Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2023
01 11 2023
Historique:
medline:
6
10
2023
pubmed:
21
7
2023
entrez:
21
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians. Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
BACKGROUND
LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments.
METHODS
Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians.
RESULTS
Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37477016
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006038
pii: 00000658-202311000-00022
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
798-806Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
Fisher RA. Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:373–382.
Kim PTW, Testa G. Living donor liver transplantation in the USA. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016;5:133–140.
Miller CM, Quintini C, Dhawan A, et al. The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline. Transplantation. 2017;101:938–944.
Ivanics T, Wallace D, Claasen MPAW, et al. Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada. J Hepatol. 2022;77:1607–1618.
Kirchner VA, Goldaracena N, Sapisochin G, et al. Current status of liver transplantation in North America. Int J Surg. 2020;82:9–13.
OPTN. National data. Accessed January 17, 2023. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data/#
Jackson WE, Malamon JS, Kaplan B, et al. Survival benefit of living-donor liver transplant. JAMA Surg. 2022;157:926.
Middleton PF, Duffield M, Lynch SV, et al. Living donor liver transplantation—adult donor outcomes: a systematic review. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:24–30.
Rössler F, Sapisochin G, Song G, et al. Defining benchmarks for major liver surgery: a multicenter analysis of 5202 living liver donors. Ann Surg. 2016;264:492–500.
Shukla A, Vadeyar H, Rela M, Shah S. Liver transplantation: east versus west. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2013;3:243–253.
Miller CM, Durand F, Heimbach JK, et al. The International Liver Transplant Society guideline on living liver donation. Transplantation. 2016;100:1238–1243.
Gero D, Muller X, Staiger RD, et al. How to establish benchmarks for surgical outcomes?: a checklist based on an international expert Delphi consensus. Ann Surg. 2022;275:115–120.
Muller X, Marcon F, Sapisochin G, et al. Defining benchmarks in liver transplantation: a multicenter outcome analysis determining best achievable results. Ann Surg. 2018;267:419–425.
Schlegel A, van Reeven M, Croome K, et al. A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2022;76:371–382.
Abbassi F, Gero D, Muller X, et al. Novel benchmark values for redo liver transplantation: does the outcome justify the effort? Ann Surg. 2022;276:860–867.
Breuer E, Mueller M, Doyle MB, et al. Liver transplantation as a new standard of care in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma? Results from an International Benchmark Study. Ann Surg. 2022;276:846–853.
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.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196.
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1–7.
Nagino M, DeMatteo R, Lang H, et al. Proposal of a new comprehensive notation for hepatectomy: the “New World” terminology. Ann Surg. 2021;274:1–3.
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.
Maluf DG, Stravitz RT, Cotterell AH, et al. Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a 6-year single center experience. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:149–156.
Fisher RA, Cotterell AH, Maluf DG, et al. Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a 10-year prospective single-center experience. Ann Hepatol. 2009;8:298–307.
Reichman TW, Katchman H, Tanaka T, et al. Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a surgeon-matched comparison of recipient morbidity and outcomes. Transpl Int. 2013;26:780–787.
Humar A, Ganesh S, Jorgensen D, et al. Adult living donor versus deceased donor liver transplant (LDLT versus DDLT) at a single center: time to change our paradigm for liver transplant. Ann Surg. 2019;270:444–451.
Hoehn RS, Wilson GC, Wima K, et al. Comparing living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation: a matched national analysis from 2007 to 2012: national analysis of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:1347–1355.
Tang W, Qiu JG, Cai Y, et al. Increased surgical complications but improved overall survival with adult living donor compared to deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1–19.
Barbetta A, Aljehani M, Kim M, et al. Meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2021;21:2399–2412.
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: Shifting the Risk from the Donor to the Recipient. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:472–481.
Yagi S, Singhal A, Jung DH, et al. Living-donor liver transplantation: Right versus left. Int J Surg. 2020;82:128–133.
Acuna SA, Zhang W, Yoon PD, et al. Right lobe versus left lobe living donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes. Transplantation. 2022;106:2370–2378.
Halazun KJ, Przybyszewski EM, Griesemer AD, et al. Leaning to the left: increasing the donor pool by using the left lobe, outcomes of the largest single-center North American experience of left lobe adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg. 2016;264:448–456.
Zhang S, Dong Z, Zhang M, et al. Right lobe living-donor liver transplantation with or without middle hepatic vein: a meta-analysis. Transplant Proc. 2011;43:3773–3779.
Cattral MS, Molinari M, Vollmer CM, et al. Living-donor right hepatectomy with or without inclusion of middle hepatic vein: comparison of morbidity and outcome in 56 patients. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:751–757.
Scatton O, Belghiti J, Dondero F, et al. Harvesting the middle hepatic vein with a right hepatectomy does not increase the risk for the donor. Liver Transpl. 2004;10:71–76.
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.
Rela M, Rammohan A. Why are there so many liver transplants from living donors in Asia and so few in Europe and the US? J Hepatol. 2021;75:975–980.
Yoo S, Jang EJ, Yi NJ, et al. Effect of institutional case volume on in-hospital mortality after living donor liver transplantation: analysis of 7073 cases between 2007 and 2016 in Korea. Transplantation. 2019;103:952–958.