The Risk of Going Small: Lowering GRWR and Overcoming Small-For-Size Syndrome in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
27
3
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
27
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) according to various graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR). The standard GRWR in LDLT is >0.8%. Our center accepted predicted GRWR ≥0.6% in selected patients. Data from patients who underwent LDLT from 2001 to 2017 were included. Patients were stratified according to actual GRWR (Group 1:GRWR ≤0.6%; Group 2: 0.6%<GRWR≤ 0.8%; Group 3:GRWR >0.8%). There were 545 LDLT (group 1 = 39; group 2 = 159; group 3 = 347) performed. Pretransplant predicted GRWR showed good correlation to actual GRWR (R2 = 0.834) and these figures differed within a ± 10%margin (P = 0.034) using an equivalence test. There were more left lobe grafts in group 1 (33.3%) than group 2 (10.7%) and 3 (2.9%). Median donor age was <35 years and steatosis >10% was rare.There was no difference in postoperative complication, vascular and biliary complication rate between groups. Over one-fifth (20.5%) of group 1 patients required portal flow modulation (PFM) and was higher than group 2 (3.1%) and group 3 (4%) (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients developed small-for-size syndrome (SFSS): 5 of 39 (12.8%) in group 1 and 21 of 159 (13.2%) in group 2 and none in group 3 (P < 0.001). There were 2 hospital mortalities; otherwise, the remaining patients [24/26 (92.3%)] survive with a functional liver graft. The 5-year graft survival rates were 85.4% versus 87.8% versus 84.7% for group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.718). GRWR did not predict worse survivals in multivariable analysis. Graft size in LDLT can be lowered to 0.6% after careful recipient selection, with low incidence of SFSS and excellent outcomes. Accurate graft weight prediction, donor-recipient matching, meticulous surgical techniques, appropriate use of PFM, and vigilant perioperative care is important to the success of such approach.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) according to various graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR).
BACKGROUND
The standard GRWR in LDLT is >0.8%. Our center accepted predicted GRWR ≥0.6% in selected patients.
METHODS
Data from patients who underwent LDLT from 2001 to 2017 were included. Patients were stratified according to actual GRWR (Group 1:GRWR ≤0.6%; Group 2: 0.6%<GRWR≤ 0.8%; Group 3:GRWR >0.8%).
RESULTS
There were 545 LDLT (group 1 = 39; group 2 = 159; group 3 = 347) performed. Pretransplant predicted GRWR showed good correlation to actual GRWR (R2 = 0.834) and these figures differed within a ± 10%margin (P = 0.034) using an equivalence test. There were more left lobe grafts in group 1 (33.3%) than group 2 (10.7%) and 3 (2.9%). Median donor age was <35 years and steatosis >10% was rare.There was no difference in postoperative complication, vascular and biliary complication rate between groups. Over one-fifth (20.5%) of group 1 patients required portal flow modulation (PFM) and was higher than group 2 (3.1%) and group 3 (4%) (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients developed small-for-size syndrome (SFSS): 5 of 39 (12.8%) in group 1 and 21 of 159 (13.2%) in group 2 and none in group 3 (P < 0.001). There were 2 hospital mortalities; otherwise, the remaining patients [24/26 (92.3%)] survive with a functional liver graft. The 5-year graft survival rates were 85.4% versus 87.8% versus 84.7% for group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = 0.718). GRWR did not predict worse survivals in multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Graft size in LDLT can be lowered to 0.6% after careful recipient selection, with low incidence of SFSS and excellent outcomes. Accurate graft weight prediction, donor-recipient matching, meticulous surgical techniques, appropriate use of PFM, and vigilant perioperative care is important to the success of such approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32209906
pii: 00000658-202112000-00429
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003824
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1260-e1268Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Miller CM, Quintini C, Dhawan A, et al. The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline. Transplantation 2017; 101:938–944.
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Minimum graft size for successful living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68:1112–1116.
Bell R, Pandanaboyana S, Upasani V, et al. Impact of graft-to-recipient weight ratio on small-for-size syndrome following living donor liver transplantation. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88:415–420.
Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK, et al. Graft-to-recipient weight ratio lower to 0.7% is safe without portal pressure modulation in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation with favorable conditions. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2014; 13:18–24.
Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. Determinants of hospital mortality of adult recipients of right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2003; 238:864–869. discussion 869-70.
Chan SC, Lo CM, Ng KK, et al. Alleviating the burden of small-for-size graft in right liver living donor liver transplantation through accumulation of experience. Am J Transplant 2010; 10:859–867.
Dahm F, Georgiev P, Clavien PA. Small-for-size syndrome after partial liver transplantation: definition, mechanisms of disease and clinical implications. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:2605–2610.
Lo CM, Fan ST, Chan JK, et al. Minimum graft volume for successful adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure. Transplantation 1996; 62:696–698.
Nishizaki T, Ikegami T, Hiroshige S, et al. Small graft for living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2001; 233:575–580.
Kiuchi T, Tanaka K, Ito T, et al. Small-for-size graft in living donor liver transplantation: how far should we go? Liver Transpl 2003; 9:S29–S35.
Masetti M, Siniscalchi A, De Pietri L, et al. Living donor liver transplantation with left liver graft. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:1713–1716.
Shimada M, Ijichi H, Yonemura Y, et al. The impact of splenectomy or splenic artery ligation on the outcome of a living donor adult liver transplantation using a left lobe graft. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51:625–629.
Takada Y, Ueda M, Ishikawa Y, et al. End-to-side portocaval shunting for a small-for-size graft in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10:807–810.
Troisi R, Ricciardi S, Smeets P, et al. Effects of hemi-portocaval shunts for inflow modulation on the outcome of small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:1397–1404.
Ikegami T, Soejima Y, Taketomi A, et al. Explanted portal vein grafts for middle hepatic vein tributaries in living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2007; 84:836–841.
Lauro A, Diago Uso T, Quintini C, et al. Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using left lobes: the importance of surgical modulations on portal graft inflow. Transplant Proc 2007; 39:1874–1876.
Selzner M, Kashfi A, Cattral MS, et al. A graft to body weight ratio less than 0.8 does not exclude adult-to-adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2009; 15:1776–1782.
Chan SC, Liu CL, Lo CM, et al. Estimating liver weight of adults by body weight and gender. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:2217–2222.
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Lessons learned from one hundred right lobe living donor liver transplants. Ann Surg 2004; 240:151–158.
Ng KK, Lo CM. Liver transplantation in Asia: past, present and future. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2009; 38:322–410.
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. Hepatic venoplasty in living-donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft with middle hepatic vein. Transplantation 2003; 75:358–360.
Chan SC, Lo CM, Chok KS, et al. Modulation of graft vascular inflow guided by flowmetry and manometry in liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2011; 10:649–656.
Lo CM. Splenic artery occlusion for small-for-size syndrome: better late than never but early is the best. Liver Transpl 2009; 15:124–125.
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 Transpl 2010; 16:943–949.
Hauck WW, Anderson S. A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1984; 12:83–91.
Rubin DB. Propensity score methods. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149:7–9.
Sheetz KH, Derstine B, Englesbe MJ. Propensity scores for comparative effectiveness research: finding the right match. Surgery 2016; 160:1425–1426.
Clavien P, Barkun J, de Oliveira M, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250:187–196.
Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology 1995; 21:1317–1321.
Heinemann A, Wischhusen F, Puschel K, et al. Standard liver volume in the Caucasian population. Liver Transpl Surg 1999; 5:366–368.
Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Doherty DA, et al. Body surface area and body weight predict total liver volume in Western adults. Liver Transpl 2002; 8:233–240.
Lee SG, Park KM, Hwang S, et al. Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation at the Asan Medical Center, Korea. Asian J Surg 2002; 25:277–284.
Chan SC, Lo CM, Ng KK, et al. Portal inflow and pressure changes in right liver living donor liver transplantation including the middle hepatic vein. Liver Transpl 2011; 17:115–121.
Man K, Lo CM, Ng IO, et al. Liver transplantation in rats using small-for-size grafts: a study of hemodynamic and morphological changes. Arch Surg 2001; 136:280–285.
Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. Safety and necessity of including the middle hepatic vein in the right lobe graft in adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2003; 238:137–148.
Abt PL, Mange KC, Olthoff KM, et al. Allograft survival following adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:1302–1307.
Ikegami T, Taketomi A, Ohta R, et al. Donor age in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2008; 40:1471–1475.
Yoshizumi T, Taketomi A, Soejima Y, et al. Impact of donor age and recipient status on left-lobe graft for living donor adult liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2008; 21:81–88.
Moon JI, Kwon CH, Joh JW, et al. Safety of small-for-size grafts in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe. Liver Transpl 2010; 16:864–869.
Del Guercio LR, Cohn JD, Kazarian KK, et al. A shunt equation for estimating the splenic component of portal hypertension. Am J Surg 1978; 135:70–75.
Lo CM, Liu CL, Fan ST. Portal hyperperfusion injury as the cause of primary nonfunction in a small-for-size liver graft-successful treatment with splenic artery ligation. Liver Transpl 2003; 9:626–628.
Lautt WW. Mechanism and role of intrinsic regulation of hepatic arterial blood flow: hepatic arterial buffer response. Am J Physiol 1985; 249 (5 pt 1):G549–G556.
Cheah YL, Simpson MA, Pomposelli JJ, et al. Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey. Liver Transpl 2013; 19:499–506.
Roll GR, Parekh JR, Parker WF, et al. Left hepatectomy versus right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation: shifting the risk from the donor to the recipient. Liver Transpl 2013; 19:472–481.
Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG, et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 2006; 81:1373–1385.
Kiuchi T, Kasahara M, Uryuhara K, et al. Impact of graft size mismatching on graft prognosis in liver transplantation from living donors. Transplantation 1999; 67:321–327.