A retrospective evaluation of causes of exempting living liver donors in an Egyptian centre

Background and study aimsLiving-related liver transplantation has helped to solve the problem of shortage of deceased organ donors. However, studies showed significant donor complications occurring with adult living liver donation. This study aims at assessing different causes of exclusion of potent living donor transplantation in Egypt.Patients and methodsThe data of 158 living donors (corresponding to 50 consecutive transplanted cases) were retrospectively studied.ResultsOnly 50 donors were found to meet all the preoperative assessment criteria while 108 potential donors were excluded at various assessment steps. Majority of the excluded potential donors were due to anatomical variations (52/108) followed by hepatic steatosis (19/108) and positive hepatitis B or C virus serology (11/108). Regarding the anatomic variations, biliary anomalies were ranked as the first cause to exclude donors with the majority of them having the type C biliary variant. Portal vein variations were the second most common cause of exclusion due to portal vein trifurcation. Hepatic artery variations were detected in a lesser number of excluded donors. No donors were excluded for hepatic vein anomalies.ConclusionAnatomical variations are the most common causes to exempt living liver donors. Preoperative evaluation of anatomical variations, viral serology and hepatic steatosis plays the major role to accept or exclude the potential donors.     

Interventional radiology in living donor liver transplant

The shortage of deceased donor liver grafts led to the use of living donor liver transplant (LDLT). Patients who undergo LDLT have a higher risk of complications than those who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (LT). Interventional radiology has acquired a key role in every LT program by treating the majority of vascular and non-vascular post-transplant complications, improving graft and patient survival and avoiding, in the majority of cases, surgical revision and/or re-transplant. The aim of this paper is to review indications, diagnostic modalities, technical considerations, achievements and potential complications of interventional radiology procedures after LDLT.     

Effects of donor steatosis on liver biochemistry and significance of body mass index in predicting steatosis

Background

Hepatic steatosis is a major concern in living donor liver transplantation. Factors affecting hepatic functional status after a donor right hepatectomy (with the middle hepatic vein included in the graft) with a focus on changes owing to steatosis were retrospectively studied.

Methods

Donors (n= 325) were categorized into three groups: G0 (no steatosis, n= 178), G1 (< = 10% steatosis, n= 128) and G2 (>10% steatosis, n= 19). Donors with >20% steatosis were excluded. Changes in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), bilirubin levels and prothrombin time (PT) were assessed. Factors predicting steatosis were also assessed. A liver biopsy was performed on selected donors.

Results

The ALT level rose until day 3 in G1 and day 6 in G2 (P < 0.05). The AST level rose until day 7 in G2 (P < 0.05) but stayed unchanged in G1. The bilirubin level was higher only on day 1 in G2 (P < 0.05). By day 30, no significant difference between any groups was noted. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve for body mass index (BMI) on predicting steatosis was 0.75 [confidence interval (CI) = 69–80]. Among donors with a BMI > 23.5 kg/m², 75% had steatosis. Five donors had >20% steatosis and were not assessed.

Conclusion

Using a liver with up to 20% steatosis in right liver donation, even if the middle hepatic vein is included in the graft, is safe. For Asian donors, a BMI > 23.5 kg/m² is a guide in deciding whether to perform a liver biopsy for steatosis.     

Prevalence of fatty liver disease after liver transplantation and risk factors for recipients and donors

Introduction and objectivesFatty liver disease (FLD) may develop in liver transplant recipients. We investigated the recipient and donor risk factors for FLD development after liver transplantation (LT).MethodsA total of 108 liver transplant recipients (54 men [50.0%]; median age, 52 [20–68] years) treated from 2011–2020 was enrolled. Three recipients died at < 3 months as a result of infection or blood flow impairment, and were excluded from the long-term FLD study. On evaluation of 88 prospective living donors, fatty liver was observed in 21. The prevalence and risk factors for FLD and survival were evaluated.ResultsAfter LT, 28 of 105 recipients (26.7%) developed FLD. FLD was more common in patients with a high body mass index (BMI) and dyslipidemia (both p < 0.01), primary nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (p = 0.02), after living-donor LT (p = 0.03) and everolimus (EVL) use (p = 0.08). Factors predictive of FLD included EVL use and a high BMI (hazard ratios = 3.00 and 1.34; p = 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). Sixteen donors lost 6.5 kg (range: 2.0–16.0 kg) of body weight prior to LT. However, there were no cases of primary non-function, which did not affect the FLD prevalence. Development of FLD did not have a negative impact on LT outcome; the 5-year survival rate was 92.6%.ConclusionsRecipient factors were more important than donor factors for FLD onset after LT.     

Retrospective analysis of the causes of rejection of potential donors for living related liver transplantation

Background  A major prerequisite for living related liver transplantation is to ensure both donor safety and optimal graft quality. Therefore, excluding unsuitable donor candidates should be an important priority of the transplant team. Purpose  To analyze the criteria for exclusion of potential living related liver donors. Patients and methods  From November 2000 to March 2005, 327 potential living related donors for 136 potential recipients for liver transplantation were screened and worked up at the Liver Transplant Center, King Abdul Aziz Medical City. They were evaluated in a stepwise manner, including medical, physical, laboratory, psychosocial, and imaging assessment. Data regarding potential donors were retrospectively reviewed. Reasons for rejection of disqualified donors were analyzed. Results  Out of the 327 potential donors, 223 (68.2%) were rejected at an early stage. A total of 104 cases (31.8%) had computed tomographic (CT) volumetry and/or magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRCP). While 44 (42.3% of those who had CT volumetry and/or MRCP) had their workup completed and proved to be suitable candidates, 24 (23%) went for surgery. Causes for donor rejection were classified as donor-related factors (inadequate volume, unsafe anatomy, abnormal liver function tests, medical/psychiatric, fatty liver, etc.; n = 191) and recipient-related factors (too ill, died, received cadaveric transplant, etc.; n = 112). Conclusion  In our experience, as well as in those from other centers, a small proportion of potential donors prove to be satisfactory candidates. Therefore, strict adherence to a stepwise evaluation process is of utmost importance, so unsuitable potential donors can be disqualified, as early as possible during workup.     

Weight loss interventions in living donor liver transplantation as a tool in expanding the donor pool: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDWith increasing rates of liver transplantation and a stagnant donor pool, the annual wait list removals have remained high. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established modality in expanding the donor pool and is the primary method of liver donation in large parts of the world. Marginal living donors, including those with hepatic steatosis, have been used to expand the donor pool. However, due to negative effects of steatosis on graft and recipient outcomes, current practice excludes overweight or obese donors with more than 10% macro vesicular steatosis. This has limited a potentially important source to help expand the donor pool. Weight loss is known to improve or resolve steatosis and rapid weight loss with short-term interventions have been used to convert marginal donors to low-risk donors in a small series of studies. There is, however, a lack of a consensus driven standardized approach to such interventions. AIMTo assess the available data on using weight loss interventions in potential living liver donors with steatotic livers and investigated the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of using such donors on the donor, graft and recipient outcomes. The principal objective was to assess if using such treated donor livers, could help expand the donor pool.METHODSWe performed a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis on studies examining the role of short-term weight loss interventions in potential living liver donors with hepatic steatosis with the aim of increasing liver donation rates and improving donor, graft, and recipient outcomes. RESULTSA total of 6 studies with 102 potential donors were included. Most subjects were males (71). All studies showed a significant reduction in body mass index post-intervention with a mean difference of -2.08 (-3.06, 1.10, I² = 78%). A significant reduction or resolution of hepatic steatosis was seen in 93 of the 102 (91.2%). Comparison of pre- and post-intervention liver biopsies showed a significant reduction in steatosis with a mean difference of -21.22 (-27.02, -15.43, I² = 56%). The liver donation rates post-intervention was 88.5 (74.5, 95.3, I² = 42%). All donors who did not undergo LDLT had either recipient reasons or had fibrosis/steatohepatitis on post intervention biopsies. Post-operative biliary complications in the intervention group were not significantly different compared to controls with an odds ratio of 0.96 [(0.14, 6.69), I² = 0]. The overall post-operative donor, graft, and recipient outcomes in treated donors were not significantly different compared to donors with no steatosis. CONCLUSIONUse of appropriate short term weight loss interventions in living liver donors is an effective tool in turning marginal donors to low-risk donors and therefore in expanding the donor pool. It is feasible and safe, with comparable donor, graft, and recipient outcomes, to non-obese donors. Larger future prospective studies are needed.     

Risk Factors for Recurrence of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single Center Experience

We retrospectively reviewed our 10-year experience with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in 30 consecutive patients with end-stage primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) to determine long-term patient and graft survival and risk factors for recurrence of PSC. For strict diagnosis of recurrence, patients with hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 2), ABO blood type incompatible transplantation (n = 3), and postoperative survival shorter than 1 year (n = 5) were excluded from the study, leaving 20 patients for analysis. Recurrence was diagnosed in 11 patients 26–71 months after transplantation. Multivariate analysis showed that cytomegalovirus diseases within 3 months after transplantation and related donors were independent risk factors for recurrence. When the effects on recurrence were compared among donor-recipient relationships, there were significant differences, especially between nonrelated donors and parents. Multivariate analysis showed that age was an independent risk factor for time to graft loss. Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis and avoidance of related donors are important in reducing PSC recurrence, although this is a preliminary report with limitations due to the small number of patients. LDLT for young patients with PSC using grafts from their parents might have to be avoided where deceased donor liver transplantation is available.     

Asymptomatic transmission of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) through deceased donor liver transplantation

A 55‐year‐old woman underwent liver transplantation (LT) with a graft from a deceased donor. Mandatory pre‐donation investigations showed positive syphilis serology that was available only after the transplant, with high Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay titer compatible with donor syphilis infection. Despite the institution of appropriate post‐exposure prophylaxis, the recipient demonstrated latent seroconversion; however, liver graft function improved without evidence of syphilitic hepatitis or other manifestations of the disease. Through this first reported case of asymptomatic transmission of syphilis following LT, we highlight the investigations and treatment strategies for donor‐derived syphilis in liver transplant recipients. This report supplements the existing limited evidence on safe use of infected grafts from syphilitic donors through appropriate post‐exposure prophylaxis.     

Health-related quality of life of 256 recipients after liver transplantation

AIM:To investigate health-related quality of life(HRQoL) and psychological outcomes in 256 adults who had undergone liver transplantation(LT).METHODS:A stratified random sampling method was used in this follow-up multicenter study to select a representative sample of recipients undergoing either living donor liver transplantation(LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation(DDLT).HRQoL was measured by using the Chinese version of Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36(SF-36),and psychological outcomes by using the beck anxiety inventory(BAI) and the self-rating depression scale(SDS).Clinical and demographic data were collected from the records of the Chinese Liver Transplant Registry and via questionnaires.RESULTS:A total of 256 patients were sampled,including 66(25.8%) receiving LDLT and 190(74.2%) undergoing DDLT;15(5.9%) recipients had anxiety and four(1.6%) developed severe depression after the operation.Compared with LDLT recipients,DDLT patients had higher scores in general health(60.33 ± 16.97 vs 66.86 ± 18.42,P = 0.012),role-physical(63.64 ± 42.55 vs 74.47 ± 36.46,P = 0.048),roleemotional(61.11 ± 44.37 vs 78.95 ± 34.31,P = 0.001),social functioning(78.60 ± 22.76 vs 88.16 ± 21.85,P = 0.003),vitality(70.30 ± 15.76 vs 75.95 ± 16.40,P = 0.016),mental health(65.88 ± 12.94 vs 71.85 ± 15.45,P = 0.005),physical component summary scale(PCS,60.07 ± 7.36 vs 62.58 ± 6.88,P = 0.013) and mental component summary scale(MCS,52.65 ± 7.66 vs 55.95 ± 10.14,P = 0.016).Recipients 45 years old at the time of transplant scored higher in vitality(77.33 ± 15.64 vs 72.52 ± 16.66,P = 0.020),mental health(73.64 ± 15.06 vs 68.00 ± 14.65,P = 0.003) and MCS(56.61 ± 10.00 vs 54.05 ± 9.30,P = 0.037) than those aged ≤ 45 years.MCS was poorer in recipients with than in those without complications(52.92 ± 12.21 vs 56.06 ± 8.16,P = 0.017).Regarding MCS(55.10 ± 9.66 vs 50.0 ± 10.0,P 0.05) and PCS(61.93 ± 7.08 vs 50.0 ± 10.0,P 0.05),recipients scored better than the Sichuan general and had improved overall QoL compared to patients with chronic diseases.MCS and PCS significantly correlated with scores of the BAI(P 0.001) and the SDS(P 0.001).CONCLUSION:Age 45 years at time of transplant,DDLT,full-time working,no complications,anxiety and depression were possible factors influencing postoperative HRQoL in liver recipients.     

MARS: a futile tool in centres without active liver transplant support.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Studies on Molecular Adsorbent Recycling Systems (MARS) showed inconclusive survival benefits. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We evaluated the efficacy of MARS for patients with either acute liver failure (ALF) or acute-on-chronic liver failure (AoCLF) at our centre, from February 2002 till April 2006 retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifty ALF patients underwent median (range) three (1-10) sessions of MARS. Acute exacerbations of chronic hepatitis B (n=26) and drug-induced liver injury (n=12) were the commonest causes. Living donors were available in 6, 2 paediatric patients underwent left lobe and four adults underwent right lobe living donor liver transplant. Among the 44 ALF patients without a suitable living donor, one underwent deceased donor liver transplant and survived, another 19-year-old male with acute exacerbations of chronic hepatitis B recovered without transplant, and the rest died. Twenty-six had AoCLF and underwent four (1-10) MARS sessions. Sepsis (n=16) and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (n=4) were the commonest precipitating factors. None had a suitable living or deceased donor, suitable for transplantation during their hospitalization. Only one of 26 AoCLF patients survived the hospitalization, but the survivor died of sepsis 1 month later. CONCLUSION: In this non-randomized study, survival after MARS was related to the availability of transplant, and in patients where living or deceased donor transplant was unavailable, MARS was of little benefit. Randomized-controlled trials on MARS((R)) are urgently needed to clarify its clinical utility.     

Quality of life and psychological outcome of donors after living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate the health related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological outcome of donors after living donor liver transplantation. METHODS: Participants were 92 consecutive liver transplant donors who underwent hepatectomy with- out middle hepatic vein at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2007 and Sep- tember 2010. HRQoL was measured using the Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and psychological symptoms were measured using the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Data collected from donors were compared to previ- ously published data from the general population. Clin- ical and demographic data were collected from medical records and questionnaires.RESULTS: The general health score of the SF-36 was significantly lower in females (59.78 ± 12.25) than in males (75.83 ± 22.09). Donors more than 40 years old scored higher in social functioning (85.71 ± 14.59) and mental health (82.61 ± 20.00) than those younger than 40 (75.00 ± 12.13, 68.89 ± 12.98; social func- tioning and mental health, respectively). Donors who had surgery more than two years prior to the study scored highest in physical functioning (P = 0.001) and bodily pain (P = 0.042) while those less than one year from surgery scored lowest. The health of the liver recipient significantly influenced the general health (P = 0.042), social functioning (P = 0.010), and role- emotional (P = 0.028) of donors. Donors with full-time employment scored highest in role-physical (P = 0.005), vitality (P = 0.001), social functioning (P = 0.016), mental health (P 0.001), the physical component summary scale (P 0.001), and the mental compo- nent summary scale (MCS) (P 0.001). Psychological measures indicated that donors were healthier than the general population in obsessive-compulsive behav- ior, interpersonal sensitivity, phobic anxiety, and para- noid ideation. The MCS of the SF-36 was significantly correlated with most symptom scores of the SCL-90-R. CONCLUSION: HRQoL and psychological outcome were favorable in living liver transplant donors after donation. Specifically, gender, age, time since opera- tion, recipient health condition, and employment after donation, influenced postoperative quality of life.     

Simultaneous pancreatectomy and liver transplantation: a single-institution experience

Background:

There is wide debate among transplant centres regarding the indications for liver transplantation (LT) in malignancy. We report a single-centre experience with simultaneous LT and total pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively established database of patients who underwent simultaneous LT and total pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy. We analysed demographics, indications, approach and outcomes.

Results:

Between 1991 and 2006, 11 patients (four male; median age 51 years) underwent simultaneous LT and total pancreatectomy (n = 4) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 7). Indications included metastatic neuroendocrine tumour (n = 5), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 2), metastatic periampullary adenocarcinoma (n = 1), periampullary adenocarcinoma with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) (n = 2) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with ESLD (n = 1). The three patients with ESLD had non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis or cryptogenic cirrhosis. Median postoperative length of stay was 31 days (21–110 days). Overall median survival was 101 months (95% confidence interval 70.6–131.4). One-year survival was 91%, 2-year 90%, 5-year 67% and 10-year 33%. Postoperative complications included: re-operation (n = 4); anastamotic leak (n = 2); abdominal abscess (n = 3), and organ rejection (n = 1).

Conclusions:

We report a series of pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy and simultaneous LT in patients with extensive malignancy or impending liver failure that prevented pancreatectomy. This series provides evidence that combined pancreatic resection and LT can be a strategy in both radical resections and cases with ESLD that would otherwise preclude operative intervention.     

Recurrence of cholestatic liver disease after living donor liver transplantation

End-stage liver disease, due to cholestatic liver diseases with an autoimmune background such as primary biliary cirrhosis （PBC） and primary sclerosing cholangitis （PSC）, is considered a good indication for liver transplantation. Excellent overall patient and graft outcomes, based mostly on the experience from deceased donor liver transplantation （DDLT）, have been reported. Due to the limited number of organ donations from deceased donors in most Asian countries, living donor liver transplantation （LDLT） is the mainstream treatment for end-stage liver disease, including that resulting from PBC and PSC. Although the initial experiences with LDLT for PBC and PSC seem satisfactory or comparable to that with DDLT, some aspects, including the timing of transplantation, the risk of recurrent disease, and its long-term clinical implications, require further evaluation. Whether or not the long-term outcomes of LDLT from a biologically related donor are equivalent to that of DDLT requiresfurther observations. The clinical course following LDLT may be affected by the genetic background shared between the recipient and the living related donor.     

Living donor liver transplantation does not increase tumor recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to deceased donor transplantation

AIM: To compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data from 408 liver cancer patients from February 1999 to September 2012. We used the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test to analyze the characteristics of LDLT and DDLT. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the RFS and OS in HCC.RESULTS: Three hundred sixty HBV-positive patients (276 DDLT and 84 LDLT) were included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 27.1 mo (range 1.1-130.8 mo). One hundred eighty-five (51.2%) patients died during follow-up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates for LDLT were 85.2%, 55.7%, and 52.9%, respectively; for DDLT, the RFS rates were 73.2%, 49.1%, and 45.3% (P = 0.115). The OS rates were similar between the LDLT and DDLT recipients, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 81.8%, 49.5%, and 43.0% vs 69.5%, 43.0%, and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.30). The outcomes of HCC according to the Milan criteria after LDLT and DDLT were not significantly different (for LDLT: 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS: 94.7%, 78.7%, and 78.7% vs 89.2%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, P = 0.50; for DDLT: 86.1%, 68.8%, and 68.8% vs 80.5%, 62.2%, and 59.8% P = 0.53).CONCLUSION: The outcomes of LDLT for HCC are not worse compared to the outcomes of DDLT. LDLT does not increase tumor recurrence of HCC compared to DDLT.     

Maximizing the donor pool: marginal donors, splits, and living donor liver transplants

Abstract   The shortage of donor organs is probably the biggest problem facing the field of liver transplantation today. Waiting lists have grown dramatically in the last 10 years. The consequences of this have been multiple, including higher waiting list mortality rates, longer waiting times, and more advanced liver disease in those patients coming to transplant. To address this issue, transplant centers are utilizing several techniques in an effort to expand the donor pool. These include the use of marginal donors (donors that would not have been considered suitable for donation previously), the use of living donors, and performing split liver transplants from deceased donors. The obvious advantage of these procedures is to expand the donor pool, hence increasing the number of transplants, and thus hopefully decreasing waiting list mortality rates. The disadvantage is that in many instances, such transplants may yield inferior results compared to standard transplants, or be associated with a higher incidence of complications. Further experience with such types of transplants will hopefully help to improve results and define the ideal manner in which to use these techniques to maximize the number of transplants.     

Living donor liver transplants: potential disadvantages

Abstract   Living donor liver transplants (LDLTs) have provided many patients with a lifesaving option. Yet this option remains a significant undertaking, with potentially serious consequences for both the donor and the recipient. The donor is obviously the individual with the most to lose. The exact risks to the donor are difficult to quantify because reporting adverse donor events is not mandatory and no registry exists. The risk to the donor also depends on the extent of the donor resection. By some estimates, the risk of donor mortality is 0.3% to 1.0%. The reported risk of donor complications varies greatly in the literature—ranging from 5 to 60%. Reported complications are usually short-term complications, since most donors are not followed by the transplant center after the first year. Very few studies have examined other issues that are important for the donor, such as the quality of life after donation, the time to full recovery, and the financial impact of donation. For the recipient, an LDLT is a lifesaving procedure. Especially in countries where deceased donation is scarce, the benefits of an LDLT for the recipient are obvious. However, analysis of national data from the United States demonstrates that, at least for adults, results of an LDLT may be inferior, as compared with a whole-liver transplant from a deceased donor. Moreover, the surgical complication rate after an LDLT is significantly higher. As LDLTs continue to gain in popularity, careful evaluation and re-evaluation of both donor and recipient outcomes are necessary to optimize results.     

Present situaltion of living-donor kidney transplantation in Spain and other countries: past, present and future of an excellent therapeutic option

Kidney transplantation from living donor is an established treatment in Spain since the 60s but has maintained a low level of activity until 2000, when the number of procedures and hospitals that perform this therapy experienced a gradual increase, reaching the highest figure in our history in 2009, with 235 living donor kidney transplants (which represents 10% of renal transplant activity). The reasons why living donor kidney transplantation is emerging in our country are diverse and can be focused in four main areas. 1) Better outcomes obtained when using living donors for kidney transplantation than those obtained with kidneys from deceased donors. Younger recipients with better HLA matching, the good health of the donor, the absence of any damages that occur in the kidney secondary to brain death, the small ischemic time and the possibility of preemptive transplantation can explain the best graft and patient survival. 2) The scarcity of sources: the relaxation of entry criteria on the waiting list implies an increasing challenge of the demand for transplant without the contribution of living donor kidney transplantation, especially in young recipients where the chances of obtaining an age-appropriate deceased donor are lower, due to the change in the profile of the deceased donor (increasingly older). 3) Improvement in the safety of the donor: the excellent evaluation and monitoring of donors (based on international standards) plus the use of less invasive surgical techniques are related to a low complication rate and to survival expectancies of living donors being similar to those of the general population. 4) Barriers overcome: The training effort by the transplant teams, hospital and regional coordinations, and the National Transplant Organization is giving excellent results, visible in the gradual increase in the number of hospitals with a program of living donor kidney transplantation and its activity. In addition, desensitization programs and the national cross-over kidney transplantation program have removed barriers to transplantation in cases of ABO incompatibility or positive crossmatch.     

Liver transplantation in Japan: Registry by the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society

As of December 31, 2013, a total of 7474 liver transplants have been carried out at 66 institutions in Japan. This total included 7255 living‐donor transplants and 219 deceased‐donor transplants (216 from heart‐beating donors and 3 from non‐heart‐beating donors). The annual total of liver transplants in 2013 decreased to 408, from 422 in 2012. The number of liver transplants from living donors decreased to 369, from 381, whereas the number of liver transplants from heart‐beating deceased donors did not change significantly. The most frequent indication was cholestatic disease, followed by neoplastic disease. In terms of graft liver in living‐donor cases, right‐lobe graft was the most popular (36%). Patient survival following transplantations from heart‐beating donors (1 year, 85.9%; 3 years, 82.6%; 5 years, 81.3%; 10 years, 73.8%) was similar to those from living donors (1 year, 83.8%; 3 years, 79.6%; 5 years, 77.1%; 10 years, 71.9%; 15 years, 67.8%; 20 years, 66.1%). Graft survival was very much the same as patient survival. As for ABO‐incompatible transplantation, transplant period affected the outcome significantly, probably due to local infusion therapy and rituximab prophylaxis, which were introduced in many transplant centers after 2000 and 2004, respectively.     

Does living donation have advantages over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Living donor LT (LDLT) has developed as an alternative to deceased donor LT (DDLT) in order to overcome the critical shortage of deceased organ donations, particularly in Asia. LDLT offers several advantages over DDLT. The major advantage of LDLT is the reduction in waiting time mortality. Especially among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), LDLT can shorten the waiting time and lower the dropout rate. The Hong Kong group reported that median waiting time was significantly shorter for LDLT than for DDLT. Intention-to-treat survival rates of HCC patients with voluntary live donors were significantly higher than those of patients without voluntary live donors. In contrast, a multicenter adult-to-adult LDLT retrospective cohort study reported that LDLT recipients displayed a significantly higher rate of HCC recurrence than DDLT recipients, although LDLT recipients had shorter waiting times than DDLT recipients. The advantage of LDLT involves the more liberal criteria for HCC compared with those for DDLT. Various preoperative interventions including nutritional treatment can also be planned for both the donor and recipient in LDLT. Conversely, LDLT has marked unfavorable characteristics in terms of donor risks. Donor morbidity is not infrequent and the donor mortality rate is estimated at around 0.1-0.3%. In conclusion, living donation is not necessarily advantageous over deceased donation in LT. Taking the advantages and disadvantages of each option into consideration, LDLT and DDLT should both be used to facilitate effective LT for patients requiring transplant.