The Risk of End‐Stage Renal Disease Among Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients in the United States

Since initiation of model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)‐based allocation for liver transplantation, the risk of posttransplant end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) has increased. Recent US data have demonstrated comparable, if not superior survival, among recipients of living donor liver transplants (LDLT) when compared to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. However, little is known about the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT. We analyzed linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and US Renal Data System (USRDS) data of first‐time liver‐alone transplant recipients from February 27, 2002 to March 1, 2011, and restricted the cohort to recipients with a laboratory MELD score ≤25 not on dialysis prior to transplantation, in order to evaluate the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT, and to compare the incidence among LDLT versus DDLT recipients. There were 28 707 DDLT and 1917 LDLT recipients included in the analyses. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year unadjusted risk of ESRD was 1.7%, 2.9% and 3.4% in LDLT recipients, compared with 1.5%, 3.0% and 4.8% in DDLT recipients (p > 0.05), respectively. In multivariable competing risk Cox regression models, there was no association between receiving an LDLT and risk of ESRD (sub‐hazard ratio: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.77–1.26, p = 0.92). In conclusion, the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT in the United States is low, and there are no significant differences among LDLT and DDLT recipients with MELD scores ≤25 at transplantation.     

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence and Death Following Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

We examined mortality and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among 106 transplant candidates with cirrhosis and HCC who had a potential living donor evaluated between January 1998 and February 2003 at the nine centers participating in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). Cox regression models were fitted to compare time from donor evaluation and time from transplant to death or HCC recurrence between 58 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and 34 deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. Mean age and calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at transplant were similar between LDLT and DDLT recipients (age: 55 vs. 52 years, p = 0.21; MELD: 13 vs. 15, p = 0.08). Relative to DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients had a shorter time from listing to transplant (mean 160 vs. 469 days, p < 0.0001) and a higher rate of HCC recurrence within 3 years than DDLT recipients (29% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but there was no difference in mortality or the combined outcome of mortality or recurrence. LDLT recipients had lower relative mortality risk than patients who did not undergo LDLT after the center had more experience (p = 0.03). Enthusiasm for LDLT as HCC treatment is dampened by higher HCC recurrence compared to DDLT.     

Donor‐Specific HLA Antibodies in Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Recipients

With less ischemia, improved donor selection and controlled procedures, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) might lead to less HLA donor‐specific antibody (DSA) formation or fewer adverse outcomes than deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Using the multicenter A2ALL (Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study) biorepository, we compared the incidence and outcomes of preformed and de novo DSAs between LDLT and DDLT. In total, 129 LDLT and 66 DDLT recipients were identified as having serial samples. The prevalence of preformed and de novo DSAs was not different between DDLT and LDLT recipients (p = 0.93). There was no association between patient survival and the timing (preformed vs. de novo), class (I vs. II) and relative levels of DSA between the groups; however, preformed DSA was associated with higher graft failure only in DDLT recipients (p = 0.01). De novo DSA was associated with graft failure regardless of liver transplant type (p = 0.005) but with rejection only in DDLT (p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, DSA was an independent risk factor for graft failure regardless of liver transplant type (p = 0.017, preformed; p = 0.002, de novo). In conclusion, although similar in prevalence, DSA may have more impact in DDLT than LDLT recipients. Although our findings need further validation, future research should more robustly test the effect of donor type and strategies to mitigate the impact of DSA.     

Outcomes of Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of the A2ALL Cohort†

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an increasing fraction of liver transplant indications; the role of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) remains unclear. In the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, patients with HCC and an LDLT or deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) for which at least one potential living donor had been evaluated were compared for recurrence and posttransplant mortality rates. Mortality from date of evaluation of each recipient's first potential living donor was also analyzed. Unadjusted 5‐year HCC recurrence was significantly higher after LDLT (38%) than DDLT (11%), (p = 0.0004). After adjustment for tumor characteristics, HCC recurrence remained significantly different between LDLT and DDLT recipients (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.35; p = 0.04) for the overall cohort but not for recipients transplanted following the introduction of MELD prioritization. Five‐year posttransplant survival was similar in LDLT and DDLT recipients from time of transplant (HR = 1.32; p = 0.27) and from date of LDLT evaluation (HR = 0.73; p = 0.36). We conclude that the higher recurrence observed after LDLT is likely due to differences in tumor characteristics, pretransplant HCC management and waiting time.     

Recipient Morbidity After Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: Findings from the A2ALL Retrospective Cohort Study†

Patients considering living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) need to know the risk and severity of complications compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). One aim of the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) was to examine recipient complications following these procedures. Medical records of DDLT or LDLT recipients who had a living donor evaluated at the nine A2ALL centers between 1998 and 2003 were reviewed. Among 384 LDLT and 216 DDLT, at least one complication occurred after 82.8% of LDLT and 78.2% of DDLT (p = 0.17). There was a median of two complications after DDLT and three after LDLT. Complications that occurred at a higher rate (p < 0.05) after LDLT included biliary leak (31.8% vs. 10.2%), unplanned reexploration (26.2% vs. 17.1%), hepatic artery thrombosis (6.5% vs. 2.3%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.9% vs. 0.0%). There were more complications leading to retransplantation or death (Clavien grade 4) after LDLT versus DDLT (15.9% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.023). Many complications occurred more commonly during early center experience; the odds of grade 4 complications were more than two‐fold higher when centers had performed ≤20 LDLT (vs. >40). In summary, complication rates were higher after LDLT versus DDLT, but declined with center experience to levels comparable to DDLT.     

Incidence and Severity of Acute Cellular Rejection in Recipients Undergoing Adult Living Donor or Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation‡

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may have better immunological outcomes compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) after LDLT and DDLT. Data from the adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) retrospective cohort study on 593 liver transplants done between May 1998 and March 2004 were studied (380 LDLT; 213 DDLT). Median LDLT and DDLT follow‐up was 778 and 713 days, respectively. Rates of clinically treated and biopsy‐proven ACR were compared. There were 174 (46%) LDLT and 80 (38%) DDLT recipients with ≥1 clinically treated episodes of ACR, whereas 103 (27%) LDLT and 58 (27%) DDLT recipients had ≥1 biopsy‐proven ACR episode. A higher proportion of LDLT recipients had clinically treated ACR (p = 0.052), but this difference was largely attributable to one center. There were similar proportions of biopsy‐proven rejection (p = 0.97) and graft loss due to rejection (p = 0.16). Longer cold ischemia time was associated with a higher rate of ACR in both groups despite much shorter median cold ischemia time in LDLT. These data do not show an immunological advantage for LDLT, and therefore do not support the application of unique posttransplant immunosuppression protocols for LDLT recipients.     

Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Valid Alternative for Critically Ill Patients Suffering From Acute Liver Failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0–7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0–10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18–72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo–Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work‐up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short‐ and long‐term outcomes.     

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.     

When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors

Outcomes of retransplantation after initial living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand the indications, timing, and outcomes of retransplantation after initial LDLT when compared to after initial deceased donor transplantation (DDLT). From 2002 to 2013, 209 retransplant recipients after initial LDLT and 2893 after initial DDLT were identified in Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable logistic models evaluated the association between initial transplant type and 1‐year mortality. The most frequent reason for early graft failure (≤14 days) in LDLT recipients was vascular thrombosis (63.6%) versus primary graft failure in initial DDLT recipients (59.1%). LDLT recipients were more often acutely and/or critically ill with a greater proportion of Status 1 (42.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (52.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.001) recipients at the time of retransplantation. There was no difference in adjusted 1‐year mortality between retransplant recipients after initial LDLT versus DDLT (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.08). The proportion of recipients who ultimately required retransplantation for a third time was not different between the two groups (4.8%). Retransplantation outcomes after LDLT are not different from other retransplant procedures, despite recipients having greater acuity of illness and different indications.     

Reduced Mortality with Right-Lobe Living Donor Compared to Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation When Analyzed from the Time of Listing

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) is not yet a fully accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver failure in the Western hemisphere because of concerns about donor safety and inferior recipient outcomes. An outcome analysis from the time of listing for all adult patients who were listed for liver transplantation (LT) at our center was performed. From 2000 to 2006, 1091 patients were listed for LT. One hundred fifty-four patients (LRD; 14%) had suitable live donors and 153 (99%) underwent RLDLT. Of the remaining patients (DD/Waiting List; n = 937), 350 underwent deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT); 312 died or dropped off the waiting list; and 275 were still waiting at the time of this analysis. The LRD group had shorter mean waiting times (6.0 months vs. 9.8 months; p < 0.001). Although medical model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar at the time of listing, MELD scores at LT were significantly higher in the DD/Waiting List group (15.4 vs. 19.5; p = 0.002). Patients in Group 1 had a survival advantage with RLDLT from the time of listing (1-year survival 90% vs. 80%; p < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to document a survival advantage at time of listing for RLDLT over DDLT.     

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

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

Use of living donor liver transplantation varies with the availability of deceased donor liver transplantation

The demographics of patients in the United States who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus patients who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are interesting with respect to the demographics of the donor service areas (DSAs). We examined adult recipients of primary, non-status 1 liver-only transplants from 2003 to 2009. The likelihood of undergoing LDLT was compared to the likelihood of undergoing DDLT by multivariate logistic regression. We examined the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for undergoing LDLT versus DDLT for patients with the same diagnosis and blood type after we stratified the DSAs into quintiles by the median match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. LDLT was performed for 1497 of 32,927 liver transplants (4.5%). LDLT decreased in frequency by approximately 30% from 2003 to 2009. In comparison with DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients were younger and had higher albumin levels, lower body mass indices, and lower match MELD scores. Females had increased odds of LDLT in comparison with males (OR = 1.74, P < 0.001). Patients with MELD exception scores were less likely to undergo LDLT (OR = 0.22, P < 0.001). Patients with cholestatic liver disease (adjusted OR = 2.04, P < 0.001) or malignant neoplasms other than hepatocellular carcinoma (adjusted OR = 3.33, P < 0.001) were more likely than patients with hepatitis C virus to undergo LDLT. Other characteristics associated with decreased odds of LDLT were black race (adjusted OR = 0.41, P < 0.001) and government insurance (adjusted OR = 0.51, P < 0.001). LDLT was more frequent in DSAs with high median MELD scores; the adjusted OR for LDLT was 38 for the DSAs in the highest quintile (P < 0.001). In conclusion, there are significant differences associated with race, insurance, sex, MELD exceptions, and DSA MELD scores between patients who undergo LDLT and patients who undergo DDLT. These differences can be hypothesized to be driven in part by the relative availability of LDLT versus DDLT at both the patient level and the DSA level.     

Clinical analysis of emergency liver transplantation: the role of living donor liver transplantation

The current liver allocation system requires reevaluation because of the advancements in peri‐transplantation care and surgical techniques. And, the role of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in an emergency has not been determined yet. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing emergency liver transplantation (LT) from January 2000 to June 2010 was conducted, and clinical data were analyzed. Of the total 505 LTs, 69 patients (13.7%) underwent an emergency LT. Of these, 54 patients (78.3%) underwent LDLT using a right liver, and 15 patients (21.7%) underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The overall hospital mortality was 21.7% (15/69). The leading cause of death after transplantation was sepsis (60.0%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) >33 [hazard ratio (HR), 16.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.443–191.632; p = 0.024] and existence of pre‐transplantation intubation (HR, 18.2; 95% CI, 1.463–225.483; p = 0.024) were independent factors associated with poor survival after emergency LT. LDLT group and DDLT group showed no difference in hospital mortality (p = 0.854) and graft survival (p = 0.861). Thus, MELD score and respiratory insufficiency could be parameters predicting post‐transplant survival. And, LDLT using the right liver could be an appropriate alternative to DDLT in an emergency.     

活体肝移植治疗原发性肝癌的疗效分析

目的 通过活体肝移植(LDLT)与尸体肝移植(DDLT)治疗原发性肝癌(HCC)的比较,探讨LDLT治疗HCC的疗效.方法 分析2007年1月至2008年12月间我院实施的105例肝癌肝移植手术(其中LDLT38例,DDLT67例)的临床资料和随访结果.结果 LDLT患者1年及3年生存率分别为92.1％及78.9％,...     

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.     

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes in Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Introduction  Primary sclerosing cholangitits (PSC) is a progressive fibrosing cholangiopathy eventually leading to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). While literature for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for PSC abounds, only a few reports describe live donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the setting of PSC. We present a single-center experience on survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Aim  The aim of this study was to analyze survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Patients and Methods  A retrospective review of 58 primary liver transplants for PSC-associated ESLD, performed between May 1995 and January 2007, was done. Patients were divided into two groups based on donor status. Group 1 (n = 14) patients received grafts from living donors, while group 2 (n = 44) patients received grafts from deceased donors. An analysis of survival outcomes and disease recurrence was performed. Recurrence was confirmed based on radiological and histological criteria. Results  Recurrence of PSC was observed in four patients in LDLT group and seven in DDLT group. Retransplantation was required in one patient in LDLT group and nine patients in DDLT group. One patient (7%) among LDLT and six patients (14%) among DDLT died. The difference in patient and graft survival was not statistically significant between the two groups (patient survival, p = 0.60; graft survival, p = 0.24). Conclusion  This study demonstrates equivalent survival outcomes between LDLT and DDLT for PSC; however, the rate of recurrence may be higher in patients undergoing LDLT.     

Hepatopulmonary syndrome after living donor liver transplantation and deceased donor liver transplantation: a single-center experience.

Hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a progressive, debilitating complication of end-stage liver disease. In contrast to the well-established reversal of HPS after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), little has been written about the natural course of HPS after the newer procedure of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We describe HPS in a small series of 4 liver transplant recipients (2 DDLT; 2 LDLT) at a single center. Before transplantation, these 4 patients had a mean shunt fraction of 23.6 +/- 14.3% and a mean PaO2 of 58.5 +/- 11.3 mm Hg. All 4 patients used supplemental oxygen before transplantation. Sixteen weeks after transplantation, all 4 patients had normalized or improved shunt fraction and PaO2. These patients regained normal pulmonary function within a few months, despite the period of hepatic regeneration after LDLT. In conclusion, both DDLT and LDLT are associated with rapid and dramatic reversal of HPS.     

Complications and Their Resolution in Recipients of Deceased and Living Donor Liver Transplants: Findings From the A2ALL Cohort Study

The purpose of this study was to explore long‐term complications in recipients of deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) and living donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). We analyzed 471 DDLTs and 565 LDLTs from 1998 to 2010 that were followed up to 10 years for 36 categories of complications. Probabilities of complications and their resolutions were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and predictors were tested in Cox proportional hazards models. Median follow‐up for DDLT and LDLT was 4.19 and 4.80 years, respectively. DDLT recipients were more likely to have hepatocellular carcinoma and higher disease severity, including Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score. Complications occurring with higher probability in LDLT included biliary‐related complications and hepatic artery thrombosis. In DDLT, ascites, intra‐abdominal bleeding, cardiac complications and pulmonary edema were significantly more probable. Development of chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5 was less likely in LDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, p = 0.02). DDLT and LDLT had similar risk of grade 4 complications (HR 0.89, p = 0.60), adjusted for other risk factors. Once a complication occurred, the time to resolution did not differ between LDLT and DDLT. Future efforts should be directed toward reducing the occurrence of complications after liver transplantation.     

Biliary Complications Following Deceased and Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Review

Introduction

Biliary complications are the most important source of complications after liver transplantation, and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. With the evolution of surgical transplantation techniques, including living donor and split-liver transplants, the complexity of these problems is increasing. Many studies have shown a higher incidence of biliary tract complications in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) compared with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). This article reviews biliary complications after liver transplantation and correlations with LDLT and DDLT.

Objective

Provide an overview of biliary complications among LDLT and DDLT.

Results

The incidence of biliary complications is higher among LDLT (28.7%) when compared with DDLT (15.5%). Bile leaks were the most common complication due to LDLT (17.1%); however, stricture was the most common complication due to DDLT (7.5%).     

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1997–2006

Liver transplantation in 2006 generally resembled previous years, with fewer candidates waiting for deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT), continuing a trend initiated with the implementation of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Candidate age distribution continued to skew toward older ages with fewer children listed in 2006 than in any prior year. Total transplants increased due to more DDLT with slightly fewer living donor liver transplants (LDLT). Waiting list deaths and time to transplant continued to improve. In 2006, there also were fewer DDLT for patients with MELD <15, fewer pediatric Status 1A/B transplants and more transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Adjusted patient and graft survival rates were similar for LDLT and DDLT. This article also contains in-depth analyses of transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recipients with HCC had lower adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival than recipients without HCC. HCC recipients who received pretransplant ablative treatments had superior adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival compared to HCC recipients who did not. Intestinal transplantation continued to slowly increase with the largest number of candidates on the waiting list since 1997. Survival rates have increased over time. Small children waiting for intestine grafts continue to have the highest waiting list mortality.