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.     

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.     

Living vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Experimental studies suggest that the regenerating liver provides a “fertile field” for the growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, clinical studies report conflicting results comparing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Thus, disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared after LDLT and DDLT for HCC in a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for DFS, including 633 LDLT and 1232 DDLT. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for OS, including 637 LDLT and 1050 DDLT. Altogether, there were 16 unique studies; 1, 2, and 13 of these were rated as high, medium, and low quality, respectively. Studies were heterogeneous, non‐randomized, and mostly retrospective. The combined hazard ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–2.49; I² = 50.07%) for DFS after LDLT vs. DDLT for HCC, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.73–1.27; I² = 5.68%) for OS. This analysis provides evidence of lower DFS after LDLT compared with DDLT for HCC. Improved study design and reporting is required in future research to ascribe the observed difference in DFS to study bias or biological risk specifically associated with LDLT.     

Model for end‐stage liver disease‐sodium and survival benefit in liver transplantation

There are currently no studies calculating the survival benefit of liver transplantation (LT) according to model for end‐stage liver disease‐sodium (MELD‐Na) and based on the competing risk (CR) method. We enrolled consecutive adult patients with chronic end‐stage liver disease entering the waiting list (WL) for primary LT (WL group = 337) and undergoing LT (LT group = 220) in the period 2006–2009. Two independent multivariable regressions (WL and LT models) were created to measure the prognostic power of MELD‐Na with respect to MELD. For the WL model, both Cox and CR multivariable analyses were performed. Estimates were finally included in a Markov model to calculate 3‐year survival benefit. WL Cox model: MELD‐Na (P < 0.0001) and MELD (P < 0.0001) significantly predicted survival. WL CR model: MELD‐Na (P = 0.0045) and MELD (P = 0.0109) significantly predicted survival. LT Cox model: MELD‐Na (P = 0.7608) and MELD score (P = 0.9413) had not correlation with survival. Benefit model: MELD and MELD‐Na had an overlapping significant impact on 3‐year survival benefit; CR method determined a significant decrease in 3‐year life expectancy (LE) estimations. MELD‐Na and MELD scores similarly predicted 3‐year LT survival benefit, but the gain in LE is significantly lower when a CR method is adopted.     

Prediction of early allograft dysfunction using serum phosphorus level in living donor liver transplantation

Serum phosphorus is greatly affected by liver surgeries, but its change after liver transplantation has not yet been clarified. We investigated the predictive role of serum phosphorus for early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Perioperative factors, including serum phosphorus level, of 304 patients who underwent LDLT were retrospectively studied and compared between patients with and without EAD after LDLT. Potentially significant factors (P < 0.15) in univariate comparisons were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis to develop a prediction model for EAD. A total of 48 patients (15.8%) met the EAD criteria. Patients with EAD experienced more severe preoperative disease conditions, higher one‐month mortality and more elevated serum phosphorus concentrations during the first week after surgery compared with patients without EAD (P = 0.016). Multivariate analysis showed that a serum phosphorus level ≥4.5 mg/dl on postoperative day 2 was an independent predictor of EAD occurrence after LDLT (relative risk: 2.36, 95% confidence interval [1.18–4.31], P = 0.017), together with a history of past abdominal surgery, emergency transplantation and preoperative continuous veno‐venous haemodiafiltration. These data indicate that hyperphosphataemia during the immediate postoperative days could be utilized as a predictor of EAD after LDLT.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing 10‐yr renal outcomes in deceased donor and living donor liver transplants

Few studies have explored whether the type of LT, deceased donor LT (DDLT) or living donor LT (LDLT), impacts long‐term renal outcomes. We performed a retrospective analysis of 220 LT recipients at our institution to study their renal outcomes at 10 yr. Exclusion criteria were age ≤ 18 yr, graft survival ≤6 months, and multiorgan transplants; 108 DDLTs and 62 LDLTs were eligible. At baseline, DDLTs had a lower eGFR than LDLTs and 10.2% of DDLTs were on dialysis as compared to 0% of LDLTs. At 10 yr, seven DDLT and three LDLT recipients required dialysis or renal transplant (p = 0.75). In recipients with graft survival >6 months, DDLTs had a slower decline in eGFR as compared to LDLTs (p < 0.01). Among LDLTs, the decline in eGFR continued over the entire 10‐yr period, whereas among DDLTs, the decline in eGFR slowed significantly after six months (p = 0.01). This difference between the two groups was not seen among patients in the highest quartile of baseline eGFR. Patient survival and graft survival were similar. In conclusion, the incidence of end‐stage renal disease was similar in both DDLT and LDLT patients, but LDLT recipients seem to have a more sustained decline in eGFR when compared with DDLT recipients.     

(D+10) MELD as a novel predictor of patient and graft survival after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation

We modified the previously described D‐MELD score in deceased donor liver transplant, to (D+10)MELD to account for living donors being about 10 years younger than deceased donors, and tested it on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients. Five hundred consecutive LDLT, between July 2010 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed to see the effect of (D+10)MELD on patient and graft survival. Donor age alone did not influence survival. Recipients were divided into six classes based on the (D+10)MELD score: Class 1 (0‐399), Class 2 (400‐799), Class 3 (800‐1199), Class 4 (1200‐1599), Class 5 (1600‐1999), and Class 6 (>2000). The 1 year patient survival (97.1, 88.8, 87.6, 76.9, and 75% across Class 1‐5, P=.03) and graft survival (97.1, 87.9, 82.3, 76.9, and 75%; P=.04) was significantly different among the classes. The study population was divided into two groups at (D+10)MELD cut off at 860. Group 1 had a significantly better 1 year patient (90.4% vs 83.4%; P=.02) and graft survival (88.6% vs 80.2%; P=.01). While donor age alone does not predict recipient outcome, (D+10)MELD score is a strong predictor of recipient and graft survival, and may help in better recipient/donor selection and matching in LDLT.     

Living donor liver transplantation in Egypt

In Egypt there is no doubt that chronic liver diseases are a major health concern. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence among the 15−59 years age group is estimated to be 14.7%. The high prevalence of chronic liver diseases has led to increasing numbers of Egyptian patients suffering from end stage liver disease (ESLD), necessitating liver transplantation (LT). We reviewed the evolution of LT in Egypt and the current status. A single center was chosen as an example to review the survival and mortality rates. To date, deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has not been implemented in any program though Egyptian Parliament approved the law in 2010. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) seemed to be the only logical choice to save many patients who are in desperate need for LT. By that time, there was increase in number of centers doing LDLT (13 centers) and increase in number of LDLT cases [2,400] with improvement of the results. Donor mortality rate is 1.66 per 1,000 donors; this comprised four donors in the Egyptian series. The exact recipient survival is not accurately known however, and the one-year, three-year and five-year survival were 73.17%, 70.83% and 64.16% respectively in the International Medical Center (IMC) in a series of 145 adult to adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) cases. There was no donor mortality in this series. LDLT are now routinely and successfully performed in Egypt with reasonable donor and recipient outcomes. Organ shortage remains the biggest hurdle facing the increasing need for LT. Although LDLT had reasonable outcomes, it carries considerable risks to healthy donors. For example, it lacks cadaveric back up, and is not feasible for all patients. The initial success in LDLT should drive efforts to increase the people awareness about deceased organ donation in Egypt.     

High MELD score does not adversely affect outcome of living donor liver transplantation: Experience in 1000 recipients

In countries where deceased organ donation is scarce, there is a big gap between demand and supply of organs and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) plays an important role in meeting this unmet need. This study was conducted to analyze the effect of pretransplant Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) score on outcomes following LDLT. The outcome of 1000 patients who underwent LDLT from July 2010 to March 2015 was analyzed retrospectively. Patients were grouped into low MELD<25 and high MELD ≥25 score to compare short‐term outcomes. Cumulative overall survival rates were calculated using Kaplan‐Meier methods. A total of 849 recipients were in low MELD group (Mean MELD=16.90±9.2) and 151 were in high MELD group (Mean MELD=28.77±7.2). No significant difference in etiology of CLD was observed between groups except for a higher prevalence of hepatitis C virus (29.6% vs 19.9%, P=.01) in low MELD patients. No significant difference was observed in 1‐year survival (88.5% vs 84.1%, P=.12) between the groups. The multivariate analysis showed that pretransplant MELD score does not predict survival of recipients. Pretransplant high MELD score does not adversely affect outcomes after LDLT. In view of shortage of deceased organs, LDLT can be a good option in high MELD recipients.     

Risk factors for acute renal injury in living donor liver transplantation: evaluation of the RIFLE criteria

Acute renal injury (ARI) is a serious complication after liver transplantation. This study investigated the usefulness of the RIFLE criteria in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and the prognostic impact of ARI after LDLT. We analyzed 200 consecutive adult LDLT patients, categorized as risk (R), injury (I), or failure (F), according to the RIFLE criteria. ARI occurred in 60.5% of patients: R‐class, 23.5%; I‐class, 21%; and F‐class, 16%. Four patients in Group‐A (normal renal function and R‐class) and 26 patients in Group‐B (severe ARI: I‐ and F‐class) required renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001). Mild ARI did not affect postoperative prognosis regarding hospital mortality rate in Group A (3.2%), which was superior to that in Group B (15.8%; P = 0.0015). Fourteen patients in Group B developed chronic kidney disease (KDIGO stage 3/4). The 1‐, 5‐ and 10‐year survival rates were 96.7%, 90.6%, and 88.1% for Group A and 71.1%, 65.9%, and 59.3% for Group B, respectively (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed risk factors for severe ARI as MELD ≥20 [odds ratio (OR) 2.9], small‐for‐size graft (GW/RBW <0.7%; OR 3.1), blood loss/body weight >55 ml/kg (OR 3.7), overexposure to calcineurin inhibitor (OR 2.5), and preoperative diabetes mellitus (OR 3.2). The RIFLE criteria offer a useful predictive tool after LDLT. Severe ARI, defined beyond class‐I, could have negative prognostic impact in the acute and late postoperative phases. Perioperative treatment strategies should be designed and balanced based on the risk factors for the further improvement of transplant prognosis.     

Survival following right lobe split graft,living‐ and deceased‐donor liver transplantation in adult patients: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Graft and patient survival outcomes following split liver transplantation (SLT), living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased‐donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were estimated using Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Databases were searched for relevant articles over the previous 20 years (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Systematic review, pairwise meta‐analysis and Bayesian network meta‐analysis were performed. Pairwise meta‐analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in graft and patient survival outcomes. Consequently, Bayesian network meta‐analysis demonstrated no significant differences in 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survival between the three alternative liver transplantations. No discrepancies were demonstrated after comparisons of direct and indirect evidence of 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year patient and graft survival of the three node‐split models namely SLT, LDLT and DDLT. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year graft and patient survival of the SLT and LDLT cohorts compared to the DDLT cohort demonstrated no significant differences. The direct and indirect evidence of this study can serve as comparator for future studies.     

Developments in pediatric liver transplantation since implementation of the new allocation rules in Eurotransplant

Liver allocation in the Eurotransplant (ET) region has changed from a waiting time to an urgency‐based system using the model of end‐stage liver disease (MELD) score in 2006. To allow timely transplantation, pediatric recipients are allocated by an assigned pediatric MELD independent of severity of illness. Consequences for children listed at our center were evaluated by retrospective analysis of all primary pediatric liver transplantation (LTX) from deceased donors between 2002 and 2010 (110 LTX before/50 LTX after new allocation). Of 50 children transplanted in the MELD era, 17 (34%) underwent LTX with a high‐urgent status that was real in five patients (median lab MELD 22, waiting time five d) and assigned in 12 patients (lab MELD 7, waiting time 35 d). Thirty‐three children received a liver by their assigned pediatric MELD (lab MELD 15, waiting time 255 d). Waiting time in the two periods was similar, whereas the wait‐list mortality decreased (from about four children/yr to about one child/yr). One‐ and three‐yr patient survival showed no significant difference (94.5/97.7%; p = 0.385) as did one‐ and three‐yr graft survival (80.7/75.2%; and 86.5/82%; p = 0.436 before/after). Introduction of a MELD‐based allocation system in ET with assignment of a granted score for pediatric recipients has led to a clear priorization of children resulting in a low wait‐list mortality and good clinical outcome.     

Living donor liver transplantation or resection for Child‐Pugh A hepatocellular carcinoma patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria

The optimum primary treatment strategy for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with multiple nodules remains unclear. We aimed to compare the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with that of liver resection (LR) for early Child‐Pugh A HCC patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria. From January 2007 to July 2012, 67 of 375 patients with early HCC in our centre fulfilled the inclusion criteria (group LDLT, n = 34 versus group LR, n = 33). Patient and tumour characteristics, operative data, postoperative course and outcomes were analysed retrospectively. The postoperative mortality and rate of major complications were similar in both groups. The 5‐year overall survival (OS; 76.5% vs. 51.2%, P = 0.046) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS; 72.0% vs. 19.8%, P = 0.000) were better in group LDLT than that in group LR. The 5‐year OS and RFS were similar between patients with tumours located in the same lobe (TSL) and those in the different lobes (TDL) after LDLT, whereas the 5‐year RFS was better in patients with tumours in TSL (30.6% vs. 0%, P = 0.012) after LR. In conclusion, primary LDLT might be the optimum treatment for early HCC patients with multiple nodules meeting the Milan criteria.     

Chronic renal outcome after living donor liver transplantation

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the common complications after deceased donor liver transplantation. Although the worldwide pressing shortage in deceased donors has directed attention to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), LDLT cohort data focusing on chronic renal dysfunction is limited. A total of 280 adult LDLT recipients (median 49 yr, 156 men) at the University of Tokyo hospital between 1996 and 2006 were reviewed. A total of 224 pre‐transplant liver failure patients (80.0%) showed an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 60 mL/min/1.73 m². However, during follow‐up at a mean of 1222 d after transplantation, eGFR declined to 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and 30 mL/min/1.73 m² in 150 (53.2%) and 21 (7.5%), respectively, and four patients (1.4%) required maintenance renal replacement therapy. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model regression analysis revealed that recipient age (HR, 3.42 per 10‐yr increment; p < 0.001) and pre‐transplant eGFR (HR, 0.85 per 10‐mL/min/1.73 m² increment; p = 0.04) were associated independently with a post‐transplant decrease in eGFR to less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². We conclude that higher age and lower pre‐transplant eGFR of an LDLT recipient indicate a high likelihood of subsequent development of advanced CKD. Preventive or therapeutic intervention should be optimized for these high‐risk patients.     

Clinical analysis of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after living donor liver transplantation

This study aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes and factors influencing the outcome in the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between October, 1997 and September, 2010, 25 (16.0%) of 156 patients who had undergone LDLT for HCC experienced recurrence. All patients with recurrence, with a single exception, were in the high‐risk group. Among patients with recurrence, 76.0% of patients experienced recurrence within one yr after LDLT. One‐ and five‐yr survival rates of recurred patients were 56.0% and 8.6%, respectively. Among them, 32% of patients were treated with curative‐intent treatment, and their one‐ and five‐yr survival rates were 62.5% and 25.0%, respectively. Beyond the Milan criteria at liver transplantation (LT) (p = 0.032), multiple recurrence (p = 0.001), and palliative treatment for recurrent tumors (p = 0.049) were related to poor survival after recurrence. Additionally, the independent prognostic factors included multiple recurrence (p = 0.005) and the Milan criteria at LT (p = 0.047). Because almost all recurrent cases belonged to the high‐risk group and recurred within two yr, the high‐risk group should undergo close follow‐up for early detection and be treated with liver‐directed therapies. Although the prognosis of recurrent HCC after LDLT is poor, long‐term survival can be expected on a single recurrence and curative treatment.     

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.     

Clinical significance of gastrointestinal bleeding after living donor liver transplantation

The clinical presentations of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) occurring after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have not been fully described. We performed a retrospective analysis of 297 LDLT cases. Nineteen patients (6.4%) experienced GIB after LDLT. The etiology of GIB included bleeding at the jejunojejunostomy following hepaticojejunostomy (n = 13), peptic ulcer disease (n = 2), portal hypertensive gastropathy (n = 2), and other causes (n = 2). Hemostasis was achieved in 13 patients (68.4%) by endoscopic (n = 3), surgical (n = 1), or supportive treatments (n = 15), but not in the other six patients. Graft dysfunction (P < 0.001), hepaticojejunostomy (P = 0.01), portal vein pressure at the end of surgery >20 mmHg (P = 0.002), and operative blood loss >10 L (P = 0.004) were risk factors. One‐year graft survival rate was significantly lower in patients with GIB than in patients without GIB (P < 0.001). The inhospital mortality rate was 52.6% for patients with GIB, 75.0% for patients with graft dysfunction, and 14.3% for patients without graft dysfunction (P = 0.028). Despite its infrequency after LDLT, GIB has strong correlation with graft dysfunction and inhospital mortality.     

Incidence and risk factors for new‐onset diabetes in living‐donor liver transplant recipients

With the increased number of long‐term survivors after liver transplantation, new‐onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is becoming more significant in patient follow‐up. However, the incidence of new‐onset diabetes after living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not been well elucidated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for NODAT in adult LDLT recipients at a single center in Japan. A retrospective study was performed on 161 adult patients without diabetes who had been followed up for ≥three months after LDLT. NODAT was defined according to the 2003 American Diabetes Association/World Health Organization guidelines. The recipient‐, donor‐, operation‐, and immunosuppression‐associated risk factors for NODAT were assessed. Overall, the incidence of NODAT was 13.7% (22/161) with a mean follow‐up of 49.8 months. In a multivariate analysis, the identified risk factors for NODAT were donor liver‐to‐spleen (L‐S) ratio (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.022, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.001–0.500, p = 0.017), and steroid pulse therapy for acute rejection (HR = 3.320, 95% CI = 1.365–8.075, p = 0.008). In conclusion, donor L‐S ratio and steroid pulse therapy for acute rejection were independent predictors for NODAT in LDLT recipients. These findings can help in screening for NODAT and applying early interventions.