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.     

Clinical outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients

BACKGROUND: Whether hepatitis C virus recurrence occurs earlier and with greater severity for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) than for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has recently become a subject of debate. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes for a cohort of 91 HCV-positive patients who underwent LDLT at Kyoto University with a median follow-up period of 25 months. RESULTS: Overall 5-year patient survival for HCV patients was similar to that for non-HCV patients (n=209) who underwent right-lobe LDLT at our institute (69% vs. 71%). Survival rate of patients without HCC (n=34) tended to be better than that of patients with HCC (n=57) (82% vs. 60%, P=0.069). According to annual liver biopsy, rate of fibrosis progression to stage 2 or more (representing significant fibrosis) was 39% at 2 years after LDLT. Univariate analysis showed that female recipient and male donor represented significant risk factors for significant fibrosis. Progression to severe recurrence (defined as the presence of liver cirrhosis (F4) in a liver biopsy and/or the development of clinical decompensation) was observed in five patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative patient survival was similar for HCV-positive and -negative recipients in our adult LDLT series. Rates of progression to severe disease due to HCV recurrence seemed comparable between our LDLT recipients and DDLT recipients described in the literature. Although longer-term follow-up is required, our results suggest that LDLT can produce acceptable outcomes also for patients suffering from HCV-related cirrhosis.     

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C-related cirrhosis: no difference in histological recurrence when compared to deceased donor liver transplantation recipients.

The question of possible earlier and more aggressive recurrence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) remains unanswered. To address this issue we retrospectively reviewed virological, histological, and clinical data in 67 patients (52 DDLT and 15 LDLT) who underwent liver transplant for their HCV-related cirrhosis since April 2001. Our data indicate that there is no statistical difference between LDLT and DDLT groups in mean age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, model for end-stage liver disease score, and gender distribution. The mean follow-up was 749 +/- 371 days in LDLT and 692 +/- 347 days in DDLT. The predominant genotype in the LDLT and DDLT are genotype 1 (LDLT, 91%; DDLT, 70%). All patients with histologically confirmed recurrent HCV had detectable HCV-RNA in serum. The histological recurrence rate of hepatitis C was 58% at 4 months, 90% at 1 year, and 100% at 2 years in LDLT patients vs. 71% at 4 months, 94% at 1 year, and 95% at 2 years in DDLT patients (not significant) Comparison of the activity of inflammation and fibrosis score at all time points failed to show a statistical difference. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed similar patient and graft survival rates between the 2 groups. Our data indicate that histological recurrence of HCV is an early event and virtually universal 2 years' posttransplantation, regardless of modality of donor procurement.     

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.     

Graft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantation.

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in the United States and around the world. In this study, we compared the outcome of 764 patients who received LDLT in the United States and compared the results with a matched population that received deceased donor transplantation (DDLT) using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. For each LDLT recipient (n = 764), two DDLT recipients (n = 1,470), matched for age, gender, race, diagnosis, and year of transplantation, were selected from the UNOS data after excluding multiple organ transplantation or retransplantation, children, and those with incomplete data. Despite our matching, recipients of LDLT had more stable liver disease, as shown by fewer patients with UNOS status 1 or 2A, in an intensive care unit, or on life support. Creatinine and cold ischemia time were also lower in the LDLT group. Primary graft nonfunction, hyperacute rejection rates, and patient survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis were similar in both groups (2-year survival was 79.0% in LDLT vs. 80.7% in case-controls; P = .5), but graft survival was significantly lower in LDLT (2-year graft survival was 64.4% vs. 73.3%; P < .001). Cox regression (after adjusting for confounding variables) analysis showed that LDLT recipients were 60% more likely to lose their graft compared to DDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval 1.1-2.5). Among hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, LDLT recipients showed lower graft survival when compared to those who received DDLT. In conclusion, short-term patient survival in LDLT is similar to that in the DDLT group, but graft survival is significantly lower in LDLT recipients. LDLT is a reasonable option for patients who are unlikely to receive DDLT in a timely fashion.     

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.     

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％,...     

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

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

Hepatitis C recurrence and fibrosis progression are not increased after living donor liver transplantation: a single-center study of 289 patients.

Today, hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause for liver transplantation (LT) and viral recurrence is almost universal. It has been suggested that viral replication within the transplanted tissue might be increased in organs of reduced size such as LD grafts. In the current literature the data is controversial, with many studies lacking routine liver biopsies. We performed a retrospective analysis of 289 HCV-LT (20 LD splits) patients receiving transplants between 1997 and 2005. Patient and organ survival, intensity of HCV recurrence, and fibrosis progression were analyzed with respect to deceased donor (DD) LT (DDLT) or living donor (LD) LT (LDLT). Organ and patient survival was significantly better for full-size recipients than for split-liver patients, with P = 0.037 for organ survival and P = 0.037 for patient survival; yet there were no significant differences when split-liver patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the Milan criteria (n = 3) were excluded from the analysis (P > 0.05). First year fibrosis progression was 1.29 in full-size grafts and 1.07 in split-livers (P = not significant). In conclusion, in our patient sample, intensity of HCV recurrence was not increased in LD graft recipients compared to full-size recipients. Patient and organ survival were similar when patients with large HCC and early tumor recurrence were excluded from analysis. LDLT can therefore be advocated for HCV patients.     

Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for early irresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Hypothetical studies that favour living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) assumed a comparable outcome after LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome after LDLT with that after DDLT, and to identify factors that might account for any differences. METHODS: The study included 60 patients who met the radiological Milan or University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and underwent LDLT (43 patients) or DDLT (17). RESULTS: The LDLT group had fewer incidental tumours and a lower rate of pretransplant transarterial chemoembolization but a higher rate of salvage transplantation. Waiting time was shorter and graft weight to standard liver weight (GW : SLW) ratio was lower in this group. The perioperative course, and histopathological tumour size, number, grade and stage were comparable. Median follow-up was 33 (range 4-120) months. The cumulative 5-year recurrence rate was 29 per cent in the LDLT group and 0 per cent in the DDLT group (P = 0.029). A GW : SLW ratio of 0.6 or less, salvage transplantation, three or more tumour nodules, microscopic vascular invasion, and pathological stage beyond the Milan or UCSF criteria were significant confounding risk factors. Multivariable analysis identified salvage transplantation (relative risk 5.16 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.48 to 18.02); P = 0.010) and pathological stage beyond the UCSF criteria (relative risk 4.10 (95 per cent c.i. 1.02 to 16.48); P = 0.047) as independent predictors of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Despite standard radiological selection criteria based on number and size, patients who underwent LDLT for HCC had more recurrence because of selection bias for other clinical characteristics.     

活体肝移植治疗肝细胞癌

目的 探讨活体肝移植治疗肝细胞癌的疗效及其影响因素.方法 回顾分析180例肝癌患者接受肝移植治疗(活体肝移植34例,尸体肝移植146例)的临床资料,比较受者术后肿瘤复发率、总体存活率及无瘤存活率,并通过单因素和多因素分析明确其影响因素.结果 尸体肝移植受者术后5年的总体存活率和无瘤存活率分别为53 %和58 %,活体肝移植者均为60 %,两组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).活体肝移植和尸体肝移植术后肝癌的复发率分别为26.5 %和17.8 %,两组间比较,差异也无统计学意义(P＞0.05).经COX多因素分析显示,肿瘤血管侵犯(相对危险度2.118,95 %可信区间1.201~4.353,P＜0.05)和是否符合UCSF标准(相对危险度3.490,95 %可信区间1.862~8.207,P＜0.05)是影响肝癌复发的独立危险因素,而影响受者术后存活率的独立危险因素为是否符合UCSF标准(相对危险度8.573,95 %可信区间3.016~18.261,P＜0.01).结论 活体肝移植是治疗肝细胞癌的一项安全、有效的措施,但受者的选择标准和术后肝癌的高复发率现象需要进一步的临床和基础研究.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the outcome of living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 180 patients,who had received LDLT(n=34)or deceased donor liver transplantation(DDLT,n=146)for HCC,compared overall and recurrence-free survival between LDLT and DDLT,and identified the risk factors of tumor recurrence and prognosis by univariate and multivariate analysis.Results The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rate were 53 % and 58 %,respectively,in DDLT group,and 60 % and 60 %,respectively,in LDLT group.There was no significant difference in overall (P=0.85)and recurrence-free(P=0.89)survival between these two groups.The tumor recurrence rate was 26.5 % in LDLT group,and 17.8 % in DDLT group,respectively(P=0.25).Multivariate COX regression model analysis identified vascular invasion(relative risk 2.118,95 % confidential interval 1.201-4.353,P=0.032)and tumor beyond UCSF criteria(relative risk 3.490,95 % confidential interval 1.862-8.207,P=0.015)as independent risk factors of tumor recurrence,and tumor beyond UCSF criteria(relative risk 8.573,95 % confidential interval 3.016-18.261,P=0.006)as independent predictors of prognosis.Conclusion LDLT is a safe and effective procedure for patients with HCC,but further studies are required for selection criteria of recipients and higher HCC recurrence rate after LDLT.     

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparable survival and recurrence

Several studies have reported higher rates of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). It is unclear whether this difference is due to a specific biological effect unique to the LDLT procedure or to other factors such as patient selection. We compared the overall survival (OS) rates and the rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT and DDLT at our center. Between January 1996 and September 2009, 345 patients with HCC were identified: 287 (83%) had DDLT and 58 (17%) had LDLT. The OS rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method, whereas competing risks methods were used to determine the HCC recurrence rates. The LDLT and DDLT groups were similar with respect to most clinical parameters, but they had different median waiting times (3.1 versus 5.3 months, P = 0.003) and median follow-up times (30 versus 38.1 months, P = 0.02). The type of transplant did not affect any of the measured cancer outcomes. The OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were equivalent: 91.3%, 75.2%, and 75.2%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 90.5%, 79.7%, and 74.6%, respectively, for DDLT (P = 0.62). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year HCC recurrence rates were also similar: 8.8%, 10.7%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 7.5%, 14.8%, and 17.0%, respectively, for the DDLT group (P = 0.54). A regression analysis identified microvascular invasion (but not the graft type) as a predictor of HCC recurrence. In conclusion, in well-matched cohorts of LDLT and DDLT recipients, LDLT and DDLT provide similarly low recurrence rates and high survival rates for the treatment of HCC.     

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.     

Selection of liver-transplant candidates for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation as the only surgical option for end-stage liver disease.

The selection of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients in regions where deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is rarely performed might be different from that in other centers at which LDLT is an alternative option to DDLT. Records of adult (age > or = 18 yr) patients referred to our center were reviewed to analyze the selection process of LDLT candidates. Among the 533 LDLT candidates, 165 (31%) were rejected due to recipient issues. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the most common reason for rejection (n = 55). Among the remaining recipients, 120 patients (22%) were rejected due to donor issues. LDLT was eventually performed in 249 (47%) of the evaluated recipients. There are few options for candidates who are unable to find live donors in regions where DDLT is unrealistic. A more effective and precise approach to recipient and donor evaluation should be pursued.     

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.     

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma related to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are currently the most common indications for liver transplantation. The number of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) procedures has increased given the shortage of donor organs from deceased donors. However, recurrence of HCV infection is universal and affects graft survival. This mini-review compared the outcomes for HCV-positive recipients after LDLT with those after deceased donor liver transplantation.     

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.     

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 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.