Safe Use of Right Lobe Live Donor Livers With up to 20% Macrovesicular Steatosis Without Compromising Donor Safety and Recipient Outcome.
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
10
7
2019
medline:
30
9
2020
entrez:
9
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The principle in right lobe living donor liver transplantation is to use "near-perfect" grafts to maximize recipient benefit with minimal donor risk. Whether and what degree of graft macrovesicular steatosis is safe for both recipient and donor is debatable. We compared donor and recipient outcomes in 623 primary right lobe living donor liver transplantations, using grafts with (Group A; 10%-20% steatosis, n = 92) and without (Group B; <10%, n = 531) significant macrovesicular steatosis, on pre- or intraoperative biopsy. Group A donors had higher body mass index, transaminases, fasting blood sugar, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein level, and lower high density lipoprotein, and liver attenuation index on CT scan, and similar future liver remnant. Mean postoperative day (POD) 7, aspartate aminotransferase (61.13 + 24.77 vs 73.17 + 53.71 IU/L; P = 0.04), and prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (1.16 + 0.36 vs 1.28 + 0.24; P = 0.0001) were lower in Group A donors. POD3 of 7 total bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase; POD3 aspartate aminotransferase and prothrombin time-international normalized ratio; postoperative morbidity (Dindo-Clavien >3b), hospital stay were similar in both groups. Recipients in both groups had similar age, model for end-stage liver disease score. Right lobe graft weight (764.8 + 145.46 vs 703.24 + 125.53 grams; P < 0.0001) and GRWR (1.09 + 0.29 vs 1.00 + 0.21; P = 0.0004) were higher in Group A. All biochemical parameters at POD 3 of 7, as well as hospital stay, 30-day mortality were similar in recipients of both groups, even after matching both groups for age, model for end-stage liver disease, and GRWR. Use of well-selected right lobe grafts (adequate future liver remnant in donor, GRWR in recipient), with up to 20% macrovesicular steatosis, does not compromise graft function and outcomes and is safe for the donor.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The principle in right lobe living donor liver transplantation is to use "near-perfect" grafts to maximize recipient benefit with minimal donor risk. Whether and what degree of graft macrovesicular steatosis is safe for both recipient and donor is debatable.
METHODS
We compared donor and recipient outcomes in 623 primary right lobe living donor liver transplantations, using grafts with (Group A; 10%-20% steatosis, n = 92) and without (Group B; <10%, n = 531) significant macrovesicular steatosis, on pre- or intraoperative biopsy.
RESULTS
Group A donors had higher body mass index, transaminases, fasting blood sugar, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein level, and lower high density lipoprotein, and liver attenuation index on CT scan, and similar future liver remnant. Mean postoperative day (POD) 7, aspartate aminotransferase (61.13 + 24.77 vs 73.17 + 53.71 IU/L; P = 0.04), and prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (1.16 + 0.36 vs 1.28 + 0.24; P = 0.0001) were lower in Group A donors. POD3 of 7 total bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase; POD3 aspartate aminotransferase and prothrombin time-international normalized ratio; postoperative morbidity (Dindo-Clavien >3b), hospital stay were similar in both groups. Recipients in both groups had similar age, model for end-stage liver disease score. Right lobe graft weight (764.8 + 145.46 vs 703.24 + 125.53 grams; P < 0.0001) and GRWR (1.09 + 0.29 vs 1.00 + 0.21; P = 0.0004) were higher in Group A. All biochemical parameters at POD 3 of 7, as well as hospital stay, 30-day mortality were similar in recipients of both groups, even after matching both groups for age, model for end-stage liver disease, and GRWR.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of well-selected right lobe grafts (adequate future liver remnant in donor, GRWR in recipient), with up to 20% macrovesicular steatosis, does not compromise graft function and outcomes and is safe for the donor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31283669
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002847
pii: 00007890-202002000-00019
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
308-316Références
Berg CL, Gillespie BW, Merion RM, et al.; A2ALL Study GroupImprovement in survival associated with adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.Gastroenterology20071331806–1813
Simpson MA, Pomfret EA. Checking the harness: safety for living liver donors.Liver Transpl201218Suppl 2S15–S19
Robertson C, Archibald D, Avenell A, et al. Systematic reviews of and integrated report on the quantitative, qualitative and economic evidence base for the management of obesity in men.Health Technol Assess201418v–vi, xxiii
Rinella ME, Alonso E, Rao S, et al. Body mass index as a predictor of hepatic steatosis in living liver donors.Liver Transpl20017409–414
Wang Z, Hisatake G, Yang L. Liver-specific deceased donor risk indices.Hepatol Res201444159–164
Frongillo F, Lirosi MC, Sganga G, et al. Graft steatosis as a risk factor of ischemic-type biliary lesions in liver transplantation.Transplant Proc2014462293–2294
Chu MJ, Dare AJ, Phillips AR, et al. Donor hepatic steatosis and outcome after liver transplantation: a systematic review.J Gastrointest Surg2015191713–1724
Azoulay D, Bhangui P, Andreani P, et al. Short- and long-term donor morbidity in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: 91 consecutive cases in a European center.Am J Transplant201111101–110
Soin AS, Goja S, Yadav SK, et al. (D+10) MELD as a novel predictor of patient and graft survival after adult to adult living donor liver transplantation.Clin Transplant201731
Choudhary NS, Saraf N, Saigal S, et al. Rapid reversal of liver steatosis with life style modification in highly motivated liver donors.J Clin Exp Hepatol20155123–126
Brunt EM. Surgical assessment of significant steatosis in donor livers: the beginning of the end for frozen-section analysis?Liver Transpl201319360–361
Soin AS. Smoothing the path: reducing biliary complications, addressing small-for-size syndrome, and making other adaptations to decrease the risk for living donor liver transplant recipients.Liver Transpl201218Suppl 2S20–S24
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.Ann Surg2004240205–213
Olthoff KM, Kulik L, Samstein B, et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors.Liver Transpl201016943–949
Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Yoshizumi T, et al. Feasibility of left lobe living donor liver transplantation between adults: an 8-year, single-center experience of 107 cases.Am J Transplant200665 Pt 11004–1011
Gabrielli M, Moisan F, Vidal M, et al. Steatotic livers. Can we use them in OLTX? Outcome data from a prospective baseline liver biopsy study.Ann Hepatol201211891–898
Nikeghbalian S, Nejatollahi SM, Salahi H, et al. Does donor’s fatty liver change impact on early mortality and outcome of liver transplantation.Transplant Proc2007391181–1183
Sharma A, Ashworth A, Behnke M, et al. Donor selection for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: well begun is half done.Transplantation201395501–506
Han S, Ko JS, Kwon G, et al. Effect of pure microsteatosis on transplant outcomes after living donor liver transplantation: a matched case-control study.Liver Transpl201420473–482
Spitzer AL, Lao OB, Dick AA, et al. The biopsied donor liver: incorporating macrosteatosis into high-risk donor assessment.Liver Transpl201016874–884
Selzner M, Clavien PA. Failure of regeneration of the steatotic rat liver: disruption at two different levels in the regeneration pathway.Hepatology20003135–42
Dahm F, Georgiev P, Clavien PA. Small-for-size syndrome after partial liver transplantation: definition, mechanisms of disease and clinical implications.Am J Transplant200552605–2610
Goja S, Kumar Yadav S, Singh Soin A. Readdressing the middle hepatic vein in right lobe liver donation: triangle of safety.Liver Transpl2018241363–1376
Deroose JP, Kazemier G, Zondervan P, et al. Hepatic steatosis is not always a contraindication for cadaveric liver transplantation.HPB (Oxford)201113417–425
de Graaf EL, Kench J, Dilworth P, et al. Grade of deceased donor liver macrovesicular steatosis impacts graft and recipient outcomes more than the donor risk index.J Gastroenterol Hepatol201227540–546
Chavin KD, Taber DJ, Norcross M, et al. Safe use of highly steatotic livers by utilizing a donor/recipient clinical algorithm.Clin Transplant201327732–741
Burra P, Loreno M, Russo FP, et al. Donor livers with steatosis are safe to use in hepatitis C virus-positive recipients.Liver Transpl200915619–628
Doyle MB, Vachharajani N, Wellen JR, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes after steatotic liver transplantation.Arch Surg2010145653–660
Li J, Liu B, Yan LN, et al. Reversal of graft steatosis after liver transplantation: prospective study.Transplant Proc2009413560–3563