Living-related liver transplantation from the view of the donor: a 1-year follow-up survey

Long-term follow-up of living liver donors: A single-center experience

Living donors are healthy individuals who are exposed to a major surgical procedure during which a major part of their liver is resected. Data on the long-term consequences of living liver donation are scarce. This study examined clinical, laboratory, and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 237 living liver donors and 239 matched controls during 48-168 months of postdonation follow-up. We used the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), version 1. The scores for the four following subscales were higher in nondonors than in donors: physical functioning (p = 0.009), role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.002), energy/fatigue (p < 0.001), and bodily pain (p < 0.001). The scores on the eight subscales of the SF-36 were higher in donors with living recipients than in donors whose recipients died (p < 0.001). Our results suggest that living donor right hepatectomy is safe and results in a postdonation HRQoL similar to that of nondonors in those donors whose recipients are healthy, whereas donors whose recipients die have a lower HRQoL that is significantly negatively correlated with the time since recipient death and improves over time.

Long-term donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation in Japan

AIMS

This study examined the long-term quality of life (QOL) of living liver donors (LLDs) in Japan using both generic and LLD-specific instruments.

METHODS

The sample comprised 374 LLDs from five university hospitals in Japan who underwent surgery more than a year previously. QOL was evaluated using the Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and LLD-QOL scale.

RESULTS

SF-36 results indicated that the overall long-term QOL of LLDs was significantly better than the Japanese standard. When comparing by donor factors, LLDs whose recipients were children scored higher for "satisfaction" than those whose recipients were adults on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs with complications had lower QOL for "scars" and "burden" on the LLD-QOL scale but no differences in SF-36 scores. LLDs with longer hospital stay had lower physical QOL on SF-36 and lower QOL for "scars" and "after-effects" on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs whose recipients have died showed lower mental QOL on SF-36 and lower "satisfaction" and greater "lack of understanding of donor health" on the LLD-QOL scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multicenter study clarified the long-term QOL of LLDs and suggested that donors' QOL was related to the donors' and recipients' ages, donor's complications and hospital stay length, and recipient's prognosis.

Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients

In this era of organ scarcity, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to using deceased donors, and in Western countries, it is more often used for recipients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. We sought to compare the patient survival and graft survival between recipients of liver transplantation from living donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in patients with low MELD scores. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of adult liver transplant recipients with a laboratory MELD of ≤20 who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2016. Recipients were categorized by donor graft type (DCD or LDLT), and recipient and donor characteristics were compared. Ten-year patient and graft survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and a mixed-effects model was performed to determine the contributions of recipient, donor, and center variables on patient and graft survival. There were 36,705 liver transplants performed: 32,255 (87.9%) from DBD donors, 2166 (5.9%) from DCD donors, and 2284 (6.2%) from living donors. In the mixed-effects model, DCD status was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk [RR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.38) but not worse patient survival (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96-1.67). Lower DCD center experience was associated with a 1.21 higher risk of patient death (95% CI, 1.17-1.25) and a 1.13 higher risk of graft failure (95% CI, 1.12-1.15). LDLT center experience was also predictive of patient survival (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and graft failure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.06). In conclusion, for liver transplant recipients with low laboratory MELD, LDLT offers better graft survival and a tendency to better patient survival than DCD donors.

Psychosocial Outcomes 3 to 10 Years After Donation in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short term and rely largely on quality-of-life measures not specific to donation. We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived physical, emotional, and socioeconomic outcomes.

METHODS

Individuals donating 3 to 10 years previously at 9 centers were eligible for telephone surveys. Survey responses were examined descriptively. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct donor groups based on response profiles across psychosocial domains. Potential predictors of response profiles were evaluated with regression analysis.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen donors (66%) participated (M = 5.8 years postdonation, SD = 1.9). Fifteen percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns, and 7%-60% reported socioeconomic concerns (eg, insurance difficulties, financial expenditures). However, on average, donors experienced high psychological growth, and 90% felt positively about donation. Cluster analysis revealed 5 donor groups. One group showed high psychological benefit, with little endorsement of physical or socioeconomic concerns (15% of donors). Four groups showed less favorable profiles, with varying combinations of difficulties. The largest such group showed high endorsement of physical concerns and financial expenditures, and only modest psychological benefit (31% of donors). Men and nonHispanic whites were most likely to have unfavorable response profiles (Ps < 0.01). Compared with donors aged 19 to 30 years, older donors were less likely to have unfavorable profiles; these differences were significant for donors in the >40 to 50 year age group (Ps < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Even many years postdonation, donors report adverse physical and socioeconomic effects, but positive emotional effects as well. Identification of response profiles and predictors may improve targeting of postdonation surveillance and care.

Social and Financial Outcomes of Living Liver Donation: A Prospective Investigation Within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2)

Because results from single-center (mostly kidney) donor studies demonstrate interpersonal relationship and financial strains for some donors, we conducted a liver donor study involving nine centers within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2) consortium. Among other initiatives, A2ALL-2 examined the nature of these outcomes following donation. Using validated measures, donors were prospectively surveyed before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation. Repeated-measures regression models were used to examine social relationship and financial outcomes over time and to identify relevant predictors. Of 297 eligible donors, 271 (91%) consented and were interviewed at least once. Relationship changes were positive overall across postdonation time points, with nearly one-third reporting improved donor family and spousal or partner relationships and >50% reporting improved recipient relationships. The majority of donors, however, reported cumulative out-of-pocket medical and nonmedical expenses, which were judged burdensome by 44% of donors. Lower income predicted burdensome donation costs. Those who anticipated financial concerns and who held nonprofessional positions before donation were more likely to experience adverse financial outcomes. These data support the need for initiatives to reduce financial burden.

Living Kidney Donor Decision Making: State of the Science and Directions for Future Research

Background

The Federal government and transplantation organizations have called for further study of living donation at a time when 3 new living donor protocols are being introduced throughout the United States that promise to significantly increase the donor pool and change the face of living donation. Donation to a once incompatible and sometimes unknown recipient may now occur through the use of plasmapheresis therapy or paired and nondirected living donor protocols.

Objective

To describe the state of the science on living kidney donor decision making, and to provide recommendations for future research to guide donor education and care.

Data Sources

Automated literature search using PubMed and CINAHL scientific literature databases.

Study Data Extraction

Research papers on living donor decision making from 1997 to 2003. Studies available only as abstracts were excluded. Data Synthesis Studies of living kidney donor decision making and outcomes have been limited in scope, with small sample sizes and inconsistent reports of racial and ethnic characteristics of the sample. The retrospective nature of the majority of living donor studies is a significant limitation.

Conclusions

Future prospective studies that are diverse by sex, race, and ethnicity will contribute to our knowledge of factors that influence the decision to be a living kidney donor.

Potential Living Kidney Donors' Health Education Use and Comfort with Donation

Context

Much living kidney donation research focuses on actual donors rather than all donors who are evaluated by the transplant center.

Objective

To determine (1) what concerns and benefits potential donors saw possible from donation, (2) how they educated themselves before contacting the transplant center, and (3) who were the most comfortable donors.

Design

A telephone survey of 91 potential donors before transplant evaluation.

Setting

Barnes-Jewish Hospital Transplant Center in St Louis, Mo.

Main Outcome Measures

Willingness and comfort donating, key concerns and perceived benefits to donation, hours of transplant-related education.

Results

On a 7-point scale, potential donors were very willing (mean=6.65, SD=0.95) and comfortable (mean=6.31, SD=1.12) donating. They were most concerned that their recipients would die if they could not donate, the evaluation and surgery would be anxiety provoking or painful, and they did not understand what donation would require. Donors previously spent an average of 6 hours reading health resources and 32 hours discussing donation. Using logistic regression, those donors with 0 to 4 concerns (odds ratio=7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2–23.16), more than 5 benefits (odds ratio=3.7, 95% CI, 1.2–11.0), and who were family members (odds ratio=4.7, 95% CI, 1.4–15.8) were more likely to be extremely comfortable donating compared to others.

Conclusions

Before evaluation, most potential donors are willing to donate because they think that it is important to improve the health of a loved one. Their knowledge of donation varies and they need clear information about medical testing and support coping with any negative donation outcomes.

Living Liver Donors: A Coordinator's Perspective

Living donor liver transplantation is an acceptable alternative for many patients awaiting a liver transplant. The benefits of living donor liver transplantation to the recipient are many; however, there is also an appreciable risk to the donor. Many people, including healthcare professionals, believe that living donor liver transplantation is not ethically justified because any risk to a donor outweighs the benefit to the recipient. Recent studies show adverse events in this population do not include only medical complications; any complication—medical, social, psychological, financial, or other—must be examined to analyze the true incidence of adverse outcomes in living liver donors.

Live liver donors' information needs: A qualitative study of practical implications for informed consent

BACKGROUND

As live donor liver transplantation is increasingly used to expand the donor pool, concerns remain regarding how best to obtain live liver donors' informed consent. This study assessed donors' information preferences and their perceptions of informed consent.

METHODS

Cognitive interviews were conducted with donors by telephone about how knowledge items in a new survey instrument were material to informed consent, between November 2011 and April 2012. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data until reaching saturation.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine liver donors participated (85% participation). Donors commonly reported being unable to understand or retain much information disclosed during education. Donors preferred information about major donation risks, eg, death and minor risks that would likely affect their daily lives, eg, wound infection. Donors expressed less interest in information about their rights, confidentiality, or the medical procedure itself. Donors' preferences varied regarding statistical information. Many perceived the disclosure of risk information to be excessive, and rationalized risks they believed to be uncommon or not serious. Donors were disappointed by the brevity of the postdonation hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the complexity and volume of disclosed information during evaluation were difficult for donors to adequately comprehend. Donors' lack of appreciation for the seriousness of complications may undermine their ability to provide informed consent. Future research should develop effective methods of information delivery to enhance informed consent.

Comparative accuracy of CT, dual-echo MRI and MR spectroscopy for preoperative liver fat quantification in living related liver donors

Background:

It is of significant importance to assess the extent of hepatic steatosis in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) surgery to ensure optimum graft regeneration as well as donor safety.

Aim:

To establish the accuracy of non-invasive imaging methods including computed tomography (CT), dual-echo in- and opposed-phase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) for quantification of liver fat content (FC) in prospective LDLT donors with histopathology as reference standard.

Settings and Design:

This retrospective study was conducted at our institution on LDLT donors being assessed for biliary and vascular anatomy depiction by Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and CT scan, respectively, between July 2013 and October 2014.

Materials and Methods:

Liver FC was measured in 73 donors by dual-echoT1 MRI and MRS. Of these, CT liver attenuation index (LAI) values were available in 62 patients.

Statistical Analysis:

CT and MRI FC were correlated with histopathological reference standard using Spearman correlation coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predicative value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained.

Results:

CT LAI, dual-echo MRI, and MRS correlated well with the histopathology results (r = 0.713, 0.871, and 0.882, respectively). An accuracy of 95% and 96% was obtained for dual-echo MRI and MRS in FC estimation with their sensitivity being 97% and 94%, respectively. False-positive rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predicative value (NPV) were 0.08, 0.92, and 0.97, respectively, for dual-echo MRI and 0.03, 0.97, and 0.95, respectively, for MRS. CT LAI method of fat estimation has a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 73%, 77.7%, 70.4%, and 80%, respectively.

Conclusion:

Dual-echo MRI, MRS, and CT LAI are accurate measures to quantify the degree of hepatic steatosis in LDLT donors, thus reducing the need for invasive liver biopsy and its associated complications. Dual-echo MRI and MRS results correlate better with histological results in the study, as compared to CT LAI method for fat quantification.

Informed consent for live liver donors: A qualitative, prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) poses serious health risks and no direct health benefits to donors. Ensuring live donors' autonomy through informed consent is critical. We assessed live liver donors' (LD) comprehension, information needs, risk perceptions, and demographics.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were prospectively conducted with LDs after completing donor evaluation and informed consent at our transplant center. Likert scales measured informed consent domains. Open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty LDs participated (100% participation rate). Although 90% of LDs reported being informed about donation 'a great deal', only 66% reported understanding information about donation 'a great deal.' Many (40%) reported difficulty understanding medical terminology. Information LDs most desired to feel comfortable with their decision included: incidence and type of donor complications (67%), description of donation procedure (57%), and the process of donor preparation (43%). Most (83%) LDs rated risks to themselves as 'not at all' to 'somewhat' risky, and minimized these risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LDs perceived that they were adequately informed, their actual comprehension about donation was inadequate. Findings suggest the value of informed consent for preparation for the procedure and potential periprocedural risks rather than for decision-making. More comprehensible information disclosure may optimize informed consent.

The role of adult living donor liver transplantation and recent advances

Twenty years since the first cases were described, adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is now considered a valid option to expand the donor pool in view of the ongoing shortage of organs and the high waiting list mortality rate. Despite the rapid evolution and acceptance of this complex process of donation and transplantation in clinical practice, the indications, outcome, ethical considerations and quality and safety aspects continue to evolve based on new data from large cohort studies. This article reviews the surgical and clinical advances in the field of liver transplantation, focusing on technical refinements and discussing the issues that may lead to a further expansion of this complex surgical procedure and the role of ALDLT.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS).

RESULTS

Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%,

MCS

10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

Personal decision-making processes for living related liver transplantation in children

Living related liver transplantation (LRLT) is a valuable transplant option for children with end-stage liver disease who face long waiting times on regular waiting lists. The subjection of a healthy adult to a potentially life-threatening operation can raise issues of freedom of choice, fear, and family conflict for the potential donors. We examined attitudes, fears, and influencing factors in the decision-making process for living liver donation for children in order to identify factors to improve support for living liver donors in the future. In a retrospective, questionnaire-based survey of 93 adults evaluated for living liver donation between 1997 and 2010, 47 of whom actually proceeded to donation, we asked about attitudes, motivation, fears, influencing factors, and well-being during the LRLT evaluation process and during the donation period. Answers were recorded on Likert scales and compared with Pearson's rho correlation and the Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Although there was a strong sense of a lack of alternatives among the donors, the majority of the donors felt free in their decision to donate. Donors who were asked to donate for a relative who was not their own child appeared at higher risk of lacking support and of feeling coerced. Family and social support and good and empathic information about the donation process were identified as key factors for donor well-being. In conclusion, potential living liver donors need to have adequate, sufficient, and empathic information, and they need to be provided a supportive framework, including family support, in order to promote their well-being. Care needs to be taken in identifying and counseling potential donors at risk of feeling coerced into donation.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

An overview of psychosocial assessment procedures in reconstructive hand transplantation

There have been more than 90 hand and upper extremity transplants performed worldwide. Functional and sensory outcomes have been reported in several studies, but little is known about the psychosocial outcomes. A comprehensive systematic literature review was performed, addressing the psychosocial impact of reconstructive hand transplantation. This review provides an overview of psychosocial evaluation protocols and identifies standards in this novel and exciting field. Essentials of the psychosocial assessment are discussed and a new protocol, the 'Chauvet Protocol', representing a standardized assessment protocol for future multicenter psychosocial trials is being introduced.

Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale

PURPOSE

To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity.

METHODS

We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.

Long-term quality of life of donors after living donor liver transplantation

The aims of this study were to investigate the long-term effects of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of donors with the Short Form 36 health survey and to determine the risk factors for poor outcomes. Between June 1990 and June 2004, LDLT was performed 1000 times at Kyoto University Hospital. In July 2005, 997 of the 1000 donors were contacted by mail so that data on their HRQOL could be collected. In all, 578 donors responded (ie, there was a 58.0% response rate). The norm-based HRQOL scores for donors were better than the scores for Japanese norms across all time periods. All scores were similar for left lobe donors (n = 367) and right lobe donors (n = 211). For all donors, a multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age, the number of months until recovery to the preoperative health status, hospital visits due to donation-related symptoms, rest from work related to donation in the past month, and the existence of 2 or more comorbidities were significantly associated with decreased HRQOL scores. Postoperative complications and recipient mortality were not predictors of poor HRQOL. In conclusion, HRQOL was better for both right lobe donors and left lobe donors versus the Japanese norm population in the long term (mean postdonation period = 6.8 years). However, the prolongation of symptoms or sequelae related to donation lowered mental health or social functioning. The emergence of comorbidities after donation also significantly affected HRQOL in the long term. Careful follow-up and sustained counseling are required for donors with risk factors for lower HRQOL.

Checking the harness: safety for living liver donors

1. Expertise in hepatobiliary surgery. 2. Donor selection criteria. 3. Selective liver biopsy in donors. 4. Accurate determination of hepatic volumes and anatomy. 5. Extent of donor hepatectomy. 6. Donor psychosocial evaluation. 7. Catastrophic events. 8. Long-term follow up.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research

Given the organ scarcity, live organ donation is increasingly considered a viable alternative for kidney and liver transplantation. Yet living donation challenges the ethical principle of nonmaleficence by subjecting healthy individuals to medical, psychosocial and unknown risks. Therefore, transplant providers, policy-makers and donors are committed to ensuring that prospective donors provide adequate informed consent to undergo the procedure. Informed consent for living donation is ethically required as a means of demonstrating respect for donor's autonomy and protecting their safety. However, all elements of informed consent are fraught with difficulties due to the unique nature of the donation process and outcome. This paper reviews empirical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipients. As this review shows, studies that empirically assessed the quality of informed consent elements reveal considerable variability and deficiencies across the informed consent process, suggesting the need for improvement. This review highlights challenges to each element of consent for both LKDs and LLDs, and situates trends within broader policy contexts, ethical debates and avenues for future innovative research.

Informed consent and decision-making about adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a systematic review of empirical research

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a complex procedure that poses serious health risks to and provides no direct health benefit for the donor. Because of this uneven risk-benefit ratio, ensuring donor autonomy through informed consent is critical. To assess the current knowledge pertaining to informed consent for LDLT, we conducted a systematic review of the empirical literature on donors' decision-making process, comprehension about risks and outcomes, and information needs for LDLT. Of the 1423 identified articles, 24 met final review criteria, representing the perspective of approximately 2789 potential and actual donors. As donors' decisions to donate often occur before evaluation, they often make uninformed decisions. The review found that 88% to 95% of donors reported understanding information clinicians disclosed about risks and benefits. However, donors reported unmet information needs, knowledge gaps regarding risks, and unanticipated complications. Few donors reported feeling pressure to donate. Most studies were limited by cultural differences, small sample sizes, inconsistent measures, and poor methodological approaches. This systematic review suggests that informed consent for LDLT is sub-optimal as donors do not adequately appreciate disclosed information during the informed consent process, despite United Network for Organ Sharing/CMS regulations requiring formal psychological evaluation of donor candidates. Interventions are needed to improve donor-clinician communication during the LDLT informed consent process such as through the use of comprehension assessment tools and e-health educational tools that leverage adult learning theory to effectively convey LDLT outcome data.

Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term health status of donors after right hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes for ALDLT donors are unknown.

METHODS

ALDLT donors undergoing right hepatectomy from April 1998 to June 2007 were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, satisfaction (1-10/worst-best scale), self-esteem, willingness to donate again, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, donor files and cholecystectomy specimens were reviewed. Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three donors were contacted (median age: 36 years; median follow-up: 69 months). 39 (47%) were free of symptoms. The remaining 44 (53%) reported: intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (31%), gastroesophageal reflux associated with left liver hypertrophy (9%), incisional discomfort requiring pain medications (6%), severe depression requiring hospitalization (4%), rib pain affecting lifestyle (2%), and exacerbation of psoriasis (1%). Median satisfaction score was 8. Self-esteem diminished in 5%. Thirty-nine (47%) recommended improvements particularly more detailed informed donor consent and a centralized living donor liver registry. Seventy-eight (94%) were willing to donate again. There were no differences between donors with and without complaints with respect to: donor age, gender, early complications and follow-up time, young-to-old donation, recipient diagnosis of malignancy and death of the recipient. Noninflamed donor cholecystectomy specimens correlated with intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALDLT donors are at risk for long-term complaints that are neither reflected nor related to early complications. This information should be included in both the donor evaluation and the ALDLT decision-making process.

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

It is important to determine the health-related quality of life of live donors in liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 35 live liver donors and prospectively and longitudinally evaluated their health-related quality for 1.5 years post-surgery based on the Short Form-36 version 2 questionnaire. Scores of the donors stratified by the clinical data were analyzed. The study was approved by the University of Tokyo Institutional Review Board (No. 1533).

RESULTS

There was no donor mortality in the donor population studied. The percentage of major complications greater than Clavien's classification grade III was 8.6%. The physical component summary score decreased to 42.9 (p < 0.01) at 3 months, but recovered within 6 months after the operation. The mental component summary scores did not change during the observation period. The stratification study revealed that age and postoperative complications remained significant factors among the high physical component summary scores 3 months after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this survey suggest that liver harvesting does not decrease the donor's quality of life during the 1.5 years following the surgery.

Health-related quality of life in living liver donors after transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has recently emerged as an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with end-stage liver disease. In the meantime, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the donors is becoming better appreciated. Here we aimed to review the current literature and summarize the effects of liver donation on the long-term HRQoL of living donors.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed using "donors", "living donor liver transplantation", "health-related quality of life", and "donation" was performed, and all the information was collected.

RESULTS

The varied postoperative outcomes of liver donors are attributive to the different evaluation instruments used. On the whole, donors experienced good long-term physical and mental well-being with a few complaining of compromised quality of life due to mild symptoms or psychiatric problems. The psychosocial dimension has received increasing attention with the vocational, interpersonal and financial impact of liver donation on donors mostly studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, donors have a good HRQoL after LDLT. Nevertheless, to achieve an ideal donor outcome, further work is necessary to minimize the negative effects as well as to incorporate recent progress in regenerative medicine.

Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases the shortage of liver grafts for patients in need of a liver transplant, but it involves 2 patients: a recipient and a living donor. Despite the magnitude of the procedure for LDLT donors, only a few studies have investigated the effect of LDLT on the quality of life (QOL) of donors. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE database to identify peer-reviewed articles assessing QOL in adults after LDLT donation. Nineteen studies describing 768 unique donors met our inclusion criteria for this review. The median number of donors enrolled in each study was 30 (range = 10-143), and the median follow-up period was 10.4 months (range = 3-51.3 months). Before donation, donor QOL was significantly better than that in control adult populations across all measured QOL domains. Within the first 3 months after donation, the physical domains of QOL were significantly worse than the predonation levels, but they returned to baseline levels within 6 months for the majority of patients (80%-93%). Mental domains of QOL remained unchanged throughout the donation process. Common donor concerns after LDLT included bloating, loss of muscle tone, poor body image, and fatigue. In conclusion, according to our review of the existing literature, most LDLT donors return to their baseline QOL within 6 months. However, there is a lack of long-term data on donor QOL after LDLT, and few standardized assessments include measures of common patient concerns. Additional studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive risk profile for LDLT that includes a rigorous assessment of donor QOL.

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.

Mental and physical quality of life in actual living liver donors versus potential living liver donors: a prospective, controlled, multicenter study

In a quasi-experimental design, we investigated the quality of life (QOL) in actual liver donors (n = 43) and potential liver donors (n = 33) before and 3 months after liver transplantation. This is the first study in this field combining a prospective design with an adequate control group. Potential donors served as a control group because they also had a relative in need of a liver transplant and were as emotionally involved with the recipient as actual donors, but they were not subjected to the donor operation. Groups did not differ in age, gender, marital status, donor-recipient relationship, urgency of transplantation, or recipient group (adult versus child). Actual donors showed decreased physical QOL, whereas potential donors were not affected. However, for both groups, a decrease in anxiety was found. Furthermore, actual donors showed a better mental QOL postoperatively than potential donors. The recipients of these 2 groups did not differ with respect to postoperative complications. Furthermore, the groups did not report a different caregiver burden, but actual donors showed higher self-esteem. Because of the surgery, the worsening of physical symptoms in actual donors was expected. It is remarkable, however, that although actual donors still showed a limited physical QOL 3 months after the operation, in both groups, a similar reduction in anxiety could be observed, and actual donors even demonstrated a better mental QOL postoperatively than potential donors. The latter might be due to a psychological benefit that actual donors derived from the fact that they were able to help the recipients.

Financial, vocational, and interpersonal impact of living liver donation

The ability to inform prospective donors of the psychosocial risks of living liver donation is currently limited by the scant empirical literature. The present study was designed to examine donor perceptions of the impact of donation on financial, vocational, and interpersonal life domains and identify demographic and clinical factors related to longer recovery times and greater life interference. A total of 143 donors completed a retrospective questionnaire that included a standardized measure of life interference [Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)] and additional questions regarding the perceived impact of donation. Donor IIRS scores suggested that donors experience a relatively low level of life interference due to donation [1.60 +/- 0.72, with a possible range of 1 ("not very much" interference) to 7 ("very much" interference)]. However, approximately 1 in 5 donors reported that donating was a significant financial burden. Logistic regression analysis revealed that donors with a psychiatric diagnosis at or prior to donation took longer to return to their self-reported predonation level of functioning (odds ratio = 3.78, P = 0.016). Medical complications were unrelated to self-reported recovery time. Multiple regression analysis revealed 4 independent predictors of greater life interference: less time since donation (b = 0.11, P < 0.001), income lower than CAD$100,000 (b = 0.28, P = 0.038), predonation concerns about the donation process (b = 0.24, P = 0.008), and the perception that the recipient is not caring for the new liver (b = 0.12, P = 0.031). In conclusion, life interference due to living liver donation appears to be relatively low. Donors should be made aware of risk factors for greater life disruptions post-surgery and of the potential financial burden of donation.

Psychiatric and psychological outcomes of Japanese living donors following liver transplantation

This study indexed the mental status in six living donor liver transplantations (LDLT) performed at the Juntendo University Hospital between 2005 and 2007. The donors' preoperative and postoperative psychiatric and psychological status was assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The present study found that the donors' POMS anger/hostile score decreased significantly following transplantation. In addition, the STAI score suggested that donors had little anxiety or depression following the operation. Although the present study was limited due to the small number of donors, the findings suggest that a successful operation stabilizes donor mentality. The studied donors will be reassessed for their mental and physical condition in the future.

Adult right-lobe living liver donors: quality of life, attitudes and predictors of donor outcomes

To refine selection criteria for adult living liver donors and improve donor quality of care, risk factors for poor postdonation health-related quality of life (HRQOL) must be identified. This cross-sectional study examined donors who underwent a right hepatectomy at the University of Toronto between 2000 and 2007 (n = 143), and investigated predictors of (1) physical and mental health postdonation, as well as (2) willingness to participate in the donor process again. Participants completed a standardized HRQOL measure (SF-36) and measures of the pre- and postdonation process. Donor scores on the SF-36 physical and mental health indices were equivalent to, or greater than, population norms. Greater predonation concerns, a psychiatric diagnosis and a graduate degree were associated with lower mental health postdonation whereas older donors reported better mental health. The majority of donors (80%) stated they would donate again but those who perceived that their recipient engaged in risky health behaviors were more hesitant. Prospective donors with risk factors for lower postdonation satisfaction and mental health may require more extensive predonation counseling and postdonation psychosocial follow-up. Risk factors identified in this study should be prospectively evaluated in future research.

Mild hepatic macrovesicular steatosis may be a risk factor for hyperbilirubinaemia in living liver donors following right hepatectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of mild macrovesicular steatosis on the outcome of living liver donors following right hepatectomy.

Methods

The medical records of 46 living liver donors who underwent right hepatectomy were studied. Ten donors had mild macrovesicular steatosis (5–10 per cent in seven and 11–20 per cent in three patients). Five donors with other liver pathology were excluded. Outcome in these ten donors (group 1) was compared with that in the remaining 31 donors with normal liver histology (group 2).

Results

The median duration until normalization of total bilirubin levels was 14 and 5 days in groups 1 and 2 respectively (P = 0·028). The peak total bilirubin level was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (80·4 versus 49·6 µmol/l; P = 0·033). Multivariable analysis showed mild macrovesicular steatosis to be an independent risk factor for hyperbilirubinaemia (odds ratio 7·94 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·17 to 54·03); P = 0·034).

Conclusion

Mild macrovesicular steatosis may be related to adverse outcome in living liver donors who undergo right hepatectomy and, in terms of donor safety, is of potential concern in donor selection.

[Living donor liver transplantation]

Sixteen years after its first successful application, living donor liver transplantation now has a small but well-established role in treatment for liver failure in Germany. It remains problematic in both child and adult patients concerning effort, expected results, and assessment of risks to the donor. Therefore the method shall remain limited to more research-oriented institutions for the time being before it can be established more broadly as an alternative to postmortal donation. In Germany it presents generally the same limitations as living donor kidney transplantation.

Donor outcome after living liver donation: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

To objectively evaluate outcomes after living donor hepatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Between November 2002 and August 2006, a total of 44 procedures were performed (35 right, eight left, and one aborted after surgical incision). The Clavien classification was used to record surgical complications as follows: grade I, alterations from the ideal postoperative course not requiring specialized pharmacological or surgical treatment; grade II, complications requiring specialized pharmacological treatment, blood transfusion, or total parental nutrition; grade III-a, complications requiring invasive intervention without general anesthesia; Grade III-b, requires general anesthesia; Grade IV-a, single organ dysfunction; Grade IV-b, multiorgan dysfunction; grade V, death; The suffix "d" indicated disability. In this study, grades I and II complications were considered minor, while grades III and V and any lasting disability, serious complications.

RESULTS

Male/female ratio was 34/10; median age was 25 years (range, 18 to 42); median hospital stay was 6 days (range, 4 to 14); and only two donors required intraoperative blood transfusion. After a median follow-up of 529 days (range, 8 to 1354), a total of 28 morbidities were encountered in 17 donors (38.6%), including nine donors (20.4%) who had serious complications. Among the 28 donor morbidities, 18 were grade I complications; three were grade III-a complications; five were grade III-b complications; and two were grade IV-a complications. No death was encountered in our experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, donor hepatectomy was not an entirely safe procedure; therefore, extreme care should always be given by the transplant teams to living donors to avoid any distressing morbidity or even, the less likely but more catastrophic, mortality.

Attitude of hospital personnel faced with living liver donation in a Spanish center with a living donor liver transplant program

In Spain, despite its high rate of cadaveric donation, death while on the liver transplant waiting list is high. For this reason, living liver donation is being encouraged despite of the risk of morbidity for the donor. The objective of this study was to analyze attitudes toward living liver donation among hospital personnel in a hospital with a recently authorized living donor liver transplantation program. A random sample was taken and was stratified by type of service and job category (n = 1,262). Attitude was evaluated by means of a validated psychosocial questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed anonymously and was self-administered. Statistical analysis included the Student t test, the chi(2) test, and logistical regression analysis. The questionnaire completion rate was 93% (n = 1,168). Only 15% (n = 170) of respondents were in favor of living liver donation if it were unrelated. An additional 65% (n = 766) were in favor if this donation, but only for relatives. Of the rest, 9% (n = 107) did not agree with living liver donation, and the remaining 11% (n = 125) were undecided. The variables related to this attitude were age (P = 0.044); job category (P = 0.002); type of service (according to whether it is related to organ donation and transplantation) (P = 0.044); participation in prosocial activities (P = 0.026); attitude toward cadaveric organ donation (P <0.001); attitude of a respondent's partner toward organ donation (P = 0.010); a respondent's belief that in the future, he or she may need a transplant (P < 0.001); and a willingness to receive a donated living liver organ if one were needed (P < 0.001). There is also a close relationship between attitude toward living kidney donation and living liver donation (P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the only common independent variable from the bivariate analysis was a willingness to receive a living donor liver transplant if one were needed (odds ratio = 9.3). Attitude toward living liver donation among hospital personnel in a hospital with a solid organ transplant program is favorable and is affected by factors related to cadaveric donation, altruistic activity, and feelings of reciprocity. Physicians and the youngest hospital workers are those who are most in favor, which leads us to think that there is a promising future for living liver transplantation, which is essential given the cadaveric organ deficit and the high mortality rate while on the waiting list.

Psychological strain in urgent indications for living donor liver transplantation

The ethical soundness of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in urgent indications is still under discussion. The aim of the survey was to investigate the psychological distress of donors in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or acute liver failure (ALF). In a prospective multicenter study (n = 123), health-related quality of life (QOL), anxiety, and depression were measured. The psychological distress of donors was correlated to the degree of urgency of the recipients' indication, which was classified as nonurgent, HCC, or ALF. During the donor evaluation prior to LDLT, the donors with recipients for HCC and ALF demonstrated significantly reduced mental QOL in comparison to donors for a nonurgent indication and to the German normative sample. Compared to healthy controls, anxiety and depression were significantly increased in donors for ALF. Three months after the transplantation, scores for mental QOL as well as for anxiety and depression improved and were within the normal range for the whole group as well as for the ALF donors. In conclusion, the psychological burden was temporary in nature. Our findings can be considered as arguments for the current practice to address family members as donors in cases of HCC and ALF.

Insurability of living organ donors: a systematic review

Being an organ donor may affect one's ability to obtain life, disability and health insurance. We conducted a systematic review to determine if insurability is affected by living organ donation, and if concern about insurability affects donor decision making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, EconLit and Cochrane databases for articles in any language, and reviewed reference lists from 1966 until June 2006. All studies discussing the insurability of living organ donors or its impact on donor decision making were included. Data were independently abstracted by two authors, and the methodological quality appraised. Twenty-three studies, from 1972 to 2006, provided data on 2067 living organ donors, 385 potential donors and 239 responses from insurance companies. Almost all companies would provide life and health insurance to living organ donors, usually with no higher premiums. However, concern about insurability was still expressed by 2%-14% of living organ donors in follow-up studies, and 3%-11% of donors actually encountered difficulties with their insurance. In one study, donors whose insurance premiums increased were less likely to reaffirm their decision to donate. Based on available evidence, some living organ donors had difficulties with insurance despite companies reporting otherwise. If better understood, this potential barrier to donation could be corrected through fair health and underwriting policies.

Personnel in cadaveric organ transplant-related hospital units faced with living liver donation: an attitudinal study in a Spanish hospital with a cadaveric and living liver transplant programme

INTRODUCTION

The attitude of health-care personnel is fundamental for the procurement of transplant organs, especially in those services that are related to transplantation. The objective of this study is to find out the attitude towards living liver donation among personnel who work in transplant-related services in a hospital with a cadaveric and living organ transplant programme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A random sample was taken and stratified by type of service and job category (N=330), in services related to transplantation (procurement units, transplant units and follow-up units). Attitude was evaluated using a validated psychosocial questionnaire.

CONTROL GROUP

a random sample of personnel in clinical services that do not have any direct contact with solid organ transplantation. Student's t-test and the chi(2) test complemented by a logistical regression analysis were applied in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire completion rate was 94% (N=309). Only 10% (N=31) of respondents are in favour of living liver donation if it is unrelated, but another 67% (N=207) are in favour if donation were for a relative. Of the rest, 11% (N=33) do not agree with living liver donation and the remaining 12% (N=38) are undecided. In the control group, attitude towards living liver donation is favourable in 82% (N=344) (P=0.0908). An analysis of the variables that influence attitude shows that the following factors are significantly related: (1) age (P=0.037); (2) a respondent's belief that he or she may need a transplant in the future (P=0.013); and (3) if it were necessary, a willingness to receive a donated living liver organ (P=0.000). Of the variables that have the most influence on attitude towards living liver donation in the bivariate analysis, there are two variables that are statistically significant in the multivariate analysis: (1) age and (2) willingness to accept a donated living liver organ from a relative if it were needed (OR=14.19). There is also a close relationship between attitude towards living liver donation and attitude towards living kidney donation (P=0.000) CONCLUSIONS: There is a favourable attitude towards living liver donation among personnel in units related to the transplantation and donation process, although it is less favourable than expected. Therefore, it will be necessary to increase this level of acceptance and to improve information about the matter if we want to encourage living liver donation. The youngest workers in these units are those who are most in favour, which leads us to believe that there is a hopeful future for this type of liver donation that is so necessary given the cadaveric organ deficit.

Reduced mortality with right-lobe living donor compared to deceased-donor liver transplantation when analyzed from the time of listing

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) is not yet a fully accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver failure in the Western hemisphere because of concerns about donor safety and inferior recipient outcomes. An outcome analysis from the time of listing for all adult patients who were listed for liver transplantation (LT) at our center was performed. From 2000 to 2006, 1091 patients were listed for LT. One hundred fifty-four patients (LRD; 14%) had suitable live donors and 153 (99%) underwent RLDLT. Of the remaining patients (DD/Waiting List; n = 937), 350 underwent deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT); 312 died or dropped off the waiting list; and 275 were still waiting at the time of this analysis. The LRD group had shorter mean waiting times (6.0 months vs. 9.8 months; p < 0.001). Although medical model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar at the time of listing, MELD scores at LT were significantly higher in the DD/Waiting List group (15.4 vs. 19.5; p = 0.002). Patients in Group 1 had a survival advantage with RLDLT from the time of listing (1-year survival 90% vs. 80%; p < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to document a survival advantage at time of listing for RLDLT over DDLT.

Current trends in live liver donation

The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT), able to significantly expand the scarce donor pool in countries in which the growing demands of organs are not met by the shortage of available cadaveric grafts. Although the benefits of this procedure are enormous, the physical and psychological sacrifice of the donors is immense, and the expectations for a good outcome for themselves, as well as for the recipients, are high. We report a current overview of the latest trends in live liver donation in its different aspects (i.e. donor's selection, evaluation, operation, morbidity, mortality, ethics and psychology). This review is based on our center's personal experience with almost 200 LDLTs and a detailed analysis of the international literature of the last 7 years about this topic. Knowing in detail how to approach to the different aspects of living liver donation may be helpful in further improve donor's safety and even recipient's outcome.