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.     

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.     

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.     

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure—from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods—of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Biliary reconstruction,its complications and management of biliary complications after adult liver transplantation: a systematic review of the incidence,risk factors and outcome

Biliary reconstruction remains common in postoperative complications after liver transplantation. A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed database and 61 studies of retrospective or prospective institutional data were eligible for this review. The study comprised a total of 14 359 liver transplantations. The overall incidence of biliary stricture was 13%; 12% among deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) patients and 19% among living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients. The overall incidence of biliary leakage was 8.2%, 7.8% among DDLT patients and 9.5% among LDLT recipients. An endoscopic strategy is the first choice for biliary complications; 83% of patients with biliary stricture were treated by endoscopic modalities with a success rate of 57% and 38% of patients with leakage were indicated for endoscopic biliary drainage. T‐tube placement was not performed in 82% of duct‐to‐duct reconstruction. The incidence of biliary stricture was 10% with a T‐tube and 13% without a T‐tube and the incidence of leakage was 5% with a T‐tube and 6% without a T‐tube. A preceding bile leak and LDLT procedure are accepted risk factors for anastomotic stricture. Biliary complications remain common, which requires further investigation and the refinement of reconstruction techniques and management strategies.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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％,...     

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.     

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.     

Living Donor and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Autoimmune and Cholestatic Liver Diseases—An Analysis of the UNOS Database

Introduction

Autoimmune hepatitis and cholestatic liver diseases have more favorable outcomes after liver transplantation as compared to viral hepatitis and alcoholic liver diseases. However, there are only few reports comparing outcomes of both living donor liver transplants (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT) for these conditions.

Aim

We aim to study the survival outcomes of patients undergoing LT for autoimmune and cholestatic diseases and to identify possible risk factors influencing survival. Survival outcomes for LDLT vs. DDLT are also to be compared for these diseases.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of the UNOS database for patients transplanted between February 2002 until October 2006 for AIH, PSC, and PBC was performed. Survival outcomes for LDLT and DDLT patients were analyzed and factors influencing survival were identified.

Results

Among all recipients the estimated patient survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for LDLT was 95.5%, 93.6%,and 92.5% and for DDLT was 90.9%, 86.5%, and 84.9%, respectively (p?=?0.002). The estimated graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for LDLT was 87.9%, 85.4%, and 84.3% and for DDLT 85.9%, 80.3%, and 78.6%, respectively (p?=?0.123). On multivariate proportional hazard regression analysis after adjusting for age and MELD score, the effect of donor type was not found to be significant.

Conclusion

The overall survival outcomes of LDLT were similar to DDLT in our patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver diseases. It appears from our study that after adjusting for age and MELD score donor type does not significantly affect the outcome.     

Outcome of living donor liver transplantation for Egyptian patients with hepatitis C (genotype 4)-related cirrhosis

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) represents a challenging issue due to universal viral recurrence and invasion into the graft, although the incidence of histological recurrence, risk factors, and survival rates are still controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Recurrence of HCV was studied in 38 of 53 adult patients who underwent LDLT. RESULTS: Recipient and graft survivals were 86.6% at the end of the follow-up which was comparable to literature reports for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Clinical HCV recurrence was observed in 10/38 patients (26.3%). Four patients developed mild fibrosis with a mean fibrosis score of 0.6 and mean grade of histological activity index (HAI) of 7.1. None of the recipients developed allograft cirrhosis during the mean follow-up period of 16 +/- 8.18 months (range, 4-35 months). Estimated and actual graft volumes were negatively correlated with the incidence and early clinical HCV recurrence. None of the other risk factors were significantly correlated with clinical HCV recurrence: gender, donor and recipient ages, pretransplantation Child-Pugh or model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, pre- and postoperative viremia, immunosuppressive drugs, pulse steroid therapy, and preoperative anti-HBc status. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative patient and graft survival rates for HCV (genotype 4)-related cirrhosis were more or less comparable to DDLT reported in the literature. Clinical HCV recurrence after LDLT in our study was low. Small graft volume was a significant risk factor for HCV recurrence. A longer follow-up and a larger number of patients are required to clarify these issues.