Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group Research Articles

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the US: insights from the latest UNOS database.

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation(re-LT) after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or >1mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5,955 LDLT initial transplants, 3,848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary non-function (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4%vs14.8% for LDLT; p=0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5%vs8.3% for DDLT; p<0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in PNF between DDLT and LDLT (49.7%vs32.0%; p<0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3%vs34.0% in LDLT; p<0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS post-re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term (p=0.02 and <0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p<0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

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 6000 living donor liver transplantation procedures: a pioneering experience at ASAN Medical Center.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as a favorable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, significantly reducing waitlist mortality, particularly in Asian countries with very low deceased organ donation rates. Asan Medical Center (AMC) in South Korea has pioneered innovative LDLT surgical techniques and become established as an extremely high-volume center for LDLT. This retrospective study analyzed 6000 consecutive LDLT procedures, including 510 dual-graft procedures, performed at AMC between December 1994 and January 2021. Of these, 312 LDLT procedures were performed in children aged < 18years. In adult recipients, liver cirrhosis (LC) related to viral hepatitis was the most common indication, occurring in 69.8% of cases. Biliary atresia (46.8%) was the most common indication for pediatric LDLT. This study demonstrated outstanding long-term outcomes, with patient survival rates at 1, 5, 10, and 20years of 92.7%, 85.9%, 82.1%, and 70.9%, respectively, in LDLT group for adults aged 50 and under at the time of LDLT, and 92.9%, 89.0%, 88.1%, and 81.9%, respectively, in the pediatric group. The in-hospital mortality rate of adult recipients was 3.8% (n = 214/5688). This study demonstrates the importance of refined surgical techniques, selection of grafts tailored to the recipient, and comprehensive multidisciplinary perioperative patient care in expanding the scope of LDLT and improving recipient outcomes.

Clinical application of split liver transplantation: a single center report of 203 cases

Objective: To investigate the safety and therapeutic effect of split liver transplantation (SLT) in clinical application. Methods: This is a retrospective case-series study. The clinical data of 203 consecutive SLT, 79 living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and 1 298 whole liver transplantation (WLT) performed at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from July 2014 to July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Two hundred and three SLT liver grafts were obtained from 109 donors. One hundred and twenty-seven grafts were generated by in vitro splitting and 76 grafts were generated by in vivo splitting. There were 90 adult recipients and 113 pediatric recipients. According to time, SLT patients were divided into two groups: the early SLT group (40 cases, from July 2014 to December 2017) and the mature SLT technology group (163 cases, from January 2018 to July 2023). The survival of each group was analyzed and the main factors affecting the survival rate of SLT were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Results: The cumulative survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5-year were 74.58%, 71.47%, and 71.47% in the early SLT group, and 88.03%, 87.23%, and 87.23% in the mature SLT group, respectively. Survival rates in the mature SLT group were significantly higher than those in the early SLT group (χ2=5.560,P=0.018). The cumulative survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 93.41%, 93.41%, 89.95% in the LDLT group and 87.38%, 81.98%, 77.04% in the WLT group, respectively. There was no significant difference among the mature SLT group, the LDLT group and the WLT group (χ2=4.016, P=0.134). Abdominal hemorrhage, infection, primary liver graft nonfunction,and portal vein thrombosis were the main causes of early postoperative death. Conclusion: SLT can achieve results comparable to those of WLT and LDLT in mature technology liver transplant centers, but it needs to go through a certain time learning curve.

Recipient Survival among Living Donor vs. Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Acute Liver Failure in the United States.

Objectives: Acute liver failure (ALF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely liver transplantation (LT) is the only universally accepted therapy for ALF that is non-responsive to medical therapy. Data regarding the use of living donor LT (LDLT) for this indication in the US is scarce. Materials and Methods: United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN) data from January 2002 to December 2020 were reviewed. Adult and pediatric recipients listed as status 1 were included. Demographics, clinical and laboratory data, and post-LT survival rates were compared for LDLT vs. DDLT recipients. Results: There were 180 LDLT (3.6%) and 4779 DDLT (96.4%) recipients with a diagnosis of ALF. The majority of recipients in the LDLT group were pediatric (n = 164, 91%) compared to the DDLT group (n = 1455, 30%), p < 0.001. In the pediatric-only group, post-LT survival was comparable between LDLT and DDLT recipients (p = 0.15). Five-year post-LT survival was higher for pediatric recipients compared to adults in the LDLT group (84.2% vs. 62.5%, respectively, p < 0.001) and the DDLT group (82.8% vs. 78.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Adults had a higher hazard of death compared to pediatric recipients in the LDLT group (HR = 3.560, 95% CI 1.612-7.844, p = 0.002) and the DDLT group (HR = 1.472, 95% CI 1.290-1.679, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis results, the type of LT and age group were not associated with higher post-LT mortality. Conclusions: In the US, LDLT constitutes 3.6% of LTs for ALF. In the pediatric-only group, post-LT survival was comparable between LDLT and DDLT recipients. Overall, there were superior post-LT outcomes for pediatric recipients compared to adults for LDLT and DDLT.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

High Number of Plasma Exchanges Increases the Risk of Bacterial Infection in ABO-incompatible Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

Bacterial infections are major complications that cause significant mortality and morbidity in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The risk of bacterial infection has not been studied in ABO-incompatible (ABOi) recipients with a desensitization protocol in relation to the number of plasma exchanges (PEs). Therefore, we aimed to analyze the risk of bacterial infection in ABOi LDLT recipients with a high number of PEs compared with recipients with a low number of PEs. A retrospective study was performed with 681 adult LDLT recipients, of whom 171 ABOi LDLT recipients were categorized into the high (n = 52) or low (n = 119) PE groups based on a cutoff value of 6 PE sessions. We compared bacterial infections and postoperative bacteremia within 6 mo after liver transplantation with the ABO-compatible (ABOc) LDLT group (n = 510) as a control group. The high PE group showed a bacterial infection rate of 49.9% and a postoperative bacteremia rate of 28.8%, which were significantly higher than those of the low PE group (31.1%, 17.8%) and the ABOc group (26.7%, 18.0%). In multivariate analysis, the high PE group was found to have a 2.4-fold higher risk of bacterial infection (P = 0.008). This group presented a lower 5-y survival rate of 58.6% compared with the other 2 groups (81.5% and 78.5%; P = 0.030 and 0.001). A high number of preoperative PEs increases bacterial infection rate and postoperative bacteremia in ABOi LDLT.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adult living-donor liver transplantation in Japan.

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a highly effective life-saving procedure; however, it requires substantial medical resources, and the cost-effectiveness of LDLT versus conservative management (CM) for adult patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) remains unclear in Japan. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using the Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC) data from the nationwide database of the DPC research group. We selected adult patients (18years or older) who were admitted or discharged between 2010 and 2021 with a diagnosis of ESLD with Child-Pugh class C or B. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed, and all event probabilities were computed in 3-month cycles over a 10-year period. The willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was set at 5 million Japanese yen (JPY) (49,801 US dollars [USD]) from the perspective of the public health-care payer. After propensity score matching, we identified 1297 and 111,849 patients in the LDLT and CM groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LDLT versus CM for Child-Pugh classes C and B was 2.08 million JPY/QALY (20,708 USD/QALY) and 5.24 million JPY/QALY (52,153 USD/QALY), respectively. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probabilities of being below the willingness-to-pay of 49,801 USD/QALY as 95.4% in class C and 48.5% in class B. Tornado diagrams revealed all variables in class C were below 49,801 USD/QALY while their ranges included or exceeded 49,801 USD/QALY in class B. Living-donor liver transplantation for adult patients with Child-Pugh class C was cost-effective compared with CM, whereas LDLT versus CM for class B patients was not cost-effective in Japan.

Benefit of living donor liver transplantation in graft survival for extremely high model for end-stage liver disease score ≥35.

Living liver donation with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was discouraged despite organ shortage. This study aimed to compare graft survival between living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients with extremely high-MELD (score of ≥35). Between 2008 and 2018, 359 patients who underwent liver transplantation with a MELD score ≥35 were enrolled. We compared graft survival between LDLT and DDLT after propensity score matching (PSM) and performed subgroup analysis according to donor type. After PSM, there was no statistical difference in graft survival between the LDLT and DDLT groups (p = .466). Old age, acute on chronic liver failure, re-transplantation, preoperative intensive care unit stay and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the operation were risk factors for graft failure (p = .046, .005, .032, .015 and .001, respectively). Biliary complications were more common in the LDLT group (p = .021), while viral infection, postoperative uncontrolled ascites, and postoperative hemodialysis were more common in the DDLT group (p = .002, .018, and .027, respectively). In the LDLT group, acute chronic liver failure, intraoperative RBC transfusion, and early postoperative complications were risk factors for graft failure (p = .007, <.001, and .001, respectively). Our study showed that LDLT is not inferior to DDLT in graft survival if appropriate risk evaluation is performed in cases of extremely high-MELD scores. This result will help overcome organ shortages in high-MELD liver transplantation.

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

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). 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. 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. 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.

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.

Aborted living-donor liver transplantation in the real-world setting, lessons from 13 937 cases of Vanguard Multi-center Study of International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group

There are exceedingly uncommon but clearly defined situations where intraoperative abortions are inevitable in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to summarize the cases of aborted LDLT and propose a strategy to prevent abortion or minimize donor damage from both recipient and donor sides. We collected data from a total of 43 cases of aborted LDLT out of 13 937 cases from 7 high-volume hospitals in the Vanguard Multi-center Study of the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group and reviewed it retrospectively. Of the 43 cases, there were 24 recipient-related abortion cases and 19 donor-related cases. Recipient-related abortions included pulmonary hypertension (n = 8), hemodynamic instability (n = 6), advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 5), bowel necrosis (n = 4), and severe adhesion (n = 1). Donor-related abortions included graft steatosis (n = 7), graft fibrosis (n = 5), primary biliary cholangitis (n = 3), anaphylactic shock (n = 2), and hemodynamic instability (n = 2). Total incidence of aborted LDLT was 0.31%, and there was no remarkable difference between the centers. A strategy to minimize additional donor damage by delaying the donor’s laparotomy or trying to open the recipient’s abdomen with a small incision should be effective in preventing some causes of aborted LDLT, such as pulmonary hypertension, advanced cancer, and severe adhesions.

Outcome of split liver transplantation vs living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) from different grafts have been studied individually and in combination, but the reports were conflicting with some researchers finding no difference in both short-term and long-term outcomes between the deceased donor split LT (DD-SLT) and living donor LT (LDLT). To compare the outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The following databases were searched for articles comparing outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT: PubMed; Google Scholar; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/). The search terms used were: "liver transplantation;" "liver transplant;" "split liver transplant;" "living donor liver transplant;" "partial liver transplant;" "partial liver graft;" "ex vivo splitting;" and "in vivo splitting." Ten studies were included for the data synthesis and meta-analysis. There were a total of 4836 patients. The overall survival rate at 1 year, 3 years and 5 years was superior in patients that received LDLT compared to DD-SLT. At 1 year, the hazard ratios was 1.44 (95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.78; P = 0.001). The graft survival rate at 3 years and 5 years was superior in the LDLT group (3 year hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.63; P = 0.04). This meta-analysis showed that LDLT has better graft survival and overall survival when compared to DD-SLT.

Increasing practice and acceptable outcomes of high-MELD living donor liver transplantation in the USA.

Recent deceased-donor allocation changes in the United States may have increased high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, outcomes in these patients remain poorly defined. We aimed to examine the impact of the MELD score on LDLT outcomes. Using UNOS data (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2021), LDLT recipients were identified and stratified into low-MELD (<15), intermediate-MELD (15-24), and high-MELD (≥25) groups. We compared outcomes between MELD-stratified LDLT groups and between MELD-stratified LDLT and donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare graft survival rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with graft outcomes. Of 3558 LDLTs, 1605 (45.1%) were low-MELD, 1616 (45.4%) intermediate-MELD, and 337 (9.5%) high-MELD. Over the study period, the annual number of LDLTs increased from 282 to 569, and the proportion of high-MELD LDLTs increased from 3.9% to 7.7%. Graft survival was significantly higher in low-MELD versus high-MELD LDLT recipients (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03-1.79); however, 5-year survival exceeded 70.0% in both groups. We observed no significant difference in graft survival between high-MELD LDLT and high-MELD donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI:0.99-1.58), with a 5-year survival of 71.5% and 77.3%, respectively. Low LDLT center volume (<3 LDLTs/year) and recipient life support requirement were both associated with inferior graft outcomes among high-MELD LDLT recipients. While higher MELD scores confer graft failure risk in LDLT, high-MELD LDLT outcomes are acceptable with similar outcomes to MELD-stratified donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. Future practice guidance should consider the expansion of LDLT recommendations to high-MELD recipients in centers with expertise to help reduce donor shortage.

Impact of living donor liver transplantation on long-term cardiometabolic and graft outcomes in cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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). 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. 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 10years (MDRD eGFR of 57.0mL/min vs. 48.5mL/min, p=.047). Both groups had a comparable OS (HR=1.83 (95% CI=.92-3.62), p=.08). 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 Metastases from Colorectal Cancer in a Living Donor Liver Transplant Program.

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 centres beyond study protocols. This study describes the interim experience with LDLT for CRLM at a large North American transplant and hepatobiliary centre. 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 three groups: transplanted, resected, and control (excluded, with continuation of systemic chemotherapy). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared. 81 referred patients were assessed for LDLT. 7 received transplants, 22 underwent resection, and 48 control. All had similar pre-assessment baseline characteristics. Median time from initial assessment to transplantation was 15.4 months. The control population had significantly worse post-assessment OS than the transplanted population (p=0.002) and resected population (p<0.001). The median post-operative follow-up duration was 21.4 months (resection) and 14.8 months (LDLT). There was no difference in OS between the transplanted and resected populations (1-year 100% vs. 93.8%; 3-year 100% vs. 43.3%, p=0.17). However, RFS was superior in the LDLT group (1-year 85.7% vs. 11.4%; 3-year 68.6% vs. 11.4%, p=0.012). 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.

Outcomes of the Initial Phase of an Adult Living vs Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Program in a Low-Volume Transplant Center: Integration of Hepatobiliary and Transplant Surgery

The development of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is clinically challenging, especially in a low-volume transplant program. We evaluated the short-term outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) to demonstrate the feasibility of performing LDLT in a low-volume transplant and/or high-volume complex hepatobiliary surgery program during the initial phase. We conducted a retrospective study of LDLT and DDLT in Chiang Mai University Hospital from October 2014 to April 2020. Postoperative complications and 1-year survival were compared between the 2 groups. Forty patients who underwent LT in our hospital were analyzed. There were 20 LDLT patients and 20 DDLT patients. The operative time and hospital stay were significantly longer in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. The incidence of complications in both groups was comparable, except for biliary complications, which were higher in the LDLT group. Bile leakage, found in 3 patients (15%), is the most common complication in a donor. The 1-year survival rates of both groups were also comparable. Even during the initial phase of the low-volume transplant program, LDLT and DDLT had comparable perioperative outcomes. Surgical expertise in complex hepatobiliary surgery is necessary to facilitate effective LDLT, potentially increasing case volumes and promoting program sustainability.

The Current State of Liver Transplantation for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the United States: A Call for Standardized Reporting.

Current success in transplant oncology for select liver tumors, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, has ignited international interest in liver transplantation (LT) as a therapeutic option for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In the United States, the CRLM LT experience is limited to reports from a handful of centers. This study was designed to summarize donor, recipient, and transplant center characteristics and posttransplant outcomes for the indication of CRLM. Adult, primary LT patients listed between December 2017 and March 2022 were identified by using United Network Organ Sharing database. LT for CRLM was identified from variables: "DIAG_OSTXT"; "DGN_OSTXT_TCR"; "DGN2_OSTXT_TCR"; and "MALIG_TY_OSTXT." During this study period, 64 patients were listed, and 46 received LT for CRLM in 15 centers. Of 46 patients who underwent LT for CRLM, 26 patients (56.5%) received LTs using living donor LT (LDLT), and 20 patients received LT using deceased donor (DDLT) (43.5%). The median laboratory MELD-Na score at the time of listing was statistically similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups (8 vs. 9, P = 0.14). This persisted at the time of LT (8 vs. 12, P = 0.06). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year, disease-free, survival rates were 75.1, 53.7, and 53.7%. Overall survival rates were 89.0, 60.4, and 60.4%, respectively. This first comprehensive U.S. analysis of LT for CRLM suggests a burgeoning interest in high-volume U.S. transplant centers. Strategies to optimize patient selection are limited by the scarce oncologic history provided in UNOS data, warranting a separate registry to study LT in CRLM.

Immunohistochemistry Staining-Proven Cytomegalovirus Colitis in Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

Background and Aims: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common occurrence in liver transplantation (LT) even in an era of preventive strategies. However, the diagnosis of CMV colitis remains challenging. This study aimed to focus on the clinical significance of endoscopic biopsy-proven CMV colitis in patients following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: From January 2007 to December 2021, a total of 55 CMV colitis cases were retrospectively enrolled and divided into a non-LDLT group in 53 and an LDLT group in 2 cases. Clinical demographics, diagnostic measurement, histopathology, and anti-viral therapy were investigated. Results: There were 1630 cases undergoing LDLT in the period 2007-2021, with only 2 recipients being confirmed to have CMV colitis in 2021 (2/114, 1-year incidence: 1.75%). Comparisons between the 53 non-LDLT cases and 2 LDLT cases are as follows: Serum anti-CMV immunoglobulin M (IgM) was shown to be positive (n = 3, 5.5% vs. n = 0, p = 1.0) and negative (n = 20, 37.7% vs. n = 2, 100%, p = 0.16); anti-CMV immunoglobulin G (IgG) was positive (n = 19, 35.8% vs. n = 2, 100%, p = 0.14) and none were negative; CMV DNAemia was shown to be detectable (n = 14, 26.4% vs. n = 1, 50%, p = 0.47) and undetectable (n = 14, 26.4% vs. n = 1, 50%, p = 0.47). Among the two recipients with CMV colitis, one had CMV DNAemia and the other had no CMV DNAemia upon the development of symptoms; negative anti-CMV-IgM and positive anti-CMV-IgG were observed both pre-transplant and post-transplant; finally, CMV colitis was documented based on the presence of inclusion bodies and positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in histology. Conclusion: Patients with immunocompromised status, in particular organ transplantation, may have positive serum anti-CMV IgM/IgG antibodies both before and after transplantation. This study emphasized the fact that endoscopic biopsy with IHC staining may be a more powerful tool for making an accurate diagnosis of CMV colitis in the setting of living donor liver transplantation.

Clinical efficacy of split liver transplantation in the treatment of children with biliary atresia

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of split liver transplantation (SLT) and living donor liver transplantation(LDLT) in the treatment of children with biliary atresia. Methods: The clinical data of 64 children with biliary atresia who underwent SLT and 44 children who underwent LDLT from June 2017 to May 2022 at Liver Surgery & Liver Transplantation Center,the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were retrospectively analyzed. Among the children who received SLT, there were 40 males and 24 females. The median age at transplantation was 8 months (range:4 to 168 months). Among the patients who received LDLT, there were 24 males and 20 females. The age at transplantation ranged from 4 to 24 months,with a median age of 7 months. Sixty-four children with biliary atresia were divided into two groups according to the SLT operation time: 32 cases in the early SLT group(June 2017 to January 2019) and 32 cases in the technically mature SLT group (February 2019 to May 2022). Rank sum test or t test was used to compare the recovery of liver function between the LDLT group and the SLT group,and between the early SLT group and the technically mature SLT group. The incidence of postoperative complications was compared by χ2 test or Fisher exact probability method. Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Results: The cold ischemia time(M (IQR)) (218 (65) minutes), intraoperative blood loss(175 (100) ml) and graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (3.0±0.7) in the LDLT group were lower than those in the SLT group(500 (130) minutes, 200 (250) ml, 3.4±0.8) (Z=-8.064,Z=-2.969, t=-2.048, all P<0.05). The cold ischemia time(457(158)minutes) and total hospital stay ((37.4±22.4)days) in the technically mature SLT group were lower than those in the early SLT group(510(60)minutes, (53.0±39.0)days).The differences were statistically significant (Z=-2.132, t=1.934, both P<0.05).The liver function indexes of LDLT group and SLT group showed unimodal changes within 1 week after operation. The peak values of ALT, AST, prothrombin time, activeated partial thromboplasting time, international normalized ratio, fibrinogen and creatinine all appeared at 1 day after operation, and the peak value of prothrombin activity appeared at 3 days after operation. All indicators returned to normal at 7 days after operation. The 1-,2-,and 3-year overall survival rates were 95.5% in LDLT group and 93.5% in the technically mature SLT group, and the difference was not statistically significant. The 1-,2-,and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.2% in the early SLT group and 93.5% in the technically mature SLT group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05). The main complications of the early SLT group were surgery-related complications(28.1%,9/32), and the main complications of the technically mature SLT group were non-surgery-related complications(21.9%,7/32). There were 5 deaths in the SLT group,including 4 in the early SLT group and 1 in the technically mature SLT group. Conclusion: The survival rate of SLT in the treatment of biliary atresia is comparable to that of LDLT.