RESUMEN
AIM: Although alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is an accepted indication for liver transplantation (LT), there are several controversial issues. The aim of this study is to examine the applicability of the 6-month abstinence rule prior to LT and to evaluate the results in living donor LT for patients with ALD. METHODS: A retrospective study of 102 patients with ALD referred for LT was performed. Clinical data, including alcohol consumption history, were analyzed. A period of abstinence from drinking alcohol of at least 6 months was strictly required. RESULTS: Among 102 patients, 21 abstained from drinking for at least 6 months. Of these, 13 patients (12%) underwent LT, five patients (5%) recovered without LT and three patients (3%) were listed for deceased donor LT. LT was not indicated for the remaining 81 patients (80%). Eight patients died within 6 months of referral to our program. The Child-Pugh score was higher in these eight patients than in the 21 who achieved 6-month abstinence, although the alcohol consumption history variables did not significantly differ between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival rates after LT in 13 patients with ALD (91%) were similar to those in 387 non-ALD patients (83%). The rate of alcohol consumption relapse after LT was 8% (n = 1/13). CONCLUSION: Living donor LT for patients with ALD who complied with the 6-month abstinence rule provides sufficient survival benefit with good compliance, compensating for the potential risks to the donors.
RESUMEN
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.