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.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-Term Results Compared With Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Objective

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may represent a valid therapeutic option allowing several advantages for patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, some reports in the literature have demonstrated worse long-term and disease-free survivals among patients treated by LDLT than deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Herein we have reported our long-term results comparing LDLT with DDLT for HCC.

Patients and Methods

Among 179 patients who underwent OLT from January 2000 to December 2007, 25 (13.9%) received LDLT with HCC 154 (86.1%) received DDLT. Patients were selected based on the Milan criteria. Transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, percutaneous alcoholization, or liver resection was applied as a downstaging procedure while on the waiting list. Patients with stage II HCC were proposed for LDLT.

Results

The overall 3- and 5-year survival rates were 77.3% and 68.7% versus 82.8% and 76.7% for LDLT and DDLT recipients, respectively, with no significant difference by the log-rank test. Moreover, the 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 95.5% and 95.5% (LDLT) versus 90.5% and 89.4% (DDLT; P = NS).

Conclusions

LDLT guarantees the same long-term results as DDLT where there are analogous selection criteria for candidates. The Milan criteria remain a valid tool to select candidates for LDLT to achieve optimal long-term results.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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％,...     

Preoperative imaging evaluation of potential living liver donors: reasons for exclusion from donation in adult living donor liver transplantation

Accurate pretransplant evaluation of a potential donor in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is essential in preventing postoperative liver failure and optimizing safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for exclusion from donation of potential donors in adult LDLT. From September 2003 to June 2006, 266 potential donors were evaluated for 215 recipients: 220 potential donors for 176 adult recipients; 46 for 39 pediatric recipients. Imaging modalities including Doppler ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography provided vascular evaluation and MR cholangiopancreatography to evaluate biliary anatomy. Calculation of liver volume and assessment of steatosis were performed by enhanced and nonenhanced CT, respectively. In the adult group, only 83 (37.7%) potential donors were considered suitable for LDLT. Of the 137 unsuitable potential donors, 36 (26.2%) candidates were canceled because of recipient issues that included death of 15 recipients (10.9%), main portal vein thrombosis (8%), recipient condition beyond surgery (5%), and no indication for liver transplantation due to disease improvement (2%). The remaining 101 (73.8%) candidates who were excluded included steatosis (27.7%), an inadequate remnant volume (57.4%), small-for-size graft (8.9%), HLA-homozygous donor leading to one-way donor-recipient HLA match (3%), psychosocial problems (4%), as well as variations of hepatic artery (4%), portal vein (1%), and biliary system anatomy (5%). Anatomic considerations were not the main reason for exclusion of potential donors. An inadequate remnant liver volume (<30%) is the crucial point for the adult LDLT decision.     

Experience after the evaluation of 700 potential donors for living donor liver transplantation in a single center.

Adequate selection of donors is a major prerequisite for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Few centers report on the entire number of potential donors considered or rejected for living donation. From April 1998 to July 2003, a total of 111 living donor liver transplantations were performed at our institution, with 622 potential donors for 297 adult recipients and 78 potential donors for 52 pediatric recipients evaluated. In the adult group, only 89 (14%) potential donors were considered suitable, with a total of 533 (86%) potential donors rejected. Of these, 67% were excluded either at initial screening or during the first and second steps of the evaluation procedure. In 31% of all cases, the evaluation of donors was canceled because of recipient issues. In the pediatric group, 22 (28%) donors were selected, with the other 56 (72%) rejected. Costs of the complete evaluation process accounted for 4,589 Euro (Euro) per donor. The evaluation of a potential living donor is a complex and expensive process. We present the results on the evaluation of the largest group of potential donors for adults reported in the literature. Only 14% of potential donors in our series were considered suitable candidates. It has not yet been established who should cover the expenses of the evaluation of all rejected donors. In conclusion, all efforts should be made in order to develop an effective screening protocol for the evaluation of donors with the aim of saving time and resources for a liver transplantation program.     

Risk factors for invasive aspergillosis in living donor liver transplant recipients.

Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a severe complication of liver transplantation. Risk factors for IA after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) have been presented in several reports, but are not well established for living donor liver transplant recipients. Here, a retrospective case-control study was performed. Five cases with IA were investigated after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) between January 1999 and December 2002 at Kyoto University Hospital. For comparison, living donor liver transplant recipients without IA were taken as controls. These patients had undergone LDLT 1 month before or after each IA case and had the same survival times as the latter. We evaluated the clinical and laboratory findings for both groups up until their demise. Patients with IA after LDLT had a very poor prognosis. By univariate analysis, risk factors for IA were preoperative intensive care unit stay (P = 0.02) and preoperative steroid administration (P = 0.02). Preoperative steroid administration for fulminant hepatitis possibly predisposed to the development of IA after LDLT.     

活体肝移植进展与展望（2000-2020）

活体肝移植比公民逝世后器官捐献肝移植操作更为复杂，围手术期评估及技术实施直接影响供体安全和受体预后。目前，行活体肝移植时，供体选择应遵循“自愿、知情、无害”伦理原则，利用影像学评估供肝质量、解剖结构及残肝体积；受体选择时优先考虑良性终末期肝病病人，而选择肝癌病人应考虑肿瘤分期；移植物选择应满足不同受体的“移植物-受体重量比”标准，对于<3岁的儿童，其比值在2%~4%为宜；在传统开放手术供肝获取经验基础上，腹腔镜供肝获取技术发展与挑战并存；术中各管道重建时，管道条件、匹配程度及通畅性是移植技术的关键；供受体血型不相容时，应用利妥昔单抗可起到减少并发症及改善预后作用；术后精细化管理，尽量减少免疫抑制剂用量以期减少其药物相关副反应。尽管存在诸多问题，相信随着外科技术的进步，医生对肝脏解剖认识的加深及移植物再生血流动力学的理解，活体肝移植技术会更加完备、更加安全。作为公民逝世后器官捐献肝移植的重要补充，活体肝移植将为更多终末期肝病病人提供有效治疗手段。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comprehensive cost comparison of adult-adult right hepatic lobe living-donor liver transplantation with cadaveric transplantation

BACKGROUND: An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care must be included in a cost analysis for LDLT. In this study, we compare the comprehensive cost of LDLT with that of cadaveric-liver transplantation. METHODS: All costs for medical services provided at our institution were recorded for 24 LDLT and 43 cadaveric recipients with greater than 1 year follow-up transplanted between August 1997 and April 2000. The donor costs include donors evaluated and rejected, donors evaluated and accepted, donor right hepatectomy costs, and donor follow-up costs (365 days postdonation). LDLT and cadaveric recipient costs include medical care 90 days pre-LDLT, recipient transplant costs, and recipient follow-up costs (365 days posttransplant) including retransplantation. Cost is expressed as an arbitrary cost unit (CU) that is a value between $500 to $1,500. RESULTS: Total LDLT costs (evaluations of rejected donors+evaluations of accepted donors+donor hepatectomy+donor follow-up care for 1 year+pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 162.7 CU. Total mean cadaveric transplant costs (pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation [including organ acquisition cost]+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 134.5 CU, (P =ns). CONCLUSIONS: The total comprehensive cost of LDLT is 21% higher than cadaveric transplantation, although this difference is not significant.     

活体肝移植治疗HBV相关性急性亚急性肝功能衰竭

目的 探讨活体肝移植(living donor liver transplantation,LDLT)HBV感染导致的急性肝功能衰竭(acute liver failure,ALF)和亚急性肝功能衰竭(subacute liver failure,SALF)患者的可行性,并评价其疗效.方法 回顾性分析2000年11月至2007年10月完成的10例LDLT治疗ALF、SALF患者的临床资料.10例LDLT的供、受者均为成人,切取右半肝为移植物,8例含肝中静脉(middle hepatic vein,MHV).10例供者的评估均在确定实施LDLT的24 h内完成,供、受者手术均在确定供者后的12 h内完成.移植物质量与受者体质量比为(1.03±0.17)%(0.86%～1.22%),移植物体积与受者标准肝体积比为(52.2±11.8)%(47.6%～70.1%).结果 10例受者中,2例分别于术后7、28 d时因肺部感染、十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔腹腔感染死亡.1例胆管吻合口胆漏,经十二指肠镜下置入鼻胆管引流治愈.2例术后1周出现轻度急性排斥反应,增强免疫抑制强度后肝功能恢复正常.8例中位随访期9.6个月(2～84个月),生存质量优良.10例供者中,1例出现急性门静脉高压症导致脾脏破裂,行脾脏切除术,其后出现胆管断端胆漏,经鼻胆管引流结合经皮穿刺腹腔引流治愈.其余9例无并发症发生.结论 LDLT适宜治疗HBV感染导致的ALF、SALF,而且能获得较好的中、远期疗效.