Recipient graft failure or death impact on living kidney donor quality of life based on the living organ donor network database.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a paucity of prospective long-term data on living kidney donor (LKD) quality of life (QoL). The Living Organ Donor Network (LODN) database follows donors longitudinally and cross-references with United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data to assess factors that affect donor QoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Short Form (SF)-36 was sent to donors at 6 months and yearly thereafter. Recipient outcomes were determined from the UNOS database. Of 2219 donors, 1030 returned ≥ 1 QoL survey in the first year. Seven-hundred and thirty-one donors returned at least two surveys with 51 associated with a nonfunctioning graft and 38 with recipient death. RESULTS: Initial QoL scores were not different between donors whose recipients were alive with graft function, and those whose recipients died (88.9 vs 89.2, P = 0.87). For donors whose recipient died, QoL in the year after recipient death averaged 6 points lower than the initial QoL (88.9 vs 82.9, P = 0.01). Thirty-one donors returned surveys an average of 4.1 years after their recipient's death. Final QoL score increased by 2.5 points, no longer significantly lower than the initial QoL (85.4 vs 88.9, P = 0.16). Thirty-eight donors returned surveys in the year after their recipient's graft failure and their QoL decreased by 5.6 points on average (86.9 vs 81.2, P = 0.07). Twenty-eight of these donors returned future surveys and final QoL was unchanged (81.2 vs 81.2, P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Donor QoL declines after recipient death but recovers with time. Graft failure resulted in decreased QoL without recovery. The LODN database identifies factors affecting LKD QoL and provides a model for a national registry.

Stem cell and hepatocyte proliferation in hepatitis C cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma: transplant implications.

BACKGROUND. The liver possesses two distinct mechanisms for healing. Wound healing via hepatic stem cells recapitulates early development (hepatoblast proliferation), while liver regeneration resembles late embryonic growth (hepatocyte proliferation). Loss of control over both of these processes have been proposed as mechanisms that may contribute to poor outcomes in HCC. MATERIAL AND METHODS. We used microarray gene expression profiles to examine the involvement of hepatic stem cell and hepatocyte proliferation markers and regulators in HCV-induced cirrhosis and HCC. We compared 30 cirrhosis and 49 HCC samples to 12 disease-free control livers. RESULTS. Cirrhosis and HCC expressed markers of stem cell. Inhibitors of hepatocyte proliferation (HP) were highly expressed in cirrhosis. Loss of these HP inhibitors in HCC patients was associated poor prognosis (94 vs. 38% 2-year recurrence- free survival, p = 0.0003). Principal Components Analysis discriminated cirrhotic and HCC tissues, and HCC patients with poor (< 2 year) vs. good (> 2 year) recurrence-free survival. Loss of CDH1 expression correlated with up-regulation of hepatocyte proliferation promoters MET and YAP1. CDH1, MET, and YAP1 were independent predictors of recurrence-free survival by Cox regression when corrected for tumor stage (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION. HCV-cirrhosis is characterized by proliferation of liver stem cells and inhibition of hepatocyte proliferation. HCC tumors in which this pattern persists have superior outcomes to those which acquire a hepatocyte proliferation signature. Genes in this signature should be studied further for potential as tissue or serum biomarkers for patient risk stratification. CDH1 and MET are candidates for personalized therapies with targeted pharmaceutical agents.

Region 11 MELD Na exception prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Hyponatremia complicates cirrhosis and predicts short term mortality, including adverse outcomes before and after liver transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From April 1, 2008, through April 2, 2010, all adult candidates for primary liver transplantation with cirrhosis, listed in Region 11 with hyponatremia, were eligible for sodium (Na) exception. RESULTS: Patients with serum sodium (SNa) less than 130 mg/dL, measured two weeks apart and within 30 days of Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception request, were given preapproved Na exception. MELD Na was calculated [MELD + 1.59 (135-SNa/30 days)]. MELD Na was capped at 22, and subject to standard adult recertification schedule. On data end of follow-up, December 28, 2010, 15,285 potential U.S. liver recipients met the inclusion criteria of true MELD between 6 and 22. In Region 11, 1,198 of total eligible liver recipients were listed. Sixty-two (5.2%) patients were eligible for Na exception (MELD Na); 823 patients (68.7%) were listed with standard MELD (SMELD); and 313 patients (26.1%) received HCC MELD exception. Ninety percent of MELD Na patients and 97% of HCC MELD patients were transplanted at end of follow up, compared to 49% of Region 11 standard MELD and 40% of U.S.A. standard MELD (USA MELD) patients (p < 0.001); with comparable dropout rates (6.5, 1.6, 6.9, 9% respectively; p = 0.2). MELD Na, HCC MELD, Region 11 SMELD, and USA MELD post-transplant six-month actual patient survivals were similar (92.9, 92.8, 92.2, and 93.9 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Region 11 MELD Na exception prospective trial improved hyponatremic cirrhotic patient access to transplant equitably, and without compromising transplant efficacy.

Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a 10-year prospective single center experience.

It has been 4 years since the first, long-term (> 3 years) prospective comparison of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALLTx) to adult deceased donor liver transplantation (ADDLTx) was reported. In this follow up, prospective, IRB approved, 10-year comparison of A2ALLTx to ADDLTx we expand on our initial observations. This data includes: age, gender, ethnicity, primary liver disease, waiting time, pretransplant CTP/MELD score, cold ischemia time (CIT), perioperative mortality, acute and chronic rejection, graft and patient survival, charges and post-transplant complications. In 10 years, 465 ADDLTx (81.3%) and 107 A2ALLTx (18.7%) were performed at VCUHS. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was the most common reason for transplantation in both groups (54.5% vs. 48.2%). Data regarding overall patient and graft survival and retransplantation rates were similar. Comparison of patient/graft survivals, retransplantation rates in patients with and without HCV were not statistically different. A2ALLTx patients had less acute rejection (9.6% vs. 21.7%) and more biliary complications (27.1% vs. 17.6%). In conclusion, A2ALLTx is as durable a liver replacement technique as the ADDLTx. Patients with A2ALLTx were younger, had lower MELD scores, less acute rejection and similar histological HCV recurrence. Biliary complications were more common in A2ALLTx but were not associated with increased graft loss compared to ADDLTx.

Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a 6-year single center experience.

No long-term (>3 years) prospective comparison of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALLTx) to adult deceased donor liver transplantation (ADDLTx) has been reported. This is a prospective, IRB approved, 6-year comparison of A2ALLTx to ADDLTx. Data include: age, gender, ethnicity, primary liver disease, waiting time, pretransplant CTP/MELD score, cold ischemia time (CIT), perioperative mortality, acute and chronic rejection, graft and patient survival, charges and post-transplant complications. In 6 years, 202 ADDLTx (74.5%) and 69 A2ALLTx (25.5%) were performed at VCUHS. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was the most common reason for transplantation in both groups (48.1% vs. 42%). Data regarding overall patient and graft survival, monetary charges and retransplantation rates were similar. Comparison of patient/graft survivals, retransplantation rates in patients with and without HCV were not statistically different. A2ALLTx patients had less acute rejection (11.5% vs. 23.9%) and more biliary complications (26.1% vs. 11.4%). Overall, A2ALLTx is as durable a liver replacement technique as the ADDLTx. Patients with A2ALLTx were younger, had lower MELD scores, less acute rejection and similar histological HCV recurrence. Biliary complications were more common in A2ALLTx but were not associated with increased graft loss compared to ADDLTx.