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.     

Reduced Priority MELD Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Does Not Adversely Impact Candidate Survival Awaiting Liver Transplantation

The liver organ allocation policy of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). The policy provides additional priority for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are awaiting deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, this priority was reduced on February 27, 2003 to a MELD of 20 for stage T1 and of 24 for stage T2 HCC. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of reduced priority on HCC candidate survival while on the waiting list. The UNOS database was reviewed for all HCC candidates listed after February 27, 2002, The HCC candidates were grouped into two time periods: MELD 1 (listed between February 27, 2002, and February 26, 2003) and MELD 2 (listed between February 27, 2003 and February 26, 2004). For the two time periods, the national DDLT incidence rates for HCC patients were 1.44 versus 1.53 DDLT per person-year (p = NS) and the waiting times were similar for the two periods (138.0 +/- 196.8 vs. 129.0 +/- 133.8 days; p = NS). Furthermore, the 3-, 6- and 12-month candidate, patient survival and dropout rates were also similar nationally. Regional differences in rates of DDLT for HCC were observed during both MELD periods. Consequently, the reduced MELD score for stage T1 and T2 HCC candidates awaiting DDLT has not had an impact nationally either on their survival on the waiting list or on their ability to obtain a liver transplant within a reasonable time frame. However, regional variations point to the need for reform in how organs are allocated for HCC at the regional level.     

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.     

Is MELD score sufficient to predict not only death on waiting list,but also post‐transplant survival?

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has emerged as a useful tool in predicting mortality in patients awaiting liver transplantation. There is still, however, discussion as to whether further parameters could improve the sensitivity and specificity of the MELD score. From 1997 to 2003, 621 adult patients with end-stage liver disease were listed for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Patients suffering from hepatoma were excluded from analysis (113 patients). The MELD score was investigated at the time of listing (MELD ON) and of coming off the list (MELD OFF). Patients who died while on the waiting list showed a significant increase in their MELD score during the waiting time (MELD ON: 21 +/- 7 vs. MELD OFF: 28 +/- 9) as well as a significantly higher MELD ON compared with patients who were transplanted (MELD ON: 16 +/- 5 vs. MELD OFF: 17 +/- 7) or removed from the waiting list (MELD ON: 16 +/- 6 vs. MELD OFF: 12 +/- 3). Multivariate analysis identified MELD ON, ascites and recurrent infection as independent risk factors for death on the waiting list (P < 0.01). MELD score was not identified as a predictor for the post-transplant survival rate. MELD score is a strong predictor for death on the waiting list, but refractory ascites and recurrent infection are independent risk factors, too.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of the MELD score on waiting time and disease severity in liver transplantation in United States veterans.

Organ allocation for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States is based on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. The MELD score prioritizes organ distribution to sicker patients. There is limited data on the effect of this policy on transplantation in the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the MELD score on U.S. veteran patients undergoing LT. Comparison of MELD scores and waiting time of LT recipients before and after the introduction of the MELD system was done. A total of 192 LT recipients were analyzed. Blood type, diagnosis, listing MELD score, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score at transplant did not differ although MELD era recipients were older (mean 54.3 vs. 51.3 yr, P = 0.009). Mean waiting time decreased from 461 days (pre-MELD) to 252 days (MELD era) (P = 0.004). Mean MELD score at LT increased from 23.4 (MELD era) compared to 20.3 (pre-MELD) (P = 0.01). In conclusion, waiting time for LT in U.S. veterans has decreased significantly in the MELD era. The MELD score of patients transplanted in the MELD era is significantly higher and patients are still being listed at a high MELD score. The MELD system has lead to sicker veterans being transplanted with shorter waiting times.     

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1995–2004

Three years of survival data are now available and the impact of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) allocation system is becoming clear. After a decline in new registrants to the waiting list in 2002, the number increased to 10 856 new patients in 2004. Since the implementation of MELD, the percentage of patients who have been on the list for 1–2 years has declined from 24% to 19%. There has been a shift upward in the percentage of patients with higher MELD scores on the waiting list.
An increasing percentage of adult living donor liver recipients are over the age of 50 years; from 1% in 1997 to 51% in 2004. Parents donating to children (93% of living donors in 1995), represented only 14% in 2004. Long-term adjusted patient survival declined with increasing recipient age in adults following either DDLT or LDLT.
Cirrhosis caused by chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading indication for liver transplantation and is associated with reduced long-term survival in recipients with HCV compared to those without HCV, 68% at 5 years compared to 76%.
Although the intestine waiting list has more than doubled over the last decade, an increasing number of centers now perform intestinal transplantation with greater success.     

Analysis of the Liver Transplant Waiting List in Our Center

BackgroundLiver transplantation (LT) is an important treatment for acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Due to the limited supply of livers, there are still thousands of candidates waiting for transplantation in Turkey. We aimed to analyze LT waiting list access by demographics and etiology, particularly the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which has been prioritized for LT in recent years.Materials and MethodsBetween 2011 and 2018, all patients listed for LT in our center were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic features, etiology of liver disease, waiting time, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and survival data were recorded. Differences between the LT group and deceased patients on the waiting list were evaluated.ResultsDuring this period, 266 patients were included in the LT waiting list. Only 119 patients (44.7%) underwent LT (men, 94; women, 25; mean age, 53 years), whereas 103 (38%) died (men, 60; women, 43; mean age, 53 years) in the waiting period. Seventeen patients were status 1A or 1B and of these, 7 patients died from fulminant hepatic failure. MELD score was significantly higher in deceased group (28 ± 7 vs 25 ± 6; P = .014). The frequency of HCC was significantly higher in LT group (29% vs 11%; P = .002). Overall survival of the patients in the waiting list with and without liver transplantation were 63% and 41%, respectively.ConclusionsHCC is one of the leading etiologies that is considered for cadaveric LT from the waiting list in our center. These patients had slightly lower MELD scores compared to deceased patients with shorter waiting times. We recommend early referral and close monitoring of the patients who are LT candidates.     

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.     

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.     

MELD评分系统在肝移植中的应用和意义

目的 讨论终末期肝病模型（MELD）的产生与发展，评价对肝移植的影响。方法回顾性分析MELD在肝移植应用中的有关文献。结果MELD广泛应用于预测和评定终末期肝病的严重程度及患者等待肝移植期间死亡危险度，以决定器官分配的优先顺序。结论MELD为新的评分系统，可减少患者等待肝移植的时间，客观地、精确地预测终末期肝病患者的短期生存率和死亡危险度，是较为理想的器官分配评分系统。     

Characteristics of liver transplant candidates delisted following recompensation and predictors of such delisting in alcohol‐related liver disease: a case–control study

Whether and when recovery beyond the need for transplant may occur in patients listed for decompensation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients delisted following recompensation. Seventy‐seven patients who were listed between 2005 and 2015 for decompensation, but later delisted following recompensation were included. Alcohol‐related liver disease (ALD) was the underlying etiology in the majority (n = 47, 61%). Listing characteristics of these patients were compared with those of decompensated ALD patients who either underwent deceased donor liver transplantation or died on the waiting list. The model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) score <20 and serum albumin ≥32 g/l at listing were the only independent predictors of recompensation/delisting in ALD. The probability of recompensation was 70% when both factors were present at listing. Interestingly, about a tenth of decompensated ALD patients who died on the waiting list (median duration on waiting list 11 months) and a quarter of decompensated ALD patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (median duration on waiting list 2 months) also had both factors at listing. In conclusion, ALD seems to be the most favorable etiology for recompensation beyond the need for transplantation. Both MELD and serum albumin at listing independently predict recompensation/delisting in ALD. It seems advisable to implement a period of observation for ALD patients with both favorable factors, before embarking on living donor liver transplantation.     

Change in model for end-stage liver disease score on the transplant waiting list predicts survival in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Allocation of donor livers through the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has resulted in a fall in waiting list deaths in the United States. Change in MELD score (DeltaMELD) whilst awaiting transplant has been suggested as a method of refining organ allocation. Our aims were to analyse the effect of DeltaMELD between listing and transplant, and examine its impact on patient survival, intensive care stay and hospital stay in 402 patients transplanted for chronic liver disease at a single centre. Patients who had a DeltaMELD score of >+1 point were more likely to die in hospital following transplant (P < 0.05) and had a significantly worse 12- and 36-month survival post transplant (P < 0.0001) when compared with patients with DeltaMELD 相似文献   

Value of the MELD score for the assessment of pre- and post-liver transplantation survival

The MELD score has now been implemented in the United States for liver allocation, but it has not been validated in Europe. Its association with posttransplant outcome is unclear. Optimal cutoff values of MELD and Child-Pugh scores to predict death on the liver waiting list were defined in a series of 137 cirrhotic patients listed for liver transplantation. Six-month actuarial survival while on the waiting list was 90% with a Child-Pugh <11 and MELD <17, whereas it decreased progressively to 40% at 6 months after listing for those having a Child-Pugh and MELD score >10 and >16. Analysis of a series of 112 patients (85 chronic liver disease and 27 hepatocellular carcinoma) revealed no change in MELD value at the time of transplantation compared to the score at the time of listing (mean +/- SD: 15.5 +/- 7.7 vs 15 +/- 5.8) with a mean waiting time of 118 days. Using either the optimal cutoff for MELD score (<17 or >16) or seven different strata (3 to 7, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, 14 to 16, 17 to 19, 20 to 22, 23 to 39), whether measured at listing or just before liver transplantation, there was no significant difference (chi(2) 4.97, P = .58) in survival: 82.7% and 63% at 6 and 60 months, overall. Our data confirm that the MELD score with only three parameters is as good as the Child-Pugh score to predict mortality on the Eurotransplant waiting list. The optimal cutoff to assess higher priority for the bad category is >16. There was no negative impact on short- or long-term prognosis of the bad categories of MELD.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation on Waiting Time Survival in Candidates Listed for Liver Transplantation

Studies comparing adult living donor liver transplantation to deceased donor liver transplantation have focused on post-transplant survival. Our aim was to focus on the impact of living donor liver transplant on waiting time mortality and overall mortality. We analyzed the affect of living donor liver transplantation on waiting time mortality and overall mortality (from listing until last follow up) in a cohort of 116 transplant candidates. Fifty-eight candidates who had individuals present as potential living donors (volunteer group) were matched by MELD score to 58 liver transplant candidates who did not have individuals present as a potential living donor (no volunteer group). Twenty-seven percent of candidates in the no volunteer group and 62% of candidates in the volunteer group underwent liver transplantation, p = 0.0003. One-year waiting list mortality for the volunteer group and no volunteer group was 10% and 20%, respectively, p = 0.03. Patient survival from the time of listing to last follow up was similar between the two groups. In our study group, living donor liver transplantation is associated with a higher rate of liver transplantation and lower waiting time mortality. In the era of living donor liver transplantation, estimates of patient survival should incorporate waiting time mortality.     

Evaluation of the coagulation and inflammatory responses in solid organ transplant recipients and donors

Abstract: New strategies that modify the coagulation/inflammatory cascades may be applicable to solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients in the treatment of complications. However, data on kinetics of post‐SOT cascades are needed before considering these strategies. Prospectively collected pre‐transplant serum measurements of inflammatory (high‐sensitive C‐reactive protein, HS‐CRP) and coagulation (d ‐Dimer, DD; protein C, PC) markers were compared to post‐operative (day 1–90) values in deceased‐donor liver (DDLT) and renal (DDRT) transplant recipients, living‐related renal recipients (LRT) and donors (LRD). A total of 85 SOT were enrolled: 25 DDLT, 32 DDRT/LRT, 28 LRD. HS‐CRP increased in all groups, mainly immediate post‐SOT and in LRDs. DD had a similar pattern mainly in LRT and LRD. PC increased significantly over time in the DDLT group ( p < 0.01). Compared to those with no complications (infection, rejection or thrombosis), day 30 HS‐CRP (p = 0.04) and DD (p = 0.06) were elevated in the DDRT/LRT group with complications; PC was decreased at day 7 (p = 0.04) and day 30 (p = 0.009) in DDLT and DDRT/LRT groups with complications, respectively. In conclusion, activation of the inflammatory/coagulation cascades occurs after SOT and is least pronounced in DDLT. This activation diminishes over time unless transplant complications occur. Our results support further research in approaches to altering these cascades in SOT recipients.     

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.