Estimates of early death, acute liver failure, and long-term mortality among live liver donors

The incidence of adverse outcome in donors after living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis of 60,829 donors

The scarcity of liver grafts has prompted developments in living donor liver transplantations (LDLT), with previous literature illustrating similar outcomes in recipients compared to deceased donor transplants. However, significant concerns regarding living donor morbidity and mortality have yet to be examined comprehensively. This study aims to provide estimates of the incidence of various outcomes in living liver donors. In this meta-analysis, Medline and Embase were searched from inception to July 2022 for articles assessing the incidence of outcomes in LDLT donors. Complications in the included studies were classified into respective organ systems. Analysis of incidence was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Clopper-Pearson intervals. Eighty-seven articles involving 60,829 living liver donors were included. The overall pooled incidence of complications in LDLT donors was 24.7% (CI: 21.6%-28.1%). The incidence of minor complications was 17.3% (CI: 14.7%-20.3%), while the incidence of major complications was lower at 5.5% (CI: 4.5%-6.7%). The overall incidence of donor mortality was 0.06% (CI: 0.0%-0.1%) in 49,027 individuals. Psychological complications (7.6%, CI: 4.9%-11.5%) were the most common among LDLT donors, followed by wound-related (5.2%, CI: 4.4%-6.2%) and respiratory complications (4.9%, CI: 3.8%-6.3%). Conversely, cardiovascular complications had the lowest incidence among the subgroups at 0.8% (CI: 0.4%-1.3%). This study presents the incidence of post-LDLT outcomes in living liver donors, illustrating significant psychological, wound-related, and respiratory complications. While significant advancements in recent decades have contributed towards decreased morbidity in living donors, our findings call for targeted measures and continued efforts to ensure the safety and quality of life of liver donors post-LDLT.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Left Lobe or Right Lobe

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) has seen great advancements since its inception in 1988. Herein, the nuances of LDLT are discussed spanning from donor evaluation to the recipient operation. Special attention is given to donor anatomy and graft optimization techniques in the recipient.

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

METHODS

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in Western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (≥18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan-2008 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for characteristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non-statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation.

LAY SUMMARY

This multicenter international comparative analysis of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada demonstrates that despite low use of the procedure, the long-term outcomes are excellent. In addition, the mortality risk is not statistically significantly different between the evaluated countries. However, the incidence and risk of retransplantation differs between the countries, being the highest in the United Kingdom and lowest in the United States.

Sequential liver and kidney living donors: Making the ultimate gift twice

There are nearly 150 living donors in the United States who donated more than one solid organ. Using our divisional database, we found 20 individuals who donated a liver and a kidney at different times. We performed a retrospective chart review of these donors, studying their motivating factors, complications and outcomes. The donors included 11 (55%) males and nine females. Thirteen (65%) donated the kidney before the liver. Fourteen (70%) were nondirected donors at the first donation, and four of the six directed donors in the first donation became nondirected in the second donation. Seventeen (85%) were nondirected at the second donation. Common reasons for donating the second time were a good experience with the first donation and knowing that one can donate again. Outcomes and the incidence of early complications were not significantly different after the 2nd versus the 1st donation. All donors recovered and currently are doing well. Our results show a significant number of dual organ donors are nondirected and motivated by their strong desire to help. A positive experience with the 1st donation often was the driving factor for the 2nd. A history of previous organ donation did not negatively impact the 2nd donation.

Assessment of long-term outcomes post living liver donation highlights the importance of scientific integrity when presenting transplant registry data

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.

Outcomes of living liver donors are worse than those of matched healthy controls

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Donor death is the most serious complication of living liver donation but is reported rarely. We investigated the actual mortality of living liver donors (LLDs) compared with matched control groups based on analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance Services (NHIS) database.

METHODS

This cohort study included 12,372 LLDs who donated a liver graft between 2002 and 2018, and were registered in the Korean Network for Organ Sharing. They were compared to 3 matched control groups selected from the Korean NHIS and comprising a total of 123,710 individuals: healthy population (Group I); general population without comorbidities (Group II); and general population with comorbidities (Group III).

RESULTS

In this population, 78.5% of living liver donors were 20-39 years old, and 64.7% of all donors were male. Eighty-nine donors (0.7%) in the LLD group died (68 males and 21 females), a mortality rate (/1,000 person-years) of 0.91 (0.74-1.12). Mortality rate ratio and the adjusted hazard ratio of the LLD group was 2.03 (1.61-2.55) and 1.71 (1.31-2.25) compared to Control Group I, 0.75 (0.60-0.93) and 0.63 (0.49-0.82) compared to Control Group II, and 0.58 (0.46-0.71) and 0.49 (0.39-0.60) compared to Control Group III. LLD group, depression, and lower income were risk factors for adjusted mortality. The incidence of liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the LLD group was significantly higher than in Control Group I.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of the LLD group were worse than those of the matched healthy control group despite the small number of deaths and medical morbidities in this group. LLDs should receive careful medical attention for an extended period after donation.

LAY SUMMARY

The incidence of mortality, liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the living liver donor group was significantly higher than in the matched healthy group. Careful donor evaluation and selection processes can improve donor safety and enable safe living donor liver transplantation.

A systematic review of auxiliary liver transplantation of small for size grafts in patients with chronic liver disease

Background & Aims

The shortage of liver grafts continues to worsen. Because the expanded use of small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) would substantially alleviate this shortage, we aimed to analyse the available knowledge on auxiliary liver transplantation (ALT) with SFSGs in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) to identify opportunities to develop ALT with SFSGs in patients with CLD.

Methods

This is a systematic review on ALT using SFSGs in patients with CLD. The review was completed by updates obtained from the authors of the retained reports.

Results

Heterotopic ALT was performed in 26 cases between 1980 and 2017, none for SFGS stricto sensu, and auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) in 27 cases (from 1999 to 2021), all for SFSG. In APOLT cases, partial native liver resection was performed in most of cases, whereas the second-stage remnant native liver hepatectomy was performed in 9 cases only. The median graft-to-body weight ratio was 0.55, requiring perioperative or intraoperative portal modulation in 16 cases. At least 1 complication occurred in 24 patients following the transplant procedure (morbidity rate, 89%). Four patients (4/27, 15%) died after the APOLT procedure. At the long term, 19 (70%) patients were alive and well at 13 months to 24 years (median, 4.5 years) including 18 with the APOLT graft in place and 1 following retransplantation.

Conclusions

Despite high postoperative morbidity, and highly reported technical variability, the APOLT technique is a promising technique to use SFSGs in patients with CLD, achieving satisfactory long-term results. The results need to be confirmed on a larger scale, and a standardised technique could lead to even better results.

Lay summary

At the cost of a high postoperative morbidity, the long-term results of APOLT for small-for-size grafts are good. Standardisation of the procedure and of portal modulation remain needed.

•

Using a small-for-size graft is a risk factor of small-for-size syndrome.

•

Auxiliary liver transplantation can be orthotopic or heterotopic.

•

In auxiliary transplantation, the remnant native liver prevents small-for-size syndrome.

•

Transplantation with a small-for-size graft requires individually tailored portal modulation.

•

Auxiliary liver transplantation might substantially increase the number of available grafts.

Expectations of a new opt-out system of consent for deceased organ donation in England: A qualitative interview study

Introduction

In 2020 England moved to an opt‐out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased‐donor and living‐donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change.

Methods

We undertook in‐depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living‐donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased‐donor transplant opportunities.

Conclusions

Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt‐out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased‐donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living‐donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt.

Patient or Public Contribution

Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

Why are there so many liver transplants from living donors in Asia and so few in Europe and the US?

Acceptance of liver transplantation (LT) as an established treatment modality for end-stage liver disease has led to an exponential increase in the demand for organs, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the availability of organs and the number of sick patients waiting for them. Interestingly, influenced by cultural, socio-economic and other constraints, the West and the East have attempted to address this problem of shortage in different ways. Living donor LT (LDLT) became polarised to the East with over 90% of LT in this region being LDLT. On the other hand, the West chose to concentrate their efforts on optimising the use of cadaveric livers with techniques such as split LT, or by using extended criteria donors (including donation after cardiac death donors) and machine perfusion devices etc. Consequently, LDLT did not find the widespread acceptance it did in the East and hence over 90% of all LT are DDLT in this region. We review each regions' perspective and attempt to provide a globally viable roadmap to bridge the widening gap between the demand and availability of livers for LT.

Healthcare Resource Utilization After Living Liver Donation: A Retrospective Case-control Study

BACKGROUND

Living liver donation is generally considered safe, but donors may experience short or long-term complications. The purpose of this study was to assess healthcare resource utilization after liver donation in living liver donors in comparison to the general population.

METHODS

Outpatient or emergency department visits and hospital admissions were compared between living liver donors who underwent hepatic resection for living liver donation between 2004 and 2018 and the matched general population. Healthcare resource utilization data for 5 years after liver donation were collected from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. For every living liver donor, 4 individually matched nondonors were selected from the NHIS database using age, sex, preexisting comorbidities, and previous healthcare utilization history.

RESULTS

A total of 1886 living liver donors and 7309 nondonors were included. In the first year after donation, living liver donors required more outpatient department visits (7 [4-13] vs. 3 [1-7], P < 0.001) and more emergency department visits (13.33% vs. 0.15%, P < 0.001) compared to matched nondonors. A similar trend persisted for 5 years after donation. The number of hospital admissions of living liver donors was higher for up to 2 years after donation with longer hospital length of stay (13.0 [10.5-16.0] vs. 5.0 [3.0-9.0] days, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource utilization in living liver donors for 5 years after donation were higher compared to matched nondonors. The higher healthcare resource demand may be related to postoperative complications or lowered threshold for healthcare resource utilization after donation.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C291.

Extreme living donation: A single center simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience with long-term outcomes under literature review

Objective: Living liver and kidney donor surgeries are major surgical procedures applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks not providing any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. In this study, we aimed to share our simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience under literature review in this worldwide rare practice.

Material and Methods: Between January 2007 and February 2018, a total of 1109 living donor nephrectomies and 867 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to living-related donors. Eight donors who were simultaneous or sequential living liver-kidney donors in this time period were retrospectively reviewed and presented with their minimum 2- year follow-up.

Results: Of the 8 donors, 3 of them were simultaneous and 5 of them were sequential liver-kidney donation. All of them were close relatives. Mean age was 39 (26-61) years and mean BMI was 25.7 (17.7-40). In 3 donors, right lobe, in 4 donors, left lateral sector, and in 1 donor, left lobe hepatectomy were performed. Median hospital stay was 9 (7-13) days. Two donors experienced early and late postoperative complications (Grade 3b and Grade 1). No mortality and no other long-term complication occurred.

Conclusion: Expansion of the donor pool by utilizing grafts from living donors is a globally-accepted proposition since it provides safety and successful outcomes. Simultaneous or sequential liver and kidney donation from the same donor seems to be a reasonable option for combined liver-kidney transplant recipients in special circumstances with acceptable outcomes.

Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry

BACKGROUND

To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency.

RESULTS

For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

Evaluation of clinical characteristics and outcomes of postoperative ınfections in living liver donors

AIM

To analyze developing infections after living donor hepatectomy (LDH) in living liver donors (LLDs).

METHODS

Demographic and clinical characteristics of 1106 LLDs were retrospectively analyzed in terms of whether postoperative infection development. Therefore, LLDs were divided into two groups: with (n = 190) and without (n = 916) antimicrobial agent use.

RESULTS

The median age was 29.5 (min-max: 18-55). A total of 257 (23.2%) infection attacks (min-max: 1-8) was developed in 190 (17.2%) LLDs. The patients with the infection that were longer intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, higher hospital admissions, emergency transplantation, invasive procedures for ERCP, PTC biloma, and abscess drainage, and the presence of relaparatomies and transcystic catheters. Infection attacks are derived from a 58.3% hepatobiliary system, 13.2% urinary system, 6.6% surgical site, and 5.8% respiratory system. The most common onset symptoms were fever, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. A total of 125 positive results was detected from 77 patients with culture positivity. The most detected microorganisms from the cultures taken are Extended-Spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) producing Klebsiella pneumonia (16.8%) and Escherichia coli (16%), Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus [(MRSA) (9.6%)], Methicillin-susceptible S aureus [(MSSA) (9.6%)], and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.8%), respectively. The average number of ICU hospitalization days was 3 ± 2 (min 1-max 30, IQR:1) and hospitalization days was 14 ± 12 (min 3-max 138, IQR: 8). All infection attacks were successfully treated. No patients died because of infection or another surgical complication.

CONCLUSION

Infections commonly observed infected biloma, cholangitis, and abscess arising from the biliary system and other nosocomial infections are the feared complications in LLDs. These infections should be managed multidisciplinary without delay and carefully.

Long-term Survival of 10,116 Korean Live Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term mortality of Korean live liver donors using data from a national donor registry by comparing it with the mortality of the general population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although live liver donors generally have a healthy status, their long-term mortality has not been properly addressed in a large donor registry.

METHODS

Data of 10,116 live liver donors were drawn from a mandated national registry of Korean live liver donors between 2000 and 2015. Matched controls were selected from the Korean National Health Insurance System-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC). Median (range) follow-up of liver donors was 5.7 (0-15.9) years. Donors were 1:3 individually matched to controls by sex and 5-year age group; potential controls were from the whole NHIS-NSC (Control 1) or from NHIS-NSC after excluding people with contraindications to be organ donors (Control 2) (donor, n = 7538; Control 1, n = 28,248; Control 2, n = 28,248).

RESULTS

Fifty-three deaths occurred after donation. Ten-year cumulative mortality of live liver donors was 0.9%. The most common cause of death was suicide (n = 19) followed by cancer (n = 9) and traffic accident (n = 7). In the matched control analysis, overall risk of death was significantly lower in donors than in Control 1 (P < 0.001), but higher than in Control 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver donors have increased long-term mortality risk compared to similar healthy controls without contraindications to be organ donors. Therefore, long-term follow-up, including psychosocial support, is needed for live liver donors.

Elastography in the evaluation of liver allograft

Elastography is an established technique in the evaluation of chronic liver diseases. While there is a large clinical experience and data available regarding the performance of elastography in native liver, elastography experience with liver grafts is limited and still growing. Both ultrasound-based elastography techniques and MR Elastography (MRE) are useful in the assessment of liver fibrosis in liver transplants. Technical modifications for performing elastography will be required for optimum evaluation of the graft. In general, caution needs to be exercised regarding the use of elastography immediately following transplantation as post-operative changes, perioperative conditions/complications, inflammation, and rejection can cause increased stiffness in the graft. In the follow-up, detection of increased stiffness with elastography is useful for predicting development of fibrosis in the graft. Adjunctive MRI or ultrasound with Doppler also provides comprehensive evaluation of anatomy, vascular anastomosis and patency, biliary tree, and stiffness for fibrosis. In this review, we provide a brief overview of elastography techniques available followed by the literature review of elastography in the evaluation of grafts and illustration with clinical examples.

The utility of thrombophilia and hematologic screening in live liver donation

BACKGROUND

Most centers perform some degree of hematologic screening, including thrombophilia testing, on prospective live liver donors. The nature and extent of such screens are not standardized, and there is limited evidence regarding hematologic risk stratification.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We present an experience of hematologic screening among prospective liver donors. Five-hundred-eightyfour patients were screened for liver donation between 1/2013 and 1/2020, of whom 156 (27%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy. Thirty-three of 428 (8%) declined patients were excluded for hematologic indications. Hematologic indications were the 2nd most frequent medical indications for exclusion (trailing only hepatologic indications). The most common reason for hematologic exclusion was concern regarding thrombophilia. Nevertheless, 21 patients with evidence of possible thrombophilia proceeded to donor hepatectomy, and none incurred hematologic complications. Similarly, seven patients with screening findings concerning for increased bleeding risk (most often thrombocytopenia) underwent donor hepatectomy without hematologic complication. Three of 156 (2%) of patients who underwent donor hepatectomy incurred a hematologic complication (all thrombotic, none fatal). None of these patients had any evident hematologic risk factor on screening.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the difficulty of hematologic risk stratification among prospective living donors, however, suggests that some patients with relatively mild risk factors may be safe for donation.

Short-term and long-term outcomes in living donors for liver transplantation: Cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although perioperative outcomes following donor hepatectomy (DH) have been reported, little is known about the long-term outcomes in living donors of liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes following DH.

METHODS

A total of 408 living donors who underwent DH between 1996 and 2019 were analyzed in this retrospective study, focusing on short-term outcomes with respect to the operation period (era) and the graft type, as well as long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 40.4%. These included minor (30.4%), major (10.0%), and biliary (14.0%) complications. Short-term outcomes after DH slightly improved over time, and outcomes did not differ significantly between the graft types. With regards to long-term outcomes, the incidence of surgery-related complications such as keloids, incisional hernias, and mechanical bowel obstructions was 6.6% over a median follow-up of 7.2 years. In addition, some donors developed comorbidities such as lifestyle diseases and cancers during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed an improvement of perioperative outcomes in living donors. There was no significant association between the graft type and postoperative outcomes. Donors could develop various morbidities during long-term follow-up. Therefore, a careful perioperative management and long-term follow-up should be provided to living donors.

Long-Term Financial, Psychosocial, and Overall Health-Related Quality of Life After Living Liver Donation

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of living liver donation (LD) in a diverse and aging population up to 20 y after donation, particularly with regard to medical, financial, psychosocial, and overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LD between 1999 and 2009 were recruited to respond to the Short-Form 36 and a novel Donor Quality of Life Survey at two time points (2010 and 2018).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight living liver donors (LLDs) completed validated surveys, with a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 5.1 y. Per Donor Quality of Life Survey data, physical activity or strength was not impacted by LD in most patients. All respondents returned to school or employment, and 82.4% reported that LD had no impact on school or work performance. LD did not impact health insurability in 95.6% of donors, and only one patient experienced difficulty obtaining life insurance. Overall, 97.1% of respondents did not regret LD. Short-Form 36 survey-measured outcomes were similar between LLDs and the general U.S.

POPULATION

LLDs who responded in both 2010 and 2018 were followed for an overall average of 15.4 ± 2.4 y and HRQOL outcomes in these donors also remained statistically equivalent to U.S. population norms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the longest postdonation follow-up and offers unique insight related to HRQOL in a highly diverse patient population. Although LLDs continue to maintain excellent HRQOL outcomes up to 20 y after donation, continued lifetime follow-up is required to accurately provide young, healthy potential donors with an accurate description of the risks that they may incur on aging.

The impact of country reimbursement programmes on living kidney donations

INTRODUCTION

Living-donor kidney transplantation is the gold standard treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, potential donors ubiquitously face financial as well as logistical barriers. To remove these disincentives from living kidney donations, the governments of 23 countries have implemented reimbursement programmes that shift the burdens of non-medical costs from donors to the governments or private entities. However, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these programmes is scarce. The present study investigates whether these reimbursement programmes designed to ease the financial and logistical barriers succeeded in increasing the number of living kidney donations at the country level. The study examined within-country variations in the timing of such reimbursement programmes.

METHOD

The study applied the difference-in-difference (two-way panel fixed-effect) technique on the Poisson distribution to estimate the effects of these reimbursement programmes on a 17 year long (2000-2016) dataset covering 109 countries where living donor kidney transplants were performed.

RESULTS

The results indicated that reimbursement programmes have a statistically significant positive effect. Overall, the model predicted that reimbursement programmes increased country-level donation numbers by a factor of 1.12-1.16.

CONCLUSION

Reimbursement programmes may be an effective approach to alleviate the kidney shortage worldwide. Further analysis is warranted on the type of reimbursement programmes and the ethical dimension of each type of such programmes.

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed.

METHODS

All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

Global experience and perspective on anonymous nondirected live donation in living donor liver transplantation

Anonymous nondirected living liver donation (ANLLD), sometimes referred to as "altruistic" donation, occurs when a biologically unrelated person comes forward to donate a portion of his/her liver to a transplant candidate who is unknown to the donor. Here, we explore the current status of ANLLD with special consideration of published reports; US experience; impact on donor psychosocial outcomes; barriers to donation; and current global trends with respect to ethical considerations. Between 1998 and 2019, 105 anonymous nondirected living liver donor (ND-LLD) transplants have been documented in the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Sixteen donors (15%) were reported to experience a postoperative complication. Currently, 89 donors remain alive (85%), 16 (15%) have unknown status, and none are confirmed deceased. Although there are only a handful of case series, these data suggest that ANLLD is a feasible option. While there are no liver-specific data, studies involving anonymous nondirected kidney donors suggest that anonymous donation does not adversely impact psychosocial outcomes in donors or recipients. There are substantial financial burdens and ethical considerations related to ANLLD. Further studies are required to assess donor demographics, psychosocial motivations, long-term health-related quality of life, and financial impact of ANLLD.

Living donor program crisis management plans: Current landscape and talking point recommendations

Although minimized by expert evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care, the extremely low risk of perioperative mortality following living kidney or liver donation will never be eliminated. Furthermore, anticipation of poor donor outcome may simultaneously be a source of anxiety for physicians and programs and also be a circumstance for which they are unprepared. We conducted a national survey of US transplant surgeons to understand experiences with and systemic preparedness for the event of a living donor death. Respondents represented 87 unique transplant programs (71 kidney and 16 liver donor programs). Perioperative deaths were rare, as expected. Although most respondents (N = 57, 64% of total respondents; 88% of liver programs) reported being moderately to extremely concerned about a future living donor death at their institution, only 30 (33% of total program respondents) had a written plan available in the case of such an event; 63% of programs would find guidance and recommendations useful. To help address this gap, the American Society of Transplantation Live Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP) developed Living Donor Crisis Management Plan Talking Points suitable to guide crisis plan development at transplant programs.

Liver Transplantation

The field of liver transplantation has changed since the MELD scoring system became the most widely used donor allocation tool. Due to the MELD-based allocation system, sicker patients with higher MELD scores are being transplanted. Persistent organ donor shortages remain a challenging issue, and as a result, the wait-list mortality is a persistent problem for most of the regions. This chapter focuses on deceased donor and live donor liver transplantation in patients with complications of portal hypertension. Special attention will also be placed on donor-recipient matching, perioperative management of transplant patients, and the impact of hepatic hemodynamics on transplantation.

Live versus deceased donor in uterus transplantation

Uterus transplantation to treat absolute uterine factor infertility is a rapidly evolving field still at its early clinical experimental stage. Most human uterus transplantation attempts and live births have been after transplantation with uteri from live donors, who, in most cases, are closely related to the recipient. However, successful transplant with live births after uterus transplantation from deceased donors has also been reported. This article discusses the pros and cons in relation to live and deceased donors for uterus transplantation.

Bi-organ paired exchange-Sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap.

Presumed Consent: A Potential Tool for Countries Experiencing an Organ Donation Crisis

BACKGROUND

There is currently an inadequate supply of allografts to meet the number of transplant candidates worldwide. A number of controversial policies, including implementation of a presumed consent organ donation system, have been considered to rectify the organ donation crisis.

AIMS

A secondary retrospective data analysis aimed to assess the impact of switching to a presumed consent organ donation model on organ donation rates.

METHODS

Deceased organ donation rates were compared before and after countries adopted presumed consent.

RESULTS

Six countries met entry criteria. All six countries had an increase in liver donation rates, while 4 out of the six countries had an increase in kidney donation rates. The overall mean (± SD) liver donation rate was 3.23 (± 0.97) per million population (pmp) before the transition and 6.46 (± 1.81) pmp after the transition (p < 0.0001). The overall mean (± SD) kidney donation rate was 17.94 (± 3.34) pmp before the transition and 26.58 (± 4.23) pmp after the transition (p < 0.0001). The percentage increase in liver and kidney donation rates varied among countries, ranging from 28 to 1186%.

CONCLUSION

The transition from explicit to presumed consent was associated with a significant increase in liver donation rates in all countries that met our criteria, while the effect on kidney donation rates was partially realized. Although presumed consent alone is unlikely to explain the increase in donation rates, the adoption of such a policy may prove to be a worthwhile risk for countries experiencing consistently low organ donation rates.

Solid-organ Transplants From Living Donors: Cumulative United States Experience on 140,156 Living Donor Transplants Over 28 Years

BACKGROUND

Transplantation of organs from living donors helps to decrease the organ shortage and shortens waiting times. Living donor (LD) transplantation is also generally associated with better outcomes. Unfortunately, there has been no comprehensive analysis and comparison of all types of solid-organ transplantation from living donors since the inception of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).

METHODS

Using the UNOS/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database, all LD transplants from October 1, 1987, to December 31, 2015, were studied with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 140,090 organs were transplanted from LDs, accounting for 21% of all transplants in the United States. Over 95% were kidney; 4% were liver; and <1% intestine, lung, and pancreas LDs. Only LD kidney transplant patient and graft survival rates were significantly higher compared deceased donor transplants over the period of analysis. The best long-term LD transplant results were achieved in pediatric liver recipients. Significantly more women than men donated organs and significantly more men than women received solid-organ transplants. A regional disparity was observed for LD kidney as well as for LD liver transplants. Despite improvements in outcomes and increased use of nonbiologic donors, the number of LD transplants in the United States has declined. This decline was greater in children than adults and was noted for all types of organ transplants.

CONCLUSION

Further efforts are needed to educate the public, health professionals, and transplant candidates on the advantages of living vs deceased donor organ transplantation. Compared with other countries, LD transplantation has yet to reach its full potential in the United States.

Living donor liver transplantation: post-operative imaging follow-up of right lobe liver donors

PURPOSE

To identify long-term post-operative imaging findings resulting from right lobe liver donation.

METHODS

This retrospective imaging review consisted of 42 adults (20 males, 22 females, mean age 36.6 years, range 18.7-55.9 years) who underwent right lobe liver donation with pre- and post-operative imaging between 1999 and 2006. The mean follow-up period was 30.2 months (range 12.3-69.6 months). Follow-up imaging evaluation included assessment of the biliary tree, particularly isolated bile ducts draining to and terminating at the cut surface (orphan ducts). Three-dimensional volumetry of the liver remnant was also assessed.

RESULTS

After liver donation, 29/42 (69%) participants demonstrated orphan ducts on follow-up imaging (95% confidence interval 52.9% to 82.4%). In those patients with orphan ducts, the main draining ducts were normal in 70% and dilated in 69%. Nearly all right lobe liver donors with orphan ducts had no clinical symptoms on follow-up (28/29); the only liver donor with clinical symptoms on follow-up was subsequently diagnosed with primary biliary cirrhosis. Mean regenerated liver volume was approximately 93%, with mean pre-operative total liver volume of 1552 ml (median 1504 ml, range 1040-2520 ml) and mean post-operative total liver volume of 1446 ml (median 1455 ml, range 964-2090 ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Orphan ducts are changes that may be seen after liver donation. The presence of these findings in the absence of clinical symptoms or abnormal hepatic chemistries does not require further work-up and should not be considered pathologic.

Prevalence and Predictors of Patient-Reported Long-term Mental and Physical Health After Donation in the Adult-to-Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prospective and longitudinal studies have examined liver donors' medical outcomes beyond the first 1 to 2 years postdonation. There is no analogous longitudinal evidence on long-term psychosocial outcomes, including patient-reported clinically significant mental health problems and perceptions of physical well-being. We examined prevalence, descriptive characteristics, and predictors of diagnosable mental health conditions and self-reported physical health problems, including fatigue and pain, in the long-term years after liver donation.

METHODS

Donors from 9 centers who initially completed telephone interviews at 3 to 10 years postdonation (mean, 5.8 years; SD, 1.9) were reinterviewed annually for 2 years using validated measures. Outcomes were examined descriptively. Repeated-measures regression analyses evaluated potential predictors and correlates of outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 517 donors initially interviewed (66% of those eligible), 424 (82%) were reassessed at least once. Prevalence rates of major depression and clinically significant pain were similar to general population norms; average fatigue levels were better than norms. All prevalence rates showed little temporal change. Anxiety and alcohol use disorder rates exceeded normative rates at 1 or more assessments. Longer postdonation hospitalization, female sex, higher body mass index, concerns about donation-related health effects, and burdensome donation-related financial costs were associated with increased risk for most outcomes (P's < 0.05). Men were at higher risk for alcohol use disorder (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety and alcohol use disorders were more common than would be expected; they may warrant increased research attention and clinical surveillance. Surveillance for long-term problems in the areas assessed may be optimized by targeting donors at higher risk based on identified predictors and correlates.

Predictive Factors of Liver Dysfunction After Right Hemihepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living liver donors represent a special group of patients. They are healthy individuals who are exposed to a major surgery, in which the dominant liver proportion is extracted as a graft. Of all potential donor-related morbidities, posthepatectomy liver dysfunction (PHLD) is the most significant as it may be directly related to donor mortality. We aimed to review our data of adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) utilizing the right hemiliver grafts to determine the incidence and potential predictors for the development of PHLD, defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed the data of all adult living donors who underwent right hemihepatectomy during the period between May 2004 and 2016.

RESULTS

During the study period, 434 cases underwent right hemihepatectomy for adult LDLT. We divided our cases into 2 groups according to the occurrence of PHLD. A significant lower residual liver volume and percentage were noted in PHLD group. Longer intensive care unit stay and hospital stay, and more postoperative morbidities, were observed in PHLD group. PHLD occurred in 50 cases (11.5%), and most of them were grade A (47 cases [10.8%]). Two cases (0.5%) had grade B requiring diuretic therapy, and 1 case (0.2%) had grade C requiring ultrasound guided tube drainage and surgical exploration finally.

CONCLUSIONS

We should not underestimate the risks of liver donation surgery, especially when utilizing the right hemiliver graft. Donor safety should be ensured by accurate preoperative volumetric assessment of the remnant liver and remnant liver volume limitations must be strictly followed.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.

Pilot study of living donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding Milan Criteria (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer extended criteria)

A subset of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan criteria might obtain acceptable survival outcomes after liver transplantation. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as a feasible alternative to overcome the paucity of donors. In 2001, we started a protocol for LDLT in Child A-B patients with HCC fulfilling a set of criteria-the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) expanded criteria-that expanded the conventional indications of transplantation: 1 tumor ≤ 7 cm, 5 tumors ≤ 3 cm, and 3 tumors ≤ 5 cm without macrovascular invasion or downstaging to Milan after locoregional therapies. We present a prospective cohort of 22 patients with BCLC extended indications based on size/number (n = 17) or downstaging (n = 5) treated with LDLT between 2001 and 2014. Characteristics of the patients were as follows: median age, 57 years old; males/female, n = 20/2; Child-Pugh A/B, n = 16/6; and alpha fetoprotein < 100 ng/mL, n = 21. Twelve patients received neoadjuvant locoregional therapies. At the time of transplantation, 12 patients had HCC staging beyond Milan criteria and 10 within. Pathological reports showed that 50% exceeded BCLC expanded criteria. Perioperative mortality was 0%. After a median follow-up of 81 months, the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival was 95.5%, 86.4%, 80.2%, and 66.8%, respectively. Overall, 7 patients recurred (range, 9-108 months), and the 5-year and 10-year actuarial recurrence rates were 23.8% and 44.4%, respectively. In conclusion, a proper selection of candidates for extended indications of LDLT for HCC patients provide survival outcomes comparable to those obtained within the Milan criteria, but these results need confirmation. Liver Transplantation 24 369-379 2018 AASLD.

The Living Donor Collective: A Scientific Registry for Living Donors

In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.

Lifetime risks of kidney donation: a medical decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study estimated the potential loss of life and the lifetime cumulative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from live kidney donation.

DESIGN

Markov medical decision analysis.

SETTING

USA.

PARTICIPANTS

40-year-old live kidney donors of both sexes and black/white race.

INTERVENTION

Live donor nephrectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Potential remaining life years lost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost and added lifetime cumulative risk of ESRD from donation.

RESULTS

Overall 0.532-0.884 remaining life years were lost from donating a kidney. This was equivalent to 1.20%-2.34% of remaining life years (or 0.76%-1.51% remaining QALYs). The risk was higher in male and black individuals. The study showed that 1%-5% of average-age current live kidney donors might develop ESRD as a result of nephrectomy. The added risk of ESRD resulted in a loss of only 0.126-0.344 remaining life years. Most of the loss of life was predicted to be associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not ESRD. Most events occurred 25 or more years after donation. Reducing the increased risk of death associated with CKD had a modest overall effect on the per cent loss of remaining life years (0.72%-1.9%) and QALYs (0.58%-1.33%). Smoking and obesity reduced life expectancy and increased overall lifetime risks of ESRD in non-donors. However the percentage loss of remaining life years from donation was not very different in those with or without these risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Live kidney donation may reduce life expectancy by 0.5-1 year in most donors. The development of ESRD in donors may not be the only measure of risk as most of the predicted loss of life predates ESRD. The study identifies the potential importance of following donors and treating risk factors aggressively to prevent ESRD and to improve donor survival.

Outcomes of Live Kidney Donors Who Develop End-Stage Renal Disease

BACKGROUND

Kidney donors can develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) after donation, but the outcomes of those who do remain poorly characterized.

METHODS

Using United States Renal Data System and Scientific Registry for Transplant Research data, we compared access to kidney transplantation (KT), time from ESRD to listing, time from listing to KT, and post-KT graft failure and death between donors and matched nondonors with ESRD.

RESULTS

Among 99 donors between April 1994 and November 2011 who developed ESRD, 78 initially received dialysis (of whom 37 listed for KT, 2 received live donor KT without listing, and 39 never listed for or received a KT), 20 listed preemptively (of whom 19 were subsequently transplanted), and 1 received a preemptive live donor KT without listing or ever receiving dialysis. Donors were listed earlier (median time to listing, 17 months vs 120 for nondonors; P < 0.001), received KT earlier (median waiting time, 2.8 months vs 21.5 for nondonors; P < 0.001), and received 13% live donor, 87% standard criteria, and 0% expanded criteria deceased donor KT (39%, 50%, and 11% in nondonors). Post-KT graft (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 4.1; P = 0.1) and patient (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 2.4; P = 0.5) survival were comparable in donors and nondonors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our finding that 39 of 99 donors who developed ESRD never listed for a transplant warrants further study to ascertain why these donors with ESRD never gained access to the waiting list.

Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors

OBJECTIVE

To measure and define the best achievable outcome after major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND

No reference values are available on outcomes after major hepatectomies. Analysis in living liver donors, with safety as the highest priority, offers the opportunity to define outcome benchmarks as the best possible results.

METHODS

Outcome analyses of 5202 hemi-hepatectomies from living donors (LDs) from 12 high-volume centers worldwide were performed for a 10-year period. Endpoints, calculated at discharge, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), and liver failure according to different definitions. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of median morbidity values to represent the best achievable results at 3 month postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients were young (34 ± [9] years), predominantly male (65%) and healthy. Surgery lasted 7 ± [2] hours; 2% needed blood transfusions. Mean hospital stay was 11.7± [5] days. 12% of patients developed at least 1 complication, of which 3.8% were major events (≥grade III, including 1 death), mostly related to biliary/bleeding events, and were twice higher after right hepatectomy. The incidence of postoperative liver failure was low. Within 3-month follow-up, benchmark values for overall complication were ≤31 %, for minor/major complications ≤23% and ≤9%, respectively, and a CCI ≤33 in LDs with complications. Centers having performed ≥100 hepatectomies had significantly lower rates for overall (10.2% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and major (3% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001) complications and overall CCI (2.1 vs 8.5, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The thorough outcome analysis of healthy LDs may serve as a reference for evaluating surgical performance in patients undergoing major liver resection across centers and different patient populations. Further benchmark studies are needed to develop risk-adjusted comparisons of surgical outcomes.

Adult living donor liver imaging

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasingly used for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. The three most commonly harvested grafts for LDLT are left lateral segment, left lobe, and right lobe grafts. The left lateral segment graft, which includes Couinaud's segments II and III, is usually used for pediatric recipients or small size recipients. Most of the adult recipients need either a left or a right lobe graft. Whether a left or right lobe graft should be harvested from the donors depends on estimated graft and donor remnant liver volume, as well as biliary and vascular anatomy. Detailed preoperative assessment of the potential donor liver volumetrics, biliary and vascular anatomy, and liver parenchyma is vital to minimize risks to the donors and maximize benefits to the recipients. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are currently the imaging modalities of choice in the preoperative evaluation of potential donors. This review provides an overview of key surgical considerations in LDLT that the radiologists must be aware of, and imaging findings on CT and MRI that the radiologists must convey to the surgeons when evaluating potential donors for LDLT.