Donors' quality of life evaluated by short form-36 analysis after living donor liver transplantation in a single-center experience

When is it safe for the liver donor to be discharged home and prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations? - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on discharge criteria after living liver donation (LLD).

OBJECTIVES

To identify the features for fit for discharge checklist after LLD to prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations and to provide international expert recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. The critical outcomes included were complications rates and liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR) (CRD42021260725).

RESULTS

Total 57/1710 studies were included in qualitative analysis and 28/57 on the final analysis. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The complications rate was reported in 20/28 studies and ranged from 7.8% to 71.2%. Post hepatectomy liver function was reported in 13 studies. The Quality of Evidence (QoE) was Low and Very-Low for complications rate and liver function test, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and prevention of donor complications should be crucial in decision making of discharge. Pain and diet control, removal of all drains and catheters, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and use routine imaging (CT scan or liver ultrasound) before discharge should be included as fit for discharge checklist (QoE; Low | GRADE of recommendation; Strong). Transient Impaired liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR), a prognostic marker of outcome after liver resection, usually occurs after donor right hepatectomy and should be monitored. Improving trends for bilirubin and INR value should be observed by day 5 post hepatectomy and be included in the fit for discharge checklist. (QoE; Very-Low | GRADE; Strong).

Is Cholecystectomy Really Harmful? A Long-Term Quality of Life Study in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an accepted option for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, it potentially carries the risk of donor morbi-mortality, as well as long-term functional impairment. Cholecystectomy is performed routinely in the donor intervention, but the long-term effect on gastrointestinal (GI)-related quality of life (QoL) has never been explored previously. This study evaluated living donors' overall, abdominal wall-related, activity-level, and GI-related QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 21 living liver donors (LLD) (57% women, mean age 45 ± 9 years) were compared to a control group (29 patients) undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyps (45% women, mean age of 46 ± 7 years). LLD and controls (Ctl) were divided into 2 age groups: LLD-Y and Ctl-Y (25-45 years); and LLD-O and Ctl-O (46-65 years). Generic SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, EuraHS for abdominal wall status assessment, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire were performed. Standard age-adjusted Portuguese population SF-36 scores were used.

RESULTS

Global QoL results were better than Portuguese population scores and not inferior when compared to controls, scoring higher in the LLD-Y group in domains as vitality and mental health (P < .05). The abdominal wall impact was minimal among LLD. The activity level was significantly higher in LLD-Y than in Ctl-Y. Overall GI-related QoL was very close to the maximum score, and GI symptoms were significantly less in LLD-O compared with Ctl-O.

CONCLUSION

LDLT had no impact on donors' general, abdominal wall-related QoL or activity level. The performance of cholecystectomy apparently had no impact on the development of GI-related symptoms.

Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Postoperative Outcomes and Quality of Life in Liver Donors: First Report in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Deceased donor liver transplantation is a rare procedure in Northern Thailand because of cultural issues. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can decrease waiting list mortality for the patients who have end-stage liver disease. In Thailand, our center is the only active adult-to-adult LDLT program. This study is the first report of outcomes and health-related quality of life in liver donors.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes and health related quality of life in living liver transplant donors at the Transplant Center in Thailand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing liver resection for adult-to-adult LDLT at our center between March 2010 and July 2018 were evaluated in a cross-sectional study. The effect of donor demographics, operative details, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), hospitalization, and health related quality of life was evaluated through health-related quality of life questionnaires (short-form survey, SF-36) RESULTS: A total of 14 donor patients were included in this study with an age range from 26 to 51 years (mean 39.86 years, standard deviation [SD] = 8.59 years). The patients were 71.43% female and 28.57% male. The majority of patients had primary and secondary education (57.14%) and were married (64.29%). After hepatectomy, there was no mortality in the evaluated donors. The Clavien-Dindo classification of postoperative complications were as follows: Grade I (none), Grade II (50%), Grade IIIa (7.14%), and Grade IIIb (7.14%). The serum levels of total protein and albumin were decreased on postoperative day 5. The hospital stays averaged 11.5 days (SD = 4.9 days) and ranged from 5 to 22 days. After considering each aspect of the donors' postoperative quality of life, the highest mean score was related to physical composite scores in physical roles with a mean of 96.42 (SD = 13.36) and physical function with a mean of 95.35 (SD = 13.36). Moreover, the mental composite scores in social function was the highest mean of 91.96 (SD = 12.60) and role emotion was a mean of 90.47 (SD = 27.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor hepatectomy was safe, with an acceptable morbidity, and recognized as a safe procedure with an excellent long-term health quality of life.

Health-related quality of life, clinical outcomes, and subjective experiences of parent donors of pediatric liver transplant recipients

PURPOSE

The understanding of the HRQOL issues for parent donors of children who underwent LDLT is lacking. We evaluated the HRQOL of donor and non-donor parents, described their subjective experiences and identified factors associated with lower HRQOL post-donation.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of parent donors whose children underwent LDLT, using SF-36v2 Health Survey to measure HRQOL, and a self-developed questionnaire to evaluate their subjective experiences.

RESULTS

Of 32 pairs of donor and non-donor parents, 27 donor and 19 non-donor parents responded. The data of respondents were analyzed. Both donor and non-donor parents' SF-36v2 norm-based scores were average or above average as compared to the Singapore population. Donors who made lifestyle changes post-donation (adopting a healthy balanced diet, regular physical activity, quitting smoking, and moderate alcohol intake) were associated with lower GH (P = 0.009) and PF (P = 0.002) scores. Donors who took more than 3 months for full recovery had lower RP (P = 0.022) and BP scores (P = 0.038). On multivariate analysis, recipient complication of Clavien grade 3 or 4 was associated with increased RP score by 8.71 points (95% CI: 1.74-15.68), after adjusting for time taken for full recovery. Majority (88.8%) had self-reported recovery time under 6 months and returned to work within 3 months (74.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Donors with factors potentially associated with lower HRQOL may need more support to ensure better HRQOL outcomes post-donation.

Quality of Life After Living Donor Hepatectomy for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) involves healthy individuals undergoing voluntary major hepatic resection. LDLT program only started in 2012 in Pakistan and its impact on donor's quality of life (QOL) post resection is not known. The objective of this study was to determine health-related QOL in donors who underwent hepatectomy in country's first liver transplant program.

METHODS

A total of 60 donors who underwent hepatectomy between 2012 and 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in the study. Short form (SF-36) and Profile of mood states (POMS-65) was used to assess QOL. In addition scores were compared between patients who did and did not develop complications.

RESULT

Mean time duration between hepatectomy and administration of questionnaire was 15 ± 5.1 months. Median age was 28 (19-45) years. Mean BMI was 24.4 ± 3.7. A total of 7 (11.6%) Grade 3 and above complications were observed in donors. Donors exceeded a score of 90 in 6 out of 8 evaluated categories on SF-36. The highest mean score was recorded for emotional role limitation 95.5 ± 17.1 and lowest for energy 84.8 ± 17.5. The mean score for anger was 6.6 ± 7.5. Donors also did well on the POMS vigor score with a mean of 22.7 ± 5. No significant difference in scores was observed between donors with and without complications for any of the categories except tension. Donors who developed complications post-operatively had a significantly low mean tension score of 1.5 versus 3.8 for donors without complications.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable post donation QOL was achieved and surgical complications did not adversely affect SF-36 and POMS scores.