Background Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved with a focus on donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate. Methods A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide. 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 LDLTs responded. Results Centers were categorized into predominantly LDLT (18) or deceased donor liver transplantation (6), and high- (10) or low-volume (14) centers. At most centers, the minimum acceptable graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.7 or less (67%), and remnant was 30% (75%). The median upper limit of donor age was 60 years and body mass index of 33 kg/m2. At 63% centers, age influenced the upper limit of body mass index inversely. Majority preferred aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase less than 50 IU/mL. Most accepted donors with nondebilitating mild mental or physical disability and rejected donors with treated coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident and nonbrain, nonskin primary malignancies. Opinions were divided about previous psychiatric illness, substance abuse and abdominal surgery. Most performed selective liver biopsy, commonly for steatosis, raised transaminases and 1 or more features of metabolic syndrome. On biopsy, all considered macrovesicular and 50% considered microvesicular steatosis important. Nearly all (92%) rejected donors for early fibrosis, and minority for nonspecific granuloma or mild inflammation. Most anatomical anomalies except portal vein type D/E were acceptable at high-volume centers. There was no standard policy for preoperative or peroperative cholangiogram. Conclusions This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization between centers, with potential expansion of the donor pool without compromising safety.
Background In Japan, strategies for preoperative management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) have evolved over the last decade; the operative mortality has significantly reduced to <5%. Methods A questionnaire was sent to 10 institutions based on their case volume. Questionnaire was based on: (1) preoperative biliary drainage, (2) bile replacement, (3) role of synbiotics, (4) remnant liver volume enhancement, (5) predicted remnant liver function, (6) imaging, (7) nutrition, and (8) role of Inchinkoto. Results The median case volume was 226 (range 105-889) cases, respectively. Eight institutions preferred endoscopic nasobiliary drainage and two preferred endoscopic biliary stenting for biliary drainage. Nine used bile replacement within 2-3 days of biliary drainage. Four used synbiotics preoperatively. The median cutoff value for future remnant liver volume and serum total bilirubin, at which portal vein embolization (PVE) is done, is <40% and <4 mg/dl. The median interval between PVE and surgery was 3-4 weeks. To predict remnant liver function, indocyanine green retention (n = 8) and clearance rate (n = 2) were mainly used. Five used Inchinkoto to improve liver function. Nine used multidetector computed tomography and direct cholangiography for surgical planning. Conclusion With appropriate preoperative management of PHC, surgical morbidity and mortality can be reduced. This survey can provide recommendations to improve PHC perioperative outcomes.
For patients with PHC, the associated risk of postoperative tumor dissemination in the ENBD group was lower than in the PTBD group and equivalent to that in the WD group. Thus, ENBD is the ideal procedure for preoperative biliary drainage.
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to deferral of elective transplants and proactive pretransplant testing of the donor/recipient. The impact of these on living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) activity and outcome is not known. We performed LDLT only for sick patients or patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in this period, with special COVID protocols. Methods: Patients undergoing LDLT counseling, evaluation, and transplant in the period March to June 2020 (group A) under COVID-19 restrictions and special protocols were included. LDLT activity and outcomes among these patients were compared with those in the same period in 2019 (group B). Results: In the period March 15-June 10, we performed 39 and 23 (59%) LDLTs in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The adult patients with cirrhosis in group A (n = 20) had a significantly higher MELD score, 19.8 ± 7.0 versus 16.1 ± 5.6 in group B (n = 36), p = 0.034. Early recipient mortality was similar in 2019 (2/39) and 2020 (2/23). One of 23 post-transplant recipients, 3/71 recipients and donors during evaluation, and 8/125 healthcare workers (HCWs) developed COVID-19, all of whom recovered uneventfully. Conclusion: LDLT activity substantially reduced during the COVID era. The incidence and outcome of COVID-19 among the waiting or transplanted patients and HCWs were similar to those of the general population. The outcome after LDLT in the COVID era was similar to that in non-COVID times. These data suggest that LDLT may be extended to more stable patients with strict protocols.
Conventional selection criteria for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are based on tumour size/number only, and do not consider vital surrogates of tumor biology such as alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) and tumor [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([18F]FDG PET) avidity. We analyzed survival outcomes, and predictors of HCC recurrence in 405 patients with cirrhosis and HCC (HCC‐cirr) who underwent living donor LT (LDLT) using our expanded selection criteria: no extrahepatic disease or major vascular invasion, irrespective of tumor size/number. Fifty‐one percent patients had tumours beyond Milan, and 43% beyond the University of California San Francisco [UCSF] criteria. The 5‐year overall survival (OS) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS) were 64% and 70%, respectively. Three preoperatively available factors predicted recurrence: pre‐LT AFP ≥100 ng/mL (P = 0.005; hazard ratio [HR], 2.190), tumor burden beyond the UCSF criteria (P = 0.001; HR, 2.640), and [18F]FDG PET avidity (P = 0.004; HR, 2.442). A prognostic model based on the number and combination of the aforementioned preoperative risk factors was developed using a competing‐risk RFS model. Three risk groups were identified: low (none or a single risk factor present, 9.3% recurrence), moderate (AFP ≥100 ng/mL and [18F]FDG PET avidity, or beyond UCSF tumor and [18F]FDG PET avidity, 25% recurrence), and high (AFP ≥100 ng/mL and beyond UCSF, or presence of all 3 risk factors, 46% recurrence). Acceptable long‐term outcomes were achieved using our expanded selection criteria. Our prognostic model to predict recurrence based on preoperative biological and morphological factors could guide pretransplant management (downstaging versus upfront LDLT) with the aim of reducing post‐LDLT recurrence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.