Liver transplantation is being performed with excellent 5-year survival. Significant comorbidities exist, however, which appear to be related to long-term immunosuppression.

Early liver transplantation (LT) in European centers reportedly improved survival in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH) not responding to medical therapy. Our aim was to determine if a strategy of early LT for severe AH could be applied successfully in the United States. We reviewed 111 patients with severe AH at our center from January 2012 to January 2015. The primary end point was mortality at 6 months or early LT, with a secondary end point of alcohol relapse after LT. Survival was compared between those receiving early LT and matched patients who did not. Using a process similar to the European trial, 94 patients with severe AH not responding to medical therapy were evaluated for early LT. Overall, 9 (9.6%) candidates with favorable psychosocial profiles underwent early LT, comprising 3% of all adult LT during the study period. The 6-month survival rate was higher among those receiving early LT compared with matched controls (89% vs. 11%, p<0.001). Eight recipients are alive at a median of 735 days with 1 alcohol relapse. Early LT for severe AH can achieve excellent clinical outcomes with low impact on the donor pool and low rates of alcohol relapse in highly selected patients in the United States.

ObjectiveTo summarize the evolution of a living donor liver transplant program and the authors' experience with 109 cases. Summary Background DataThe authors' institution began to offer living donor liver transplants to children in 1993 and to adults in 1998. MethodsDonors were healthy, ages 18 to 60 years, related or unrelated, and ABO-compatible (except in one case). Donor evaluation was thorough. Liver biopsy was performed for abnormal lipid profiles or a history of significant alcohol use, a body mass index more than 28, or suspected steatosis. Imaging studies included angiography, computed tomography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Recipient evaluation and management were the same as for cadaveric transplant. ResultsAfter ABO screening, 136 potential donors were evaluated for 113 recipients; 23 donors withdrew for medical or personal reasons. Four donor surgeries were aborted; 109 transplants were performed. Fifty children (18 years or younger) received 47 left lateral segments and 3 left lobes; 59 adults received 50 right lobes and 9 left lobes. The average donor hospital stay was 6 days. Two donors each required one unit of banked blood. Right lobe donors had three bile leaks from the cut surface of the liver; all resolved. Another right lobe donor had prolonged hyperbilirubinemia. Three donors had small bowel obstructions; two required operation. All donors are alive and well. The most common indications for transplant were biliary atresia in children (56%) and hepatitis C in adults (40%); 35.6% of adults had hepatocellular carcinoma. Biliary reconstructions in all children and 44 adults were with a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy; 15 adults had duct-to-duct anastomoses. The incidence of major vascular complications was 12% in children and 11.8% in adult recipients. Children had three bile leaks (6%) and six (12%) biliary strictures. Adult patients had 14 (23.7%) bile leaks and 4 (6.8%) biliary strictures. Patient and graft survival rates were 87.6% and 81%, respectively, at 1 year and 75.1% and 69.6% at 5 years. In children, patient and graft survival rates were 89.9% and 85.8%, respectively, at 1 year and 80.9% and 78% at 5 years. In adults, patient and graft survival rates were 85.6% and 77%, respectively, at 1 year. ConclusionLiving donor liver transplantation has become an important option for our patients and has dramatically changed our approach to patients with liver failure. The donor surgery is safe and can be done with minimal complications. We expect that living donor liver transplants will represent more than 50% of our transplants within 3 years.The shortage of cadaveric organs for liver transplantation has limited our ability to provide this life-saving therapy.

The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of the recipient's disease severity on graft size requirements and outcome in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. A limiting factor in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation has been adequacy of graft size. A minimal graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) of 0.8% to 1% has been suggested, without taking the recipient's disease into account. Forty adults underwent liver transplantation using left (n ‫؍‬ 10; mean weight, 481 ؎ 83 g) or right lobes (n ‫؍‬ 30; mean weight, 845 ؎ 182 g). We recorded graft survival, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, and occurrence of small-for-size syndrome (poor bile production, prolonged postoperative prothrombin time, and cholestasis without ischemia markers). Small grafts were defined as GRWR of <0.85%. Large grafts were defined as GRWR greater than 0.85%. Six patients died within 6 months of transplantation (early patient survival rate, 85%); two patients died late of tumor recurrence. Among transplant recipients with normal liver function or Child's class A, there was no significant difference with the use of small (n ‫؍‬ 6) or large (n ‫؍‬ 9) grafts (graft survival rates, 83% v 88%, respectively; P ‫؍‬ .65). Among patients with Child's class B or C, graft survival rates were 74% in recipients of large grafts (n ‫؍‬ 19) and 33% in recipients of small grafts (n ‫؍‬ 6; P ‫؍‬ .023). Five of 6 patients with Child's class B or C who received small grafts developed small-for-size syndrome; 2 patients died (1 patient after retransplantation) and 3 patients survived (2 patients after retransplantation). Graft function and survival are influenced not only by graft size, but also by pretransplantation disease severity. GRWR as low as 0.6% can be used safely in patients without cirrhosis or in patients with Child's class A. Transplant recipients with Child's class B or C require a GRWR greater than 0.85% to avoid small-for-size syndrome and related complications. (Liver Transpl 2001;7: 948-953.)

Donors did not regret their decision to donate; several felt the experience had changed their lives for the better. Donors scored as well as or better than U.S. norms in general health. Quality of life after donation must remain a primary outcome measure when we consider the utility of living-donor liver transplants.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in particular, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) improves access to transplant. We report our results in 36 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT with a median follow-up >1 year. METHODS Underlying diagnoses included: hepatitis C (24), hepatitis B (9), cryptogenic cirrhosis (1), hemochromatosis (1), and primary biliary cirrhosis (1). Patients with tumors >or= 5 cm received IV doxorubicin intraoperatively and 6 cycles of doxorubicin at 3-week intervals. Patients were followed with CT scan and alpha-fetoprotein levels every 3 months for 2 years posttransplant. Mean waiting time, pretransplant treatment, tumor variables, and survival were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis were done to analyze tumor variables; Kaplan-Meier and log rank were used to compare survivals. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Mean wait for LDLT was 62 days, compared with 459 days in 50 patients with HCC transplanted with cadaveric organs during the same time period (P = 0.0001). At median follow-up of 450 days, there have been 10 deaths due to non-tumor-related causes and 3 deaths from recurrence; recurrence has also been observed in 3 other patients. On univariate and multivariate analysis, bilobar distribution was the only significant tumor variable (P = 0.03, log rank = 0.02). Fifty-three percent of patients exceeded UNOS priority criteria. One- and two-year patient survivals were 75% and 60%, respectively. Freedom from recurrence at 365 and 730 days was 82% and 74%, respectively. Overall and in patients with HCC > 5 cm (n = 12), there were no statistically significant differences in survival or in freedom from recurrence between recipients of living donor and cadaveric grafts. CONCLUSION Although one third of patients had tumors > 5 cm, the incidence of recurrence as well as patient survival and freedom from recurrence are comparable to results after cadaveric transplant. LDLT allows timely transplantation in patients with early or with large HCC.

A 57-year-old male with a history of hypercholesterolemia and anxiety but otherwise in good health volunteered to donate the right lobe of his liver to his brother. The operation was performed uneventfully, without transfusion. Postoperatively he did well, until he developed tachycardia, profound hypotension, and coffee ground emesis on postoperative day 3. Despite resuscitative measures, he arrested and expired. Autopsy demonstrated gas gangrene of the stomach as the underlying cause of the hemorrhage and numerous colonies of Gram-positive bacilli were identified. Subsequent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis identified these bacteria to be Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens) type D. This patient's death was devastating, both to his family and his medical team. The impact of his death has transcended that of an individual occurrence. In conclusion, herein we present the facts and discuss this extraordinary example of florid clostridial infection and toxin-mediated shock. It was completely unexpected and probably unpreventable, and its cause was almost inconceivable. L iving donor liver transplants have been performed with increasing frequency. Formally and informally, 9 donor deaths have been reported. 1 -3 After performing more than 175 living donor liver transplants, we report the death of a donor in our program.The patient was a 57-year-old male with a history of hypercholesterolemia and anxiety but otherwise in good health, who volunteered to donate the right lobe of his liver to his brother. He had allergies to penicillin and bee venom. He took atorvastatin daily and clonazepam as needed. Preoperative evaluation followed our protocol. 4 Preoperative liver biopsy was normal. He was admitted the morning of surgery and received preoperative vancomycin and aztreonam.The operation was performed using previously described techniques. 5 The donor remained hemodynamically stable, required no transfusion, and was extubated in the operating room. Postoperative medications included epidural fentanyl, an H 2 -blocker, prophylactic antibiotics for 48 hours, and intravenous fluids. He stayed overnight in the recovery room and was transferred to the inpatient floor the following morning. Table 1 shows postoperative laboratory results. He was given liquids on postoperative day 1. Later, he felt so well that he asked his family for a lobster dinner from a local restaurant. The next morning, he felt well and sat in a chair. Temperature was 37.2°C, pulse was 79 beats per minute, and blood pressure was 126 / 69 mmHg. That evening, he complained of nausea and hiccups and was given metoclopramide and later thorazine. At midnight, his temperature was 36.8°C, his pulse was 115 beats per minute, and his blood pressure was 145 / 103 mmHg.Early on postoperative day 3, he was without complaints and sat in a chair. That afternoon, he again felt nauseated and had a small amount of guaiac-positive emesis. His tachycardia progressively worsened; 2 hours later he vomited again. Shortly thereafter, he became hypoxic and hypotens...

The following guideline represents the position of the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) on key preoperative, operative, and postoperative aspects surrounding living liver donation. These recommendations were developed from experts in the field from around the world. The authors conducted an analysis of the National Library of Medicine indexed literature on "living donor liver transplantation" [Medline search] using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). ILTS members, and many more nonmembers, were invited to comment. Recommendations have been based on information available at the time of final submission (March 2016). The lack of randomized controlled trials in this field to date is acknowledged and is reflected in the grading of evidence. Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care.