Complications and outcomes of 890 living liver donor hepatectomies at a single center: risks of saving loved one's life

An international survey of venous thromboembolic events and current practices of peri-operative VTE prophylaxis after living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic complications are an uncommon but significant cause of morbidity & mortality after live donor hepatectomy . The precise incidence of these events and the current practices of centers performing living donor liver transplantation worldwide are unknown.

METHODS

An online survey was shared amongst living donor liver transplantation centers containing questions regarding center activity, center protocols for donor screening, peri-operative thromboembolic prophylaxis and an audit of -perioperative venous thromboembolic events after live donor hepatectomy in the previous five years (2016-2020).

RESULTS

Fifty-one centers from twenty countries completed the survey. These centers had cumulatively performed 11500 living donor liver transplants between 2016-2020. All centers included pre-operative l assessment for thromboembolic risk amongst potential liver donors in their protocols. Testing for inherited prothrombotic conditions was performed by 58% of centers. Dual-mode prophylaxis was the most common practice (65%), while eight and four centers used single mode or no routine prophylaxis respectively. Twenty (39%) and 15 (29%) centers reported atleast one perioperative deep venous thrmobosis or pulmonary embolism event respectively. There was one donor mortality directly related to post-operative pulmonary embolism. Overall incidence of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism events was 3.65 and 1.74 per 1000 live donor hepatectomies respectively. Significant variations in center practices and incidence of thromboembolic events was identified in the survey primarily divided along world regions. 75% of participating centers agreed on the need for clear international guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Venous thromboembolic events after live donor hepatectomy are an uncommon but important cause of donor morbidity. There is significant variation in practice among centers. Evidence-based guidelines regarding risk assessment, and peri-operative prophylaxis are needed.

When is it safe for the liver donor to be discharged home and prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations? - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on discharge criteria after living liver donation (LLD).

OBJECTIVES

To identify the features for fit for discharge checklist after LLD to prevent unnecessary re-hospitalizations and to provide international expert recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. The critical outcomes included were complications rates and liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR) (CRD42021260725).

RESULTS

Total 57/1710 studies were included in qualitative analysis and 28/57 on the final analysis. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The complications rate was reported in 20/28 studies and ranged from 7.8% to 71.2%. Post hepatectomy liver function was reported in 13 studies. The Quality of Evidence (QoE) was Low and Very-Low for complications rate and liver function test, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and prevention of donor complications should be crucial in decision making of discharge. Pain and diet control, removal of all drains and catheters, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and use routine imaging (CT scan or liver ultrasound) before discharge should be included as fit for discharge checklist (QoE; Low | GRADE of recommendation; Strong). Transient Impaired liver function (defined by elevated bilirubin and INR), a prognostic marker of outcome after liver resection, usually occurs after donor right hepatectomy and should be monitored. Improving trends for bilirubin and INR value should be observed by day 5 post hepatectomy and be included in the fit for discharge checklist. (QoE; Very-Low | GRADE; Strong).

Prognostic Factors of Liver Transplantation for HCC: Comparative Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of the review study is investigation of the prognostic factors of the liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A literature review has been made, especially in countries where dominantly living donor liver transplantation is performed, such as Turkey. Liver transplantation from deceased donor and from living donor has been evaluated about as advantages and disadvantages, and their effects on prognosis have been compared. In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma series of Koç University Liver Transplantation center has been presented.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is still the best treatment option with 5-year 50% survival rate for hepatocellular carcinoma even in patient who has locally advanced tumor. The patient's survival is not only an important issue but also the living donor's safety is controversial particularly when expectation of recipient's 5-year survival is below 50% due to donor complication.

CONCLUSION

Detailed preoperative examination, appropriate patient selection, and timing of surgery are seen the most important issues in liver transplant's patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Are the criteria always right? Assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma cases in living donor liver transplantation at a high-volume center

Background/aim

With the increased experience in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it has been adopted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with emerging discussions of criteria beyond tumor size and number. In contrast to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), recipient selection for LDLT is not limited by organ allocation systems. We discuss herein the assessment, criteria, and experience with liver transplantation (LT) in HCC cases at a high-volume LDLT center.

Material and methods

Between August 2006 and December 2017, 191 adult LT HCC recipients with at least one-year follow-up were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

In 191 patients, one-, three- and five-year survival rates were 87.2%, 81.6%, and 76.2%, respectively, including early postoperative mortality. In 174 patients with long-term follow-up, one-, three- and five-year disease-free survival rates were 91.6%, 87.7%, and 84.4%, respectively. When multivariate analysis was utilized, tumor differentiation was the only factor which statistically affected survival (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

LDLT allows us to push the limits forward and the question “Are the criteria always right?” is always on the table. We can conclude that, with the advantage of LDLT, every HCC patient deserves a case-by-case basis discussion for LT under scientific literature support. In borderline cases, tumor biopsy might help determine the decision for LT.

Extreme living donation: A single center simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience with long-term outcomes under literature review

Objective: Living liver and kidney donor surgeries are major surgical procedures applied to healthy people with mortality and morbidity risks not providing any direct therapeutic advantage to the donor. In this study, we aimed to share our simultaneous and sequential living liver-kidney donor experience under literature review in this worldwide rare practice.

Material and Methods: Between January 2007 and February 2018, a total of 1109 living donor nephrectomies and 867 living liver donor hepatectomies were performed with no mortality to living-related donors. Eight donors who were simultaneous or sequential living liver-kidney donors in this time period were retrospectively reviewed and presented with their minimum 2- year follow-up.

Results: Of the 8 donors, 3 of them were simultaneous and 5 of them were sequential liver-kidney donation. All of them were close relatives. Mean age was 39 (26-61) years and mean BMI was 25.7 (17.7-40). In 3 donors, right lobe, in 4 donors, left lateral sector, and in 1 donor, left lobe hepatectomy were performed. Median hospital stay was 9 (7-13) days. Two donors experienced early and late postoperative complications (Grade 3b and Grade 1). No mortality and no other long-term complication occurred.

Conclusion: Expansion of the donor pool by utilizing grafts from living donors is a globally-accepted proposition since it provides safety and successful outcomes. Simultaneous or sequential liver and kidney donation from the same donor seems to be a reasonable option for combined liver-kidney transplant recipients in special circumstances with acceptable outcomes.