years, underwent LDLT for drug-induced liver injury (DILI)-related ALF. Etiology of ALF was antitubercular medications (n=14), orlistat (n=1), flutamide (n=1), and complementary alternative medications (n=2). The baseline parameters were as following: bilirubin 17.7 (16.3-23.8) mg/dL, INR 3.3 (2.5-4.0), jaundice encephalopathy interval 6 (3-17.5) days, arterial ammonia 109 μmol/L (73-215), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 24 (18-33), grade of encephalopathy 2 (1-4), which progressed to grade 3 (3-4) before transplantation. All patients underwent right lobe LDLT; hospital stay was 17 (13-22) days, and ICU stay was 5 (5-7) days. Two patients died in the first month after liver transplantation due to sepsis and multi-organ failure; the rest of the patients are alive and doing well at a follow-up of 50 (4-82 months).

CONCLUSION

Good outcomes can be obtained by LDLT for drug-induced ALF.

Live donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: A single center experience

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver failure (ALF) is an indication for emergency liver transplantation (LT). Although centers performing only deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT) have shown improved outcomes in this situation, they still have relatively long waiting lists. An alternative would be living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), which has shown equivalent outcomes in the elective situation but there is limited evidence of its results in ALF.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes in patients with ALF undergoing emergency LDLT in our center in Delhi, India.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on 479 patients who underwent LT in our hospital between January 2009 and December 2015 to evaluate the outcomes of those with ALF. The ALF patients were listed for transplantation after they met the Kings' College criteria and rapid evaluation was done following a protocol consisting of three phases. Patients with grade III/IV encephalopathy were put on mechanical ventilation. Data regarding their postoperative course, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (7.5%) out of the 479 patients underwent emergency LT for ALF. Their mean age was 27.5 years (range 4-59 years) and the male to female ratio of 2:3. Preoperative intubation was required in 15 of 25 patients who had encephalopathy. Wilson's disease was the most common cause of ALF in children while in adults, it was acute viral hepatitis. The time interval between listing and transplantation was a mean of 36 ± 12.4 h. The mean graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) was 1.06 ± 0.3. The recipients were extubated postoperatively after a mean period of 2.6 days and their mean ICU stay was 6.3 days. Postoperative infection was the most common complication and required upgradation of antifungal and antibiotic treatments. Neurological complications occurred in five patients. Thirty-one of 36 (86.1%) patients survived and progressive cerebral edema and sepsis were the most common causes of mortality. Patients who died had higher model for end-stage liver disease scores, longer cold ischemia time (CIT), and higher grades of encephalopathy (though 80% patients with encephalopathy survived). There was no donor mortality. At long-term follow up of a median of 56 months, 29 (80.5%) of 36 patients were still alive.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, LDLT is an alternative procedure to DDLT in patients with ALF and is associated with good outcomes even in patients with high grades of encephalopathy.

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

[Living liver donor: indications and technical aspects]

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) nowadays represents an important and safe alternative to conventional deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). A major concern related to the LDLT procedure is still represented by donor safety because a serious operation not without risks must be carried out on a healthy individual. In the present review of the indications for LDLT the technical concepts of donor surgery, criteria for donor selection and evaluation and morbidity and mortality results related to the procedure are presented. In general, the indications for LDLT are almost the same as for DDLT. The donor hepatectomy (right, left or left lateral) is presented in five main phases. The reported morbidity rates vary between 10 % and 60 % and are strongly related to the experience of the transplant center. The currently reported postoperative mortality rates for left and right hepatectomy are 0.1 % and 0.5 %, respectively. The results of LDLT are similar if not even better than those for DDLT depending on the specific indications.

Improved prescription of taohechengqi-tang alleviates D-galactosamine acute liver failure in rats

AIM: To investigate the hepatoprotective effect of improved prescription of Taohechengqi-tang (IPTT) against acute liver failure (ALF) in rats.

METHODS: Seventy specific pathogen free male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: control group (normal rats, n = 10), ALF group (ALF model, n = 20), Stronger Neo-Minophagen C (SNMC) group (ALF model + SNMC, n = 20), and IPTT group (ALF model + IPTT, n = 20). The ALF model group was administered an intraperitoneal injection of D-galactosamine (1.4 g/kg), and the control group received normal saline intraperitoneally. The SNMC and IPTT groups were treated with SMMC (15.6 mg/kg) or IPTT (28.6 g/kg) by gavage at 24 h intervals, and the ALF and control groups were treated with normal saline. At 36 h after injection, serum alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, albumin, and cholinesterase and prothrombin time were determined, and liver histopathological scores were observed by microscopy after hematoxylin and eosin staining. mRNA expression of high mobility group box (HMGB) 1, toll-like receptor (TLR) 4, nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) and caspase-3 were analyzed via fluorescence quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) immunohistochemistry in liver tissue was also performed.

RESULTS: D-galactosamine notably decreased the biochemical and coagulation profiles in serum. IPTT not only improved liver function and histopathology but also normalized the gene expression levels in liver tissue. Compared with the model group, in the IPTT and SNMC groups, HMGB1 mRNA/β-actin (0.06 ± 0.03, 0.11 ± 0.04 vs 0.25 ± 0.04, P < 0.05); TLR4 mRNA/β-actin (0.07 ± 0.02, 0.22 ± 0.08 vs 0.41 ± 0.22, P < 0.05); NF-κB mRNA/β-actin (0.74 ± 0.41, 1.78 ± 0.64 vs 2.68 ± 1.35, P < 0.05); and caspase-3 mRNA/β-actin levels were all significantly reduced (1.61 ± 0.45, 2.57 ± 1.04 vs 3.41 ± 0.85, P < 0.05). The gene expression levels were significantly lower in the IPTT group than in the SNMC group (P < 0.05). Compared with the model group, the PCNA expression in liver tissue was significantly enhanced in the IPTT and SNMC groups (36.34 ± 4.91, 25.57 ± 2.94 vs 17.55 ± 2.40, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: IPTT attenuates inflammation in ALF via inhibition of HMGB1 production, which may contribute to limited liver regeneration.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Liver transplantation in acute-on-chronic liver failure: lessons learnt from acute liver failure setting

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is a clinical entity with high risk of mortality. These patients can have severe liver dysfunction complicated with multiple organ failure. Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for these patients. Literature regarding management of acute liver failure with special emphasis on liver transplantation was reviewed. Lessons learnt from the management of patients with acute liver failure which could be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure are discussed. Significant improvement in outcomes of acute liver failure has been reported across the world. Several aspects in transplantation for acute liver failure were found to be relevant to the management of acute-on-chronic liver failure. These include defining criteria to identify patients needing early liver transplantation, prioritizing patients with acute liver failure on the waiting list, defining when to abandon transplantation in acute liver failure, emphasis on graft quality and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to manage multiple organ dysfunction. Useful lessons can be learnt from the progress made in the management of acute liver failure and these can be extrapolated to the management of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure.