Evaluation of Potential Donors in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Living donor liver transplant for alcohol-associated hepatitis: considerations and global perspectives

INTRODUCTION

In carefully selected individuals, outcomes of early deceased donor liver transplantation (<6 months of sobriety) for severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH) are similar to transplant for other indications. There is increasing interest in the expansion of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) for AAH.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted in PubMed using search terms 'alcoholic hepatitis,' 'alcohol-associated hepatitis,' 'acute liver failure' and 'living donor liver transplant' between 1995 and 2025. Additional data sources were the International Registry in Organ Donation and Transplantation, and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We summarize the global burden of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), and the emergence of early LT for AAH. Donor- and recipient-specific factors are explored, as well as societal considerations including equitable allocation and health system financial impact. Finally, current LT practices for ALD by region are reviewed, with a focus on readiness for expansion of LDLT for AAH.

EXPERT OPINION

Use of LDLT for AAH is infrequent, but countries with experience in LT for AAH and/or LDLT for acute liver failure are most poised to expand to LDLT for AAH. Progress is needed in assessing risk of return to harmful drinking and improving management of alcohol use disorder.

Enhanced role of multipair donor swaps in response to size incompatibility: The first two 5-way and the first 6-way liver paired exchanges

A significant portion of liver transplantations in many countries is conducted via living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, numerous potential donors are unable to donate to their intended recipients due to factors such as blood type incompatibility or size incompatibility. Despite this, an incompatible donor for one recipient may still be a viable donor for another patient. In recent decades, several transplant centers have introduced liver paired exchange (LPE) programs, facilitating donor exchanges between patients and their incompatible donors, thereby enabling compatible transplants. Initially, LPE programs in Asia primarily involved ABO-i pairs, resulting in 2-way exchanges mainly between blood type A and B recipients and donors. This practice has led to a modest 1% to 2% increase in LDLTs at some centers. Incorporating size incompatibility alongside blood type incompatibility further enhances the efficacy and significance of multiple-pair LPEs. Launched in July 2022, a single-center LPE program established at Inonu University Liver Transplant Institute in Malatya, Türkiye, has conducted thirteen 2-way, nine 3-way, four 4-way, two 5-way, and one 6-way LPEs until February 2024. In 2023 alone, this program facilitated 64 LDLTs, constituting 27.7% of the total 231 LDLTs performed. This paper presents the world's first two 5-way LPEs and the first 6-way LPE.

Imaging Evaluation of the Living Liver Donor: A Systems-Based Approach

Liver transplant is the definitive treatment of end-stage liver disease and early hepatocellular carcinoma. The number of liver transplant surgeries done is highly affected by the number and availability of deceased donor organs. Living donor liver transplantation has emerged as an alternative source of donors, increasing the availability of organs for transplant. Many factors must be considered when choosing living donor candidates to maintain a high level of donor safety and organ survival. To that end, potential donors undergo a rigorous pre-donation workup.

Donor safety of remnant liver volumes of less than 30% in living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the acceptability of donor remnant liver volume (RLV) to total liver volume (TLV) ratio (RLV/TLV) being <30% as safe in living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs).

METHODS

Online databases were searched from January 2000 to June 2022. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

One prospective and seven retrospective studies comprising 1935 patients (164 RLV/TLV <30% vs. 1771 RLV/TLV ≥30%) were included. Overall (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002) and minor (OR = 1.88; 95% CI [1.23, 2.88]; p = .004) morbidities were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.24, 2.67]; p = .002). No significant differences were noted in the major morbidity, biliary complications, and hepatic dysfunction. Peak levels of bilirubin (SMD = .50; 95% CI [.07, .93]; p = .02) and international normalized ratio (SMD = .68; 95% CI [.04, 1.32]; p = .04) were significantly lower in the RLV/TLV ≥ 30% group than in the RLV/TLV <30% group. No significant differences were noted in the peak alanine transferase and aspartate transaminase levels and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the safety of the donor as the top priority, the eligibility of a potential liver donor in LDLT whose RLV/TLV is expected to be <30% should not be accepted.

High-resolution MR imaging with gadoxetate disodium for the comprehensive evaluation of potential living liver donors

OBJECTIVE

Several major transplantation centers have used composite multimodality evaluation for the preoperative evaluation of potential living liver donors. This approach can be time-consuming and, although rare, can cause complications. We aimed to demonstrate the clinical feasibility of our comprehensive preoperative MR protocol for the preoperative assessment of living liver donor candidates instead of composite multimodality evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive living liver donor candidates underwent multiphasic liver CT and comprehensive donor protocol MR examinations for preoperative evaluation in a single large-volume liver transplantation (LT) center. Three blinded abdominal radiologists reviewed the CT and MR images for vascular and biliary variations. The strength of agreement between CT and MR angiography was assessed using the kappa index. The detection rate of biliary anatomical variations was calculated. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant steatosis (>5%) were calculated. The estimated total volume and right lobe volumes measured by MR volumetry were compared with the corresponding CT volumetry measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Among the 35 patients, 26 underwent LT. The measurement of agreement showed a moderate to substantial agreement between CT and MR angiography interpretations (kappa values, 0.47-0.79; p < 0.001). Combining T2-weighted and T1-weighted MR cholangiography techniques detected all biliary anatomical variations in 9 of the 26 patients. MR-proton density fat fraction showed a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and a specificity of 91.3% (21/23) for detecting pathologically determined steatosis (>5%). MR volumetry reached an excellent agreement with CT volumetry (reviewers 1 and 2: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Our one-stop comprehensive liver donor MR imaging protocol can provide complete information regarding hepatic vascular and biliary anatomies, hepatic parenchymal quality, and liver volume for living liver donor candidates and can replace composite multimodality evaluation.

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

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

Diagnostic and therapeutic management algorithm for biliary complications in living liver donors

This study aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of our diagnostic and therapeutic management algorithm and catheter-assisted (percutaneous transhepatic biliary tract drainage [PTBD] or transanastomotic feeding tube) hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) procedures in living liver donors (LLDs) with biliary complications. Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) was performed between September 2005 and April 2021 in 2 489 LLDs. Biliary complications developed in 220 LLDs (8.8%), 136 of which were male, and the median age was 29 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12) years. Endoscopic sphincterotomy ± stenting was performed in 132 LLDs, which was unsuccessful in 9 LLDs and required HJ. Overall, 142 LLDs underwent interventional radiologic procedures. Fifteen LLDs with biliary complications underwent HJ (PTBD catheter = 6 and transanastomotic feeding tube = 9) at a median of 44 days (IQR: 82). Following HJ, 14 LLDs did not have any complications throughout the median follow-up period of 1619 days (IQR: 1454). However, percutaneous dilation for HJ anastomotic stricture was performed in one patient. Biliary complications are very common following LDH; therefore, surgeons in the field should have a low threshold to perform HJ for biliary complications that persist after other treatments. Our catheter-assisted HJ techniques demonstrated a high success rate and aided HJ in a hostile abdomen during revisional surgery.

Living Liver Donor With Fasciola Hepatica: First Case Report in the Literature

The major advantage of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is that living liver donor candidates with complicated biliary tracts may not be exposed to unnecessary laparotomy. To the best of our knowledge, the case presented here features a condition so far not seen by the Liver Transplantation Society. A 27-year-old woman who presented to our clinic as a living liver donor candidate was evaluated but did not have a preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography due to technical factors. After parenchymal transection, the right hepatic duct was incised just distal to the bifurcation when 8 fasciola hepatica parasites left the orifice of the remnant bile duct. The common bile duct was then irrigated, and the remnant bile duct orifice was closed, followed by a cholangiography, which showed no suspicious lesions in the biliary tracts. In addition, no suspicious lesions were identified during the postoperative cholangiography of the graft implanted in the recipient. The donor and recipient had postoperative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay immunoglobulin G antibody titers of 12 and 4 U/mL (cutoff value = 10) for fasciola hepatica, respectively. Both the recipient and the donor received 2 doses of triclabendazole (10 mg/kg) during the postoperative period.

Outcome of Living-Donor Liver Transplantation Using Grafts from Donors Treated for Fatty Liver

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of treating donors’ fatty liver (FL) and to assess early graft function in recipients who received treated FL grafts in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Material/Methods

Data were collected for adult-to-adult LDLTs. Donors diagnosed with FL (FL group) received diet–exercise and pharmacological treatment. The perioperative findings and early transplanted graft function were compared with those of donors without FL (non-FL group) during the same period.

Results

Of 30 donors, 8 were determined to have FL. The median duration of treatment for FL was 58 days. The liver-to-spleen attenuation ratios on CT scan in the FL group were significantly improved after treatment: 0.95 (0.62–1.06) to 1.2 (1.12–1.46) (P=0.003). Liver biopsy prior to donor surgery showed ≤10% fatty infiltration. Postoperative laboratory findings of the donors in the FL group were comparable to those in the non-FL group: maximum alanine transaminase (189.6±94.7 IU/L vs. 196.8±57.4) and maximum total bilirubin (2.2±1.1 mg/dL vs. 1.7±0.5 mg/dL). No major complications were observed after donor hepatectomy in either group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in early graft function, as evaluated by laboratory data, ascites volume, and bile production 2 weeks postoperatively. Graft and patient survival were 100% in both groups at 3 months.

Conclusions

Preoperative intentional treatment for FL was effective. Early graft function and donor postoperative course were comparable in the 2 groups. These results suggest that well-treated steatotic grafts can be used without jeopardizing donor safety.

Feasibility of using marginal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for end-stage liver disease caused by related risk factors when liver resection is contraindicated. Additionally, despite the decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) over the past two decades, the absolute number of HBsAg-positive people has increased, leading to an increase in HBV-related liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Consequently, a large demand exists for LT. While the wait time for patients on the donor list is, to some degree, shorter due to the development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), there is still a shortage of liver grafts. Furthermore, recipients often suffer from emergent conditions, such as liver dysfunction or even hepatic encephalopathy, which can lead to a limited choice in grafts. To expand the pool of available liver grafts, one option is the use of organs that were previously considered "unusable" by many, which are often labeled "marginal" organs. Many previous studies have reported on the possibilities of using marginal grafts in orthotopic LT; however, there is still a lack of discussion on this topic, especially regarding the feasibility of using marginal grafts in LDLT. Therefore, the present review aimed to summarize the feasibility of using marginal liver grafts for LDLT and discuss the possibility of expanding the application of these grafts.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Recent insights into mitochondrial targeting strategies in liver transplantation

Ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury in liver transplantation can disrupt the normal activity of mitochondria in the hepatic parenchyma. This potential dysfunction of mitochondria after I/R injury could be responsible for the initial poor graft function or primary nonfunction observed after liver transplantation. Thus, determining the mechanisms that lead to human hepatic mitochondrial dysfunction might contribute to improving the outcome of liver transplantation. Furthermore, early identification of novel prognostic factors involved in I/R injury could serve as a key endpoint to predict the outcome of liver grafts and also to promote the early adoption of novel strategies that protect against I/R injury. Here, we briefly review recent advances in the study of mitochondrial dysfunction and I/R injury, particularly in relation to liver transplantation. Next, we highlight various pharmacological therapeutic strategies that could be applied, and discuss their relationship to relevant mitochondrion-related processes and targets. Lastly, we note that although considerable progress has been made in our understanding of I/R injury and mitochondrial dysfunction, further investigation is required to elucidate the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying these processes, thereby identifying biomarkers that can help in evaluating donor organs.

Evaluation of donor workups and exclusions in a single-center experience of living donor liver transplantation

The process of evaluating potential donors in liver transplantation is important to ensure donor safety and provide optimal recipient outcomes. However, there has been no report about donor exclusion rates and reasons for such exclusion in Korea. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the outcomes of potential living liver donor evaluation in a major living donor liver transplantation center. From July 2011 to June 2015, prospectively collected data of 726 potential donors for 588 matched recipients were subsequently evaluated. Among 726 potential donors, 374 potential donors (51.5%) finally reached donation; 352 potential donors (48.5%) were excluded for various reasons. Donor reasons were 29.8%, including medical problems, withdrawal of consent, graft volume issues, and identification of a better suitable donor. Recipient reasons were 20.7%, including recipient death or recovery, allocation to deceased donor, and progressions of hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 38 (5.2%) potential donors had a fatty liver. Among them, 15 (39.5%) potential donors tried short-term weight reduction and eventually were able to donate. In conclusion, the main reasons for donor exclusion were medical problems and withdrawal of consent. Therefore, thorough medical screening and careful examination for donor voluntarism are important in the donor evaluation process. Liver Transplantation 23 614-624 2017 AASLD.