Characterization of hepatic steatosis using controlled attenuation parameter and MRI-derived proton density fat fraction in living donor liver transplantation

Assessing hepatic steatosis by magnetic resonance in potential living liver donors

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) measurements for detecting liver fat content in potential living liver donors and to compare these results using liver biopsy findings.

METHODS

A total of 139 living liver donors (men/women: 83/56) who underwent MRI between January 2017 and September 2021 were included in this analysis retrospectively. The PDFFs were measured using both MR spectroscopy (MRS) and chemical shift-based MRI (CS-MRI) for each donor in a blinded manner.

RESULTS

Significant positive correlations were found between liver biopsy and MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF in terms of hepatic steatosis detection [r = 0.701, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.604–0.798, r = 0.654, 95% CI: 0.544–0.765, P < 0.001, respectively). A weak level correlation was observed between liver biopsy, MRI methods, and vibration-controlled transient elastography attenuation parameters in 42 available donors. Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF significantly distinguished >5% of histopathologically detected hepatic steatosis with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.837 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.766–0.907) and 0.810 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.739–0.881), respectively. The negative predictive values (NPVs) of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF were 88.3% and 81.3%, respectively. In terms of distinguishing between clinically significant hepatic steatosis (≥10% on histopathology), the AUC of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI were 0.871 ± 0.034 (P < 0.001 95% CI: 0.804–0.937) and 0.855 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.784–0.925), respectively. The NPVs of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI were 99% and 92%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The methods of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF provide a non-invasive and accurate approach for assessing hepatic steatosis in potential living liver donor candidates. These MRI PDFF techniques present a promising clinical advantage in the preoperative evaluation of living liver donors by eliminating the requirement for invasive procedures like liver biopsy.

Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The result of ongoing liver injury - and disease, regardless of cause - is fibrosis, and fibrosis appears to be a critically important result of ongoing injury. Further, in a number of different liver diseases, the presence of fibrosis has prognostic value. Therefore, the assessment of fibrosis is of critical clinical importance. Given the importance of fibrosis, there has been a rapid evolution in the use of noninvasive liver tests. This review highlights a number of the core principles surrounding.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of noninvasive test has progressed rapidly over the last decade and data are rapidly accumulating. New terminology has been adapted by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) for noninvasive assessment of liver disease and termed 'NILDA' (Non-Invasive Liver Disease Assessment). Blood based such as APRI and or FIB-4 and imaging tests such as liver stiffness measurement (LSM) have moderate to high degrees of accuracy for detection of advanced liver fibrosis (≥ F2) and even higher accuracy for detection of severe fibrosis (F4 or cirrhosis). NILDA are particularly effective at the ends of the liver disease spectrum. For example, a very low LSM (less than 7 kPa) essentially excludes significant fibrosis or portal hypertension, and a very high LSM (> 25 kPa) makes significant fibrosis with portal hypertension (cirrhosis) highly likely.

SUMMARY

NILDA are currently front and center in terms of assessment of the severity of liver disease. In all patients with known or suspected liver disease, noninvasive blood tests, including APRI and or FIB-4, should be the initial choice to assess the severity of liver fibrosis and/or portal hypertension. In most patients, these tests should be followed with imaging evaluation. The most commonly available imaging is LSM, which appears to be more accurate in predicting fibrosis severity, and is superior to blood tests in the assessment of portal hypertension. In situations in which there is diagnostic uncertainly, liver biopsy with or without HVPG remains an important consideration.

Subcutaneous Fat Obesity in a High Body Mass Index Donor Is Not a Contraindication to Living Donor Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has revolutionized the field of transplantation without compromising donor safety. Donor safety is of paramount concern to the transplant team. BMI >35 kg/m2 is mostly considered a contraindication to liver donation. Here, we present a successful right donor hepatectomy from a donor with a BMI of 36.5 kg/m2. Case Summary. A 39-year-old wife donated her right lobe of liver to her 43-year-old husband with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-related chronic liver disease (CLD). His indications were refractory ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, acute kidney injury, recurrent elbow and urine infections leading to cachexia. She was initially rejected due to a high BMI but failed to lose weight over the next 2 months, and the need for a transplant in her husband was imminent. With no other potential living donors, we decided to proceed with donor evaluation as she had no other comorbidity. We were surprised to find normal liver function tests and a good liver attenuation index (LAI) of +16 on a computed tomography (CT) scan. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging revealed a fat fraction of 3%. Volumetry confirmed a remnant of 37.9% and a potential graft-to-recipient weight ratio of 1.23. V/S ratio on CT scan (visceral fat area/subcutaneous fat area at L4-level) was <0.4 confirming subcutaneous fat obesity. Both surgeries were uneventful and both donor and recipient recovered well except recipient re-exploration on postoperative day (POD)-1 due to surgical bleeding. The donor was discharged on POD-6 and recipient was discharged on POD-15. At 3 weeks of follow-up, the donor's wound is clean and well-healed, and she is already back to doing her daily life activities without any pain with normal laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous fat obesity should not be considered as a contraindication to liver donation even with a BMI >35 kg/m2. A small percentage of healthy individuals will not have visceral fat obesity and may not have steatotic livers. The CT scan and MR fat fraction estimation can confirm the findings. Biopsy may be avoided if MR fat estimation is <10% in obese donors. Intraoperative visualization in these donors remains the gold standard to decide the need for biopsy. Living donor hepatectomy may be safely performed in a select group of high BMI patients (>35 kg/m2) with pure subcutaneous fat obesity in the absence of other suitable living donors.