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.

Outcomes of re-referrals of patients with alcohol-associated liver disease, who were previously declined for liver transplantation.

Since 2018, our program has utilized specific psychosocial criteria and a multidisciplinary approach to assess patients for liver transplant due to alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), rather than the 6-month abstinence rule alone. If declined based on these criteria, specific recommendations are provided to patients and their providers regarding goals for re-referral to increase the potential for future transplant candidacy. Recommendations include engagement in treatment for alcohol use disorder, serial negative biomarker testing, and maintenance of abstinence from alcohol. In our current study, we evaluate the outcomes of patients with ALD, who were initially declined upon assessment and re-referred to our program. This is a retrospective cohort study that includes 98 patients with ALD, who were previously declined for liver transplantation and were subsequently re-referred for liver transplant assessment between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. We assess the outcomes of patients who were re-referred including acceptance for transplantation following a second assessment. Of the 98 patients who were re-referred, 46 (46.9%) fulfilled the recommendations made and proceeded to further medical evaluation. Nine were eventually transplanted; others are listed and are waiting for transplant. The presence of a partner was independently associated with a higher rate of acceptance (OR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.97, p = 0.05). Most of the patients who did not proceed further (n = 52) were declined again due to ALD contraindications (n = 33, 63.4%), including ongoing drinking and lack of engagement in recommended addiction treatment. Others had medical contraindications (11.2%), clinically improved (6.1%), had adherence issues (5.1%), or lack of adequate support (2%). Patients with ALD previously declined for a liver transplant can be re-referred and successfully accepted for transplantation by fulfilling the recommendations made by the multidisciplinary team. Important factors including ongoing abstinence, engagement in addiction treatment, and social support are key for successful acceptance.

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.

Superior Long-Term Outcomes of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Cumulative Single-Center Cohort Study With 20 Years of Follow-Up.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Although both modalities have similar short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes are not well studied. We compared the 20-year outcomes of 668 adults who received LDLT with1596 DDLTs at the largest liver transplantation (LT) program in Canada. Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger and more often male than DDLT recipients (P < 0.001). Autoimmune diseases were more frequent in LDLT, whereas viral hepatitis and alcohol-related liver disease were more frequent in DDLT. LDLT recipients had lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = 0.008), spent less time on the waiting list (P < 0.001), and were less often inpatients at the time of LT (P < 0.001). In a nonadjusted analysis, 1-year, 10-year, and 20-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (93%, 74%, and 56%, respectively) versus DDLT (91%, 67%, and 46%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.02) as were graft survival rates LDLT (91%, 67%, and 50%, respectively) versus (90%, 65%, and 44.3%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.31). After multivariable adjustment, LDLT and DDLT were associated with a similar hazard of patient and graft survival. Our data of 20 years of follow-up of LDLT from a single, large Western center demonstrates excellent long-term outcomes for recipients of LDLT.

Results of Early Transplantation for Alcohol-Related Cirrhosis: Integrated Addiction Treatment With Low Rate of Relapse.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In 2018, our team initiated a prospective pilot program to challenge the paradigm of the "6-month rule" of abstinence for patients with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) requiring transplant. Our pilot involved an in-depth examination of patients' alcohol use, social support, and psychiatric comorbidity, as well as the provision of pre- and post-transplantation addiction treatment. METHODS: Patients with ALD were assessed for inclusion in the pilot by a multidisciplinary team. Relapse prevention therapy was provided directly to all patients deemed to meet the program's inclusion criteria. Random biomarker testing for alcohol was used pre and post transplantation. RESULTS: We received 703 referrals from May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2020. After fulfilling the program's criteria, 101 patients (14%) were listed for transplantation and 44 (6.2%) received transplants. There were no significant differences in survival rates between those receiving transplants through the pilot program compared with a control group with more than 6 months of abstinence (P = .07). Three patients returned to alcohol use during an average post-transplantation follow-up period of 339 days. In a multivariate analysis, younger age and lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at listing were associated with an increased likelihood of a return to alcohol use (P < .05); length of abstinence was not a predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective program provided direct monitoring and relapse prevention treatment for patients with ALD and with less than 6 months of abstinence and resulted in a reduction of post-transplantation return to drinking. This pilot study provides a framework for the future of more equitable transplant care.

Prospective Clinical, Virologic, and Immunologic Assessment of COVID-19 in Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described the clinical features of COVID-19 in solid-organ transplant recipients. However, many have been retrospective or limited to more severe cases (hospitalized) and have not routinely included serial virological sampling (especially in outpatients) and immunologic assessment. METHODS: Transplant patients diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a respiratory sample PCR were prospectively followed up to 90 d. Patients provided consent for convalescent serum samples and serial nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (antinucleoprotein and anti-RBD) and viral load, respectively. RESULTS: In the 161 SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID-19, the spectrum of disease ranged from asymptomatic infection (4.3%) to hospitalization (60.6%), supplemental oxygen requirement (43.1%), mechanical ventilation (22.7%), and death (15.6%). Increasing age (OR, 1.031; 95% CI, 1.001-1.062; P = 0.046) and ≥2 comorbid conditions (OR, 3.690; 95% CI, 1.418-9.615; P = 0.007) were associated with the need for supplemental oxygen. Allograft rejection was uncommon (3.7%) despite immunosuppression modification. Antibody response at ≥14 d postsymptoms onset was present in 90% (anti-RBD) and 76.7% (anti-NP) with waning of anti-NP titers and stability of anti-RBD over time. Median duration of nasopharyngeal positivity was 10.0 d (IQR, 5.5-18.0) and shedding beyond 30 d was observed in 6.7% of patients. The development of antibody did not have an impact on viral shedding. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the spectrum of COVID-19 illness in transplant patients. Risk factors for severe disease are identified. The majority form antibody by 2 wk with differential stability over time. Prolonged viral shedding was observed in a minority of patients. Reduction of immunosuppression was a safe strategy.

The Impact of Primary Liver Disease and Social Determinants in a Mixed Donor Liver Transplant Program: A Single-Center Analysis.

Organ allocation in liver transplantation (LT) remains imperfect. Periodic center reviews ensure programs transparently evaluate the impact of practice on access to transplantation, reflecting, in particular, patient (primary disease, social determinants) and program (deceased versus live donation) factors. Adult Ontario residents waitlisted for first LT at Toronto General Hospital from November 2012 to May 2019 were reviewed. Analyses were performed between distance to transplant center, income, education level, population density and primary liver disease, with LT, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT), living donor liver transplant (LDLT), and delisting. Of 1735 listed patients, 549 were delisted (32%), while 1071 were transplanted (62%), with 819 DDLT recipients (76%) and 252 LDLT recipients (24%), while 115 (7%) remained actively listed at data census. On univariate analysis, DDLT recipients lived 30% closer (median 39.7 versus 60.6 km; P < 0.001), lived in more populous areas (median 8501.0 versus 6868.5 people in a 1-km radius; P < 0.001), and resided in households that annually earned 10% less (median $92,643.17 versus $102,820.89 Canadian dollars; P < 0.001) compared with LDLT recipients. These findings with population density and income differences between DDLT versus LDLT receival remained significant on multivariate modeling even when accounting for primary liver disease. Primary liver disease was a statistically significant factor on multivariate analyses in LT receival (P = 0.001) as well as DDLT versus LDLT receival (P < 0.001). Of patients listed for end-stage liver disease, more patients with autoimmune cholestatic liver diseases received LDLT (34%-41%) than DDLT (27%-30%); this contrasted with patients with noncholestatic diseases LDLT (8%-19%) versus DDLT (37%-59%) receival (P < 0.001). Review of transplant allocation in a large mixed-donor North American liver transplant program demonstrates how patient social determinants and primary liver disease etiology continue to be significantly associated with ultimate transplantation.

Liver transplantation in adult polycystic liver disease: the Ontario experience.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) remains the curative treatment for symptomatic Polycystic Liver Disease (PCLD) patients and is associated with excellent survival rates. The aim of the study is to review the Ontario experience in LT for PCLD. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed from pre-existing LT databases from the LT Units at Toronto General Hospital and London Health Sciences Center, which are the two LT programs in Ontario, Canada. This database contains demographic, clinical parameters and follow-up of all patients transplanted for PCLD. Data was extracted for patients who underwent LT between January 2000-April 2017 and included follow up until December 31st, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 3560 patients underwent LT, of whom 51 (1.4%) had PCLD and met inclusion criteria. 43 (84%) of these patients were female. The median physiologic Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD-Na) score at time of referral was 13 (IQR = 7-22), however all patients required MELD-Na exception points to receive LT. The median age of transplant was 62 years (IQR = 59-64) for male vs. 52 (IQR = 45-56) for female patients. 33 (65%) of our cohort had PCLD while 9 (17.5%) had ADPKD and 9 (17.5%) had both diseases. 39 (76%) had LT due to symptoms of mass effect, while 8 (16%) had portal hypertensive complications. After a median follow-up of 6.3 (IQR = 2.9-12.5) years, the probability of survival was 96% (95% CI: 90%, 100%). Log-rank test, comparing survival analysis between males and females did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Most patients underwent LT for PCLD due to symptoms of mass effect with women being more likely than men to undergo LT. LT for PCLD had excellent long-term survival.

Living donor liver paired exchange: A North American first.

Paired organ exchange can be used to circumvent living donor-recipient ABO incompatibilities. Herein, we present the first case of successful liver paired exchange in North America. This 2-way swap required 4 simultaneous operations: 2 living donor hepatectomies and 2 living donor liver transplants. A nondirected anonymous living donor gift initiated this domino exchange, alleviating an ABO incompatibility in the other donor-recipient pair. With careful attention to ethical and logistical issues, paired liver exchange is a feasible option to expand the donor pool for incompatible living liver donor-recipient pairs.

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.

Renal Dysfunction After Liver Transplantation: Effect of Donor Type.

Recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts are reportedly at higher risk of developing renal dysfunction after liver transplantation (LT). We compared the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) after LT in recipients of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) or living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) livers. Adult recipients of DBD, LDLT, and DCD between 2012 and 2016 at Toronto General Hospital were included. AKI was defined as a post-LT increase of serum creatinine (sCr) ≥26.5 µmol/L within 48 hours or a ≥50% increase from baseline, and CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute for >3 months. A total of 681 patients (DCD, n = 57; DBD, n = 446; and LDLT, n = 178) with similar baseline comorbidities were included. Perioperative AKI (within the first 7 postoperative days) was observed more frequently in the DCD group (61%; DBD, 40%; and LDLT, 44%; P = 0.01) and was associated with significantly higher peak AST levels (P < 0.001). Additionally, patients in the DCD group had a significantly higher peak sCr (P < 0.001) and a trend toward higher rates of AKI stage 3 (DCD, 33%; DBD, 21%; LDLT, 21%; P = 0.11). The proportions of recovery from AKI (DCD, 77%; DBD, 72%; LDLT, 78%; P = 0.45) and patients developing CKD (DCD, 33%; DBD, 32%; LDLT, 32%; P = 0.99) were similar. Nevertheless, patients who received DCD or DBD LT and required perioperative renal replacement therapy showed significantly lower patient survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.90; 95% confidence interval, 4.51-13.83; P < 0.001). In conclusion, recipients of DCD liver grafts experience higher rates of short-term post-LT renal dysfunction compared with DBD or LDLT. Additional risk factors for the development of severe kidney injury, such as high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, massive transfusions, or donor age ≥60 years should be avoided.

The Impact of Direct-acting Antivirals on Overall Mortality and Tumoral Recurrence in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Listed for Liver Transplantation: An International Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the use of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) on the risk of death and tumoral recurrence in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to assess the impact of antiviral treatment on mortality and HCC recurrence patients with HCC-HCV. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of patients with HCC-HCV listed for LT from 2005 to 2015. Patients were divided according to the antiviral treatment received after HCC diagnosis: DAA, interferon (IFN), or no antiviral. Intention-to-treat overall survival and HCC recurrence incidence were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1012 HCV-HCC patients were listed for LT during the study period. The median follow-up was 4.0 (interquartile range = 2.3-6.7) years. Mortality was 5.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-7.2), 13.1 (95% CI, 11.0-15.7), and 6.2 (95% CI, 5.4-7.2) deaths per 100 person-year among patients treated with DAA, IFN, and antiviral naïve, respectively (P < 0.001). Of the 875 HCV-HCC transplant recipients, the 5-year recurrence-free survival was 93.4%, 84.8%, 73.9% for the pre-LT DAA, pre-LT IFN, and antiviral naïve groups, respectively (P < 0.001). After multivariable regression, the use of pre-LT DAA was not associated to risk of recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.19-1.00]). Post-LT DAA was not related to increased risk of recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.33-1.16]). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter intent-to-treat study, DAA therapy was not found to be a risk factor for mortality or HCC recurrence after adjusting for potential confounders.

Posttransplant Calcineurin Inhibitors Levels and Intrapatient Variability Are Not Associated With Long-term Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is an interest in understanding the association between early calcineurin inhibitors exposure post-liver transplantation (LT) and long-term outcomes. We aimed to analyze this association exploring median calcineurin inhibitor levels and intrapatient variability (IPV) in a multicenter, retrospective cohort. METHODS: Tacrolimus (Tac) and Cyclosporine (CsA) levels obtained during the first 15 days post-LT were collected. High immunosuppression (IS) was considered as a median of Tac, CsA blood trough levels 12 hours after drug administration, or blood levels 2 hours after drug administration higher than 10, 250, or 1200 ng/mL, respectively, or a peak of Tac >20 ng/mL. Optimal IS was defined as a median of Tac, CsA blood trough levels 12 hours after drug administration, or blood levels 2 hours after drug administration levels between 7 and 10, 150 and 250, or 800 and 1200 ng/mL. Low IS was defined as below the thresholds of optimal IS. IPV was estimated during the first 15 days post-LT. RESULTS: The study included 432 patients with a median follow-up of 8.65 years. IS regimen was based on either Tac or CsA in 243 (56.3%) and 189 (43.8%), respectively. There were no differences in terms of graft loss among low versus optimal and high IS groups (P = 0.812 and P = 0.451) nor in high versus low IPV (P = 0.835). Only viral hepatitis and arterial hypertension were independently associated with higher graft loss (hazard ratio = 1.729, P = 0.029 and hazard ratio = 1.570, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to what has previously been reported, no association was found between very early postoperative over IS or high IPV and long-term outcome measures following LT. Strategies aimed at reducing these long-term events should likely focus on other factors or on a different IS time window.

Attitudes of Liver Transplant Candidates Toward Organs From Increased-Risk Donors.

Increased-risk donor (IRD) organs make up a significant proportion of the deceased organ donor pool but may be declined by patients on the waiting list for various reasons. We conducted a survey of patients awaiting a liver transplant to determine the factors leading to the acceptance of an IRD organ as well as what strategies could increase the rate of acceptance. Adult liver transplant candidates who were outpatients completed a survey of 51 questions on a 5-point Likert scale with categories related to demographics, knowledge of IRDs, and likelihood of acceptance. A total of 150 transplant candidates completed the survey (age 19-80 years). Male patients constituted 67.3%. Many patients (58.7%) had postsecondary education. Only 23.3% of patients had a potential living donor, and 58/144 (40.3%) were not optimistic about receiving an organ in the next 3 months. The overall IRD organ acceptance rate was 41.1%, whereas 26.2% said they would decline an IRD organ. Women were more likely to accept an IRD organ (54.3% versus 34.7%; P = 0.02). Those who had a college education or higher tended to have lower IRD organ acceptability (28.3% versus 47.4%; P = 0.07). Acceptability also increased as the specified transmission risk of human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus decreased (P < 0.001). Patients were also more likely to accept an IRD organ if they were educated on the benefits of IRD organs (eg, knowledge that an IRD organ was of better quality increased overall acceptance from 41.1% to 63.3%; P < 0.001). Our survey provides insight into liver transplant candidates who would benefit from greater education on IRD organs. Strategies targeting specific educational points are likely to increase acceptability.

Predictors of De Novo Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease After Liver Transplantation and Associated Fibrosis.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can occur de novo in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for indications other than NAFLD, and it has been increasingly recognized as a complication in the post-LT setting. This study aims to better characterize de novo NAFLD after LT by identifying risk factors for its development, describing incidence and extent of fibrosis, assessing the diagnostic utility of noninvasive serum fibrosis algorithms, and comparing survival to those without NAFLD. This was a retrospective single-center analysis of de novo NAFLD in a post-LT cohort. Those whose primary indication for LT was nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) were excluded. Risk factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. De novo NAFLD and fibrosis were assessed on posttransplant liver biopsies, and noninvasive fibrosis scores were calculated from concomitant blood tests. After applying the exclusion criteria, 430 for-cause post-LT biopsies were evaluated; 33.3% (n = 143) had evidence of de novo steatosis and/or NASH at a median of 3.0 years after transplant. On multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR], 1.12; P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR, 3.01; P = 0.002), hepatitis C virus (OR, 4.61; P < 0.001), weight gain (OR, 1.03; P = 0.007), and sirolimus use (OR, 3.11; P = 0.02) were predictive of de novo NAFLD after LT. Significant fibrosis (≥F2) was present in almost 40% of the cohort. Noninvasive serum fibrosis scores were not useful diagnostic tests. There was no significant difference in the short-term or longterm survival of patients who developed de novo NAFLD. In conclusion, diabetes, BMI, weight gain after LT, and sirolimus-based immunosuppression, in keeping with insulin resistance, were the only modifiable factors associated with development of de novo NAFLD. A significant proportion of patients with de novo NAFLD had fibrosis and given the limited utility of noninvasive serum fibrosis algorithms, alternative noninvasive tools are required to screen for fibrosis in this population. There was no significant difference in the short-term or longterm survival of patients who developed de novo NAFLD.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death. CONCLUSION: Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period. LAY SUMMARY: Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Selected Grafts With 2 Bile Ducts Compared With 1 Bile Duct Does Not Impact Patient Outcome.

The outcome after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using grafts with multiple bile ducts (BDs) remains unclear. We analyzed 510 patients who received an adult-to-adult right lobe LDLT between 2000 and 2015 and compared outcome parameters of those receiving grafts with 2 BDs (n = 169) with patients receiving grafts with 1 BD (n = 320). Additionally, patients receiving a graft with 3 BDs (n = 21) were analyzed. Demographic variables and disease severity were similar between the groups. Roux-en-Y reconstruction was significantly more common in the 2 BD group (77% versus 38%; P < 0.001) compared with the 1 BD group. No difference was found in biliary complication rates within 1 year after LDLT (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 18% versus 21%, respectively; P = 0.46). In the 2 BD group, 82/169 (48.5%) patients were reconstructed with 2 anastomoses. The number of anastomoses did not negatively impact biliary complication rates. Recipients' major complication rate (Clavien ≥ 3b) was similar between both groups (1 BD versus 2 BD groups, 21% versus 24%, respectively; P = 0.36). Furthermore, no difference could be found between the 1 BD, the 2 BD, and the 3 BD groups in the frequency of developing biliary complications within 1 year (18%, 21%, 14%, respectively; P = 0.64), BD strictures (15%, 15%, 5%, respectively; P = 0.42), or BD leaks (10%, 11%, 10%, respectively; P = 0.98). In addition, the 1-year (90% versus 91%), 5-year (82% versus 77%), and 10-year (70% versus 66%) graft survival rates as well as the 1-year (92% versus 93%), 5-year (84% versus 80%), and 10-year (75% versus 76%) patient survival rates were comparable between the 1 BD and the 2 BD groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.54, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that selected living donor grafts with 2 BDs can be used safely without negatively impacting biliary complication rates and graft or patient survival rates.

Live donor liver transplantation with older donors: Increased long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence.

Using our prospectively collected database all adult hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients receiving an adult-to-adult LDLT between October 2000 and May 2014 were identified. Outcome of LDLT with grafts from younger (<50 years=128) vs older donors (≥50 years=31) was compared. Post-transplant graft function, postoperative complications and incidence of HCV recurrence were evaluated. Long-term graft and patient survival was calculated. No difference in graft function was observed between younger and older grafts. Overall complications were similar between both groups. The severity of complications determined by the Dindo-Clavien score was similar. Graft loss from HCV recurrence was significantly less frequent in younger grafts (18% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Young vs older livers had a trend toward improved 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival (89% vs 87%, 77% vs 69%, 70% vs 55%, P = 0.096), while patient survival was comparable between both groups (91% vs 90%, 78% vs 69%, 71% vs 60%, P = 0.25). In conclusion, LDLT with older vs younger grafts are more frequently associated with long-term graft loss due to HCV recurrence. Differences in graft survival might be more prominent with prolonged (≥5-year) follow-up. Living donor-recipient matching is particularly important for younger HCV-positive recipients.