Outcomes in hepatitis C virus-infected recipients of living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation.

In this retrospective study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected transplant recipients in the 9-center Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, graft and patient survival and the development of advanced fibrosis were compared among 181 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients and 94 deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. Overall 3-year graft and patient survival were 68% and 74% in LDLT, and 80% and 82% in DDLT, respectively. Graft survival, but not patient survival, was significantly lower for LDLT compared to DDLT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.20, respectively). Further analyses demonstrated lower graft and patient survival among the first 20 LDLT cases at each center (LDLT 20; P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively) and DDLT recipients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). Graft and patient survival in LDLT >20 and DDLT were not significantly different (P = 0.66 and P = 0.74, respectively). Overall, 3-year graft survival for DDLT, LDLT >20, and LDLT 20 were not significantly different. Important predictors of graft loss in HCV-infected patients were limited LDLT experience, pretransplant HCC, and higher MELD at transplantation.     

Graft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantation.

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in the United States and around the world. In this study, we compared the outcome of 764 patients who received LDLT in the United States and compared the results with a matched population that received deceased donor transplantation (DDLT) using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. For each LDLT recipient (n = 764), two DDLT recipients (n = 1,470), matched for age, gender, race, diagnosis, and year of transplantation, were selected from the UNOS data after excluding multiple organ transplantation or retransplantation, children, and those with incomplete data. Despite our matching, recipients of LDLT had more stable liver disease, as shown by fewer patients with UNOS status 1 or 2A, in an intensive care unit, or on life support. Creatinine and cold ischemia time were also lower in the LDLT group. Primary graft nonfunction, hyperacute rejection rates, and patient survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis were similar in both groups (2-year survival was 79.0% in LDLT vs. 80.7% in case-controls; P = .5), but graft survival was significantly lower in LDLT (2-year graft survival was 64.4% vs. 73.3%; P < .001). Cox regression (after adjusting for confounding variables) analysis showed that LDLT recipients were 60% more likely to lose their graft compared to DDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval 1.1-2.5). Among hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, LDLT recipients showed lower graft survival when compared to those who received DDLT. In conclusion, short-term patient survival in LDLT is similar to that in the DDLT group, but graft survival is significantly lower in LDLT recipients. LDLT is a reasonable option for patients who are unlikely to receive DDLT in a timely fashion.     

Live donor liver transplantation in adults

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was initiated in 1988 for children recipients. Its application to adult recipients was limited by graft size until the first right liver LDLT was performed in Hong Kong in 1996. Since then, right liver graft has become the major graft type. Despite rapid adoption of LDLT by many centers, many controversies on donor selection, indications, techniques, and ethics exist. With the recent known 11 donor deaths around the world, transplant surgeons are even more cautious than the past in the evaluation and selection of donors. The need for routine liver biopsy in donor evaluation is arguable but more and more centers opt for a policy of liberal liver biopsy. Donation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the right liver graft was considered unsafe but now data indicate that the outcome of donors with or without MHV donation is about equal. Right liver LDLT has been shown to improve the overall survival rate of patients with chronic liver disease, acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation. The outcome of LDLT is equivalent to deceased donor liver transplantation despite a smaller graft size and higher technical complexity.     

Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus‐positive recipients in Japan: results of a nationwide survey

A nationwide survey of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐positive recipients was performed in Japan. A total of 514 recipients are reported and included in the study. The cumulative patient survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 72% and 63%, respectively. Of the 514 recipients, 142 patients (28%) died until the end of the observation, among which the leading cause was recurrent hepatitis C (42 cases). According to Cox regression multivariate analysis, donor age (>40), non‐right liver graft, acute rejection episode, and absence of a sustained virologic response were independent prognostic factors. Of the 514 recipients, 361 underwent antiviral treatment mainly with pegylated‐interferon and ribavirin (preemptive treatment in 150 patients and treatment for confirmed recurrent hepatitis in 211). The dose reduction rate and discontinuation rate were 40% and 42%, respectively, with a sustained virologic response rate of 43%. In conclusion, patient survival of HCV‐positive recipients after LDLT was good, with a 10‐year survival of 63%. Right liver graft might be preferable for HCV‐positive recipients in an LDLT setting.     

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma related to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are currently the most common indications for liver transplantation. The number of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) procedures has increased given the shortage of donor organs from deceased donors. However, recurrence of HCV infection is universal and affects graft survival. This mini-review compared the outcomes for HCV-positive recipients after LDLT with those after deceased donor liver transplantation.     

Older donor livers show early severe histological activity, fibrosis, and graft failure after liver transplantation for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: In hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive liver transplant recipients, infection of the allograft and recurrent liver disease are important problems. Increased donor age has emerged as an important variable affecting patient and graft survival; however, specific age cutoffs and risk ratios for poor histologic outcomes and graft survival are not clear. METHODS: A longitudinal database of all HCV-positive patients transplanted at our center during an 11-year period was used to identify 111 patients who received 124 liver transplants. Graft survival and histological endpoints (severe activity and fibrosis) of HCV infection in the allografts were compared as a function of donor age at transplantation. RESULTS: By Kaplan-Meier analyses, older allografts showed earlier failure and decreased time to severe histological activity and fibrosis as compared with allografts from younger donors. By Cox proportional hazards analysis, older allografts were at greater risk for all severe histologic features and decreased graft survival as compared with younger allografts (P< or =0.02 for all outcomes). Analysis of donor age as a dichotomous variable showed that donors greater than 60 yr were at high risk for deleterious histologic outcomes and graft failure. An age cutoff of 60 yr showed a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 67% for worse graft survival by receiver operating characteristics curve. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced donor age is associated with more aggressive recurrent HCV and early allograft failure in HCV-positive liver transplant recipients. Consideration of donor age is important for decisions regarding patient selection, antiviral therapy, and organ allocation.     

Results of live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatitic C virus infection: the HCV 3 trial experience

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common disease indication for liver transplantation (LT). Outcomes are compromised by near universal recurrence of HCV. A prospective multi-center randomized study to evaluate immunosuppressive strategies in HCV+ transplant recipients provided the opportunity to assess impact of live donor (LD) LT. Two hundred and ninety-five patients undergoing LT for HCV (260 deceased donor [DD] recipients/35 LD recipients), randomized to three regimens, were followed for two yr for patient and graft survival and rate and severity of recurrent HCV. Biopsies were performed at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. One- and two-yr patient survival for LD recipients was 88.1% and 81.1% vs. 90.5% and 84.6% for DD recipients (p = 0.5665). One- and two-yr graft survival for LD recipients was 82.9% and 76.2% vs. 87.9% and 81.7% for DD recipients (p = 0.3921). Recurrent HCV did not account for more deaths or graft losses in the LD recipients. In this prospective study, controlled for immunosuppression, use of LD organs did not increase the rate or severity of HCV recurrence. The more elective nature of LDLT affords an opportunity to manipulate donor and recipient factors that can impact upon outcomes.     

Human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 infection worsens prognosis of hepatitis C virus-related living donor liver transplantation

Severe and life-threatening donor-transmitted human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infections after solid organ transplantation have been reported. However, in HTLV-1-infected recipients, graft and patient survival were not fully evaluated. A total of 140 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Of these, 47 of 126 adult recipients showed indications of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease. The HTLV-1 prevalence rate was 10 of 140 recipients (7.14%) and three of 140 donors (0.02%). In HCV-related LDLT, graft and patient survival was worsened by HTLV-1 infection in recipients (seven cases). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates in the HCV/HTLV-1-co-infected group were 67%, 32%, and 15%, respectively, and the corresponding rates in the HCV-mono-infected group were 80%, 67%, and 67%, respectively. Only the 5-year survival rates were statistically significant (P=0.04, log-rank method). HTLV-1 infection in recipients is also an important factor in predicting survival in HTLV-1 endemic areas.     

活体肝移植治疗HBV相关性急性亚急性肝功能衰竭

目的 探讨活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)HBV感染导致的急性肝功能衰竭(acute liver failure,ALF)和亚急性肝功能衰竭(subacute liver failure,SALF)患者的可行性,并评价其疗效.方法 回顾性分析2000年11月至2007年10月完成的10例LDLT治疗ALF、SALF患者的临床资料.10例LDLT的供、受者均为成人,切取右半肝为移植物,8例含肝中静脉(middle hepatic vein,MHV).10例供者的评估均在确定实施LDLT的24 h内完成,供、受者手术均在确定供者后的12 h内完成.移植物质量与受者体质量比为(1.03±0.17)%(0.86%～1.22%),移植物体积与受者标准肝体积比为(52.2±11.8)%(47.6%～70.1%).结果 10例受者中,2例分别于术后7、28 d时因肺部感染、十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔腹腔感染死亡.1例胆管吻合口胆漏,经十二指肠镜下置入鼻胆管引流治愈.2例术后1周出现轻度急性排斥反应,增强免疫抑制强度后肝功能恢复正常.8例中位随访期9.6个月(2～84个月),生存质量优良.10例供者中,1例出现急性门静脉高压症导致脾脏破裂,行脾脏切除术,其后出现胆管断端胆漏,经鼻胆管引流结合经皮穿刺腹腔引流治愈.其余9例无并发症发生.结论 LDLT适宜治疗HBV感染导致的ALF、SALF,而且能获得较好的中、远期疗效.     

Living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was originally indicated only for elective cases of pediatric patients with end-stage liver disease. In Japan, however, where liver transplantation from brain-dead donor is performed very rarely, this indication has been expanded to emergency cases such as fulminant hepatic failure (FHF). METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with FHF were treated between May 1992 and April 1999. Causes of acute liver failure were non-A, non-B hepatitis in 27 patients, hepatitis B virus in seven, and hepatitis A virus, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus, and chrome poisoning in one each. RESULTS: Four patients did not undergo LDLT because of severe brain damage or combined multiple organ failure. The remaining 34 patients underwent a total of 36 LDLTs, including two retransplantations; 16 children received transplants of 17 lateral segments, three children and eight adults transplants of 11 left lobes, and seven adults transplants of eight right lobes. A total of 15 recipients died, four of primary graft dysfunction, three of refractory acute rejection, two of pneumonia, and one each of ductopenic rejection, sepsis, aplastic anemis, recurrence of Epstein-Barr virus hepatitis, multiple organ failure by chrome poisoning, and unknown hepatic failure. Primary graft dysfunction developed in adult recipients with small-for-size graft transplants, whereas refractory acute rejection and ductopenic rejection occurred in six grafts each of children with non-A, non-B FHF. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT can be safely expanded to cases of FHF in adult patients. Primary graft dysfunction in adult recipients with small-for-size left lobe grafts can be overcome by using right lobes. However, refractory acute rejection and ductopenic rejection in children remain a major problem.     

Impact of donor age on survival and fibrosis progression in patients with hepatitis C undergoing liver transplantation using HCV+ allografts.

Studies have suggested that the use of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive (HCV+) donor allografts has no impact on survival. However, no studies have examined the effect that HCV+ donor histology has upon recipient and graft survival. We evaluated the clinical outcome and impact of histological features in HCV patients transplanted using HCV+ livers. We reviewed all patients transplanted for HCV at our institution from 1988 to 2004; 39 received HCV+ allografts and 580 received HCV-negative (HCV-) allografts. Survival curves compared graft and patient survival. Each HCV+ allograft was stringently matched to a control of HCV- graft recipients. No significant difference in survival was noted between recipients of HCV+ livers and controls. Patients receiving HCV+ allografts from older donors (age > or =50 yr) had higher rates of graft failure (hazard ratio, 2.74) and death rates (hazard ratio, 2.63) compared to HCV- allograft recipients receiving similarly-aged older donor livers. Matched case-control analysis revealed that recipients of HCV+ allografts had more severe fibrosis post-liver transplantation than recipients of HCV- livers (P = 0.008). More advanced fibrosis was observed in HCV+ grafts from older donors compared to HCV+ grafts from younger donors (P = 0.012). In conclusion, recipients of HCV+ grafts from older donors have higher rates of death and graft failure, and develop more extensive fibrosis than HCV- graft recipients from older donors. Recipients of HCV+ grafts, regardless of donor age, develop more advanced liver fibrosis than recipients of HCV- grafts.     

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score does not predict patient or graft survival in living donor liver transplant recipients

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a successful procedure for most recipients, outcomes in patients who undergo transplantation as United Network for Organ Sharing status 2A are marginal. There are no published data on living donor liver transplant recipient outcomes relative to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Such information could be useful in living donor liver transplant recipient selection. We retrospectively analyzed all non-fulminant hepatic failure, right hepatic lobe, adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients at our center between August 1997 and March 2002. We calculated MELD scores at the time of LDLT and correlated scores with 1-year patient and graft survival and hospital days during the 90-day post-LDLT period. There were 62 recipients with greater than 6 months of follow-up: 38 men, 24 women; mean age, 47.9 years; 42 white, 1 black, 17 Hispanic, and 2 Asian patients. Twenty-nine patients had hepatitis C virus infection; 4 patients, hepatitis C virus infection and alcoholic liver disease; 4 patients, alcoholic liver disease; 4 patients, cryptogenic cirrhosis; 13 patients, primary sclerosing cholangitis; 5 patients, autoimmune hepatitis; and 3 patients, primary biliary cirrhosis. Mean and median MELD scores were 15.2 and 13, respectively (range, 6 to 40). One-year patient and graft survival were 59 of 62 patients (95%) and 52 of 62 patients (84%), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between median MELD scores of dead versus living patients (15 v 13; P = .15) or patients who underwent retransplantation versus those who did not (16.5 v 13; P = .30). Mean and median hospital days in the 90-day post-LDLT period were 23.7 and 16.0 days, respectively. Living donor liver transplant recipients with a MELD score of 18 or greater had significantly more hospital days compared with recipients with a MELD score less than 18 (35.2 v 19.8 days; P = .01). In conclusion, MELD scores did not predict post-LDLT patient or graft survival at 1 year. However, higher MELD scores (≥18) were associated with more hospital days during the 3-month post-LDLT period. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:737-740.)     

Right-liver living donor transplantation for decompensated end-stage liver disease

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients with decompensated end-stage liver disease (DELD) is controversial. Nevertheless, these patients are most in need of a timely liver transplant. We present the results of 7 patients who underwent transplantation with this procedure and discuss the rationale for its possible broader application. Seven of 51 patients who underwent right LDLT (segments 5 to 8) between August 1998 and April 2001 had DELD, defined as Child-Pugh-Turcotte score greater than 13 or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score greater than 30. All patients also were listed for cadaveric liver transplantation. Mean age of the 7 transplant recipients was 54 years (range, 44 to 63 years). Three patients had ethyltoxic cirrhosis; 2 patients, hepatitis C; 1 patient, hepatitis B; and 1 patient, autoimmune hepatitis cirrhosis. The average intensive care unit stay was 23 days (range, 3 to 88 days), and average hospital stay was 77 days (range, 27 to 132 days). Three patients are alive 31, 21, and 17 months after LDLT. At a mean follow-up of 15.1 ± 10 months, patient and graft survival rates are 43%. Four transplant recipients died day 30, 60, 117, and 180 after transplantation. Three of the seven donors (43%) experienced a complication. At present, all donors are well and have returned to their normal activities. No donors had regrets about the procedure, and all donors stated that they would donate again if presented with the same decision. In conclusion, with the lack of other therapeutic options, LDLT represents a timely and effective alternative to cadaveric liver transplantation. Better outcome is foreseeable with a decrease in posttransplantation complications and more experience in predicting survival of these critical patients. (Liver Transpl 2002;8:340-346.)     

Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a surgeon‐matched comparison of recipient morbidity and outcomes

Informed consent for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) requires that patients are provided with accurate information on the relative benefits and risks of this procedure compared with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). There is strong evidence to suggest that LDLT facilitates timely transplantation to patients; however, information on the relative morbidity and death risks after LDLT as compared with DDLT is limited. A matched cohort comparison was performed matching recipients for age, MELD, date of transplant, gender, primary diagnosis, and recipient surgeon. A total of 145 LDLT were matched with 145 DDLT. LDLT had a higher overall rate of perioperative surgical complications (P = 0.009). Most of this difference was caused by a higher rate of biliary complications. However, the complications that occurred in the DDLT group tended to be more serious (P = 0.037), and these complications were strongly associated with graft loss in multivariate analysis. The 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survivals were similar. In conclusion, DDLT and LDLT have different complication profiles, but comparable hospital stays and survival rates. In areas of deceased donor organ shortages, LDLT offers an excellent alternative to DDLT because it facilitates access to a liver transplant without compromising short‐ or medium‐term recipient outcomes.     

Whole liver versus split liver versus living donor in the adult recipient: an analysis of outcomes by graft type

BACKGROUND: We studied patient and graft survival rates in adult liver transplant recipients, analyzing outcomes based on donor source (deceased donor [DD] vs. living donor [LD]) and graft type (whole liver vs. partial liver). METHODS: A retrospective database analysis of all adult liver transpants performed at our center over a 7-year period of time. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2005, 384 liver transplants were performed in adult recipients, either as a whole liver from a deceased donor (DD-WL, n=284), split liver from a DD (DD-SL, n=31), or a partial transplant from a living donor (LD, n=69). DD-SL transplants were performed with a full right or left lobe graft, while LD transplants used the right lobe. Demographic differences in the three groups were most noticeable for lower model for end-stage liver disease scores in LD recipients (P<0.001) and younger donor age in DD-SL recipients (P<0.001). Superior graft survival results were seen in LD recipients versus either DD-WL recipients or DD-SL recipients (P=0.02 and P=0.05, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed hepatitis C (HR=1.53, P=0.05) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.74, P=0.03) to be significant risk factors for patient survival. Hepatitis C (HR=1.61, P=0.03) and donor age more than 50 (HR=1.64, P=0.04) were significant risk factors for graft survival. However, neither graft type nor donor source were significant independent risk factors for patient or graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that the status of the recipient is probably a more important determinant of outcome than graft type or donor source.     

Clinical outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients

BACKGROUND: Whether hepatitis C virus recurrence occurs earlier and with greater severity for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) than for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has recently become a subject of debate. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes for a cohort of 91 HCV-positive patients who underwent LDLT at Kyoto University with a median follow-up period of 25 months. RESULTS: Overall 5-year patient survival for HCV patients was similar to that for non-HCV patients (n=209) who underwent right-lobe LDLT at our institute (69% vs. 71%). Survival rate of patients without HCC (n=34) tended to be better than that of patients with HCC (n=57) (82% vs. 60%, P=0.069). According to annual liver biopsy, rate of fibrosis progression to stage 2 or more (representing significant fibrosis) was 39% at 2 years after LDLT. Univariate analysis showed that female recipient and male donor represented significant risk factors for significant fibrosis. Progression to severe recurrence (defined as the presence of liver cirrhosis (F4) in a liver biopsy and/or the development of clinical decompensation) was observed in five patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative patient survival was similar for HCV-positive and -negative recipients in our adult LDLT series. Rates of progression to severe disease due to HCV recurrence seemed comparable between our LDLT recipients and DDLT recipients described in the literature. Although longer-term follow-up is required, our results suggest that LDLT can produce acceptable outcomes also for patients suffering from HCV-related cirrhosis.     

Adult living donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: extending UNOS priority criteria

INTRODUCTION: For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in particular, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) improves access to transplant. We report our results in 36 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT with a median follow-up >1 year. METHODS Underlying diagnoses included: hepatitis C (24), hepatitis B (9), cryptogenic cirrhosis (1), hemochromatosis (1), and primary biliary cirrhosis (1). Patients with tumors >or= 5 cm received IV doxorubicin intraoperatively and 6 cycles of doxorubicin at 3-week intervals. Patients were followed with CT scan and alpha-fetoprotein levels every 3 months for 2 years posttransplant. Mean waiting time, pretransplant treatment, tumor variables, and survival were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis were done to analyze tumor variables; Kaplan-Meier and log rank were used to compare survivals. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Mean wait for LDLT was 62 days, compared with 459 days in 50 patients with HCC transplanted with cadaveric organs during the same time period (P = 0.0001). At median follow-up of 450 days, there have been 10 deaths due to non-tumor-related causes and 3 deaths from recurrence; recurrence has also been observed in 3 other patients. On univariate and multivariate analysis, bilobar distribution was the only significant tumor variable (P = 0.03, log rank = 0.02). Fifty-three percent of patients exceeded UNOS priority criteria. One- and two-year patient survivals were 75% and 60%, respectively. Freedom from recurrence at 365 and 730 days was 82% and 74%, respectively. Overall and in patients with HCC > 5 cm (n = 12), there were no statistically significant differences in survival or in freedom from recurrence between recipients of living donor and cadaveric grafts. CONCLUSION Although one third of patients had tumors > 5 cm, the incidence of recurrence as well as patient survival and freedom from recurrence are comparable to results after cadaveric transplant. LDLT allows timely transplantation in patients with early or with large HCC.     

Right-lobe live donor liver transplantation improves survival of patients with acute liver failure

BACKGROUND: Right-lobe live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is used by many liver transplant centres for treating adult patients with terminal liver disease, but its incremental benefit for the intended recipient over cadaveric liver graft transplantation has not been determined. The impact of LDLT as a proactive approach on the outcome of patients with acute liver failure was analysed. METHODS: From January 1999 to March 2001, right-lobe LDLT was offered proactively to 50 consecutive patients with acute liver failure and their families. The outcome of those who opted for right-lobe LDLT (n = 34) was compared with that of those who did not opt for LDLT (n = 16). RESULTS: In the group that opted for right-lobe LDLT, 16 patients eventually received a live donor right-lobe graft (14 patients survived) and three patients received a cadaveric liver graft that became available while the potential live donor was undergoing evaluation (all three patients survived). Among the group who did not opt for LDLT, only one patient received a cadaveric liver graft and survived. The former group had a higher overall survival rate (17 of 34 versus one of 16). With a proactive approach, the overall transplant rate was increased from four of 50 to 20 of 50. The morbidity rate among donors was low and none died. CONCLUSION: Right-lobe LDLT improves the overall survival rate of patients with acute liver failure and should be considered as one of the treatment options for adult patients with acute liver failure.     

Impact of live donor age (>or=50) on liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The question of whether donor age negatively impacts recipient outcome in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is rarely discussed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of older donor age (50 years or older) on recipient outcomes in adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: LDLT data were retrospectively evaluated from our 299 LDLT cases in 297 recipients, which were divided into 2 groups: a younger group (group Y, donor age<50, n=237) and an older group (Group O, donor age>or=50, n=62). Clinical parameters of both recipients and donors were comparable between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in patient survival or postoperative complications of either donors or recipients. In recipients, graft regeneration was significantly impaired in Group O. Graft function, including protein synthesis and cholestasis, was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although the regeneration capacity of aged grafts was impaired, the function of grafts from older donors was comparable to that of those from younger donors. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the groups.     

Donor and recipient HLA/KIR genotypes do not predict liver transplantation outcome

Whether or not Natural Killer (NK) cells affect the immune response to solid organ allografts is still controversial. Main determinants of NK‐cell activation are specific HLA/killer‐cell immunoglobulin‐like receptors (KIR) interactions that, in transplantation, may induce NK‐cell alloreactivity. So far, in liver transplantation (LTX) donor‐versus‐recipient alloreactivity has not been investigated; in addition, studies of predicted recipient‐versus‐donor NK‐cell alloreactivity have led to contradicting results. We typed a cohort of LTX donors and recipients for HLA‐C/Bw4 and KIRs. We estimated the effect of NK‐cell alloreactivity, as predicted by classically used models, in the donor‐versus‐recipient direction. The results indicate that HLA/KIR mismatches in the donor‐versus‐recipient direction do not predict graft rejection nor graft or patient survival, suggesting that donor‐derived NK cells do not play a major role in LTX outcome. In addition, when considering predicted NK‐cell alloreactivity in the reverse direction (recipient‐versus‐donor), we first confirmed that donor HLA‐C genotype was not associated with acute rejection, graft or patient survival and secondly we found that none of the models describing NK‐cell alloreactivity could predict LTX outcome. Overall our observations suggest that, in contrast to what is shown in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, donor‐derived NK cells may not contribute in preventing liver graft rejection, and that recipient‐versus‐donor NK‐cell alloreactivity does not predict LTX outcome.