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

Long-term medical and quality of life outcomes among voluntary liver donors

BACKGROUND

Long-term medical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in voluntary liver donors remain under investigated. The objective of the current study was to report long-term medical outcomes and re-evaluate QOL in living liver donors.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between 2012 and 2018. We investigated long-term outcomes in 7 domains. These include medical problems, surgical procedures, work-related issues, pregnancy outcomes, psychiatric interventions, willingness to donate again, and long-term mortality. QOL was evaluated using short-form 36.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 61.4 months (53.3-83.7). Among 698 donors, 80 (11.5%) experienced medical problems, 4 (0.6%) had work-related issues, and 20 (2.9%) needed psychiatric assistance. Surgery was performed in 49 donors (7%), and females were more likely to have undergone incisional hernia repair (5.8% vs 1.9%, P = .006). There were 79 postdonation pregnancies including 41 normal vaginal deliveries (51.9%), 35 cesarean sections (44.3%), and 3 miscarriages (3.8%). Willingness to donate again was reported by 658 donors (94.3%). Donors whose recipients were alive were more likely to donate again (95.5% vs 90.5%, P = .01). There were 3 deaths (0.4%) in the long-term. The mean physical composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 86.7 ± 13.9 and 76.5 ± 20.9 (P = .001), and the mean mental composite score at initial and follow-up evaluation was 92.1 ± 13.5 and 80.7 ± 16 (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The overall long-term outlook in living liver donors is promising. QOL parameters might deteriorate over time and frequent re-evaluation might be considered.

A systematic review of the factors significantly influencing the quality of life of living liver donors

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature on factors influencing the quality of life in living liver donors post-donation and to provide a reference for developing targeted interventions in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic search guided by the PRISMA 2020 approach was performed on specific databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL with full text, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses databases. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from inception to October 2022 covering cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies on factors affecting the quality of life of living liver donors after donation were included in this systematic review. The methodological quality of the studies was examined using a modified version of the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool.

Results

A total of 6,576 studies were retrieved, and 16 eligible studies were finally included. Four types of independent influencing factors: sociodemographic (gender, donor age, education, ethnicity, and marital status), donation-related (length of hospital stay and number of hospitalizations/hospital visits related to donation surgery, recipient outcome, time from donation, complications, donation decision, ambivalence about donating, donor-recipient relationship), health-related (body mass index and pre-donation physical symptoms), and psychosocial (pre-donation physical and mental score, household income, anxiety, depression), were extracted from the included studies. Several studies consistently identified old age, recipient death, recent donation, postoperative complications experienced by donors, and donor concerns about their well-being as negative influencing factors on physical function. Female donors, low education levels, longer hospital stays, and/or more hospital visits due to donation, poor recipient outcome, recent donation, pre-donation concerns regarding their well-being, and first-degree relative and spouse/partner donors were reported in several studies as negative predictors for psychological status. Factors affecting social function were considered by only two included articles.

Conclusions

The quality of life of living liver donors could be affected by both donation surgery and psychosocial factors. Based on the above-influencing factors, clinical nurses can develop targeted interventions to improve the quality of life of living liver donors.

Short- and long-term complications after living donor ileal resection

Intestinal transplantation from deceased donors is the established procedure for patients with irreversible intestinal failure. However, a living-donor intestinal transplant has not been routinely performed yet because of undefined surgical risks to the donor. In this report, we reviewed our experience with living-donor ileal resection from May 1999 to December 2021. A total of 40 living-donor ileal resections were performed for 40 intestinal transplant recipients. Clinical data were prospectively collected and analyzed for postoperative complications after ileal procurement. None of the donors experienced life-threatening complications or mortality. Six (15%) of 40 donors experienced minor operative complications. Transit intestinal graft inadequacy including weight loss, diarrhea, and vitamin B12 deficiency was common early following surgery, but was manageable and disappeared in most cases within a year. All donors had significant reductions in total plasma cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations after donation as compared with the baseline levels. With an average follow-up of 67.8 months, bilateral kidney stones occurred in one donor and gallstones in the other. All the donors have regained their normal capacity for work. Living-donor ileal resection is associated with minimal short- and long-term morbidity and remains an attractive alternative for potential recipients when suitable deceased donors are unavailable.

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.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Predominantly Young Parental Living Liver Donors: A Cross-Sectional Study in China

Objective: The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of donors deserves attention and must be considered for a long time. Many of the published studies had small sample sizes, and research from mainland China, in particular, is scant. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the HRQoL of living liver donors and identify the influencing factors of the HRQoL in mainland China.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. The data were collected from the liver transplantation center, the Tianjin First Center Hospital, China. Living liver donors older than 18 years and at a minimum of 1-month, post-donation was included. The HRQoL was evaluated using the Medical Outcome Study Short form 36 (SF-36). Sociodemographic and clinical-related variables, HRQoL status, and its potential impact factors were analyzed.

Results: A total of 382 living liver donors completed the survey. The median number of months post-donation was 25, and parental donors (99.2%) were the most frequent relationship. The majority of the participants (372, 97.4%) donated their left lateral lobes. Thirty-two (8.4%) donors suffered complications, and of them, 7 suffered from biliary leakage (1.8%), which was the most common one in this study. The physical functioning (PF), role–physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), social functioning (SF), role–emotional (RE), and mental health (MH) scores among the living liver donors were significantly better than those of the Chinese norms. Short-time post-donation [odds ratio (OR): 0.008; p < 0.001] and male recipients (OR:0.195; p = 0.024) were associated with the likelihood of a poor physical related quality of life.

Conclusions: Despite, in general, good HRQoL outcomes, we also believed that liver donation has an obvious influence on the physical functions of liver donors. More attention and long-term follow-ups are necessary for donors at higher risk based on identified influencing factors and correlates.

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.

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.

A Long-Term Prospective Study of Quality of Life, Abdominal Symptoms, and Cosmesis of Donors After Hepatectomy for Live-Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive assessment of quality of life of live liver donors is required for adequate donor outcome reporting, but there is a lack of prospective data. Assessment of all aspects of liver donation over a long period is a necessity to have complete understanding of the donation process.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of liver donors operated between March 2012 to August 2013, examined donors (n = 52) from predonation to five years after the donation. Participants were administered 'World Health Organization quality of life Brief and questionnaires' regarding their attitude predonation, their overall well-being in terms of abdominal symptoms, cosmesis, and satisfaction with donation and consent process at predefined time points till five years after donation. The weight of the donors was recorded at predefined time points.

RESULTS

The donors whose recipients died were less likely to continue with the study (8.9% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). After surgery, physical domain took 2 years to reach to predonation level while psychological and social relationship domains took 3 months and 1 month, respectively; environmental domain remained stable throughout. Even after recovery and discharge from hospital, donors experienced abdominal symptoms for a long period of time, but as the time increased from donation the reporting of symptoms decreased. Body image scores (12 ± 2.46 at 3 months vs. 14.9 ± 3.16 at five years, P < 0.001) and cosmesis scores (14.6 ± 3.67 at 3 months vs. 18.75 ± 3 at five years, P < 0.001) significantly improved over time. There was significant weight gain in donors (65.2 ± 6.1 kg predonation vs. 70.69 ± 2.4 kg at 2 years P < 0.001). Donors understood the consent process well, but did not use it for decision making. Overall, they showed a high level of satisfaction in the donation process.

CONCLUSION

Donors have good quality of life and show steady recovery in all aspects. Recipient death affects attitude towards donation process.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

POPULATION

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Changes in the quality of life of living liver donors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comprehending the physical, psychological, social benefits, and harm associated with liver donation is critical in promoting practices to maintain donors' long-term health. However, changes in quality of life among living liver donors pre- and post-donation have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies examined the quality of life changes among living liver donors pre- and post-donation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINHAL with full text, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were mainly searched for full-text articles from inception till December 2018 to identify studies assessing the quality of life of living liver donors. The methodological quality of the included studies was examined. The quality of life post-donation at five assessment points, ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥ 24 months were compared with the pre-donation, respectively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2215 records, and a total of 15 articles (13 studies) with 715 donors were included in this meta-analysis. Physical functioning scores at ≤1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and ≥24 months post-donation were significantly lower than pre-donation [overall standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.67, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.49; p ≤]. Significantly higher level of pain was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -1.05; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.85; p < 0.00001). Also, a significantly higher level of anxiety was found at 3-month post-donation (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07; p = 0.01), but there were no significant changes in general psychological state and depression. A significant reduction in donors' social quality of life (SMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -4.75, 0.48; p = 0.02) was found at ≤1-month post-donation, and recovery to pre-donation levels occurred at 3 months post-donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donation was associated with a decline in physical functioning, which was sustained for longer than 2 years post-donation. Impaired social and psychological quality of life affected donors for 1-3 months after their donation. The quality of life of living liver donors has become a pressing issue requiring more attention from doctors and nurses within the transplant team. However, multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of living liver donors.

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

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

Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Death rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous individuals who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship, so called anonymous live liver donation (A-LLD).

METHODS

Candidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact.

RESULTS

A total of 50 A-LLD liver transplants were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal support in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was 6 days. One donor experienced a Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first and only report of the characteristics, motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

LAY SUMMARY

We report a unique experience with 50 living donors who volunteered to donate to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (anonymous living donors). This report is the first to discuss motivations, strategies and facilitators that may mitigate physical, social and ethical risk factors in this patient population. With rigorous protocols, anonymous liver donation and recipient outcomes are excellent; with appropriate clinical expertise and system facilitators in place, our experience suggests that other centers may consider the procedure for its significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

Racial disparities in patient selection for liver transplantation: An ongoing challenge

Ample evidence suggests continued racial disparities once listed for liver transplantation, though few studies examine disparities in the selection process for listing. The objective of this study, via retrospective chart review, was to determine whether listing for liver transplantation was influenced by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. We identified 1968 patients with end-stage liver disease who underwent evaluation at a large, Midwestern center from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012 (72.9% white, 19.6% black, and 7.5% other). Over half (54.6%) of evaluated patients were listed; the three most common reasons for not listing were medical contraindications (11.9%), patient expired during evaluation (7.0%), and psychosocial contraindications (5.9%). In multivariable logistic regressions (listed vs not listed), across the three racial categories, the odds of being listed were lower for alcohol-induced hepatitis (±hepatitis C), unmarried, more than one insurance, inadequate insurance, and lower annual household income quartile. Similar factors predicted time to transplant listing, including being identified as black race. Black race, even when adjusting for the above mentioned medical and socioeconomic factors, was associated with 26% lower odds of being listed and a longer time to listing decision compared to all other patients.

Psychosocial Issues Related to Donor's Decision-Making in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the detailed motives, concerns, and psychological defensiveness of living liver donor candidates in a Korean population.

Material/Methods

We analyzed data of 102 donor candidates obtained from routine psychosocial evaluation for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using descriptive methods. Donor candidates completed 2 questionnaires regarding their motivations and concerns, as well as a validity scale, the K scale from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.

Results

Donor candidates were more likely to cite family-related issues (77.5% to 94.1%) including well-being of the whole family and family affection as the reasons for their liver donation rather than personal motives (38.2% to 57.8%). Donors were also more likely to concern about the recipient’s survival and recovery (52.9% to 58.8%) rather than their own difficulties such as surgical complications and occupational disadvantages (19.6% to 38.2%). Twenty-six donors (25.5%) took a psychologically defensive attitude (T-score of K scale ≥65) during the pre-donation evaluation. Psychologically defensive donors expressed a significantly lower level of concern about liver donation compared to non-defensive donors (P<0.01).

Conclusions

We need to pay more attention to the family-related issues and psychological defensiveness of living liver donor candidates when evaluating psychosocial status before LDLT.

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.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was introduced in response to the shortage of deceased donor liver grafts. The number of adult living donor transplants is increasing due to improved outcomes and increasing need. Advantages of LDLT include optimization of the timing of transplant, better organ quality, and lower rates of recipient mortality compared to staying on the wait list for deceased donor liver transplant. Donor safety remains the major focus when considering LDLT. Recent advancements have supported the increased use of LDLT to help decrease wait list death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Assessment of relevant factors with respect to psychosocial properties in potential living donor candidates before liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been developed as one of gold standard treatments for end-stage liver disease. Mental health is a required selection criterion for adult living liver donors and may influence the quality of life after operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,210 potential living donor candidates for liver transplantation (LT) underwent psychosocial evaluation that included a semi-structured interview, multi-choice self-reported inventory (Beck Depression Inventory-2nd edition [BDI-II], Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI]), and the family APGAR (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve) index. The test results were compared by family relationships, and subgroups were classified based on the donation type: 1) parents to children, 2) grown children to parents, 3) siblings to siblings, 4) spouses to spouses, and 5) other relatives to other relatives.

RESULTS

The BDI-II (P < 0.001) and BAI differed considerably according to the donation type in potential donor candidates. Compared with other subgroups, parents donating to their children suffered the most severe psychological stress before LDLT and exhibited more depressive (P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms. However, the stress associated with grown children donating to their parents, siblings, and spouses was not significantly higher than it was for other relatives. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation existed between family APGAR scores and the severity of depression and anxiety (P < 0.001) among potential donor candidates.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the importance of understanding potential donor candidates' psychological characteristics before LT. Greater anxiety and depression may be exhibited by parent donors due to the distress from fears of death or illness of the recipients, or their guilty feeling for their child. Additionally, family dysfunction also revealed more depression and anxiety. Such donor candidates should be given more extensive pre-donation counseling for minimizing pre-LDLT psychological stress.

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.

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Background

The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.

Methods

This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.

Results

The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20–47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0–7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.

Conclusion

Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.

Psychological Outcomes of Living Liver Donors From a Multicenter Prospective Study: Results From the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study2 (A2ALL-2)

Although single-center and cross-sectional studies have suggested a modest impact of liver donation on donor psychological well-being, few studies have assessed these outcomes prospectively among a large cohort. We conducted one of the largest, prospective, multicenter studies of psychological outcomes in living liver donors within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study2 (A2ALL-2) consortium. In total, 271 (91%) of 297 eligible donors were interviewed at least once before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation using validated measures. We found that living liver donors reported low rates of major depressive (0-3%), alcohol abuse (2-5%), and anxiety syndromes (2-3%) at any given assessment in their first 2 years after donation. Between 4.7% and 9.6% of donors reported impaired mental well-being at various time points. We identified significant predictors for donors' perceptions of being better people and experiencing psychological growth following donation, including age, sex, relationship to recipient, ambivalence and motivation regarding donation, and feeling that donation would make life more worthwhile. Our results highlight the need for close psychosocial monitoring for those donors whose recipients died (n=27); some of those donors experienced guilt and concerns about responsibility. Careful screening and targeted, data-driven follow-up hold promise for optimizing psychological outcomes following this procedure for potentially vulnerable donors.

Early Postoperative Pain and its Predictors in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how well postoperative pain is managed in living liver donors, despite pain severity being the strongest predictor of persistent pain with long-lasting disability.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 172 living liver donors. Self-reported outcomes for pain severity, activity interference, affective (emotional) reactions, adverse effects to treatment, and perceptions of care were collected using the American Pain Society Patient Outcomes Questionnaire-Revised. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to identify demographic and psychosocial predictors of subscale scores.

RESULTS

Donors were young (36.8 ± 10.6) and healthy. Of 12 expert society analgesic recommendations for postoperative pain management, 49% received care conforming to 3 guidelines, and only 9% to 4 or 5. More than half reported adverse effects to analgesic treatment for moderate to severe pain that interfered with functional activity; however, emotional distress to pain was unexpectedly minimal. Female donors had higher affective (β = 0.88, P = 0.005) and adverse effects scores (β = 1.33, P < 0.001). Donors with 2 or more medical concerns before surgery averaged 1 unit higher pain severity, functional interference, adverse effects, and affective reaction subscale scores (β range 1.06-1.55, all P < 0.05). Receiving information about pain treatment options increased perception of care subscale scores (β = 1.24, P = 0.001), whereas depressive symptoms before donation were associated with lower scores (β = -1.58, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Donors have a distinct profile of pain reporting that is highly influenced by psychological characteristics. Interventions to improve pain control should consider modifying donor behavioral characteristics in addition to optimizing pain care protocols.

Fostering liver living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review discusses issues pertinent to fostering professional and public interest in living donor liver transplantation. We discuss practices that we have adopted at our center, issues that have arisen and provide suggestions to expand live donor transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

To bridge the gap between the current supply and demand of deceased donor organs, the transplant program in Toronto established the busiest live donor liver transplant program in the western world. To date, we have performed 664 live liver donor procedures with no donor deaths and excellent recipient and donor outcomes. To foster and grow live donation, we established a strong culture supporting live donation; hired a full-time, dedicated team of individuals to support the live donor program; obtained financial support for donors through a partnership agreement with the Trillium Gift of Life Network; developed linkages with the media, community service groups and the general public; generated patient education materials; and established a website.

SUMMARY

With the present and future trends of deceased donation worldwide, we anticipate that live liver donation will remain an important option to fully meet the needs of patients requiring liver transplantation for the foreseeable future.

Discrepancy in Psychological Attitudes Toward Living Donor Liver Transplantation Between Recipients and Donors

BACKGROUND

Mutual understanding between recipients and donors is indispensable when living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is performed, which, however, has gained little attention and remains unaddressed in the literature.

METHODS

Fifty-seven pairs, a recipient (mean ± SD age at the operation, 48.3 ± 10.6 years; mean ± SD years after the operation, 6.2 ± 4.7 years) and his or her donor, who underwent LDLT completed a 13-item questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale (1: strongly agree to 7: strongly disagree) that was designed to assess for their psychological attitudes toward transplantation. They were also asked to estimate their donor's or recipient's response to the questionnaire, respectively. Values of interest were compared between groups, using paired t tests. Following Bonferroni correction, a P value less than 0.0038 (0.05/13) was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed between actually answered and estimated responses in 7 of the 13 items in the questionnaire for donors. For example, donors did not feel pressure to become a donor to the same degree as their recipients estimated (4.6 ± 1.9 vs 3.4 ± 1.8). In contrast, only 1 item showed a significant difference between actually answered and estimated responses in the questionnaire for recipients; recipients did not worry about the transplanted liver compared to their donors' estimation (3.1 ± 1.9 vs 2.1 ± 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Recipients did not fully understand the donors' feelings toward LDLT, whereas donors almost correctly understood their recipients' attitudes. Our findings clearly revealed the gap in their mutual understanding and emphasize the need of psychological education to bridge the gap.

Quality of Life After Living Donor Hepatectomy for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) involves healthy individuals undergoing voluntary major hepatic resection. LDLT program only started in 2012 in Pakistan and its impact on donor's quality of life (QOL) post resection is not known. The objective of this study was to determine health-related QOL in donors who underwent hepatectomy in country's first liver transplant program.

METHODS

A total of 60 donors who underwent hepatectomy between 2012 and 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in the study. Short form (SF-36) and Profile of mood states (POMS-65) was used to assess QOL. In addition scores were compared between patients who did and did not develop complications.

RESULT

Mean time duration between hepatectomy and administration of questionnaire was 15 ± 5.1 months. Median age was 28 (19-45) years. Mean BMI was 24.4 ± 3.7. A total of 7 (11.6%) Grade 3 and above complications were observed in donors. Donors exceeded a score of 90 in 6 out of 8 evaluated categories on SF-36. The highest mean score was recorded for emotional role limitation 95.5 ± 17.1 and lowest for energy 84.8 ± 17.5. The mean score for anger was 6.6 ± 7.5. Donors also did well on the POMS vigor score with a mean of 22.7 ± 5. No significant difference in scores was observed between donors with and without complications for any of the categories except tension. Donors who developed complications post-operatively had a significantly low mean tension score of 1.5 versus 3.8 for donors without complications.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable post donation QOL was achieved and surgical complications did not adversely affect SF-36 and POMS scores.

Longterm health-related quality of life after living liver donation

There are little data on longterm outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and issues related to living donor right hepatectomy specifically. We studied longterm HRQoL in 127 living liver donors. A donor-specific survey (DSS) was used to evaluate the living liver donor morbidity, and the 36-item short-form health survey (short-form 36 health survey, version 1 [SF-36]) was used to assess generic outcomes. The DSS was completed by 107 (84.3%) donors and the SF-36 by 62 (49%) donors. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. Of the 107 donors, 12 (11.2%) donors reported their health as better, whereas 84 (78.5%) reported their health the same as before donation. Ninety-seven (90.7%) are currently employed. The most common postdonation symptom was incisional discomfort (34%). Twenty-four donors (22.4%) self-reported depression symptoms after donation. Ninety-eight (91.6%) rated their satisfaction with the donation process ≥ 8 (scale of 1-10). Three factors-increased vitality (correlation, 0.44), decreased pain (correlation, 0.34), and a recipient who was living (correlation, 0.44)-were independently related to satisfaction with the donor experience. Vitality showed the strongest association with satisfaction with the donor experience. Mental and physical component summary scale scores for donors were statistically higher compared to the US population norm (P < 0.001). Donors reported a high satisfaction rate with the donation process, and almost all donors (n = 104, 97.2%) would donate again independent of experiencing complications. Our study suggests that over a longterm period, liver donors continue to have above average HRQoL compared to the general population.

Assessment of health-related quality of life in Egyptian HCV-infected recipients after living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Understanding issues pertaining to quality of life is essential for any disease, particularly in recipients of liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of liver transplantation on Egyptian recipients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

A prospective study carried out at the Ain Shams Center for Organ Transplantation (Cairo, Egypt), including 35 recipients for the evaluation of HRQOL using short form 36 score (Arabic version) and Beck Depression Inventory scores pre-transplantation and 1 and 6 months afterwards.

RESULTS

The mean age of the recipients was 49.27 ± 8.16 years. Among them, 17 patients were highly educated. A statistically significant improvement in all dimensions of their HRQOL was observed after liver transplantation. Their physical functioning was 45.00 ± 34.34 before liver transplantation while after 1 and 6 months it was 57.50 ± 20.66 and 74.83 ± 19.27, respectively (P < 0.001). All 17 patients completed their first year after transplantation, showing a statistically significant improvement in all dimensions of their HRQOL one year after liver transplantation except that in mental health, role limitation due to emotional health emotional and social functioning domains.

CONCLUSION

HRQOL is an important aspect of liver transplantation that should not be neglected.

Optimizing informed consent in living liver donors: Evaluation of a comprehension assessment tool

Adult-to-adult living liver donation is associated with considerable risks with no direct medical benefit to liver donors (LDs). Ensuring that potential LDs comprehend the risks of donation is essential to medically and ethically justify the procedure. We developed and prospectively evaluated the initial psychometrics of an "Evaluation of Donor Informed Consent Tool" (EDICT) designed to assess LDs' comprehension about the living donation process. EDICT includes 49 true/false/unsure items related to LD informed consent. Consecutive LDs undergoing evaluation at 1 academic medical center from October 2012 to September 2014 were eligible for participation in pretest/posttest interviews. Medical records were reviewed for postdonation complications. Twenty-seven LDs participated (96% participation rate). EDICT demonstrated good internal consistency reliability at pretest, 2 days before donating (Cronbach's α = 0.78), and posttest, 1 week after donating (α = 0.70). EDICT scores significantly increased over time (P = 0.01) and demonstrated good test-retest reliability (r = 0.68; P < 0.001). EDICT was associated with race/ethnicity (P = 0.02) and relationship to the recipient (P = 0.01; pretest), and income (P = 0.01) and insurance (P = 0.01; posttest), but not with decisional conflict, preoperative preparedness, satisfaction, or decisional regret (pretest and posttest). Donor complications did not impact postdonation EDICT scores. In conclusion, EDICT has promising measurement properties and may be useful in the evaluation of informed consent for potential LDs.

Satisfaction With Life Among Living Kidney Donors: A RELIVE Study of Long-Term Donor Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about living kidney donors' satisfaction with life (SWL) after donation. We compared donors' SWL to previously reported general population samples and investigated predictors of donors' SWL.

METHODS

Three transplant centers mailed questionnaires to assess SWL, physical health, optimism, retrospective evaluation of the donation experience, and demographic characteristics to living kidney donors' homes between 2010 and 2012. Two thousand four hundred fifty-five donors who were between 5 and 48 years from the time of their donor surgery completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eighty-four percent of donors were satisfied with their lives (scores ≥ 20 on the Satisfaction With Life Scale). Donors were at least as satisfied with their lives as previously reported general population samples. After adjusting for physical health, optimism, and demographics, donors' SWL was significantly associated with donors' recalled experience of donation. Social support and positive effects of the donation on relationships predicted greater SWL. Financial difficulties associated with donation and longer recovery times predicted lower SWL. Recipient outcomes were not significantly related to donor SWL.

DISCUSSION

Limitations include the lack of predonation SWL data, potential bias in postdonation SWL because of the situational context of the questionnaire, and a sample that is not representative of all U.S. living kidney donors. Nonetheless, strategies focused on improving the donation experience, particularly related to recovery time, financial issues, and social support, may result in greater SWL after donation.

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.

Acute and chronic postsurgical pain after living liver donation: Incidence and predictors

Despite its prominence as a concern among potential surgical candidates, there is little information in the literature regarding the short- and long-term pain experience after living liver donation. We undertook a prospective study to examine (1) the nature and incidence of acute and chronic pain after living donor hepatectomy and (2) the factors associated with an increased or decreased risk of adverse pain outcomes. Before donation, a comprehensive assessment of potential predictors of acute and chronic pain outcomes was conducted; this included donors' pain expectations, psychosocial factors, medical histories, and demographic factors. Detailed data regarding pain outcomes were collected postoperatively (days 1 and 2) and again during 6- and 12-month follow-up telephone interviews. Sixty-five adults (32 females and 33 males) scheduled for donor hepatectomy participated. Substantial proportions of the donors reported a moderate-to-severe level of pain intensity (≥4 on a 0-10 scale) at rest and after movement on day 1 (42% and 74%, respectively) and day 2 (33% and 32%, respectively). Persistent postsurgical pain was reported by 31% of the donors at the 6-month follow-up and by 27% of the donors at the 12-month follow-up. Generally, this pain was mild, and pain-related life interference was minimal. Female sex, a younger age, and several predonation measures of pain-related anxiety were associated with a significantly greater risk of developing persistent postsurgical pain. In conclusion, this study has identified a subset of patients who experience persistent pain after living liver donation. Additional prospective research using larger samples of liver donors is needed to replicate this work, to obtain a more detailed account of the acute and long-term pain experience, and to determine whether targeted interventions can minimize the frequency and severity of chronic pain.

Factors influencing donor and recipient decision making in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a survey of a non-transplant population

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to (i) investigate the factors that influence donor and recipient decision making in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT); (ii) quantify the level of risk that would be acceptable to potential donors; and (iii) determine from whom an individual would be willing to receive a donation.

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire using hypothetical scenarios centred on AALDLT was created and administered to participants recruited from the waiting room of an orthopaedic outpatient clinic at a teaching hospital in Sydney (n = 105). The questionnaire asked participants to consider scenarios in which they either (i) were a potential donor for a family member or close friend or (ii) themselves required a liver transplant.

RESULTS

Ninety-five (90%) participants expressed an in-principal willingness to consider living organ donation. The factors most important in deciding to be living liver donors were the probability of a good outcome for the recipient, the likelihood of the potential recipient's survival until a deceased donor liver became available and the risk of donor death. Donor death was also rated as the least acceptable donor outcome. Participants expressed a willingness to receive a donation from all proposed donor groups equally.

CONCLUSIONS

The acceptability of hypothetical living organ donation was very high in the population group studied. Participants were also willing to accept significantly higher risks of complications from organ donation than they would actually be exposed to. Clinicians should feel encouraged to discuss the risks and benefits of living donation frankly with patients and their families.

Predictors of donor follow-up after living donor liver transplantation

Donor safety in living liver donation is of paramount importance; however, information on long-term outcomes is limited by incomplete follow-up. We sought to ascertain factors that predicted postdonation follow-up in 456 living liver donors in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study. Completed donor follow-up was defined as physical, phone, or laboratory contact at a given time point. Univariate and multivariate mixed effects logistic regression models, using donor and recipient demographic and clinical data and donor quality-of-life data, were developed to predict completed follow-up. Ninety percent of the donors completed their follow-up in the first 3 months, and 83% completed their follow-up at year 1; rates of completed follow-up ranged from 57% to 72% in years 2 to 7 and from 41% to 56% in years 8 to 10. The probability of completed follow-up in the first year was higher for white donors [odds ratio (OR) = 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25-8.58] but lower for donors whose recipients had hepatitis C virus or hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.17-0.69). After the first year, an older age at donation predicted more complete follow-up. There were significant center differences at all time points (OR range = 0.29-10.11), with center variability in both returns for in-center visits and the use of phone/long-distance visits. Donor follow-up in the first year after donation was excellent but decreased with time. Predictors of follow-up varied with the time since donation. In conclusion, adapting best center practices (enhanced through the use of telephones and social media) to maintain contact with donors represents a significant opportunity to gain valuable information about long-term donor outcomes.

Clinical outcomes and evaluation of the quality of life of living donors for pediatric liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 100 donors

There are few reports about the quality of life (QOL) and morbidities of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) donors. We evaluated the potential morbidities and identified the predictive factors regarding the QOL of living donors after pediatric LDLT. This cross-sectional study was a single-center analysis of 100 donors for pediatric LDLT. The severity of morbidities was assessed with the Clavien classification, the QOL was investigated with the short form-36 (SF-36), and the decision-making process regarding donation was analyzed with questionnaires. The median follow-up period was 3.8 years (range, 2.2-6.0 years). A total of 13% of the donors developed postoperative complications of Clavien grades I (7%), II (3%), and IIIA (3%). There was no grade IV morbidity or mortality. Eighty-one donors responded to the questionnaire and SF-36. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the donors had difficulty in the decision-making process, and suggested that it may be necessary to administer multistep informed consent. We identified unique predictive risk factors for lower SF-36 scores in the donors, which were the time to donation (more than 4 weeks) and the predonation self-oriented perception. The donors who have risk factors require enhanced pre- and post-donation psychological care.

The role of the independent donor advocacy team in the case of a declined living donor candidate

Many controversies arise when living donor candidates present themselves for consideration as donors for urgent liver transplants. Nonparent living donors for urgent pediatric transplant recipients are a unique donor candidate population with specific considerations that need to be acknowledged and addressed by the independent donor advocacy team. Such a team educates about donation, identifies potential contraindications, examines the distant relationships between donor and recipient, and considers ethical issues about the ability to make an informed decision in an urgent situation. A center for living donation dealt with such ethical issues when a donor candidate with a distant relationship was evaluated for living donation. Multiple relative contraindications were identified, and the donor candidate was declined. Careful management by the independent donor advocacy team is necessary to ensure the psychosocial safety and to provide needed psychosocial support and intervention for donor candidates with psychological contraindications to donation. Standard follow-up protocols need to be developed for declined donor candidates.

Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial

There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living donation. We conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial to examine the postdonation impact of a preventive intervention utilizing motivational interviewing (MI) to target a major risk factor for poor psychosocial outcomes, residual ambivalence (i.e. lingering hesitation and uncertainty) about donating. Of 184 prospective kidney or liver donors, 131 screened positive for ambivalence; 113 were randomized to (a) the MI intervention, (b) an active comparison condition (health education) or (c) standard care only before donation. Ambivalence was reassessed postintervention (before donation). Primary trial outcomes-psychosocial variables in somatic, psychological and family interpersonal relationship domains-were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months postdonation. MI subjects showed the greatest decline in ambivalence (p = 0.050). On somatic outcomes, by 3 months postdonation MI subjects reported fewer physical symptoms (p = 0.038), lower rates of fatigue (p = 0.021) and pain (p = 0.016), shorter recovery times (p = 0.041) and fewer unexpected medical problems (p = 0.023). Among psychological and interpersonal outcomes, they had a lower rate of anxiety symptoms (p = 0.046) and fewer unexpected family-related problems (p = 0.045). They did not differ on depression, feelings about donation or family relationship quality. The findings suggest that the intervention merits testing in a larger, multisite trial.

Rescue Living-donor Liver Transplantation for Liver Failure Following Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver failure following major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma is a known but uncommon mode of early treatment failure. When post-hepatectomy liver failure becomes progressive, the only effective treatment for rescuing the patient is liver transplantation. Deceased-donor liver transplantation in this situation is often not feasible because of the shortage of deceased-donor liver grafts. Proceeding with living-donor liver transplantation is an ethical challenge because of the possibility of donor coercion. In addition, tumor status, as confirmed by histopathological examination of the resected specimen, may indicate aggressive cancer that warns against rescue transplantation because of the increased chance of tumor recurrence. Here we describe four cases of rescue living-donor liver transplantation for liver failure after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients all survived the transplantation and were free from tumor recurrence after follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 9 years. Our experience has shown that rescue living-donor liver transplantation for post-hepatectomy liver failure is feasible. Tumor status should be considered carefully because large tumors and tumors with macrovascular invasion are strong contraindications to rescue living-donor liver transplantation.

Donor safety in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 300 cases

Aim

To evaluate the safety to donors of living-donor liver transplantation.

Methods

This study included 300 consecutive living liver tissue donors who underwent operations at our center from July 2002 to December 2012. We evaluated the safety of donors with regard to three aspects complications were recorded prospectively and stratified by grade according to Clavien’s classification, and the data were compared in two stages (the first 5 years’ experience (pre-January 2008) and the latter 5 years’ experience (post-January 2008); laboratory tests such as liver function and blood biochemistry were performed; and the health-related quality of life was evaluated.

Results

There was no donor mortality at our center, and the overall morbidity rate was 25.3%. Most of the complications of living donors were either grade I or II. There were significantly fewer complications in the latter period of our study than in the initial period (19.9% vs 32.6%, P<0.001), and biliary complications were the most common complications, with an incidence of 9%. All of the liver dysfunction was temporary; however, the post-operative suppression of platelet count lasted for years. Although within the normal range, eight years after operation, 22 donors showed lower platelet levels (189×10⁹/L) compared with the pre-operative levels (267×10⁹/L) (P<0.05). A total of 98.4% of donors had returned to their previous levels of social activity and work, and 99.2% of donors would donate again if it was required and feasible. With the exception of two donors who experienced grade III complications (whose recipients died) and a few cases of abdominal discomfort, fatigue, chronic pain and scar itching, none of the living donors were affected by physical problems.

Conclusion

With careful donor selection and specialized patient care, low morbidity rates and satisfactory long-term recovery can be achieved after hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation.