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

Factors Influencing the Information Support Provided by Health Care Professionals to Patients in a Dialysis Center Regarding Kidney Transplantation: A Nationwide Study

For patients undergoing renal replacement therapy, kidney transplantation (KTx) is the preferred therapeutic method. The aim of this study was to investigate selected factors affecting the information support provided by healthcare professional to patients in dialysis center regarding KTx. A multiple logistic regression was carried out to assess the relationship between information support, socio-demographic factors, life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale), self-esteem (Self-Esteem Scale), perceived self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy), attitude, knowledge about organ transplantation. Of the 1,093 respondents aged 22-72 years, 501 respondents (45.8%) always informed patients about the possibility of treatment with KTx. Physicians vs. nurses (OR = 1.79; Cl 95%: 1.48-2.16), and those who supported legalization of unspecified living kidney donation in Poland (OR = 1.30; Cl 95%: 1.07-1.59) and believed that blood donation is safe (OR = 1.29; Cl 95%: 1.12-1.47) were more likely to provide informational support. Knowledge level (OR = 1.32; Cl 95%: 1.18-1.47) and self-esteem (OR = 1.06; Cl95%: 1.03-1.10) correlated positively with information support. Male participants were less likely to provide informational support than females (OR = 0.78; Cl 95%: 0.62-0.99). The results reveal inadequate information provided by healthcare professional to patients about KTx. This highlights the urgent need for comprehensive educational programs.

The lived experience of living liver donors: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Living liver donors are frequently used for liver transplantation, but they experience many physical changes and psychological challenges. A better understanding of the experiences of liver donors can provide them with comprehensive and individualized patient-centred support and health care. Thus, this study sought to identify and synthesize existing qualitative studies to develop an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of living liver donors.

METHOD

A meta-synthesis was conducted and reported in accordance with the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research statement. Seven databases were systematically searched from inception to March, 2024, using a combination of Medical Subject Headings with keywords. The results were integrated using the three-step thematic synthesis method suggested by Thomas and Harden.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-synthesis. Four themes emerged from the meta-synthesis: (1) facing a life-changing situation, (2) experiencing changes in interpersonal relationships, (3) coping with changes, and (4) achieving personal growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donors experienced physical, psychological, and social changes after surgery, striving to manage these challenges, highlighting the importance of coping strategies and ultimately achieving personal growth. Future nursing research should focus on psychological interventions, supportive measures, and the positive aspects of living liver donors to help them achieve the optimal quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022328947.

Maximizing utility of nondirected living liver donor grafts using machine learning

Objective

There is an unmet need for optimizing hepatic allograft allocation from nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD).

Materials and method

Using OPTN living donor liver transplant (LDLT) data (1/1/2000-12/31/2019), we identified 6328 LDLTs (4621 right, 644 left, 1063 left-lateral grafts). Random forest survival models were constructed to predict 10-year graft survival for each of the 3 graft types.

Results

Donor-to-recipient body surface area ratio was an important predictor in all 3 models. Other predictors in all 3 models were: malignant diagnosis, medical location at LDLT (inpatient/ICU), and moderate ascites. Biliary atresia was important in left and left-lateral graft models. Re-transplant was important in right graft models. C-index for 10-year graft survival predictions for the 3 models were: 0.70 (left-lateral); 0.63 (left); 0.61 (right). Similar C-indices were found for 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survivals. Comparison of model predictions to actual 10-year graft survivals demonstrated that the predicted upper quartile survival group in each model had significantly better actual 10-year graft survival compared to the lower quartiles (p<0.005).

Conclusion

When applied in clinical context, our models assist with the identification and stratification of potential recipients for hepatic grafts from ND-LLD based on predicted graft survivals, while accounting for complex donor-recipient interactions. These analyses highlight the unmet need for granular data collection and machine learning modeling to identify potential recipients who have the best predicted transplant outcomes with ND-LLD grafts.

Can non-directed living liver donation help improve access to grafts and correct socioeconomic disparities in pediatric liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND

Each year, children die awaiting LT as the demand for grafts exceeds the available supply. Candidates with public health insurance are significantly less likely to undergo both deceased donor LT and D-LLD LT. ND-LLD is another option to gain access to a graft. The aim of this study was to evaluate if recipient insurance type is associated with likelihood of D-LLD versus ND-LLD LT.

METHODS

The SRTR/OPTN database was reviewed for pediatric LDLT performed between January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion era) and December 31, 2019 at centers that performed ≥1 ND-LLD LDLT during the study period. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess relationship between type of living donor (directed vs. non-directed) and recipient insurance.

RESULTS

Of 299 pediatric LDLT, 46 (15%) were from ND-LLD performed at 18 transplant centers. Fifty-nine percent of ND-LLD recipients had public insurance in comparison to 40% of D-LLD recipients (p = .02). Public insurance was associated with greater odds of ND-LLD in comparison to D-LLD upon multivariable logistic regression (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.23-4.58, p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

ND-LLD allows additional children to receive LTs and may help address some of the socioeconomic disparity in pediatric LDLT, but currently account for only a minority of LDLT and are only performed at a few institutions. Initiatives to improve access to both D-LLD and ND-LLD transplants are needed.

Anonymity: What does it mean and why is it important to anonymous living liver donors?

Anonymous living organ donation has recently become more common in select transplantation programs, with donors voluntarily offering a kidney or a lobe of their liver to those in need. These anonymous donations may be directed to a specific recipient or nondirected, and anonymity may be one way or reciprocal. Given their unique situation, we interviewed a cohort of anonymous living liver donors and explored their opinions surrounding anonymity and its implications in living liver donation. A total of 26 anonymous donors completed a semistructured qualitative interview consisting of questions regarding their experiences as a living liver donor. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for common themes, specifically those pertaining to the donor's perceptions and experiences with anonymity. Five main themes related to anonymity were identified: (1) the moral importance of an unencumbered gift, (2) wanting internal satisfaction rather than seeking external accolades, (3) anonymity as a protection against potential negative outcomes in the recipient, (4) feelings of ambivalence toward meeting the recipient, and (5) concerns about negative perceptions among their own friends and family. These insights into the range of donors' attitudes toward anonymity will help improve awareness and provide the best possible mental and physical care for the anonymous donor.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

The Landscape of Nondirected Living Liver Donation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplants (LDLTs) including those from nondirected donors (NDDs) have increased during the past decade, and center-level variations in LDLTs have not yet been described. We sought to quantify changes in the volume of NDD transplants over time and variation in NDD volume between transplant centers. We further examined characteristics of living liver donors and identified factors potentially associated with receiving an NDD liver transplant.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data between March 01, 2002, and December 31, 2020, we compared 173 NDDs with 5704 DLDs and 167 NDD recipients with 1153 waitlist candidates.

RESULTS

NDDs increased from 1 (0.4% of LDLTs) in 2002 to 58 (12% of LDLTs) in 2020. Of 150 transplant centers, 35 performed at least 1 NDD transplant. Compared with waitlist candidates, adult NDD recipients were less frequently males (39% versus 62%, P < 0.001), had a lower model for end-stage liver disease (16 versus 18, P = 0.01), and spent fewer days on the waitlist (173 versus 246, P = 0.02). Compared with waitlist candidates, pediatric NDD recipients were younger (50% versus 12% age <2 y, P < 0.001) and more often diagnosed with biliary atresia (66% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Compared with DLDs, NDDs were older (40 versus 35 y, P < 0.001), college educated (83% versus 64%, P < 0.001), White (92% versus 78%, P < 0.001), and more frequently donated left-lateral segment grafts (32.0% versus 14%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver NDD transplants continue to expand but remain concentrated at a few centers. Graft distribution favors female adults and pediatric patients with biliary atresia. Racial inequities in adult or pediatric center-level NDD graft distribution were not observed.

Increasing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Liver Paired Exchange

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE.

RESULTS

A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE.

Impact of Advanced Renal Dysfunction on Posttransplant Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States is excellent. However, the significance of pretransplant kidney disease on outcomes in this population is poorly understood.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 2806 LDLT recipients nationally between January 2010 and June 2020. Recipients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min/1.73 m2 (eGFR-low) or requiring dialysis were compared. Multivariable survival analyses evaluated (1) eGFR-low as a predictor of post-LDLT survival and (2) the survival of LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) alone with eGFR-low.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2020, 140 (5.0%) patients had eGFR-low and 18 (0.6%) required dialysis pre-LDLT. The number of LDLTs requiring dialysis between 2017 and 2020 outnumbered the prior 7 y. Overall LDLT experience was greater at centers performing LDLT in recipients with renal dysfunction (P < 0.001). LDLT recipients with eGFR-low had longstanding renal dysfunction: mean eGFR 3-6 mo before LDLT 42.7 (±15.1) mL/min/1.73 m2. Nearly half (5/12) of eGFR-low recipients with active kidney transplant (KT) listing at LDLT experienced renal recovery. Five patients underwent early KT after LDLT via the new "safety net" policy. Unadjusted survival after LDLT was worse with eGFR-low (hazard ratio 2.12 versus eGFR ≥40 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.05; P < 0.001), but no longer so when accounting for mean eGFR 3-6 mo pre-LDLT (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.95; P = 0.3). The adjusted survival of patients with eGFR-low receiving LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplant alone was not different (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, outcomes after LDLT with advanced renal dysfunction are acceptable. These findings are relevant given the recent "safety net" KT policy.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

Challenging the Traditional Paradigm of Supply and Demand in Pediatric Liver Transplantation Through Nondirected Living Donation: A Case Series

A gap exists between the demand for pediatric liver transplantation and the supply of appropriate size-matched donors. We describe our center's experience with pediatric liver transplantation using anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD). First-time pediatric liver transplant candidates listed at our center between January 2012 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by donor graft type, and recipients of ND-LLD grafts were described. A total of 13 ND-LLD pediatric liver transplantations were performed, including 8 left lateral segments, 4 left lobes, and 1 right lobe. Of the ND-LLD recipients, 5 had no directed living donor evaluated, whereas the remaining 8 (62%) had all potential directed donors ruled out during the evaluation process. Recipient and graft survival were 100% during a median follow-up time of 445 (range, 70-986) days. Of ND-LLDs, 69% were previous living kidney donors, and 1 ND-LLD went on to donate a kidney after liver donation. Of the ND-LLDs, 46% were approved prior to the recipient being listed. Over time, the proportion of living donor transplants performed, specifically from ND-LLDs, increased, and the number of children on the waiting list decreased. The introduction of ND-LLDs to a pediatric liver transplant program can expand the benefit of living donor liver transplantation to children without a suitable directed living donor while achieving excellent outcomes for both the recipients and donors.

Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Reduced-size deceased donors and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can address the organ shortage for pediatric liver transplant candidates, but concerns regarding technical challenges and the risk of complications using these grafts have been raised. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for pediatric LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) via systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of pediatric (<18 y) LDLT and DDLT published between 2005 and 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine peri- and postoperative outcomes using fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Overall, 2518 abstracts were screened, and 10 studies met criteria for inclusion. In total, 1622 LDLT and 6326 DDLT pediatric patients from 4 continents were examined. LDLT resulted in superior patient survival when compared with DDLT at 1, 3, and 5 y post-LT (1-y hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.73, P < 0.0001). Similarly, LDLT resulted in superior graft survival at all time points post-LT when compared with DDLT (1-y hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI 0.46-0.68], P < 0.0001]. The OR for vascular complications was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39-1.39) and 1.31 (95% CI 0.92-1.86) for biliary complications in LDLT compared with DDLT, whereas LDLT was associated with lower rates of rejection (OR: 0.66 [95% CI 0.45-0.96], P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that LDLT may offer many advantages when compared with DDLT in children and suggests that LDLT should continue to be expanded to optimize outcomes for pediatric LT candidates.

Post-operative outcomes in anonymous living liver donors: What motivates individuals to donate to strangers

Anonymous living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a strategy to address the shortage of available transplantable livers; however, few studies have been conducted on this population. The objective of this study was to describe the motivations and medical, psychosocial, and financial outcomes of anonymous living liver donors. Between 2010-2019, 116 anonymous living liver donors were evaluated, 59 (51.7%) of whom proceeded to surgery. A subset of 21 anonymous donors were matched to biologically/emotionally related donors according to age, gender, race, and duration since surgery. A medical chart review and post-surgical interviews were performed to assess medical and financial outcomes. The primary motivation for donors was an unselfish desire to help others (43, 72.9%). A total of 13 (22%) anonymous donors experienced complications. Of these, 7 (11.9%) were grade I Clavien-Dindo classification, 5 (8.5%) grade II, and 1 was grade III (1.7%); and no patients had grade IV-V Clavien-Dindo complications. Increased anxiety was reported by 3 (5.1%) donors, and one donor reported clinical levels of depression (1.7%). Within the matched controls, anonymous donors were not significantly different to biologically/emotionally related donors with regard to surgical complications, psychosocial, or financial outcomes. Allowing a greater number of anonymous donors may facilitate the reduction of the waitlist for liver transplant candidates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Evolution of Frequency, Outcomes, Center Volumes, and Factors Associated With Outcomes

Recent modifications in organ allocation policies and increases in chronic liver diseases may have resulted in important changes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. We examined the trends, outcomes, and factors associated with outcomes in adult LDLT. United Network for Organ Sharing data on 2566 adult LDLT recipients who received transplants from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2019, were analyzed. LDLT graft and patient survival rates were compared with propensity score-matched deceased donor liver transplantation recipients by the Kaplan-Meier curve estimator. The association between preceding LDLT frequency and subsequent outcomes were assessed by Cox proportional hazards mixed effects modeling. After a stable annual frequency of LDLTs from 2010 to 2014 (~200 per year), the number of LDLTs doubled to 440 in 2019. The 1-year and 5-year graft survival rates for LDLT recipients were 88.4% and 78.1%, respectively, compared with 92.5% and 80.7% in the propensity score-matched donation after brain death recipients (P = 0.005), respectively. Older donor age and recipient diabetes mellitus and life support requirement were significantly associated with graft failure among LDLT recipients (P values <0.05). Average preceding LDLT frequencies of <3 per year, 3 to 20 per year, and >20 per year resulted in 1-year graft survival rates of 82%, 88% to 89%, and 93%, respectively (P values <0.05). There were 3 living donor deaths (0.12%). The frequency of LDLTs has doubled during the past decade, with good outcomes and acceptable donor safety profiles. However, there appear to be varying threshold transplant frequencies (volume/unit time) associated with acceptable (88%-89%) and aspirational (93%) 1-year graft survival rates. These data should be reassuring and encourage LDLT practice as efforts continue to expand the donor pool.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81-0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R2 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

Assessment of the global practice of living donor liver transplantation

Criteria that drive the selection and utilization of living liver donors are limited. Herein, the global availability of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and components of donor selection and utilization were assessed via an international survey. There were 124 respondents representing 41 countries, including 47 from Asia/Middle East (A/ME), 20 from Europe, and 57 from the Americas. Responses were obtained from 94.9% of countries with ≥10 LDLT cases/year. Most centers (82.3%) have defined donor age criteria (median 18-60 years), while preset recipient MELD cutoffs (median 18-30) were only reported in 54.8% of programs. Overall, 67.5% of programs have preset donor BMI (body mass index) ranges (median 18-30), and the mean acceptable macrosteatosis was highest for A/ME (20.2 ± 9.2%) and lowest for Americas (16.5 ± 8.4%, P = 0.04). Americas (56.1%) and European (60.0%) programs were more likely to consider anonymous donors versus A/ME programs (27.7%, P = 0.01). There were no differences in consideration of complex anatomical variations. Most programs (75.9%) perform donor surgery via an open approach, and A/ME programs are more likely to use microscopic arterial reconstruction. Despite variations in practice, key aspects of living donor selection were identified. These findings provide a contemporary reference point as LDLT continues to expand into areas with limited access to liver transplantation.

Expanding living donor liver transplantation: Report of first US living donor liver transplant chain

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) enjoys widespread use in Asia, but remains limited to a handful of centers in North America and comprises only 5% of liver transplants performed in the United States. In contrast, living donor kidney transplantation is used frequently in the United States, and has evolved to commonly include paired exchanges, particularly for ABO-incompatible pairs. Liver paired exchange (LPE) has been utilized in Asia, and was recently reported in Canada; here we report the first LPE performed in the United States, and the first LPE to be performed on consecutive days. The LPE performed at our institution was initiated by a nondirected donor who enabled the exchange for an ABO-incompatible pair, and the final recipient was selected from our deceased donor waitlist. The exchange was performed over the course of 2 consecutive days, and relied on the use and compliance of a bridge donor. Here, we show that LPE is feasible at centers with significant LDLT experience and affords an opportunity to expand LDLT in cases of ABO incompatibility or when nondirected donors arise. To our knowledge, this represents the first exchange of its kind in the United States.

Health-related quality of life after anonymous nondirected living liver donation: A multicenter collaboration

Literature on living nondirected liver donation is sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in anonymous nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLDs). ND-LLDs at 3 centers: University of Alberta (n = 12), University of Colorado (n = 12), and University of Southern California (n = 12), were surveyed. Thirty donors (83%) responded to the Donor Quality of Life (USC DQLS) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Most respondents (n = 15, 50%) donated their left lateral segment, 27% right lobe, and 23% left lobe. The majority were female (67%) and mean age was 38.9 ± 11.2 years at donation. Median follow-up was 1.1 (interquartile range 0.4-3.3) years. Approximately 37% had previously donated a kidney. Eleven experienced ≥1 postoperative complication, with only 1 Clavien-Dindo IIIb. Most reported minimal impact on school or work performance, all felt positive or neutral about their overall health since donation, and none expressed postdonation regrets. No donor reported impacts on health insurability, and 3 of 4 respondents attempting to purchase life insurance postdonation were successful. ND-LLD SF-36 outcomes were similar to US population norms. Overall, ND-LLDs demonstrated acceptable HR-QOL after donation and are appropriate candidates for partial liver donation. Based on evaluation of donation impact, consideration should be given to postdonation support strategies.