Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study.
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
27
11
2020
medline:
1
4
2022
entrez:
26
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%. Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups. A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1). A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%.
METHODS
Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups.
RESULTS
A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1).
CONCLUSION
A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33239541
pii: 00007890-202111000-00023
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003559
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2397-2403Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
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 declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
Burra P, Zanetto A, Germani G. Liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10:42.
Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, et al.; OLT for HCC Consensus Group. Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e11–e22.
Fisher RA. Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:373–382.
Berg CL, Gillespie BW, Merion RM, et al.; A2ALL Study Group. Improvement in survival associated with adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1806–1813.
Goldaracena N, Gorgen A, Doyle A, et al. Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation. J Hepatol. 2019;70:666–673.
Gorgen A, Goldaracena N, Zhang W, et al. Surgical complications after right hepatectomy for live liver donation: largest single-center western world experience. Semin Liver Dis. 2018;38:134–144.
Brige P, Hery G, Chopinet S, et al. Morbidity and mortality of hepatic right lobe living donors: systematic review and perspectives. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2018;27:169–178.
Patel S, Orloff M, Tsoulfas G, et al. Living-donor liver transplantation in the United States: identifying donors at risk for perioperative complications. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2344–2349.
Soin AS, Chaudhary RJ, Pahari H, et al. A Worldwide Survey of live liver donor selection policies at 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 adult living donor liver transplants. Transplantation. 2019;103:e39–e47.
Stone HH, Long WD, Smith RB III, et al. Physiologic considerations in major hepatic resections. Am J Surg. 1969;117:78–84.
Kubota K, Makuuchi M, Kusaka K, et al. Measurement of liver volume and hepatic functional reserve as a guide to decision-making in resectional surgery for hepatic tumors. Hepatology. 1997;26:1176–1181.
Abdalla EK, Barnett CC, Doherty D, et al. Extended hepatectomy in patients with hepatobiliary malignancies with and without preoperative portal vein embolization. Arch Surg. 2002;137:675–680; discussion 680.
Yigitler C, Farges O, Kianmanesh R, et al. The small remnant liver after major liver resection: how common and how relevant? Liver Transpl. 2003;9:S18–S25.
Truant S, Boleslawski E, Sergent G, et al. Liver function following extended hepatectomy can be accurately predicted using remnant liver volume to body weight ratio. World J Surg. 2015;39:1193–1201.
Shoup M, Gonen M, D’Angelica M, et al. Volumetric analysis predicts hepatic dysfunction in patients undergoing major liver resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:325–330.
Schindl MJ, Redhead DN, Fearon KC, et al.; Edinburgh Liver Surgery and Transplantation Experimental Research Group (eLISTER). The value of residual liver volume as a predictor of hepatic dysfunction and infection after major liver resection. Gut. 2005;54:289–296.
Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. Safety of donors in live donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts. Arch Surg. 2000;135:336–340.
Kim SJ, Kim DG, Chung ES, et al. Adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe. Transplant Proc. 2006;38:2117–2120.
Shi ZR, Yan LN, Du CY. Donor safety and remnant liver volume in living donor liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:7327–7332.
Yaprak O, Guler N, Altaca G, et al. Ratio of remnant to total liver volume or remnant to body weight: which one is more predictive on donor outcomes? HPB (Oxford). 2012;14:476–482.
Taner CB, Dayangac M, Akin B, et al. Donor safety and remnant liver volume in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1174–1179.
Facciuto M, Contreras-Saldivar A, Singh MK, et al. Right hepatectomy for living donation: role of remnant liver volume in predicting hepatic dysfunction and complications. Surgery. 2013;153:619–626.
Cho JY, Suh KS, Kwon CH, et al. Outcome of donors with a remnant liver volume of less than 35% after right hepatectomy. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:201–206.
Ibrahim S, Chen CL, Wang CC, et al. Small remnant liver volume after right lobe living donor hepatectomy. Surgery. 2006;140:749–755.
Kim SH, Kim YK, Lee SD, et al. Selection and outcomes of living donors with a remnant volume less than 30% after right hepatectomy. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:872–878.
Sharma A, Ashworth A, Behnke M, et al. Donor selection for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: well begun is half done. Transplantation. 2013;95:501–506.
Pamecha V, Mahansaria SS, Bharathy KG, et al. Selection and outcome of the potential live liver donor. Hepatol Int. 2016;10:657–664.
Tsang LL, Chen CL, Huang TL, et al. Preoperative imaging evaluation of potential living liver donors: reasons for exclusion from donation in adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2008;40:2460–2462.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al.; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–1499.
Kim KW, Lee J, Lee H, et al. Right lobe estimated blood-free weight for living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of automated blood-free CT volumetry—preliminary results. Radiology. 2010;256:433–440.
Shah SA, Levy GA, Greig PD, et al. Reduced mortality with right-lobe living donor compared to deceased-donor liver transplantation when analyzed from the time of listing. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:998–1002.
Sapisochin G, Goldaracena N, Laurence JM, et al. Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy-the Toronto approach, tips and tricks. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016;5:118–126.
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 Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149:713–724.
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.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–3107.
Yang D, Dalton J. A unified approach to measuring the effect size between two groups using SAS. SAS Global Forum. 2012.
Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, et al. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:364–375.
Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1092–1097.
Tucker ON, Heaton N. The ‘small for size’ liver syndrome. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2005;11:150–155.
Kanematsu T, Takenaka K, Furuta T, et al. Acute portal hypertension associated with liver resection. Analysis of early postoperative death. Arch Surg. 1985;120:1303–1305.