Search

Publications on living donor liver transplant have focused on the medical aspects of donor selection, postoperative management, surgical procedures, and outcomes, but little attention has been given to the nursing implications for care of live liver donors during their inpatient stay. Donor advocates from various disciplines are involved during the initial education and evaluation, but most care after surgery is delivered by an inpatient medical team and bedside nursing staff who are not as familiar with the donor and concepts related to donor advocacy. In an effort to improve the overall donor experience and provide safe, high-quality care to patients undergoing elective partial hepatectomy, our academic medical center began a quality improvement project focused on improving the inpatient stay. Inpatient nursing standards and policies and procedures were developed to ensure that consistent care is delivered. However, the infrequency of living donor liver transplantation makes it nearly impossible to have all transplant program staff on a nursing unit be "experts" on donor care. Therefore, our center determined that, similar to the Independent Donor Advocacy Team, a transplant program needs live donor champions on the nursing unit to mirror the goals of the team. To that end, we developed the concept of the Designated Donor Nurse to care for and advocate for live liver donors during the inpatient stay and also to serve as a resource to their colleagues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Living donor transplant has developed as a direct result of the critical shortage of deceased donors. Federal regulations require transplant programs to appoint an independent donor advocate to ensure safe evaluation and care of live donors. Ethical and pragmatic issues surround the donor advocate. These issues include the composition of a team versus an individual advocate, who appoints them, and the role that the advocate(s) play in the process. A team approach to donor advocacy is recommended. Common goals of the independent donor advocacy team should be protocol development, education, medical and psychosocial evaluation, advocacy, support, and documentation throughout the donation process. The team's involvement should not end with consent and donation but should continue through short- and long-term follow-up and management. Ultimately it is the goal of the independent donor advocacy team to assist donors to advocate for themselves. Once deemed medically and psychologically suitable, donors must determine for themselves what they wish to do and must be free to vocalize this to their team. The decision to donate or not affects the donor first. Optimal outcomes begin with prepared, educated, uncoerced, and motivated donors, and it is the team's goal to help donors reach this point. (Progress in Transplantation. 2009;19:64-70) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liver transplantation is an acceptable treatment modality for complications of end-stage liver disease from chronic and acute liver failure. In the United States, 16 377 people are currently awaiting liver transplant but only 6492 transplantations were performed in 2007. All options for liver transplantation including Model for End stage Liver Disease allocated, expanded criteria deceased donors, and live donor liver transplantation should be discussed with potential recipients on the waitlist to create an early access plan for safe and expeditious transplantation. After transplantation, careful management to avoid complications and intervene early is necessary. Common postoperative complications include graft dysfunction, vascular thrombosis, biliary tract complications, infection, rejection, neurologic injury, electrolyte imbalances, and drug interactions. A multidisciplinary approach to care including the critical care nurse is necessary for successful long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy., Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay., Results: Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes., Conclusions: Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry., Methods: A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency., Results: For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%)., Conclusions: A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors., Methods/approach: A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8)., Findings: The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor., Discussion: Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.

Introduction: The benefit and short-term safety of ketorolac have been established in previous studies however, the risk of bleeding and long-term renal impairment in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy remain unclear. We report our experience at a high-volume transplant center., Method: Between January 1996 and January 2014, 862 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Exclusion criteria included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, asthma, bleeding disorders, long-term opioid use, intraoperative blood loss >700 mL, peptic ulcer disease, bleeding diathesis, and baseline creatinine greater than 1.9 mg/dL. Intravenous ketorolac was administered within 30 minutes following the surgical procedure at a dose of 15 to 30 mg every 6 hours. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the administration of ketorolac after surgery. Differences between the groups were analyzed. Primary outcomes were changes in serum creatinine and hemoglobin levels. Poor outcome was defined as postsurgical complications., Results: During this time, 469 (55.3%) received ketorolac. The mean donor age was 39 years, and 360 (42.5%) were male. Left kidneys were procured in 82%. Operative time averaged 210 minutes and warm ischemia time117 seconds. Baseline demographic and operative outcomes were comparable in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the ketorolac group and the nonketorolac group in preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels and serum creatinine at 1 week, 1 year, and 5 years ( P = .6). Ketorolac use was not associated with increased perioperative morbidity ( P = NS)., Conclusion: The use of intravenous ketorolac in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding or renal impairment.

Live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for eligible people with late-stage kidney disease. Despite this, living kidney donation rates have declined in the United States in recent years. A potential source of this decline is the financial impact on potential and actual living kidney donors (LKDs). Recent evidence indicates that the economic climate may be associated with the decline in LDKT and that there are nontrivial financial ramifications for some LKDs. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice convened a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation. The conference included transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders (with the financial support of 10 other organizations) and sought to identify best practices, knowledge gaps, and opportunities pertaining to living kidney donation. This workgroup was tasked with exploring systemic and financial barriers to living kidney donation. The workgroup reviewed literature that assessed the financial effect of living kidney donation, analyzed employment and insurance factors, discussed international models for addressing direct and indirect costs faced by LKDs, and summarized current available resources. The workgroup developed the following series of recommendations to reduce financial and systemic barriers and achieve financial neutrality for LKDs: (1) allocate resources for standardized reimbursement of LKDs' lost wages and incidental costs; (2) pass legislation to offer employment and insurability protections to LKDs; (3) create an LKD financial toolkit to provide standardized, vetted education to donors and providers about options to maximize donor coverage and minimize financial effect within the current climate; and (4) promote further research to identify systemic barriers to living donation and LDKT to ensure the creation of mitigation strategies., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The education, evaluation, and support of living donors before, during, and after donation have historically been considered the roles and responsibilities of transplant programs. Although intended to protect donors, ensure true informed consent, and prevent coercion, this structure often leaves referring nephrologists unclear about the donor process and uncertain regarding the ultimate outcome of potential donors for their patients. The aim of this article is to help the referring nephrologist understand the donor referral and evaluation process, help the referring nephrologist understand the responsibilities of the transplant program, and offer suggestions about how the referring nephrologist can help to improve efficiencies in the process of donor education and evaluation. A partnership between referring nephrologists and transplant programs is an important step in advancing living kidney donation. The referring nephrologists are the frontline providers and are in a unique position to offer education about living donation and improve efficiencies in the process. Understanding the donor referral and evaluation process, the responsibilities of the transplant program, and the potential role referring nephrologists can play in the process is critical to establishing such a partnership., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Solid organ transplantation as a treatment for end stage organ failure has been an accepted treatment option for decades. Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, the gap between supply and demand continues to widen. Living donation has been an option that has increased the number of transplants despite the continued shortage of deceased organs. In the early 2000s live donor transplantation reached an all-time high in the United States. As a result, a consensus meeting was convened in 2000 to increase the oversight of living donor transplantation. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the United Network for Organ Sharing developed regulations that transplant programs performing live donor transplantation. These regulations and guidelines involve the education, evaluation, informed consent process and living donor follow-up care. Two areas in which had significant changes included the psychosocial and the independent living donor advocate (ILDA) evaluation. The purpose of this paper was to outline the current regulations and guidelines associated with the psychosocial and ILDA evaluation as well as provide further recommendations for the administration of a high quality evaluation of living donors. The goals and timing of the evaluation and education of donors; qualifications of the health care providers performing the evaluation; components of the evaluation; education provided to donors; documentation of the evaluation; participation in the selection committee meeting; post-decline and post-donation care of donors is described. Caveats including the paired donor exchange programs and non-directed and directed donation are also considered.

Background: Psychosocial evaluation is an important part of the live organ donor evaluation process, yet it is not standardized across institutions, and although tools exist for the psychosocial evaluation of organ recipients, none exist to assess donors., Objective: We set out to develop a semistructured psychosocial evaluation tool (the Live Donor Assessment Tool, LDAT) to assess potential live organ donors and to conduct preliminary analyses of the tool's reliability and validity., Methods: Review of the literature on the psychosocial variables associated with treatment adherence, quality of life, live organ donation outcome, and resilience, as well as review of the procedures for psychosocial evaluation at our center and other centers around the country, identified 9 domains to address; these domains were distilled into several items each, in collaboration with colleagues at transplant centers across the country, for a total of 29 items. Four raters were trained to use the LDAT, and they retrospectively scored 99 psychosocial evaluations conducted on live organ donor candidates. Reliability of the LDAT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of the items in the scale and interrater reliability between raters; validity was estimated by comparing LDAT scores between those with a "positive" evaluation outcome and "negative" outcome., Results: The LDAT was found to have good internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and showed signs of validity: LDAT scores differentiated the positive vs. negative outcome groups., Conclusions: The LDAT demonstrated good reliability and validity, but future research on the LDAT and the ability to implement the LDAT prospectively is warranted., (Copyright © 2015 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) with a right hepatectomy (RH) in live donor liver transplantation improves venous drainage of the anterior sector of the graft. Its long-term effects on donor left liver (LL) regeneration are not well described., Methods: Donors who underwent RH with MHV (MHV+, n = 12) were compared with donors who underwent RH with preservation of the MHV (MHV-, n = 24). Peri-operative complications and volume of the entire liver and individual segments were evaluated at 1 year post-donation., Results: There was a trend towards a higher complication rate in the MHV+ group (41% versus 25%), without reaching statistical significance (P = 0.3). Males, high body mass index (BMI) and a smaller residual liver volume (RLV) were predictors for greater LL regeneration. MHV+ donors had impaired regeneration of segment 4 (S4) at 1 year, and compensatory greater left lateral segment regeneration. The absence of venous drainage of S4 (V4) to left hepatic vein (LHV) was a predictor of impaired S4 regeneration., Conclusions: Regeneration of S4 is impaired in MHV+ donors. Caution should be taken when considering MHV removal on donors with dominant S4, especially on those with potential increased demand for liver regeneration, such as males, higher BMI and a smaller RLV., (© 2014 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

Background: A transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from a live kidney donor prompted recommendations by the New York State Department of Health and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that all live donors undergo additional screening for HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) within 7-14 days of the donation procedure. There are concerns that re-screening will result in delays and cancelled transplants., Methods: We surveyed live-donor transplant centers in New York State to assess their screening protocols and outcomes. Nine live-donor programs (kidney and liver centers) responded., Results: All but 1 program has a formal repeat screening policy. Overall, no cancellations occurred, but 2 centers experienced transplantation delays, generally as the result of technician and laboratory procedural mistakes necessitating repeat phlebotomy. Testing is typically coordinated with pre-surgical visits, additional laboratory tests, and physical examinations. In the initial evaluation, serology was most frequently used (all 9 centers), with few centers utilizing nucleic acid testing (NAT) (HIV NAT, 1; HBV NAT, 2; HCV NAT, 2). Repeat testing modalities varied: HIV antibody (5, 55%), HIV NAT (8, 88%), hepatitis B surface antigen (5, 55%), hepatitis B surface antibody (2, 22%), hepatitis B core antibody (3, 33%), HBV NAT (3, 33%), HCV antibody (3, 33%), and HCV NAT (5, 55%)., Conclusion: Most respondents have policies to re-test living donors within 14 days of the transplant procedures. Rarely, centers encountered repeat testing-associated delays, but no cancellations occurred., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To explore the psychosocial characteristics of living liver and kidney donors to identify common traits including personality traits, purpose in life, resilience, and post donation growth., Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to 835 living donors. Included were a survey of demographic characteristics and donation experiences, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, the Purpose in Life Scale, the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Analyses compared the donor groups with the scale norms (where available) and compared differences between donor groups., Results: Eighteen percent of donors (n=151) responded anonymously. The sample was as resilient as the general population and significantly more resilient than the population of primary care patients. Kidney donors were significantly more resilient than liver donors. Live donors demonstrated scores on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory in the "high" range for agreeableness and conscientiousness and "low" for neuroticism. Kidney donors scored significantly lower on the neuroticism scale than liver donors scored. Purpose in Life scores and Post Donation Growth scores were skewed and were overwhelmingly high in this sample. Additional differences in psychosocial variables are also described., Conclusion: Live donors are resilient and show adaptive personality traits. It is difficult to conclude whether these traits were inspired by the act of donation or if they make one more apt to choose donation. Moreover, the study methods introduce the possibility of selection bias: those with certain characteristics may have been more likely to respond. Prospective studies before and after donation are warranted.

Many controversies arise when living donor candidates present themselves for consideration as donors for urgent liver transplants. Nonparent living donors for urgent pediatric transplant recipients are a unique donor candidate population with specific considerations that need to be acknowledged and addressed by the independent donor advocacy team. Such a team educates about donation, identifies potential contraindications, examines the distant relationships between donor and recipient, and considers ethical issues about the ability to make an informed decision in an urgent situation. A center for living donation dealt with such ethical issues when a donor candidate with a distant relationship was evaluated for living donation. Multiple relative contraindications were identified, and the donor candidate was declined. Careful management by the independent donor advocacy team is necessary to ensure the psychosocial safety and to provide needed psychosocial support and intervention for donor candidates with psychological contraindications to donation. Standard follow-up protocols need to be developed for declined donor candidates.

For decades, live organ donors have been cared for within the transplant program by the same team that cared for the recipient without any standardization, practice guidelines, or evidence-based evaluation. In an effort to improve the care of living donors, regulations and guidelines to dictate care and follow-up have been instituted. Practices still vary from center to center, and the quality of care that live donors receive also varies. A "Living Donor Center" focused solely on the care of actual and potential donors before and after donation is one way to provide the infrastructure to comply with regulatory mandates and deliver high-quality care to this specialized population of patients. A Center for Living Donation was developed within a Transplantation Institute to address the short- and long-term needs of live donors and confine all donor care to a team of experts led by a doctorally prepared nurse practitioner as the director. A transplant nurse practitioner is uniquely poised to assume such a role because of such competencies as clinical and professional leadership, ability to act as a change agent, communication skills, and ability to lead a multidisciplinary team.

This report is a summary of a 'Consensus Conference' on nonadherence (NA) to immunosuppressants. Its aims were: (1) to discuss the state-of-the-art on the definition, prevalence and measurement of NA, its risk factors and impact on clinical and economical outcomes and interventions and (2) to provide recommendations for future studies. A two-day meeting was held in Florida in January 2008, inviting 66 medical and allied health adherence transplant and nontransplant experts. A scientific committee prepared the meeting. Consensus was reached using plenary and interactive presentations and discussions in small break-out groups. Plenary presenters prepared a summary beforehand. Break-out group leaders initiated discussion between the group members prior to the meeting using conference calls and e-mail and provided a summary afterward. Conclusions were that NA: (a) is more prevalent than we assume; (b) is hard to measure accurately; (c) tends to confer worse outcomes; (d) happens for a number of reasons, and system-related factors including the patient's culture, the healthcare provider and the setting and (e) it is not currently known how to improve adherence. This consensus report provided some roadmaps for future studies on this complicated, multifaceted problem.

The shortage of deceased donor allografts and improved outcomes in partial organ transplantation have led to widespread application of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Donor selection limits overall utilization of this technique and predictors of candidate maturation have been inadequately studied to date. We therefore collected data on 237 consecutive potential donors including their age, sex, ethnicity, relationship to the recipient, education, employment and religious beliefs and practices. Of these 237 candidates, 91 (38%) were excluded for medical and psychosocial reasons, 53 (22%) withdrew from the process predonation and 93 (39%) underwent partial liver donation. In multivariate analyses, the relationship between the donor and the recipient was highly predictive of successful donation. For pediatric recipients, no parents voluntarily withdrew from the evaluation process. For adult recipients, spouses are the most likely to donate, followed by parents, children and siblings. Additional predictors for donation included self-description as religious but not regularly practicing, part-time employment and higher education. Race, ethnicity, gender and age did not predict donation in multivariate analysis. Further understanding of the complex decision to donate may improve donation rates as well as permit more efficient and cost-effective donor evaluation strategies.

Adult living donor liver transplantation has developed as a direct result of the critical shortage of deceased donors. Recent regulations passed by New York State require transplant programs to appoint an Independent Donor Advocacy Team to evaluate, educate, and consent to all potential living liver donors. Ethical issues surround the composition of the team, who appoints them, and the role the team plays in the process. Critics of living liver donation have questioned issues surrounding motivation and the ability of donors to provide true informed consent during a time of family crisis. This article will address issues surrounding the controversies and discuss how using the team can effectively evaluate and educate potential living liver donors and improve practice to ensure safety of living donors.

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation is considered a safe and effective means to treat end-stage renal disease, and has now exceeded the number of deceased donor kidney transplantations performed annually. Living donor liver transplantation is more controversial and has received criticism in the medical and lay community. Studies focus on recipient outcomes and medical safety. The impact of the donation on donors is not well understood., Objective: To compare experiences from both kidney and liver living donors, including their motivation, perceived risks, and postoperative experience., Methods: Questionnaires about the donation experience were mailed to 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and 85 patients who underwent hepatectomy at a large academic medical center. Results of kidney and liver donors were compared., Results: No differences were found in mean age, marital status, ethnicity, relationship to the recipient, and employment status of the 2 groups. Women were more prevalent in both groups. The most common motivating factor in both kidney and liver donors was "because it was family," 81% and 82%, respectively. Kidney donors describe the decision to donate as easy compared to the liver donors (P = .049). In neither group did donors feel pressure to donate or have family conflicts regarding their decision to donate. Both groups felt they were well informed of the risks. Neither group described unexpected problems, and neither group regretted their decision to donate and would do it again if asked., Conclusion: Donors in both groups reported favorable outcomes. A greater concern for risk of death, bleeding, altered appearance, and infection existed among liver donors compared to kidney donors. The actual outcomes were better than the perceived risks.

Live donors are becoming an increasingly important source of donor organs in liver transplantation; however, long-term functional aspects of recovery from donor right hepatectomy are unknown. We analyzed donor outcomes at 1-year follow-up. We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 70 right hepatectomy donors. Six-week and 1-year postoperative follow-up results were compared to preoperative baseline values. Ultrasonography was performed in all donors at 6 weeks and as clinically indicated. All donors were alive and well at the end of the study period. Of 66 right hepatic donors, only 22 (32%) were fully compliant with a 1-year follow-up visit. All those not compliant were contacted by phone. All complications except 1 (late finding of portal vein thrombosis) occurred in the perioperative (90-day) period. The incidence of bile leak was 4.3%, incisional hernia 20%, and autologous transfusion 1.0%. There were no aborted procedures. In those compliant with full 1-year follow-up, total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were normal in 97%. A total of 5 donors were noted to have persistence of asymptomatic thrombocytopenia beyond the perioperative period (90 days). These were investigated with Doppler sonography. Sonography was unremarkable in 3 of the 5, while 2 had abnormal findings: splenomegaly alone in 1, and splenomegaly with portal vein thrombosis in the other. Magnetic resonance angiography was performed in both, and the patient with portal vein thrombosis underwent endoscopy, which failed to reveal varices. Neither has clinical portal hypertension. Both remain asymptomatic albeit with stable thrombocytopenia. In conclusion, the majority of complications after donor right hepatectomy occur in the perioperative period. Later findings may include asymptomatic thrombocytopenia, with an incidence possibly as high as 23%, though the significance of this finding remains uncertain. Larger-scale studies are needed to confirm the true incidence and clinical significance of persistent thrombocytopenia in the donor hepatectomy population. Strategies to improve compliance with 1-year follow-up visits need to be developed.

As a result of the cadaveric organ shortage, the number of centers performing living donor liver transplantation has increased. Living donor liver transplantation provides immediate organ availability and avoids the risk of life-threatening complications that occur with long waiting times for cadaveric organs; however, it puts a healthy person at risk for little personal gain. A standardized approach to donor evaluation ensures safety to potential donors. Careful medical (physical examination as well as laboratory and radiological evaluation) and psychological evaluation is imperative to reduce donor complications and ensure good outcomes in recipients. A social worker and psychiatrist assess for mental competency, provide emotional support, and can serve as independent donor advocates. Informed understanding and consent are crucial aspects of the evaluation and include ensuring that the donor understands all potential complications and is free of coercion. Safety of the donor must be the highest priority.

The shortage of cadaver livers and improved outcomes in partial liver transplants has led to an increase in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Only a fraction of potential liver recipients have donors. The characteristics of candidates who have volunteers for living donation may be different than those without donors. We compared adult patients on the waiting list who had potential living donors with those who did not have living donors. Two-hundred and four consecutive patients were listed for transplantation. During evaluation, all were informed and educated about LDLT. To avoid coercion, we did not solicit a living donor. Sixty (29%) potential recipients had at least one living donor volunteer for evaluation. Twenty-eight (14%) patients from the entire cohort and 46% of the 60 patients who had potential living donors underwent LDLT. Compared with Caucasians, Hispanics were more likely to have living donors (P =.006). No patient with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) had a donor come forward (P =.006). Patients with living donors were twice as likely to have cancer (P =.08). Systematic differences exist between patients who have potential living donors versus those without donors. Candidates with potential donors are more likely to be Hispanic and have cancer and less likely to have ALD compared with cadaveric recipients. Only a minority of patients listed for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) will lead to LDLT. Further understanding of the cultural differences and motivating factors for why people volunteer for evaluation and subsequently choose to donate may help improve cadaveric and living donor transplant rates.

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been proposed as a replacement for the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification to stratify patients for prioritization for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Improved classification of patients with decompensated cirrhosis might allow timely OLT before the development of life-threatening complications, reducing the number of critically ill patients listed as United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 2A at the time of OLT. We compared the ability of the MELD and CTP scores to predict pre-OLT disease severity, as well as outcome and resource utilization post-OLT. Data from 42 consecutive UNOS status 2A patients undergoing OLT at a single center were used to calculate MELD and CTP scores at the time of status 2A listing. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the relationship between these scores and pre-OLT disease severity measures, survival post-OLT, and measures of resource use post-OLT. The MELD was superior to CTP score in predicting pre-OLT requirements for mechanical ventilation and dialysis. Neither score correlated with the resource utilization parameters studied. Only two patients died within 3 months post-OLT; neither score was predictive of survival in this cohort. In summary, the MELD is superior to CTP score in estimating pre-OLT disease severity in UNOS status 2A patients and thus may help risk stratify status 2A or decompensated status 2B OLT candidates and optimize the timing of OLT. However, neither score correlated with resource use post-OLT in the strata of critically ill patients.

Recurrence of hepatitis C is a significant problem after liver transplantation. This prospective study was done to assess the rate of recurrence and discuss two possible treatment modalities that have been successful in avoiding retransplantation. Twenty-one patients underwent orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatitis C at a metropolitan medical center over a 34-month period. The mean follow-up interval was 13.4 +/- 2.2 months (range 5-28 months). The patients were routinely evaluated with clinic visits and liver function tests, specifically total bilirubin, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase. If values were elevated, the patient was admitted to the hospital for liver biopsy. Ten of the 21 patients demonstrated recurrence on biopsy. Two of 10 patients required no therapy. Interferon A was initiated in the remaining eight. Three of the eight patients had no significant response to interferon and were given intravenous ribavirin under an experimental protocol. Two of these three showed significant improvement in liver function values. The third died of chronic rejection. The incidence of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation is significant. Many centers have had to resort to retransplantation. Our results show that with early detection and aggressive treatment with interferon and ribavirin, hepatitis C can be controlled and retransplantation may be avoided.