Donor safety in living related liver transplantation: underestimation of the risks for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

Safety and efficacy of extended thrombophilia screening directed venous thromboembolic events (VTE) prophylaxis in live liver donors: do we really need extended thrombophilia screening routinely?

Background and aims

The study aimed to determine the prevalence of hereditary thrombophilia, and stratify its severity among live liver donors in Pakistan. Also, the authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of thrombophilia profile testing directed venous thromboembolic events (VTE) prophylaxis while balancing bleeding risk and the need for routine thrombophilia testing before live liver donation among living donor candidates.

Materials and methods

Protein S (PS), protein C (PC), anti-thrombin (AT) III, and anti-phospholipid antibody panel (APLA) levels were measured in 567 potential donor candidates. Donors were divided into normal, borderline and high-risk groups based on Caprini score. The safety endpoints were VTE occurrence, bleeding complications or mortality.

Results

Among 567 donors, 21 (3.7%) were deficient in protein C, and 14 (2.5%) were deficient in anti-thrombin-III. IgM and IgG. Anti-phospholipids antibodies were positive in 2/567 (0.4%) and 2/567 (0.4%), respectively. IgM and IgG lupus anticoagulant antibodies were positive in 3/567 (0.5%) and 3/567 (0.5%), respectively. VTE events, bleeding complications and postoperative living donors liver transplantation-related complications were comparable among the three donor groups (P>0.05). One donor in the normal donor group developed pulmonary embolism, but none of the donors in either borderline or high-risk group developed VTE. The mean length of ICU and total hospital stay were comparable. No donor mortality was observed in all donor groups.

Conclusions

Due to thrombophilia testing directed VTE prophylaxis, VTE events were comparable in normal, borderline and high-risk thrombophilia donor groups, but more evaluations are required to determine the lower safe levels for various thrombophilia parameters including PC, PS and AT-III before surgery among living donor candidates.

Pulmonary Embolism in a Liver Donor: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Liver transplant is an important treatment option for end-stage liver disease, and living related donation is an option to shorten or eliminate the waiting period for the patients, especially when shortage of organs is of concern. It is crucial to provide optimal safety for the donors and to thoroughly examine them preoperatively in order to decrease perioperative and postoperative complications. Here, we report the case of a living donor who had undergone a left liver lobectomy and on postoperative day 2 presented with a radiologically severe pulmonary embolism, despite the absence of any risk factor for venous thromboembolism or pulmonary embolism. The patient was treated with tissue plasminogen activator and heparin infusions and was discharged 1 week later.

Respiratory Complications Among Living Liver Donors: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The safety of living liver donors is considered a high priority. In this study, we aimed to highlight the incidence and risk factors of respiratory complications among living liver transplant donors at our institute.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated data of 178 related living liver donors who were seen from January 2014 to December 2018. We recorded significant respiratory complications, such as pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, pneumonia, acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and transfusion-related acute lung injury. Complications were noted as clinically evident and/or needing intervention. We also recorded the frequency of nonrespiratory complications and duration of intensive care unit and hospital stays.

RESULTS

Ten donors (5.6%) developed significant respiratory complications: 2 (1.1%) had pulmonary embolisms, 3 (1.7%) developed symptomatic pleural effusion that required thoracentesis, and 4 (2.25%) had chest infections. The remaining donor (0.6%) had unexplained respiratory insufficiency. Logistic regression analyses identified age ≥ 35 years and previous surgery as the main risk factors of significant respiratory complications. There were no recorded cases of pneumothorax, acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and transfusion-related acute lung injury. Raw surface collection (14.6%) and biliary leakage (7.9%) were the most frequent nonrespiratory complications. There was no significant difference between patients with and without significant respiratory complications with regard to intensive care unit and hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low incidence of significant respiratory complications among our living liver donor cohort, close monitoring and early management are essential to achieve better prognosis, especially in donors older than 35 years or those with previous surgery.

Pulmonary Embolism in a Donor of Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a rare but potentially fatal complication that may develop in a living liver donor. Here, we report a case of non-massive PE diagnosed by elevated serum D-dimer levels and successfully treated using anticoagulant therapy. A 57-year-old man underwent extended left hepatectomy as a living liver donor. His past medical history included hypertension and dyslipidemia which required medication and a history of smoking. Mechanical prophylactic measures for venous thromboembolism, including intermittent pneumatic compression and elastic stocking, were used; however, no pharmacological prophylaxis was used. Although the patient ambulated on postoperative day (POD) 1, he developed hypoxia. Serum D-dimer level was elevated to 29.3 ng/mL on POD 2. Enhanced computed tomography revealed small peripheral PEs in the branches of the right upper, right middle, and left lower lobes without deep vein thrombosis. Intravenous heparin was initiated followed by warfarin. The thrombi resolved completely by POD 13, following which warfarin was continued for 3 months. As of 25 months after donation, the patient remains well without recurrence of PE. Early diagnosis and treatment of postoperative PE are critical for preventing mortality of liver donors.

A Worldwide Survey of Live Liver Donor Selection Policies at 24 Centers With a Combined Experience of 19 009 Adult Living Donor Liver Transplants

BACKGROUND

Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved with a focus on donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate.

METHODS

A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide. 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 LDLTs responded.

RESULTS

Centers were categorized into predominantly LDLT (18) or deceased donor liver transplantation (6), and high- (10) or low-volume (14) centers. At most centers, the minimum acceptable graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.7 or less (67%), and remnant was 30% (75%). The median upper limit of donor age was 60 years and body mass index of 33 kg/m. At 63% centers, age influenced the upper limit of body mass index inversely. Majority preferred aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase less than 50 IU/mL. Most accepted donors with nondebilitating mild mental or physical disability and rejected donors with treated coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident and nonbrain, nonskin primary malignancies. Opinions were divided about previous psychiatric illness, substance abuse and abdominal surgery. Most performed selective liver biopsy, commonly for steatosis, raised transaminases and 1 or more features of metabolic syndrome. On biopsy, all considered macrovesicular and 50% considered microvesicular steatosis important. Nearly all (92%) rejected donors for early fibrosis, and minority for nonspecific granuloma or mild inflammation. Most anatomical anomalies except portal vein type D/E were acceptable at high-volume centers. There was no standard policy for preoperative or peroperative cholangiogram.

CONCLUSIONS

This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization between centers, with potential expansion of the donor pool without compromising safety.

Donor Selection and Prophylactic Strategy for Venous Thromboembolic Events in Living Donors of Liver Transplantation Based on Results of Thrombophilia Screening Tests

Background

We reported a strategy of thrombophilia testing-guided venous thromboembolic events (VTE) prophylaxis for living donors of liver transplantation in 2011. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this protocol for VTE prophylaxis.

Material/Methods

Thrombophilia testing, including protein S (PS), protein C (PC), antithrombin (AT) III, and anti-phospholipid antibody (APLA), was performed in 306 living donor candidates between July 2005 and June 2016. Donors who met any of the criteria of PS <60%, PC <64%, AT-III <70%, and positive APLA were classified into the borderline group and received continuous venous infusion of heparin immediately after surgery, in addition to use of elastic stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) until patients were ambulatory. Other donors who were classified into the normal group used elastic stockings and IPC with no anticoagulants. The efficacy and safety endpoints were VTE occurrence and bleeding events, respectively.

Results

PS was considerably decreased in 3 candidates and PC was considerably reduced in 1 candidate, and they were excluded for high risk of VTE. Seventeen candidates in the borderline group and 137 in the normal group underwent donor surgery. One donor in the borderline group developed a wound hematoma. Postoperative complications were similar between the 2 groups. None of the donors in either group developed VTE.

Conclusions

Thrombophilia testing-guided VTE prophylaxis is safe and may contribute to reduced VTE risk in donors, although further investigations are warranted to assess the necessity of thrombophilia testing prior to surgery among living donors.

Pushing the frontiers of living donor right hepatectomy

Living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) is currently the most common donor surgery in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation although the morbidity and mortality reported in living donors still contradicts the Hippocratic tenet of “do no harm”. Achieving low complication rates in LDRH remains a matter of major concern. Living donor surgery is performed worldwide as an established solution to the donor shortage. The aim of this study was to assess the current status of LDRH and comment on the future of the procedure; assessment was made from the standpoint of optimizing the donor selection criteria and reducing morbidity based on both the authors’ 8-year institutional experience and a literature review. New possibilities have been explored regarding selection criteria. The safety of living donors with unfavorable conditions, such as low remnant liver volume, fatty change, or old age, should also be considered. Abdominal incisions have become shorter, even without laparoscopic assistance; upper midline laparotomy is the primary incision used in more than 400 consecutive LDRHs in the authors’ institution. Various surgical techniques based on preoperative imaging technology of vascular and biliary anomalies have decreased the anatomical barriers in LDRH. Operative time has been reduced, with low blood loss. Laparoscopic or robotic LDRH has been tried in only a few selected donors. The LDRH-specific, long-term outcomes remain to be addressed. The follow-up duration of these studies should be long enough to address possible late complications. Donor safety, which is the highest priority, is ensured by three factors: preoperative selection, intraoperative surgical technique, and postoperative management. These three focus areas should be continuously refined, with the ultimate goal of zero morbidity.

Donor safety in live-related liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), since its advent in late 1980's and early 1990's, has rapidly increased especially in countries like Japan, Korea and India where cadaveric programmes are not as well established as in the western world. The main advantage of LDLT is the availability of an organ in the elective setting in the course of a progressive liver disease. This is most applicable in patients with Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular carcinoma. LDLT, from the donor's perspective does carry a risk of not only morbidity but mortality. To date the surgical mortality risk is estimated at 0.1% for left lateral donation and 0.5% for right liver donation. Donor mortality has been reported from various centres in India. There are reports of complications like Hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis and especially biliary leaks and strictures occurring at a significantly increased frequency after living as compared to deceased donor liver transplantation. The key to reduce donor morbidity and mortality is meticulous donor selection and thorough donor work up. In the present study we will analyse the factors that contributed to donor mortality and morbidity and prepare a detailed work up plan, intraoperative and post-operative strategy to reduce donor morbidity and mortality.

[Perioperative anesthesia management of extended partial liver resection. Pathophysiology of hepatic diseases and functional signs of hepatic failure]

The importance of partial liver resection as a therapeutic option to cure hepatic tumors has increased over the last decades. This has been influenced on the one hand by advances in surgical and anesthetic management resulting in a reduced mortality after surgery and on the other hand by an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nowadays, partial resection of the liver is performed safely and as a routine operation in specialized centers. This article describes the pathophysiological changes secondary to liver failure and assesses the perioperative management of patients undergoing partial or extended liver resection. It looks in detail at the preoperative assessment, the intraoperative anesthetic management including fluid management and techniques to reduce blood loss as well as postoperative analgesia and intensive care therapy.

Living donor liver transplantation: usefulness of hemostatic and prothrombotic screening in potential donors

Bleeding and thrombosis are serious complications of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this paper was to describe the results of a screening for coagulation disorders, including for thrombophilic factors, in potential living liver graft donors and to evaluate thrombotic and bleeding events in donors and recipients, during and after the procedure. From January 2001 to January 2007, 41 LDLTs were performed at our institution. We performed systematic screening for bleeding or prothrombotic states among 188 potential donors, 38 (20.2%) of whom showed at least one abnormality. We rejected potential donors with factor V Leiden, prothrombin mutation G20210A, and deficiencies in anticoagulant proteins (protein C, protein S, and antithrombin) or coagulation factors. Bleeding and thrombotic events in donors and recipients of the 41 LDLTs were evaluated during 7 days to 70 months follow-up. No major bleeding events were detected in the donors. Neither donor nor recipient experienced venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Among all recipients, six suffered hepatic artery thrombosis including five in the first month probably related to surgery. Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are well-known complications of hepatic surgery; Prothrombotic abnormalities in the donor can be transmitted to the recipient, leading to increased risk of serious postoperative events. Although the cost-effectiveness is not definitely established, we recommend systematic screening for hemostatic and prothrombotic disorders to prevent more morbidity of a procedure that already has high risks of bleeding and thrombosis.

Adult living liver donors have excellent long-term medical outcomes: the University of Toronto liver transplant experience

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation is an effective treatment for selected individuals with end-stage liver disease. Although 1 year donor morbidity and mortality have been reported, little is known about outcomes beyond 1 year. Our objective was to analyze the outcomes of the first 202 consecutive donors performed at our center with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (range 12-96 months). All physical complications were prospectively recorded and categorized according to the modified Clavien classification system. Donors were seen by a dedicated family physician at 2 weeks, 1, 3 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The cohort included 108 males and 94 females (mean age 37.3 +/- 11.5 years). Donor survival was 100%. A total of 39.6% of donors experienced a medical complication during the first year after surgery (21 Grade 1, 27 Grade 2, 32 Grade 3). After 1 year, three donors experienced a medical complication (1 Grade 1, 1 Grade 2, 1 Grade 3). All donors returned to predonation employment or studies although four donors (2%) experienced a psychiatric complication. This prospective study suggests that living liver donation can be performed safely without any serious late medical complications and suggests that long-term follow-up may contribute to favorable donor outcomes.

Thrombotic complications following liver resection for colorectal metastases are preventable

BACKGROUND

Surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can be expected to be associated with a significant rate of thromboembolic complications due to the performance of long-duration oncologic resections in patients aged 60 years.

AIMS

To determine the prevalence of clinically significant thrombotic complications, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolus (PE), in a contemporary series of patients undergoing resection of CRLM with standard prophylaxis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing resection of CRLM from January 2000 to March 2007 and highlighted those developing thromboembolic complications. In addition, the radiology department database was reviewed to ensure that clinically suspicious thromboses had been confirmed radiologically by ultrasound in the case of DVT or computed tomography for PEs.

RESULTS

During the period of the study, 523 patients (336 M and 187 F) with a mean age of 65 years underwent resection. A major hepatectomy was performed in 59.9%. One or more complications were seen in 45.1% (n=236) of patients. Thrombotic complications were seen in 11 (2.1%) patients: DVT alone (n=4) and PE (n=7). Eight of 11 thrombotic complications occurred in patients undergoing major hepatectomy, 4 of which were trisectionectomies. Patients were anti-coagulated and there were no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The symptomatic thromboembolic complication rate was lower in this cohort than may be expected in patients undergoing non-hepatic abdominal surgery. It is uncertain whether this is due entirely to effective prophylaxis or to a combination of treatment and a natural anti-coagulant state following hepatic resection.

Chances and risks in living donor liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Liver transplantation is the first-line therapy in treatment of end-stage liver diseases. Due to the mismatch of available donor organs and growing waiting lists in Germany, live donation is of great interest.

METHODS

Selective literature review.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation almost eliminated waiting list mortality in children and achieved excellent short and long term survival. The situation in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation is different, due to the need for extensive donor resection and smaller graft volume for the recipient. Careful donor evaluation and defined selection criteria are essential to minimize the donor's risk and to achieve results comparable to whole organ transplantation. Living donor liver transplantation offers the recipient certain advantages such as superior graft quality, but the procedure should be reserved for selected patients. Donor safety is the highest priority in this procedure. Living donor transplantation should remain in the hands of experienced centers.

[Liver resection for living-donor liver transplantation: anesthesia and intensive care aspects]

The living related donor mortality after liver donation could occur as a result of postoperative cardiovascular and thromboembolic complication; which could be minimized by detailed preoperative assessment of the living donor. The preoperative functional tests evaluate the physiological reserve or identify the living donors with limited response to the surgical stress. Based on the results of CT volumetry, MRI and liver functional reserve capacity test (indocyanine green retention ratio) the liver resection can be done safely. The preoperative cytochrome P enzymes tests of donors identify the drugs with abnormal metabolism. Balanced anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural anesthesia is done with liver safe, renal safe and ischemic preconditioning drugs. Normovolemic state is maintained with physiologic extrahepatic perfusion and oxygenation conditions. The central venous and hepatic artery pressure is reduced with the guarantee of optimal hepatic perfusion-oxygenation and better liver resection condition. Intraoperative thrombosis prophylaxis is performed with sequential compression device. After liver resection the donor morbidity can be reduced, effective analgesia, thrombosis prophylaxis, liver safe drug therapy and a tight monitoring. Before the first postoperative mobilization a deep vein Doppler ultrasound control is proposed.

Live donor liver transplantation in adults

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was initiated in 1988 for children recipients. Its application to adult recipients was limited by graft size until the first right liver LDLT was performed in Hong Kong in 1996. Since then, right liver graft has become the major graft type. Despite rapid adoption of LDLT by many centers, many controversies on donor selection, indications, techniques, and ethics exist. With the recent known 11 donor deaths around the world, transplant surgeons are even more cautious than the past in the evaluation and selection of donors. The need for routine liver biopsy in donor evaluation is arguable but more and more centers opt for a policy of liberal liver biopsy. Donation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the right liver graft was considered unsafe but now data indicate that the outcome of donors with or without MHV donation is about equal. Right liver LDLT has been shown to improve the overall survival rate of patients with chronic liver disease, acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation. The outcome of LDLT is equivalent to deceased donor liver transplantation despite a smaller graft size and higher technical complexity.

A prospective analysis of living-liver donation shows a high rate of adverse events

Donor risk is the main obstacle in the development of living-donor liver transplantation in Western countries. The knowledge of a wide and uneven range of donor morbidity has come mainly from various retrospective analyses of complications in the literature. Donor outcomes have not been prospectively analyzed. From 1995, the intra- and postoperative courses of 127 living-donor hepatectomies were prospectively analyzed and recorded. All adverse events were classified and stratified according to the extent of surgery, including 45 left-lateral sectionectomies (LLS); 25 left hepatectomies (LH), and 57 right hepatectomies (RH). There was no donor death. The overall rate of significant complications was 20%, ranging from 8% after LH to 32% after RH. The overall incidences of surgical complications, reoperations, and hospital readmissions were 8%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. However, the prospective accumulation of all adverse events revealed an overall postoperative morbidity of 51%, ranging from 32% after LH to 66% after RH. In conclusion the incidence of postoperative adverse events after living donation is nearly 50% as revealed by prospective screening. These results allow more accurate information for potential donors. This study confirms that right hepatectomy carries three times higher risk of morbidity as compared to left-sided resections, leading to reappraisal of the use of left grafts in adults.

Selection of donors for living donor liver transplantation in a single center of a developing country: lessons learned from the first 100 cases

The selection of donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is one of the most important features in this kind of surgery. The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience in the donor evaluation process. From December 2001 to January 2005, 104 donors were evaluated for 70 recipients (65 potential donors were evaluated for 39 adult recipients, and 39 donors for 31 pediatric recipients). Only 30 donors were able to donate: 13 for the adult group, and 17 for the pediatric one. In general, the utilization rate of potential donors was 28.8% (30/104). For the adult patients, 65 potential donors were seen to perform 13 LDLT, which represents a utilization rate of potential donors of 20%. For the pediatric patients, this rate was 43.6%. The exclusion criteria were clinical in 22 cases (21%), anatomical in 13 cases (13%), psychosocial in nine cases (9%), and others in 12 (12%). Death of recipients led to exclusion 18 of donors (17%). Thirty-three percent of adults and 55% of pediatric recipients who had at least one potential donor to start the evaluation process were able to identify a living donor. In conclusion, the first limit for LDLT is the rigorous donor evaluation.

Live donor liver transplantation

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

Respiratory Complications: A Major Concern after Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

One of the main concerns after living donor liver transplantation is the risk of morbidity and/or mortality that it imposes on the donors. Respiratory postoperative complications in living liver donors have already been reported but their frequency seems to be underestimated. We designed a prospective study to evaluate the rate and the nature of postoperative pulmonary complications in 112 consecutive donors.

METHODS

The medical records of the 112 living liver donors operated on at our center from 1998 to 2003 were reviewed and all the cases of respiratory complications were retrieved. Moreover, since 2000, all patients had a computed tomography angiography of the thorax at day 7 on a prospective basis.

RESULTS

In all, 112 hepatectomies (44 right and 68 left) for adult-to-adult or adult-to-child liver donation were performed in our center. No postoperative mortality was recorded. Fourteen major respiratory complications developed in of 11 of 112 donors (9.8%), in all cases after right hepatectomy, and included nonsevere pulmonary embolism (n=7), right pleural empyema (n=3), and bacterial pneumonia (n=3). Minor respiratory complications (7.1% of the donors) included iatrogenic pneumothorax (n=3) and pleural effusion requiring thoracocentesis (n=5). Abdominal complications (mainly biliary leak) developed in 10 donors (8.9%), who in the vast majority remained free of pulmonary complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, pulmonary complications are frequent in living liver donors. These complications are mainly observed after right hepatectomy. The particular prevalence of pulmonary embolism should lead to focus on its early diagnosis and prevention.

Analysis and outcomes of right lobe hepatectomy in 101 consecutive living donors

The shortage of deceased organ donors has created a need for right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) in adults. Concerns regarding donor safety, however, necessitate continuous assessment of donor acceptance criteria and documentation of donor morbidity. We report the outcomes of our first 101 donors who underwent right lobectomy between April 2000 and November 2004. The cohort comprised 58 men and 43 women with a median age of 37.8 years (range: 18.6-55 years); median follow-up is 24 months. The middle hepatic vein (MHV) was taken with the graft in 55 donors. All complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien's classification. Overall morbidity rate was 37%; all complications were either grade 1 or 2, and the majority occurred during the first 30 days after surgery. Removal of the MHV did not affect morbidity rate. There were significantly fewer complications in the later half of our experience. All donors are well and have returned to full activities. With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates can be achieved after right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation.

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

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

A case of suspected severe pulmonary embolism in a living-related liver transplantation donor

Optimal safety for a donor is an essential condition for living-related liver transplantation (LRLT). Severe pulmonary embolism may be a rare complication for the donors, but it is potentially fatal. Various risk factors and prophylactic methods for thromboembolic complications have been described. We report here a case of severe pulmonary embolism in a living-related liver transplantation donor who underwent right liver lobectomy, although the patient had no apparent risk factor for thromboembolism except for slight obesity (body mass index = 27). In addition, the donor received prophylactic use of graduated compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression by use of a special device from the start of anesthesia until the patient was able to ambulate. Fortunately, the patient was successfully treated with urokinase and heparin infusion followed by warfarin administration.

Evolution of donor morbidity in living related liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 165 cases

OBJECTIVE

During the last 14 years, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved to an indispensable surgical strategy to minimize mortality of adult and pediatric patients awaiting transplantation. The crucial prerequisite to performing this procedure is a minimal morbidity and mortality risk to the healthy living donor. Little is known about the learning curve involved with this type of surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 1991 to August 2003, a total of 165 LDLTs were performed in our center. Of these, 135 were donations of the left-lateral lobe (LL, segments II and III), 3 were of the left lobe (L, segments II-IV), 3 were full-left lobes (FL, segments I-IV), and 24 were of the full-right lobe (FR, segments V-VIII). We divided the procedures into 3 periods: period 1 included the years 1991 to 1995 (LL, n = 49; L, n = 2; FR, n = 1), period 2 covered 1996 to 2000 (LL, n = 47), and period 3 covered 2001 to August 2003 (LL, n = 39; FR, n = 23; FL, n = 3; L, n = 1). Perioperative mortality and morbidity were assessed using a standardized classification. Length of stay in intensive care unit, postoperative hospital stay, laboratory results (bilirubin, INR, and LFTs), morbidity, and the different types of grafts in the 3 different periods were compared.

RESULTS

One early donor death was observed in period 1 (03/07/93, case 30; total mortality, 0.61.%). Since 1991, the perioperative morbidity has continually declined (53.8% vs. 23.4% vs. 9.2%). In period 1, 28 patients had 40 complications. In period 2, 11 patients had 12 complications, and in period 3, 6 patients had 9 complications. Within the first period, 1 donor underwent relaparotomy because of bile leakage. Postoperative hospital stay was 10 days, 7 days, and 6 days, respectively. Donation of the full right lobe, in comparison with that of the left lateral lobe, resulted in a significantly diminished liver function (bilirubin and INR) during the first 5 days after donation but did not increase morbidity. One donor from period 1 experienced late death caused by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single center, morbidity after living liver donation strongly correlates to center experience. Despite the additional risks associated with temporary reduction of liver function, this experience enabled the team to bypass part of the learning curve when starting right lobe donation. Specific training of the surgical team and coaching by an experienced center should be implemented for centers offering this procedure to avoid the learning curve.

Progress in living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has the capacity to reduce the current discrepancy between the number of patients on the transplant waiting list and the number of available organ donors. For pediatric patients, LDLT has clearly reduced the number of waiting list deaths, providing compelling evidence for an increase in LDLT programs. This review discusses many of the recent advances in LDLT.

Thromboelastogram monitoring in the perioperative period of hepatectomy for adult living liver donation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is becoming a widespread procedure. However, the risk of surgical and medical complications in healthy donors is still a major concern. Hypercoagulability contributes to thromboembolic complications after surgery, but alterations of hemostasis after liver resection are difficult to predict. This study aims to define the perioperative coagulation profile of living liver donors by the use of both routine tests and thromboelastogram (TEG). Ten subjects undergoing right hepatectomy for LDLT were studied. A complete coagulation screening was performed before operation. The coagulation profile was evaluated by platelet count, prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and TEG at the beginning and at the end of surgery, and on days 1, 3, 5, and 10 after operation, while the donors were under low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis. At preoperative screening, no subject showed evidence of a prothrombotic state. In all cases, TEG was normal at the beginning of surgery. In the postoperative period, despite decreased platelet counts, increased PT-INR, and normal aPTT values, TEG evidenced the progressive development of hypercoagulability in 4 subjects on day 5 and in 6 subjects on day 10. One donor with a definitely hypercoagulable TEG on day 5 experienced deep venous thrombosis (DVT) on day 8, which was resolved with therapeutic doses of LMWH. In conclusion, despite routine tests suggesting hypocoagulability and LMWH prophylaxis, TEG monitoring showed the unexpected occurrence of hypercoagulability in the majority of the subjects after hepatectomy for LDLT. TEG monitoring could be useful in the perioperative management of donors to guide antithrombotic treatment and increase the safety of the procedure.

Safety and necessity of including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe graft in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of donors who have donated the middle hepatic vein in right lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to determine whether such inclusion is necessary for optimum graft function.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The necessity to include the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft in adult-to-adult LDLT is controversial. Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in the graft provides uniform hepatic venous drainage but may lead to congestion of segment IV in the donor.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2002, 93 right-lobe LDLTs were performed. All right-lobe grafts except 1 contained the middle hepatic vein. In the donor operation, attention was paid to preserve the segment IV hepatic artery and to avoid prolonged rotation of the right lobe. The middle hepatic vein was transected proximal to a major segment IVb hepatic vein whereas possible to preserve the venous drainage in the liver remnant.

RESULTS

There was no donor death. Two donors had intraoperative complications (accidental left hepatic vein occlusion and portal vein thrombosis) and were well after immediate rectification. Twenty-four donors (26%) had postoperative complications, mostly minor wound infection. The postoperative international normalized ratio on day 1 was better in the donors with preservation of segment IVb hepatic vein than those without the preservation, but, in all donors, the liver function was largely normal by postoperative day 7. The first recipient had severe graft congestion as the middle hepatic vein was not reconstructed before reperfusion. In 7 other recipients, the middle hepatic vein was found occluded intraoperatively owing to technical errors. The postoperative hepatic and renal function of the recipients with an occluded or absent middle hepatic vein was worse than those with a patent middle hepatic vein. The hospital mortality rate was also higher in those with an occluded middle hepatic vein (3/9 vs. 5/84, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in right-lobe LDLT is safe and is essential for optimum graft function and patient survival.

Impact of right-lobe live donor liver transplantation on patients waiting for liver transplantation

Right-lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is accepted for adult patients, but the incremental benefit of LDLT over cadaveric donor liver transplantation (CDLT) is unknown. We evaluated prospectively the impact of right-lobe LDLT on patients listed for CDLT. Between January 1999 and December 2001, a total of 152 patients with chronic liver disease were listed for liver transplantation. The options of LDLT and CDLT were given after listing. Sixty-five patients (43%) had volunteers and 87 patients (57%) did not have volunteers. The groups with and without volunteers were similar in terms of age, diagnosis of liver disease, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. The group with volunteers had a shorter waiting time for transplantation (median, 38 v 344 days; P <.001), greater transplantation rate (72% v 20%; P <.001), and lower mortality rate while waiting for a transplant (15% v 30%; P =.037). Overall, right-lobe LDLT was performed in 44 patients (29%). It increased the transplantation rate from 13% to 42%. On follow-up until December 2002 (median follow-up, 17.4 months), survival rates of the groups with and without volunteers were 68% and 51%, respectively (P =.034). One- and 3-year survival rates were 72.3% and 66.4% for the group with volunteers and 61.9% and 45.6% for the group without volunteers, respectively (P =.028). In conclusion, right-lobe LDLT offers patients listed for transplantation an incremental benefit by tripling the transplantation rate and improving overall survival.

Safety and necessity of including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe graft in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of donors who have donated the middle hepatic vein in right lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to determine whether such inclusion is necessary for optimum graft function.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The necessity to include the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft in adult-to-adult LDLT is controversial. Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in the graft provides uniform hepatic venous drainage but may lead to congestion of segment IV in the donor.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2002, 93 right-lobe LDLTs were performed. All right-lobe grafts except 1 contained the middle hepatic vein. In the donor operation, attention was paid to preserve the segment IV hepatic artery and to avoid prolonged rotation of the right lobe. The middle hepatic vein was transected proximal to a major segment IVb hepatic vein whereas possible to preserve the venous drainage in the liver remnant.

RESULTS

There was no donor death. Two donors had intraoperative complications (accidental left hepatic vein occlusion and portal vein thrombosis) and were well after immediate rectification. Twenty-four donors (26%) had postoperative complications, mostly minor wound infection. The postoperative international normalized ratio on day 1 was better in the donors with preservation of segment IVb hepatic vein than those without the preservation, but, in all donors, the liver function was largely normal by postoperative day 7. The first recipient had severe graft congestion as the middle hepatic vein was not reconstructed before reperfusion. In 7 other recipients, the middle hepatic vein was found occluded intraoperatively owing to technical errors. The postoperative hepatic and renal function of the recipients with an occluded or absent middle hepatic vein was worse than those with a patent middle hepatic vein. The hospital mortality rate was also higher in those with an occluded middle hepatic vein (3/9 vs. 5/84, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in right-lobe LDLT is safe and is essential for optimum graft function and patient survival.

Adult-to-adult Right Hepatic Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Adult-to-adult right hepatic lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has rapidly emerged as an accepted treatment option for selected patients with end-stage liver disease. The two most important determinants in patient outcome are the careful selection of recipients, and the technical skill and experience of the surgical team. The most appropriate candidates for LDLT are patients who require an expedited transplant. Also, the candidate must not have significant comorbid conditions that could jeopardize the success of the procedure. The initial outcomes of LDLT recipients are similar to recipients with a cadaveric liver. However, direct comparison may not be possible, because LDLT recipients are currently selected for favorable outcomes. Most LDLT donors are able to undergo right-sided hepatectomy without significant morbidity. However, the risk of death associated with donation is estimated to be 1/300; approximately 20% have a measurable complication.

Some Ethical and Psychiatric Aspects of Right-Lobe Liver Transplantation in the United States and Japan

Cadaver sources are insufficient for the increasing demand for liver transplantation. Right-lobe liver transplantation from living donors is fully developed in Japan and has been rapidly increasing in the United States during the past 2 years, although donor risk is greater than in other types of solid organ transplantation. The authors examine the psychiatric and ethical aspects of right-lobe liver transplantation in light of cultural differences between the United States and Japan.