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

Background Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with AILD; autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). We compared the survival of patients with a potential live donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist vs. no potential live donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Methods Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for liver transplant at our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential live donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. ITT survival was assessed from the time of listing. Results 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 ITT survival rates were higher for pLDLT vs. 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 PSC 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]). Conclusion Our study suggests that having a potential live donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with PSC 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.

Trajectories of patients relisted for liver transplantation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Recurrent cirrhosis complicates 10-30% of Liver transplants (LT) and can lead to consideration for re-transplantation. We evaluated the trajectories of relisted versus primary listed patients on the waitlist using a competing risk framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 1,912 patients listed for LT at our centre between from 2012 to 2020. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess overall survival (OS) by listing type and competing risk analysis Fine-Gray models were used to assess cumulative incidence of transplant by listing type. RESULTS: 1,731 patients were included (104 relisted). 44.2% of relisted patients received exception points vs. 19.8% of primary listed patients (p<0.001). Patients relisted without exceptions, representing those with graft cirrhosis, had the worst OS (HR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.63 - 6.67, p=<0.0001) and lowest instantaneous rate of transplant (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.38 - 0.83, p=0.006) than primary listed with exception points. On multivariate analysis listing type, height, bilirubin and INR were associated with cumulative incidence of transplant, while listing type, bilirubin, INR, sodium, creatinine were associated with OS. Within relisted patients, there was a trend towards higher mortality (HR: 1.79, 95%CI 0.91 - 3.52, p=0.08) and low transplant incidence (HR: 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 - 1.15, p=0.07) for graft cirrhosis vs other relisting indications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients relisted for LT are carefully curated and comprise a minority of the waitlist population. Despite their younger age, they have worse liver/kidney function, poor waitlist survival, and decreased transplant incidence suggesting the need for early relisting, while considering standardized exception points.

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.

Availability of living donor optimizes timing of liver transplant in high-risk waitlisted cirrhosis patients.

Liver transplant (LT) candidates have become older and frailer, with growing Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and comorbid disease burden in recent years, predisposing them for poor waitlist outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in waitlisted patients at highest risk of dropout. We reviewed all adult patients with decompensated cirrhosis listed for LT from November 2012 to December 2018. Patients with a potential living donor (pLD) available were identified. Survival analyses with Cox Proportional Hazards models and time to LT with Competing risk models were performed followed by prediction model development. Out of 860 patients who met inclusion criteria, 360 (41.8%) had a pLD identified and 496 (57.6%) underwent LT, out of which 170 (34.2%) were LDLT. The benefit of pLD was evident for all, but patients with moderate to severe frailty at listing (interaction p = 0.03), height <160 cm (interaction p = 0.03), and Model for end stage liver disease (MELD)-Na score <20 (interaction p < 0.0001) especially benefited. Our prediction model identified patients at highest risk of dropout while waiting for deceased donor and most benefiting of pLD (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.82). Access to LDLT in a transplant program can optimize the timing of transplant for the increasingly older, frail patient population with comorbidities who are at highest risk of dropout.

Anesthesia and Critical Care for the Prediction and Prevention for Small-for-size Syndrome: Guidelines from the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). METHODS: A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. RESULTS: It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. CONCLUSIONS: Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation Small-for-size Syndrome: Definitions, Timelines, Biochemical, and Clinical Factors for Diagnosis: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: When a partial liver graft is unable to meet the demands of the recipient, a clinical phenomenon, small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), may ensue. Clear definition, diagnosis, and management are needed to optimize transplant outcomes. METHODS: A Consensus Scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on specific aspects of SFSS, recommendations underwent blinded review by an independent panel, and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at the Consensus Conference. RESULTS: The ideal graft-to-recipient weight ratio of ≥0.8% (or graft volume standard liver volume ratio of ≥40%) is recommended. It is also recommended to measure portal pressure or portal blood flow during living donor liver transplantation and maintain a postreperfusion portal pressure of <15 mm Hg and/or portal blood flow of <250 mL/min/100 g graft weight to optimize outcomes. The typical time point to diagnose SFSS is the postoperative day 7 to facilitate treatment and intervention. An objective 3-grade stratification of severity for protocolized management of SFSS is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed grading system based on clinical and biochemical factors will help clinicians in the early identification of patients at risk of developing SFSS and institute timely therapeutic measures. The validity of this newly created grading system should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in Western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (≥18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan-2008 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling. RESULTS: A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for characteristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non-statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation. LAY SUMMARY: This multicenter international comparative analysis of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada demonstrates that despite low use of the procedure, the long-term outcomes are excellent. In addition, the mortality risk is not statistically significantly different between the evaluated countries. However, the incidence and risk of retransplantation differs between the countries, being the highest in the United Kingdom and lowest in the United States.

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious. METHODS: MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%). CONCLUSIONS: LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.