Pursuing living donor liver transplantation improves outcomes of patients with autoimmune liver diseases: An intention-to-treat analysis.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [ p <0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [ p <0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p =0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [ p >0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

Biliary complications after adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation: An international multicenter study of 3633 cases.

In living-donor liver transplantation, biliary complications including bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures remain significant challenges, with incidences varying across different centers. This multicentric retrospective study (2016-2020) included 3633 adult patients from 18 centers and aimed to identify risk factors for these biliary complications and their impact on patient survival. Incidences of bile leaks and biliary strictures were 11.4% and 20.6%, respectively. Key risk factors for bile leaks included multiple bile duct anastomoses (odds ratio, [OR] 1.8), Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (OR, 1.4), and a history of major abdominal surgery (OR, 1.4). For biliary anastomotic strictures, risk factors were ABO incompatibility (OR, 1.4), blood loss >1 L (OR, 1.4), and previous abdominal surgery (OR, 1.7). Patients experiencing biliary complications had extended hospital stays, increased incidence of major complications, and higher comprehensive complication index scores. The impact on graft survival became evident after accounting for immortal time bias using time-dependent covariate survival analysis. Bile leaks and biliary anastomotic strictures were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.7 and 1.8 for graft survival, respectively. The study underscores the importance of minimizing these risks through careful donor selection and preoperative planning, as biliary complications significantly affect graft survival, despite the availability of effective treatments.

Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: who, when and how.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Using transplant oncology principles, selected patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) may achieve long-term survival after liver transplantation. Strategies for identifying and managing these patients are discussed in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Unlike initial reports, several modern series have reported positive outcomes after liver transplantation for iCCA. The main challenges are in identifying the appropriate candidates and graft scarcity. Tumor burden and response to neoadjuvant therapies have been successfully used to identify favorable biology in unresectable cases. New molecular biomarkers will probably predict this response in the future. Also, new technologies and better strategies have been used to increase graft availability for these patients without affecting the liver waitlist. SUMMARY: Liver transplantation for the management of patients with unresectable iCCA is currently a reality under strict research protocols. Who is a candidate for transplantation, when to use neoadjuvant and locoregional therapies, and how to increase graft availability are the main topics of this review.

Should advanced donor age be a deterrent in the utilization of grafts from donation after cardiac death in deceased donor liver transplantation? The Toronto experience.

BACKGROUND: Advanced donor age paired with donation after cardiac death (DCD) increases the risk of transplantation, precluding widespread use of grafts from such donors worldwide. Our aim was to analyze outcomes of liver transplantation using grafts from older DCD donors and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. METHODS: Patients who underwent liver transplantation using grafts from deceased donors between January 2016 and December 2021 were included in the study. Short-and long-term outcomes were analyzed for 4 groups of patients: those who received DCD and DBD grafts from younger (< 50 yr) and older (≥ 50 yr) donors. RESULTS: Of the 807 patients included in the analysis, 44.7% (n = 361) of grafts were received from older donors, with grafts for older DCD donors comprising 4.7% of the total cohort (n = 38). Patients who received grafts from older donors had a lower incidence of biliary strictures than those who received grafts from younger donors (7.9% v. 20.0% for DCD donation, p = 0.14, and 4.9% v. 6.8% for DBD donation, p = 0.34), with a significantly lower incidence of ischemic-type biliary strictures in patients who received grafts from older versus younger DCD donors (2.6% v. 18.0%, p = 0.04). There was no difference in 1- and 3-year graft survival rates among patients who received grafts from older and younger DCD donors (92.1% v. 90.8% and 80.2% v. 80.9%, respectively) and those who received grafts from older and younger DBD donors (90.1% v. 93.2% and 85.3% v. 84.4%, respectively) (p = 0.85). Pretransplantation admission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] 9.041, p < 0.001) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (HR 2.197, p = 0.02) were found to significantly affect survival of grafts from older donors. CONCLUSION: Donor age alone should not be the criterion to determine the acceptability of grafts in liver transplantation. With careful selection criteria, older DCD donors could make a valuable contribution to expanding the liver donor pool, with grafts that produce comparable results to those obtained with standard-criteria grafts.

Living donor liver transplantation can address disparities in transplant access for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is frequently lifesaving for people living with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). However, patients are waitlisted for LT according to the model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score, which may not accurately reflect the burden of living with PSC. We sought to describe and analyze the clinical trajectory for patients with PSC referred for LT, in a mixed deceased donor/living donor transplant program. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study from November 2012 to December 2019, including all patients with PSC referred for assessment at the University Health Network Liver Transplant Clinic. Patients who required multiorgan transplant or retransplantation were excluded. Liver symptoms, hepatobiliary malignancy, MELD-Na progression, and death were abstracted from chart review. Competing risk analysis was used for timing of LT, transplant type, and death. RESULTS: Of 172 PSC patients assessed, 84% (n = 144) were listed of whom 74% were transplanted. Mean age was 47.6 years, and 66% were male. Overall mortality was 18.2% at 2 years. During the follow-up, 16% (n = 23) were removed from the waitlist for infection, clinical deterioration, liver-related mortality or new cancer; 3 had clinical improvement. At listing, 82% (n = 118) had a potential living donor (pLD). Patients with pLD had significantly lower waitlist and liver-related waitlist mortality (HR 0.20, p<0.001 and HR 0.17, p<0.001, respectively), and higher rates of transplantation (HR 1.83, p = 0.05). Exception points were granted to 13/172 (7.5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume North American LT center, most patients with PSC assessed for transplant were listed and subsequently transplanted. However, this was a consequence of patients engaging in living donor transplantation. Our findings support the concern from patients with PSC that MELD-Na allocation does not adequately address their needs.

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). BACKGROUND: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians. RESULTS: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Toronto Management of Initially Unresectable Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer in a Living Donor Liver Transplant Program.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive option for patients with unresectable, bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, it is not available in most centers beyond study protocols. This study describes the interim experience with LDLT for CRLM at a large North American transplant and hepatobiliary center. f. STUDY DESIGN: Adults with unresectable CRLM, receiving systemic chemotherapy, were recruited into a prospective clinical trial. Data on demographics, referral patterns, and clinical characteristics were extracted from October 2016 to February 2023. Patients were divided into 3 groups: transplanted, resected, and control (excluded with continuation of systemic chemotherapy). Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-one referred patients were assessed for LDLT: 7 received transplants, 22 underwent resection, and 48 were controls. All had similar preassessment baseline characteristics. Median time from initial assessment to transplantation was 15.4 months. The control population had significantly worse postassessment overall survival than the transplanted population (p = 0.002) and resected population (p < 0.001). The median postoperative follow-up duration was 21.4 months (resection) and 14.8 months (LDLT). There was no difference in overall survival between the transplanted and resected populations (1-year 100% vs 93.8%; 3-year 100% vs 43.3%, p = 0.17). However, recurrence-free survival was superior in the LDLT group (1-year 85.7% vs 11.4%; 3-year 68.6% vs 11.4%, p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with unresectable CRLM referred for LDLT are deemed ineligible for trial inclusion. However, the excellent oncologic outcomes in patients who meet criteria for LDLT supports its role in highly selected populations. Future results after the trial's completion will inform long-term outcomes.

Impact of living donor liver transplantation on long-term cardiometabolic and graft outcomes in cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a leading indication for liver transplantation (LT). This study aimed to determine whether living donor LT (LDLT) recipients experienced less recurrent NASH, cirrhosis, and cardiometabolic complications compared to deceased donor LT (DDLT). METHOD: Patients with LDLT and DDLT for NASH between February 2002 and May 2018 at University Health Network (UHN) were compared. Cox Proportional Hazard model was used to analyze overall survival (OS), Fine and Gray's Competing Risk models were conducted to analyze cumulative incidence of post LT outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine DDLTs and 66 LDLTs were performed for NASH cirrhosis. Time and rate of recurrence of NAFLD and NASH were comparable in both groups. Graft cirrhosis was more common in DDLT recipients (n = 14) versus LDLT (n = 0) (p < .0001). Significant fibrosis (Fibrosis ≥ F2) developed in 50 recipients (12 LDLT and 38 DDLT) post LT (DDLT vs. LDLT: HR = 1.00, 95% CI = (.52-1.93), p = .91) and there was no difference in time to significant fibrosis (p = .57). There was no difference in development of post-transplant diabetes, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancers. LDLT group had better renal function at 10 years (MDRD eGFR of 57.0 mL/min vs. 48.5 mL/min, p = .047). Both groups had a comparable OS (HR = 1.83 (95% CI = .92-3.62), p = .08). CONCLUSION: Overall, LDLT recipients had significantly better renal function by virtue of having early transplantation in their disease course. LDLT was also associated with significantly less graft cirrhosis, although OS and cardiometabolic outcomes were comparable between LDLT and DDLT.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) as a Source of Liver Grafts: Honouring the Ultimate Gift.

OBJECTIVE: To report the clinical outcomes of liver transplants from donors after medical assistance in dying (MAiD) versus donors after cardiac death (DCD) and deceased brain death (DBD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In North America, the number of patients needing liver transplants exceeds the number of available donors. In 2016, MAiD was legalized in Canada. METHODS: All patients undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation at Toronto General Hospital between 2016 and 2021 were included in the study. Recipient perioperative and postoperative variables and donor physiological variables were compared among 3 groups. RESULTS: Eight hundred seven patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation during the study period, including DBD (n=719; 89%), DCD (n=77; 9.5%), and MAiD (n=11; 1.4%). The overall incidence of biliary complications was 6.9% (n=56), the most common being strictures (n=55;6.8%), highest among the MAiD recipients [5.8% (DBD) vs. 14.2% (DCD) vs. 18.2% (MAiD); P =0.008]. There was no significant difference in 1 year (98.4% vs. 96.4% vs. 100%) and 3-year (89.3% vs. 88.7% vs. 100%) ( P =0.56) patient survival among the 3 groups. The 1- and 3- year graft survival rates were comparable (96.2% vs. 95.2% vs. 100% and 92.5% vs. 91% vs. 100%; P =0.37). CONCLUSION: With expected physiological hemodynamic challenges among MAiD and DCD compared with DBD donors, a higher rate of biliary complications was observed in MAiD donors, with no significant difference noted in short-and long-term graft outcomes among the 3 groups. While ethical challenges persist, good initial results suggest that MAiD donors can be safely used in liver transplantation, with results comparable with other established forms of donation.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated. METHOD: We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant. RESULTS: A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Recipient and Donor Outcomes After Living-Donor Liver Transplant for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases.

Importance: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and nearly 70% of patients with this cancer have unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Compared with chemotherapy, liver transplant has been reported to improve survival in patients with CRLMs, but in North America, liver allograft shortages make the use of deceased-donor allografts for this indication problematic. Objective: To examine survival outcomes of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) for unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included patients at 3 North American liver transplant centers with established LDLT programs, 2 in the US and 1 in Canada. Patients with liver-confined, unresectable CRLMs who had demonstrated sustained disease control on oncologic therapy met the inclusion criteria for LDLT. Patients included in this study underwent an LDLT between July 2017 and October 2020 and were followed up until May 1, 2021. Exposures: Living-donor liver transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perioperative morbidity and mortality of treated patients and donors, assessed by univariate statistics, and 1.5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free and overall survival for transplant recipients. Results: Of 91 evaluated patients, 10 (11%) underwent LDLT (6 [60%] male; median age, 45 years [range, 35-58 years]). Among the 10 living donors, 7 (70%) were male, and the median age was 40.5 years (range, 27-50 years). Kaplan-Meier estimates for recurrence-free and overall survival at 1.5 years after LDLT were 62% and 100%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity for both donors and recipients was consistent with established standards (Clavien-Dindo complications among recipients: 3 [10%] had none, 3 [30%] had grade II, and 4 [40%] had grade III; donors: 5 [50%] had none, 4 [40%] had grade I, and 1 had grade III). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings of recurrence-free and overall survival rates suggest that select patients with unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs may benefit from total hepatectomy and LDLT.

Which recipient pretransplant factors, such as MELD, renal function, sarcopenia, and recent sepsis influence suitability for and outcome after living donor liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Varied access to deceased donors across the globe has resulted in differential living donor liver transplant (LDLT) practices and lack of consensus over the influence of models for end stage liver disease (MELD), renal function, sarcopenia, or recent infection on short-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Consider these risk factors in relation to patient selection and provide recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central. METHODS: PRIMSA systematic review and GRADE. PROSPERO ID: RD42021260809 RESULTS: MELD >25-30 alone is not a contraindication to LDLT, and multiple studies found no increase in short term mortality in high MELD patients. Contributing factors such as muscle mass, acute physiologic assessment and chronic health evaluation score, donor age, graft weight/recipient weight ratio, and inclusion of the middle hepatic vein in a right lobe graft influence morbidity and mortality in high MELD patients. Higher mortality is observed with pretransplant renal dysfunction, but short-term mortality is rare. Sarcopenia and recent infection are not contraindications to LDLT. Morbidity and prolonged LOS are common, and more frequent in patients with renal dysfunction, nutritional deficiency or recent infection. CONCLUSIONS: When individual risk factors are studied mortality is low and graft loss is infrequent, but morbidity is common. MELD, especially with concomitant risk factors, had the greatest influence on short term outcome, and recent infection had the least. A multidisciplinary team of experts should carefully assess patients with multiple risk factors, and an optimal graft is recommended.

International Survey of Clinical Monitoring Practices in Pancreas and Islet Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of both pancreas and islet allotransplantation have been compromised by difficulties in the detection of early graft dysfunction at a time when a clinical intervention can prevent further deterioration and preserve allograft function. The lack of standardized strategies for monitoring pancreas and islet allograft function prompted an international survey established by an International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association/European Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association working group. METHODS: A global survey was administered to 24 pancreas and 18 islet programs using Redcap. The survey addressed protocolized and for-cause immunologic and metabolic monitoring strategies following pancreas and islet allotransplantation. All invited programs completed the survey. RESULTS: The survey identified that in both pancreas and islet allograft programs, protocolized clinical monitoring practices included assessing body weight, fasting glucose/C-peptide, hemoglobin A1c, and donor-specific antibody. Protocolized monitoring in islet transplant programs relied on the addition of mixed meal tolerance test, continuous glucose monitoring, and autoantibody titers. In the setting of either suspicion for rejection or serially increasing hemoglobin A1c/fasting glucose levels postpancreas transplant, Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography, autoantibody titers, and pancreas graft biopsy were identified as adjunctive strategies to protocolized monitoring studies. No additional assays were identified in the setting of serially increasing hemoglobin A1c levels postislet transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey identifies common immunologic and metabolic monitoring strategies utilized for protocol and for cause following pancreas and islet transplantation. In the absence of any formal studies to assess the efficacy of immunologic and metabolic testing to detect early allograft dysfunction, it can serve as a guidance document for developing monitoring algorithms following beta-cell replacement.

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Liver Transplant Recipients With Recurrent Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is an indication for liver transplantation, but recurrence after liver transplantation is associated with poor outcomes often requiring repeat transplantation. We investigated whether autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) could be used to stop progression of recurrent PSC and promote operational tolerance. METHODS: Twelve patients with recurrent PSC were fully evaluated and 5 were selected for aHSCT. Autologous hematopoietic stem cells were collected, purified by CD34 immunomagnetic selection, and cryopreserved. Immunoablation using busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and rabbit antithymocyte globulin was followed by aHSCT. The primary endpoint of the study was the establishment of operational tolerance defined as lack of biochemical, histologic, and clinical evidence of rejection while off immunosuppression at 2 y post-aHSCT. RESULTS: Two of the 5 patients achieved operational tolerance with no clinical or histologic evidence of PSC progression or allorejection. A third patient developed sinusoidal obstruction syndrome following aHSCT requiring repeat liver transplantation but has no evidence of PSC recurrence while on sirolimus monotherapy now >3 y after aHSCT. A fourth patient was weaned off immunosuppression but died 212 d after aHSCT from pericardial constriction. A fifth patient died from multiorgan failure. Immunosuppression-free allograft acceptance was associated with deletion of T-cell clones, loss of autoantibodies, and increases in regulatory T cells, transitional B cells, and programmed cell death protein-1 expressing CD8+ T cells in the 2 long-term survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Although operational tolerance occurred following aHSCT, the high morbidity and mortality observed render this specific protocol unsuitable for clinical adoption.

Sex Disparity in Liver Transplant and Access to Living Donation.

Importance: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based organ allocation system has significantly decreased mortality on the transplant waiting list for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, women have remained at a disadvantage with respect to access to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) even after introduction of the MELD score for organ allocation. Objective: To determine whether availability of living donation in a transplant program can offset inequity in liver transplant (LT) allocation for women. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study retrospectively analyzed adult patients listed for LT at the University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Patients included had a potential living donor (pLD) at the moment of listing. This study was performed from November 13, 2012, to May 31, 2019. A total of 1289 listed patients (830 men; 459 women) were analyzed during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study performed survival analysis and competing-risk analysis to delineate how access to livers from living donors was associated with events in women vs men on the transplant waiting list (LT, death, or dropout). Results: Of 1289 included patients, 459 (35.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.1 (10.0) years at assessment and listing. A total of 783 of 1289 listed patients underwent LT. Among those with no pLD at assessment, there was a higher median (range) Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at listing (22 [6-50] vs 19 [6-50]; P < .001) and at LT (27 [6-49] vs 20 [6-52]; P < .001) in women receiving DDLT. Women were at a significant disadvantage without a pLD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.60; P = .01); there was no difference in access to LT with availability of a pLD (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76,-1.14; P = .44). The instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in men with a pLD was 1.39 times higher than men who did not have a pLD (HR, 1.39; 95% CI; P < .001) and the instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in women with a pLD was 1.92 times higher than in women who did not (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.51-2.44; P < .001). The HR was 1.38 times higher in women compared with men across the MELD-Na score strata (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84; P = .03) and 2.04 times higher when the MELD-Na score was less than 20 (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.31-3.14; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These study findings suggest that women can overcome the complex problem of allocation inequity with access to livers from living donors. Women with access only to DDLT were much more unwell than men independent of liver disease at the time of listing, dropout, or LT. Therefore, the wider availability of living donation liver transplant would be helpful in addressing the sex disparity in access to LT in the current MELD-Na era.

Standardized Feeding Protocol Improves Delivery and Acceptance of Enteral Nutrition in Children Immediately After Liver Transplantation.

Delivery of adequate nutrition after liver transplantation (LT) surgery is an important goal of postoperative care. Existing guidelines recommend early enteral nutrition after abdominal surgery and in the child who is critically ill but data on nutritional interventions after LT in children are sparse. We evaluated the impact of a standardized postoperative feeding protocol on enteral nutrition delivery in children after LT. Data from 49 children (ages 0-18 years) who received a LT prior to feeding protocol implementation were compared with data for 32 children undergoing LT after protocol implementation. The 2 groups did not differ with respect to baseline demographic data. After protocol implementation, enteral nutrition was started earlier (2 versus 3 days after transplant; P = 0.005) and advanced faster when a feeding tube was used (4 versus 8 days; P = 0.03). Protocol implementation was also associated with reduced parenteral nutrition use rates (47% versus 75%; P = 0.01). No adverse events occurred after protocol implementation. Hospital length of stay and readmission rates were not different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, implementation of a postoperative nutrition protocol in children after LT led to optimized nutrient delivery and reduced variability of care.

Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%. METHODS: Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1). CONCLUSION: A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Pancreas-specific SNAP23 depletion prevents pancreatitis by attenuating pathological basolateral exocytosis and formation of trypsin-activating autolysosomes.

Intrapancreatic trypsin activation by dysregulated macroautophagy/autophagy and pathological exocytosis of zymogen granules (ZGs), along with activation of inhibitor of NFKB/NF-κB kinase (IKK) are necessary early cellular events in pancreatitis. How these three pancreatitis events are linked is unclear. We investigated how SNAP23 orchestrates these events leading to pancreatic acinar injury. SNAP23 depletion was by knockdown (SNAP23-KD) effected by adenovirus-shRNA (Ad-SNAP23-shRNA/mCherry) treatment of rodent and human pancreatic slices and in vivo by infusion into rat pancreatic duct. In vitro pancreatitis induction by supraphysiological cholecystokinin (CCK) or ethanol plus low-dose CCK were used to assess SNAP23-KD effects on exocytosis and autophagy. Pancreatitis stimuli resulted in SNAP23 translocation from its native location at the plasma membrane to autophagosomes, where SNAP23 would bind and regulate STX17 (syntaxin17) SNARE complex-mediated autophagosome-lysosome fusion. This SNAP23 relocation was attributed to IKBKB/IKKß-mediated SNAP23 phosphorylation at Ser95 Ser120 in rat and Ser120 in human, which was blocked by IKBKB/IKKß inhibitors, and confirmed by the inability of IKBKB/IKKß phosphorylation-disabled SNAP23 mutant (Ser95A Ser120A) to bind STX17 SNARE complex. SNAP23-KD impaired the assembly of STX4-driven basolateral exocytotic SNARE complex and STX17-driven SNARE complex, causing respective reduction of basolateral exocytosis of ZGs and autolysosome formation, with consequent reduction in trypsinogen activation in both compartments. Consequently, pancreatic SNAP23-KD rats were protected from caerulein and alcoholic pancreatitis. This study revealed the roles of SNAP23 in mediating pathological basolateral exocytosis and IKBKB/IKKß's involvement in autolysosome formation, both where trypsinogen activation would occur to cause pancreatitis. SNAP23 is a strong candidate to target for pancreatitis therapy.Abbreviations: AL: autolysosome; AP: acute pancreatitis; AV: autophagic vacuole; CCK: cholecystokinin; IKBKB/IKKß: inhibitor of nuclear factor kappa B kinase subunit beta; SNAP23: synaptosome associated protein 23; SNARE: soluble NSF (N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor) attachment protein receptor; STX: syntaxin; TAP: trypsinogen activation peptide; VAMP: vesicle associated membrane protein; ZG: zymogen granule.