Living and Deceased Liver Donation Criteria of Baskent University.

OBJECTIVES: Both living and deceased donor transplants require appropriate donor selection to increase the success of liver transplants. Proper deceased donor criteria will also increase the use of discarded and marginal donor livers. Here, we evaluated the Baskent University deceased and living donor criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 1988, our team has performed 704 liver transplants (490 from living [69.6&] and 214 from deceased [30.4&] donors) at our 3 transplant centers (Ankara, Adana, Istanbul). RESULTS: Living donor evaluations follow from simple and noninvasive tests to more complex and invasive, including liver biopsy, with social and medical evaluations being the most important. Living donor candidates must be relatives of the recipient (up to 4th degree) or the spouse of the recipient, and candidates must be ≥18 years old, with no health problems. Candidates undergo computed tomography to assess arterial and venous anatomy, to estimate total and remnant liver volume, and to detect any abnormalities. If graft-to-recipient weight ratio is >1 and remnant liver volume is ≥40% of total liver volume, then the candidate is accepted for further evaluation. All living donor candidates undergo liver biopsy. Age is not important for deceased donor candidates, but biopsy is the most important criterion in deceased donor selection. After histopathological examination, both living and deceased donor candidates are rejected if they have chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, severe hepatocellular injury, diffuse hepatocellular ballooning, or moderate-to-severe macrovesicular fatty changes >20%. Additional refusal criteria for deceased donors are hypernatremia, sepsis, extracranial malignancy, and high-dose vasopressor support. CONCLUSIONS: A deceased donor is the first choice in organ transplant. Proper evaluations can decrease discard rates of deceased organs. Living donor liver transplants should be performed only at well-established centers with surgical teams who have appropriate medical expertise and adequate institutional resources. To reduce complications and provide adequately functional grafts, careful donor evaluation is imperative.

Clinical Outcomes of Liver Transplantation for Patients Over 60 Years Old: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Although advanced age is no longer considered an absolute contraindication for liver transplant, transplant in elderly patients with comorbid diseases remains debatable because of high risks with surgery. Here, we report patient outcomes in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 276 liver transplant recipients, grouped by age. Group 1 (≤59 years old) consisted of 247 recipients, and group 2 (≥60 years old) consisted of 29 recipients. Reviewed data included age, sex, cause of liver disease, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, survival, and posttransplant complications. RESULTS: In both groups, most patients (n = 108) required liver transplant for hepatitis B virus. Mean age was 40 ± 12.3 and 63 ± 2.3 years in groups 1 and 2, respectively, with more men than women in both group 1 (71.7% vs 28.3%) and group 2 (75.9% vs 24.1%). No significant differences were shown between groups for patient characteristics, except group 1 had significantly higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Group 1 mean survival time was 10.2 ± 0.6 years, with patient survival rates at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of 65.5%, 53%, 46.3%, and 40%, respectively. In group 2, respective results were 10.6 ± 1.3 years and 75.9%, 68.6%, 61%, and 48.8% (no significant difference vs group 1). CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant recipients >60 years of age had survival rates, acute rejection rates, and complications similar to younger recipients. Liver transplant should not be withheld from older recipients on the basis of age alone. However, comprehensive screening for comorbidities should be performed.

Prevalence and outcome of herpes zoster infection in renal transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is an important pathogen after renal transplant. The aim of this study is to assess the outcome of disseminated Varicella zoster virus infection in renal transplant recipients and to determine potential risk factors for mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2001 to January 2014, we performed 1614 renal transplants at our institution. Varicella zoster virus infection was diagnosed in 41 patients (2.5%). Median time of diagnosis of Varicella zoster virus was 5 years after transplant (range, 3 mo to 13 y). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (90%) had dermatomal distribution of Varicella zoster virus, 4 patients (10%) had disseminated Varicella zoster virus infection. After diagnosis of Varicella zoster virus immunsuppressive therapy was reduced and patients received acyclovir. Cutaneous lesions were healed with a scar in 7 cases (17%). Two patients (5%) developed postherpetic neuralgia. Seventy percent of cases were diagnosed within 5 years, and 92% were diagnosed within 10 years after transplant. Mortality due to Varicella zoster virus was 2% (n = 1). Visceral involvement found to be a risk factor for mortality. Profilactic acyclovir or gancyclovir therapy following transplantation reduced Varicella zoster virus infection. However, Varicella zoster virus seropositivity did not influence fatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of antiviral therapy may prevent development of complication and visceral dissemination of disease. Active immunization should be applied for all seronegative patients before organ transplant.

Efficacy of cell saver use in living-donor liver transplant.

OBJECTIVES: Liver transplant currently is the best treatment option for end-stage liver disease. During liver transplant, there is major blood loss due to surgery and primary disease. By using a cell saver, the need for blood transfusion is markedly reduced. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cell saver use on morbidity and mortality in living-donor liver transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 178 living-donor liver transplants, performed from 2005 to 2013 in our center. Child-Turcotte-Pugh A patients, deceased-donor liver transplants, and liver transplants performed for fulminant hepatic failure were not included in this study. Intraoperative blood transfusion was done in all patients to keep hemoglobin level between 10 and 12 g/dL. Cell saver was used in all liver transplants except in patients with malignancy, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. RESULTS: We included 126 patients in the study. Cell saver was used in 84 liver transplants (66%). In 42 patients (34%), liver transplant was performed without a cell saver. In living-donor liver transplant with cell saver use, 10 mL/kg blood (range, 2-50 mL/kg blood) was transfused from the cell saver; in addition, 5 to 10 mL/kg allogeneic blood was transfused. In living-donor liver transplant without cell saver, 20 to 25 mL/kg allogeneic blood was transfused. CONCLUSIONS: During liver transplant, major blood transfusion is needed because of surgery and primary disease. Cell saver use markedly decreases the need for allogeneic blood transfusion and avoids adverse events of massive transfusion.

Large-for-size liver transplant: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVES: The ideal ratio between liver transplant graft mass and recipient body weight is unknown, but the graft probably must weigh 0.8% to 2.0% recipient weight. When this ratio > 4%, there may be problems due to large-for-size transplant, especially in recipients < 10 kg. This condition is caused by discrepancy between the small abdominal cavity and large graft and is characterized by decreased blood supply to the liver graft and graft dysfunction. We evaluated our experience with large-for-size grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 377 orthotopic liver transplants that were performed from 2001-2014 in our center. We included 188 pediatric transplants in our study. RESULTS: There were 58 patients < 10 kg who had living-donor living transplant with graft-to-bodyweight ratio > 4%. In 2 patients, the abdomen was closed with a Bogota bag. In 5 patients, reoperation was performed due to vascular problems and abdominal hypertension, and the abdomen was closed with a Bogota bag. All Bogota bags were closed in 2 weeks. After closing the fascia, 10 patients had vascular problems that were diagnosed in the operating room by Doppler ultrasonography, and only the skin was closed without fascia closure. No graft loss occurred due to large-for-size transplant. There were 8 patients who died early after transplant (sepsis, 6 patients; brain death, 2 patients). There was no major donor morbidity or donor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Large-for-size graft may cause abdominal compartment syndrome due to the small size of the recipient abdominal cavity, size discrepancies in vascular caliber, insufficient portal circulation, and disturbance of tissue oxygenation. Abdominal closure with a Bogota bag in these patients is safe and effective to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome. Early diagnosis by ultrasonography in the operating room after fascia closure and repeated ultrasonography at the clinic may help avoid graft loss.