Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients Older Than Age 70 Years: A Single‐Center Experience

Over the past two decades, the age of liver transplantation (LT) recipients has been increasing. We reviewed our experience with LT for patients aged ≥70 years (range: 70–78 years) and investigated the feasibility of performing LT, especially living donor LT (LDLT), for older patients. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 25 patients (15 LDLT recipients, 10 deceased donor LT recipients) aged ≥70 years who underwent LT from January 2000 to April 2016. Their perioperative morbidity rate was 28.0%, and the in‐hospital mortality rate was 16.0%; these results were comparable to those of matched patients in their 60s (n = 73; morbidity, p = 0.726; mortality, p = 0.816). For patients in their 70s, the 1‐ and 5‐year patient survival rates were 84.0% and 69.8%, and the 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival rates were 83.5% and 75.1%, respectively. Comparisons of patient and graft survival rates between matched patients in their 60s and 70s showed no statistically significant differences (patient survival, p = 0.372; graft survival, p = 0.183). Our experience suggests that patients aged ≥70 years should not be excluded from LT, or even LDLT, based solely on age and implies that careful selection of recipients and donors as well as meticulous surgical technique are necessary for successful results.     

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.     

Impact of graft thickness reduction of left lateral segment on outcomes following pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Reducing graft thickness is essential to prevent large‐for‐size graft problems in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, long‐term outcomes of LDLT using reduced‐thickness left lateral segment (LLS) grafts are unclear. In 89 patients who underwent LDLT using reduced LLS grafts between 2005 and 2017, short‐term and long‐term outcomes were compared between a nonanatomically reduced LLS (NAR‐LLS) graft group and a reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Estimated blood loss was lower and abdominal skin closure was less needed in the recipient operation in the reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Postoperatively, portal vein (PV) flow was significantly decreased in the NAR‐LLS graft group, and there was shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and fewer postoperative complications, especially bacteremia, in the reduced‐thickness LLS graft group. Graft survival at 1 and 3 years after LDLT using reduced‐thickness LLS grafts was 95.2% and 92.4%, respectively, which was significantly better than for NAR‐LLS grafts. Multivariate analysis revealed that fulminant liver failure, hepatofugal PV flow before LDLT, and NAR‐LLS graft were associated with poor graft survival. In conclusion, LDLT using reduced‐thickness LLS grafts is a safe and feasible option with better short‐ and long‐term outcomes in comparison with NAR‐LLS grafts.     

Living‐donor liver transplantation for congenital biliary atresia with porto‐pulmonary hypertension and moderate or severe pulmonary arterial hypertension: Kyoto University experience

Porto‐pulmonary hypertension with moderate or severe pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is viewed as a contraindication to liver transplantation (LT) because of associated poor outcomes; however, patients with biliary atresia (BA) are generally good candidates for LT. Ten patients with moderate/severe PAH underwent living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) at our institution; eight of these patients had BA and were the focus of this study. Preoperative therapies, including prostaglandin (PG)I₂, were introduced. When mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) after treatment was <40 mmHg or initial mPAP without therapy was <35 mmHg, we performed an acute volume challenge test to evaluate right ventricular function. LDLT was performed when mPAP after anesthetic induction was confirmed at ≤35 mmHg. Six patients had favorable responses to preoperative treatment and catheter testing, but two patients showed poor responses. The two patients with poor responses had poor clinical courses with unstable mPAP after LDLT. The other six patients had successful courses with well‐controlled mPAP, and PGI₂ was withdrawn or weaned following LDLT. Survival did not significantly differ between the eight BA recipients with moderate/severe PAH and 77 age‐matched BA recipients without PAH from the same time period. LDLT has major benefits for BA patients with well‐controlled PAH.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of imbalanced graft‐to‐spleen volume ratio on outcomes following living donor liver transplantation in an era when simultaneous splenectomy is not typically indicated

The impact of an imbalanced graft‐to‐spleen volume ratio (GSVR) on posttransplant outcomes other than postreperfusion portal hypertension remains unknown. The importance of GSVR might vary according to whether simultaneous splenectomy (SPX) is performed. This retrospective study divided 349 living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients from 2006 to 2017 into 2 groups: low GSVR (≤0.70 g/mL) and normal GSVR (>0.70 g/mL). The cutoff value of GSVR was set based on the first quartile of the distributed data. Graft survival and associations with various clinical factors were investigated between the groups according to whether SPX was performed. Low GSVR did not affect outcomes when SPX was performed. In contrast, it was associated with an increased incidence of early graft loss (EGL) and poor graft survival by presenting posttransplant thrombocytopenia, cholestasis, coagulopathy, and massive ascites when the spleen was preserved. Among patients with a preserved spleen, the multivariable analysis results revealed that older donor age and low GSVR were independent risk factors for graft loss. In conclusion, low GSVR was an independent predictor of graft loss after LDLT when the spleen was preserved. Preserved spleen with extremely low GSVR may be related to persistent hypersplenism, impaired graft function, and consequent EGL.     

Factors associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after living donor liver transplantation

Appropriate graft regeneration after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is crucial to avoid small‐for‐size syndrome. We enrolled 44 recipients who underwent ABO‐identical/compatible LDLT from December 2007 to August 2016 and determined possible factors associated with low graft regeneration after LDLT. Liver regeneration was calculated by the ratio of the graft size on postoperative day (POD) 7 ± 1 day (calculated by CT volumetry) to the size of the donated liver at implant. Postoperative outcomes were compared between the low and high regeneration groups. Median regeneration rate was 1.65‐fold. Regeneration rate was negatively correlated with graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio. Postoperative morbidity rates on POD 14‐90 were significantly higher in the low group compared with the high group (63% vs 18%, P = .03). Graft and patient survival in the low group were significantly worse than the high group (1‐year graft survival 73% vs 100%, P = .002; patient survival 82% vs 100%, P = .01). Cold ischemia time (CIT; per 10 minute; odds ratio [OR] =1.37) and platelet count <60 000/μL on POD 5 (OR = 14.32) were independently associated with low regeneration. In conclusion, longer CIT and postoperative thrombocytopenia were associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after LDLT, which could consequently lead to poor graft and patient survival.     

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

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

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation with large‐for‐size left lateral segment grafts

Usage of “large‐for‐size” left lateral segment (LLS) liver grafts in children with high graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) is controversial due to concerns about increased recipient complications. During the study period, 77 pediatric living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) with LLS grafts were performed. We compared recipients with GRWR ≥2.5% (GR‐High = 50) vs GRWR <2.5% (GR‐Low = 27). Median age was higher in the GR‐Low group (40 vs 8 months, P> .0001). Graft (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 96%, 93%, 93%) and patient (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 100%, 96%, 96%) survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was similar between groups (P = NS). Overall complications were also similar (34% vs 30%; P = .8). Hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis following transplantation was not different (P = NS). Delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in GR‐High patients (17 vs 1; P = .002). Subgroup analysis comparing recipients with GRWR ≥4% (GR‐XL = 20) to GRWR <2.5% (GRWR‐Low = 27) revealed that delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in the GR‐XL group, but postoperative complications and graft and patient survival were similar. We conclude that pediatric LDLT with large‐for‐size LLS grafts is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. There is an increased need for delayed abdominal closure with no compromise of long‐term outcomes. The use of high GRWR expands the donor pool and improves timely access to the benefits of transplantation without extra risks.     

Progress in living donor liver transplantation for biliary atresia and challenges faced: A thirty-year single institutional experience

BackgroundBiliary atresia (BA) is the most common indication for liver transplantation in the pediatric population, and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) have been established as a radical treatment for BA .The aim of this study was to clarify the long term outcomes and risk factors affecting the LDLT outcomes, as well as the challenges faced.MethodsBetween 1990 and 2019, 666 BA patients underwent LDLT in our institution and were enrolled in this study. Data regarding the recipient's age, anatomic findings of the biliary tree at Kasai's portoenterostomy, basic characteristics at transplantation, transplant profiles, donor characteristics, and outcomes of LDLT were analyzed.ResultsThe 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year graft survival rates of BA patients who underwent LDLT were 88.1%, 85.4%, 81.5%, 78.9%, 76.6%, and 75.5%, respectively. The transplant era, age at transplantation, ABO incompatible transplant, and presence of pulmonary vascular complications were identified as significant risk factors for overall graft survival. When the study period was divided into the first (1990–1999) and second (2000–2019) phases and re analyzed, the outcomes of ABO-incompatible transplants and LDLT for adult BA patients remained inferior to others in the second phase. The 20-year graft survival rate in patients who underwent re transplantation in the second phase was 54.2%.ConclusionsThe outcomes of LDLT in children are generally good, but the immunosuppression procedures need to be further improved for ABO-incompatible cases in the future. Further improvements in LDLT results for adult patients and re transplantation remain challenges to be addressed in this field, and future attempts, including revision to the organ allocation system of deceased donors, are necessary.Level of evidenceLevel III (case control study).     

Donor BMI >30 Is Not a Contraindication for Live Liver Donation

The increased prevalence of obesity worldwide threatens the pool of living liver donors. Although the negative effects of graft steatosis on liver donation and transplantation are well known, the impact of obesity in the absence of hepatic steatosis on outcome of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unknown. Consequently, we compared the outcome of LDLT using donors with BMI <30 versus donors with BMI ≥30. Between April 2000 and May 2014, 105 patients received a right‐lobe liver graft from donors with BMI ≥30, whereas 364 recipients were transplanted with grafts from donors with BMI <30. Liver steatosis >10% was excluded in all donors with BMI >30 by imaging and liver biopsies. None of the donors had any other comorbidity. Donors with BMI <30 versus ≥30 had similar postoperative complication rates (Dindo‐Clavien ≥3b: 2% vs. 3%; p = 0.71) and lengths of hospital stay (6 vs. 6 days; p = 0.13). Recipient graft function, assessed by posttransplant peak serum bilirubin and international normalized ratio was identical. Furthermore, no difference was observed in recipient complication rates (Dindo‐Clavien ≥3b: 25% vs. 20%; p = 0.3) or lengths of hospital stay between groups. We concluded that donors with BMI ≥30, in the absence of graft steatosis, are not contraindicated for LDLT.     

Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis: a single-center experience of living-donor liver transplantation during two decades in Japan

Hori T, Egawa H, Takada Y, Ueda M, Oike F, Ogura Y, Sakamoto S, Kasahara M, Ogawa K, Miyagawa‐Hayashino A, Yonekawa Y, Yorifuji T, Watanabe K‐Ichiro, Doi H, Nguyen JH, Chen F, Baine A‐MT, Gardner LB, Uemoto S. Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis: a single‐center experience of living‐donor liver transplantation during two decades in Japan.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 776–785. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) results in liver cirrhosis. Therefore, some PFIC patients require liver transplantation (LT). Although three types of PFIC have been identified, their etiologies include unknown mechanisms. Patients: A total of 717 recipients who underwent living‐donor LT (LDLT) at <20 yr old were enrolled in this study. Among these recipients, 14 PFIC recipients comprising 11 PFIC type 1 (PFIC1) and three PFIC type 2 (PFIC2) were evaluated. Results: Three of 11 PFIC1 recipients died, while all three PFIC2 recipients survived. Eight of 11 PFIC1 recipients showed steatosis after LDLT. Among the eight steatosis‐positive PFIC1 recipients, seven showed severe steatosis and seven were complicated with steatohepatitis. Nine of 11 PFIC1 recipients showed fibrosis after LDLT, and eight of the nine fibrosis‐positive PFIC1 recipients showed severe fibrosis. In contrast to the PFIC1 recipients, the PFIC2 recipients did not show any steatosis or fibrosis after LDLT. Conclusions: The clinical courses and outcomes of PFIC1 recipients after LDLT are still not sufficient owing to steatosis/fibrosis, unlike the case for PFIC2 recipients. As PFIC1 patients will require LT during the long‐term progression of the disease, further strategy improvements are required for PFIC1 patients.     

Long‐Term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Japan: An Analysis of More Than 2200 Cases Listed in the Registry of the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society

The Japanese Liver Transplantation Society (JLTS) was established in 1980 in order to characterize and follow trends in patient characteristics and graft survival among all liver transplant patients in Japan. This study analyzed the comprehensive factors that may influence the outcomes of pediatric patients who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by evaluating the largest cohort in the world. Between November 1989 and December 2010, 2224 pediatric patients underwent LDLT in Japan. There were 998 male (44.9%) and 1226 female donors (55.1%) without donor mortalities related to transplant surgery. There were 946 male (42.5%) and 1278 female (57.5%) recipients with a median age of 4.0 years (range: 13 days to 17.9 years). Cholestatic liver disease was the leading indication for LDLT (n = 1649; 76.2%), followed by metabolic disorders (n = 194; 8.7%), acute liver failure (n = 192; 8.6%) and neoplastic liver disease (n = 66; 3.0%). The 1‐, 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year patient survival rates were 88.3%, 85.4%, 82.8% and 79.6%, respectively. Blood‐type incompatibility, recipient age, etiology of liver disease and transplant era were found to be significant predictors of overall survival. We are able to achieve satisfactory long‐term pediatric patient survival outcomes in the JLTS series without compromising the living donors.     

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.     

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.     

(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 for liver hemorrhaging due to peliosis hepatis in X‐linked myotubular myopathy: Two cases and a literature review

X‐linked myotubular myopathy (MTM) (OMIM 310400) is a severe neuromuscular disorder caused by mutations in the myotubularin (MTM1) gene. Liver hemorrhaging due to peliosis hepatis (PH) is a fatal complication. We herein report 2 successful cases of living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for MTM patients due to liver hemorrhaging caused by PH and review previous reports. A boy who was 9 years and 4 months old initially underwent left lateral segmentectomy due to massive hepatic and intraperitoneal hemorrhaging. As bleeding from the remnant liver continued after hepatectomy, this patient emergently underwent LDLT using a left lateral segment graft from his father. Another boy who was 1 year and 7 months old underwent transcatheter arterial embolization due to hepatic hemorrhaging and was referred to our hospital for LDLT using a left lateral segment graft from his father. The pathological findings in both cases showed sinusoidal dilatation with degenerative changes in reticular fiber and hematoma in the explanted liver, which were consistent with PH associated with MTM. LT should be considered as a treatment option for patients with episodes of hepatic hemorrhaging due to MTM in order to protect against fatal bleeding.