Identification of inappropriate medication use in elderly patients with frequent emergency department visits.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the demographic and health care characteristics of elderly family health team patients who are frequent emergency department (ED) users, focusing on potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and access to primary care services. DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective chart review. SETTING: Academic family medicine clinic in Toronto, Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 46 elderly patients (age >65 years) with 4 or more visits to a University Health Network-affiliated ED between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using the validated STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) criteria, PIMs were identified. The primary objective was to determine whether PIMs were associated with more frequent ED use. The secondary objective was to determine whether patients who had previously undergone a clinic pharmacist-led medication review had fewer PIMs. We also determined the health characteristics of these patients at the time of their last ED visit of the study period. Utilization of primary care resources, both prior to and after ED visits, was determined. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of patients were taking at least 1 PIM. The total number of PIMs in the study population was 71. Having more PIMs was significantly correlated with a higher number of ED visits (r = 0.32, p < 0.05). Patients with a previous medication review had a similar number of PIMs compared with those without a review. The mean number of concurrent medications was 12.1 and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.7. Significant delay between hospital discharge and primary care follow-up (median 13 days) was observed. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients who are more frequent ED users have a greater number of PIMs. Primary care resources appear to be underused in this population.

Living donor hepatectomy: the importance of the residual liver volume.

Living liver donation is a successful treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Most adults are provided with a right lobe graft to ensure a generous recipient liver volume. Some centers are re-exploring the use of smaller left lobe grafts to potentially reduce the donor risk. However, the evidence showing that the donor risk is lower with left lobe donation is inconsistent, and most previous studies have been limited by potential learning curve effects, small sample sizes, or poorly matched comparison groups. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a case-control study. Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent left hepatectomy (LH; n = 4) or left lateral segmentectomy (LLS; n = 41) were compared with matched controls who underwent right hepatectomy (RH) or extended right hepatectomy (ERH). The overall complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (31%-37%). There were no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were more grade 3 complications for the RH patients (13.3%) and the ERH patients (15.6%) versus the LH/LLS patients (2.2%). The extent of the liver resection significantly correlated with the peak international normalized ratio (INR), the days to INR normalization, and the peak bilirubin level. A univariate analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy, the spared volume percentage, and the peak bilirubin level were strongly associated with grade 3 complications. A higher peak bilirubin level, which correlated with a lower residual liver volume, was associated with grade 3 complications in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.005). RH and grade 3 complications were associated with an increased length of stay (>7 days) in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between the residual liver volume and liver dysfunction, serious adverse postoperative events, and longer hospital stays. Donor safety should be the first priority of all living liver donor programs. We propose that the surgical procedure removing the smallest amount of the liver required to provide adequate recipient graft function should become the standard of care for living liver donation.

Cosmesis and body image after adult right lobe living liver donation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about donors' perception and psychologic impact of the physical changes that occur after (open) living donor hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the body image and scar satisfaction after donor hepatectomy and to measure the relationship to postdonation quality of life. METHODS: Questionnaires measuring body image, cosmesis, and health-related quality of life were administered to 142 adults who underwent right lobe living donor hepatectomy between 2000 and 2007. RESULTS: Liver donors reported a significantly lower body image and lower cosmetic satisfaction with their scar when compared with published data on donors who underwent open nephrectomy. Donors' predonation health concerns and the perception that the recipient was engaging in risky behavior posttransplant were associated with lower postdonation body image scores. In addition, younger age and non-white ethnicity were associated with lower cosmetic scores after donation. Donors with a lower perception of body image and cosmesis reported lower physical and mental health, based on scores on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey health-related quality of life index, and significantly greater interference in both spousal relationships and their sex life. Younger donors and donors with perioperative complications were also more likely to report decreased confidence after donation. CONCLUSION: There are unique risk factors that predict a decreased perception of body image and cosmesis postdonation that may be useful in the donor evaluation process. Donors identified to be at risk for the development of a low perception of body image and cosmesis may require close follow-up and additional psychiatric services during the donation process.

A graft to body weight ratio less than 0.8 does not exclude adult-to-adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation.

Many centers require a minimal graft to body weight ratio (GBWR) >or= 0.8 as an arbitrary threshold to proceed with right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RL-LDLT), and there is often hesitancy about transplanting lower volume living donor (LD) liver grafts into sicker patients. The data supporting this dogma, based on the early experience with RL-LDLT at Asian centers, are weak. To determine the effect of LD liver volume in the modern era, we investigated the impact of GBWR on the outcome of RL-LDLT with a GBWR as low as 0.6 at the University of Toronto. Between April 2000 and September 2008, 271 adult-to-adult RL-LDLT procedures and 614 deceased donor liver transplants were performed. Twenty-two living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) cases with a GBWR of 0.59 to 0.79 (group A) were compared with 249 LDLT cases with a GBWR >or= 0.8 (group B) and with 66 full-graft deceased donor liver transplants (group C), who were matched 3:1 according to donor and recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma with the low-GBWR group. Portal vein shunts were not used. Markers of reperfusion injury [aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)], graft function (international normalized ratio and bilirubin), complications graded by the Clavien score, and graft and patient survival were compared. As expected, LD recipients had a significantly shorter cold ischemia time (94 +/- 43 minutes for A, 96 +/- 57 minutes for B, and 453 +/- 152 minutes for C, P = 0.0001). However, the peak AST, peak ALT, absolute decrease in the international normalized ratio, day 7 bilirubin level, postoperative creatinine clearance, complication rate graded by the Clavien score, and median hospital stay were similar in all groups. The rate of biliary complications was higher with LD grafts than deceased donor grafts (19% for A versus 10% for B and 0% for C, P = 0.2). Patient survival was similar in all groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (91% for A versus 89% for B and 93% for C at 1 year, 87% for A versus 81% for B and 89% for C at 3 years, and 83% for A versus 81% for B and 87% for C at 5 years, P = 0.63). A Cox proportional regression analysis revealed only hepatitis C virus as a risk factor for poorer graft survival and not GBWR as a continuous or categorical variable. In conclusion, we found no evidence of inferior outcomes with smaller size grafts versus larger size LD grafts or full-size deceased donor grafts. Further studies are warranted to examine the factors affecting the function of smaller grafts for living liver donation and thereby define the safe lower limits for transplantation.

Recipient age affects long-term outcome and hepatitis C recurrence in old donor livers following transplantation.

We studied the role of donor and recipient age in transplantation/ischemia-reperfusion injury (TIRI) and short- and long-term graft and patient survival. Eight hundred twenty-two patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation, with 197 donors being > or = 60 years old. We evaluated markers of reperfusion injury, graft function, and clinical outcomes as well as short- and long-term graft and patient survival. Increased donor age was associated with more severe TIRI and decreased 3- and 5-year graft survival (73% versus 85% and 72% versus 81%, P < 0.001) and patient survival (77% versus 88% and 77% versus 82%, P < 0.003). Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and recipient age were the only independent risk factors for graft and patient survival in patients receiving an older graft. In the HCV(+) cohort (297 patients), patients > or = 50 years old who were transplanted with an older graft versus a younger graft had significantly decreased 3- and 5-year graft survival (68% versus 83% and 64% versus 83%, P < 0.009). In contrast, HCV(+) patients < 50 years old had similar 3- and 5-year graft survival if transplanted with either a young graft or an old graft (81% versus 82% and 81% versus 82%, P = 0.9). In conclusion, recipient age and HCV status affect the graft and patient survival of older livers. Combining older grafts with older recipients should be avoided, particularly in HCV(+) patients, whereas the effects of donor age can be minimized in younger recipients.

Financial, vocational, and interpersonal impact of living liver donation.

The ability to inform prospective donors of the psychosocial risks of living liver donation is currently limited by the scant empirical literature. The present study was designed to examine donor perceptions of the impact of donation on financial, vocational, and interpersonal life domains and identify demographic and clinical factors related to longer recovery times and greater life interference. A total of 143 donors completed a retrospective questionnaire that included a standardized measure of life interference [Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS)] and additional questions regarding the perceived impact of donation. Donor IIRS scores suggested that donors experience a relatively low level of life interference due to donation [1.60 +/- 0.72, with a possible range of 1 ("not very much" interference) to 7 ("very much" interference)]. However, approximately 1 in 5 donors reported that donating was a significant financial burden. Logistic regression analysis revealed that donors with a psychiatric diagnosis at or prior to donation took longer to return to their self-reported predonation level of functioning (odds ratio = 3.78, P = 0.016). Medical complications were unrelated to self-reported recovery time. Multiple regression analysis revealed 4 independent predictors of greater life interference: less time since donation (b = 0.11, P < 0.001), income lower than CAD$100,000 (b = 0.28, P = 0.038), predonation concerns about the donation process (b = 0.24, P = 0.008), and the perception that the recipient is not caring for the new liver (b = 0.12, P = 0.031). In conclusion, life interference due to living liver donation appears to be relatively low. Donors should be made aware of risk factors for greater life disruptions post-surgery and of the potential financial burden of donation.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.

The present review outlines the principles of living donor liver transplantation, donor workup, procedure and outcomes. Living donation offers a solution to the growing gap between the need for liver transplants and the limited availability of deceased donor organs. With a multidisciplinary team focused on donor safety and experienced surgeons capable of performing complex resection/reconstruction procedures, donor morbidity is low and recipient outcomes are comparable with results of deceased donor transplantation.

Living-donor right hepatectomy with or without inclusion of middle hepatic vein: comparison of morbidity and outcome in 56 patients.

Venous congestion of segments V and VIII is observed frequently in living-donor right lobe liver transplants without middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage, and can be a cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Inclusion of the MHV with the graft is controversial, however, because of the perceived potential for increased donor morbidity. We compared the outcome of living liver donors in whom the MHV was either left intact in the donor (group 1; n = 28) or was removed with the graft (group 2; n = 28). All prospective donors completed an extensive multidisciplinary evaluation to determine suitability for surgery and to ensure that the MHV could be removed safely without compromising venous outflow from the remaining liver. Patient demographics including age, weight, body-mass index, and liver volumetry as determined by computerized tomography were similar in both groups. Operative time in group 2 was significantly shorter than in group 1. There was no difference in estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, peak serum liver tests, time interval from surgery to complete normalization of liver tests, complications, and length of hospitalization. We conclude that including the MHV with living-donor right lobe grafts can be performed safely in most donors.