Search

The gap between organ supply and demand in liver transplantation remains large in most parts of the world. One strategy to increase the donor pool is to use grafts infected with HCV, HBV, and/or HIV viruses. We aimed to explore the current use of HBsAg-positive liver grafts worldwide. A prospective cross-sectional web-based survey was designed, with a total of 28 queries, assessing national and local regulations, center experience, and center-specific experience related to the topic, and sent to all members of International Liver Transplantation Society, European Association for the Study of the Liver, and American Association for the Study of the Liver, and promoted on social media. A total of 135 liver transplant centers answered the survey: 38% from WHO European Regions, 39% from American regions, and 9.7% from South-East Asian regions. Most of the participating centers (67.3%) had been performing liver transplantation for over 15 years, with a mean of 66.5 liver transplants per year, and 54% also performed living-donor liver transplants. HBV-related disease was the indication for liver transplantation in an average of 15% of all liver transplantation cases. Regarding national and/or regional regulations, 40% of the centers reported that the use of HBsAg-positive donors was permitted, and an additional 20% could use them under special circumstances. Thirty-two centers (31%) had previously used HBsAg-positive donors. Among these centers, 62.5% conducted living-donor liver transplants and showed an increased inclination toward the use of HBsAg-positive grafts in centers with elevated waitlist mortality. HBsAg-positive donors are underutilized worldwide. The use of HBsAg-positive liver grafts could help to increase the donor pool, particularly in highly endemic areas., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Introduction: Living liver donation improves survival of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. Yet, it continues to represent a small proportion of United States (U.S.) liver transplantation with existing racial disparities. We investigated the interplay of donor-recipient relationship and donor race to understand donor subgroups with no significant increase., Methods: We studied 4407 living liver donors in the U.S. from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2022 (median age = 36 years, and 59% were biologically related to the recipient). We quantified the change in the number of donors per 3-year increment using negative binomial regression (incidence rate ratio [IRR]), stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity., Results: Among biologically related donors, the observed annual number of White donors increased from 146 to 253, Hispanic donors from 18 to 53, and Black donors decreased from 11 to 10. Among unrelated donors, White donors increased from 65 to 221, Hispanic donors from 4 to 25, and Black donors from 3 to 11. For the IRR of biologically related donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 18% and 22%; Hispanic donors increased by 25% and 54%; and Black donors did not change. Likewise, the IRR of unrelated donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 48% and 55%; Hispanic donors increased by 52% and 65%; and Black donors did not change., Conclusions: While biologically related donors represent the majority of donors, unrelated donors have substantially risen in recent years, primarily driven by White donors. Although the rate of unrelated donations increased among Hispanic donors, the absolute number remains very small (≤25 donors/year). Interventions are needed to increase education among Hispanic and Black communities to grow unrelated living liver donations across race/ethnicity., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

In the United States, the discrepancy between organ availability and need has persisted despite changes in allocation, innovations in preservation, and policy initiatives. Living donor liver transplant remains an underutilized means of improving access to timely liver transplantation and decreasing waitlist mortality. Liver paired exchange (LPE) represents an opportunity to overcome living donor liver transplant pair incompatibility due to size, anatomy, or blood type. LPE was adopted as a strategy to augment access to liver transplantation at our institution. Specific educational materials, consent forms, and selection processes were developed to facilitate LPE. From 2019 through October 2023, our center performed 11 LPEs, resulting in 23 living donor liver transplant pairs. The series included several types of LPE: those combining complementary incompatible pairs, the inclusion of compatible pairs to overcome incompatibility, and the use of altruistic nondirected donors to initiate chains. These exchanges facilitated transplantation for 23 recipients, including 1 pediatric patient. LPE improved access to liver transplantation at our institution. The ethical application of LPE includes tailored patient education, assessment and disclosure of exchange balance, mitigation of risk, and maximization of benefit for donors and recipients., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

In this research, it was aimed to evaluate of social and community factors effective in increasing the number of liver donors. Descriptive and relational scanning models were used to conduct the research. Data on liver donors was gathered from the USA Health Resources & Services Administration's Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network between 1988 and 2023. The United States (USA) World Bank Country Reports provided the mortality rates. The data was analyzed using Spearman rho correlation, year-controlled partial correlation, and Generalized Linear Model-Logit analysis. Deceased donor numbers were significantly and negatively correlated with government health expenditure (r = -0.816; P < .01), current health expenditure (r = -0.768; P < .01), female education attainment (r = -0.804; P < .01) and Gini index (r = 0.434; P < .05). Living donor numbers were significantly and negatively correlated with government health expenditure (r = -0.731; P < .01), current health expenditure (r = -0.781; P < .01), male percentage (r = -0.786; P < .01), female education attainment (r = -0.640; P < .05), employment (r = 0.751; P < .01), GDP (r = -0.792; P < .01) and Gini index (r = -0.486; P < .01). Living donor numbers were significantly and positively correlated with age dependency (r = 0.815; P < .01). Generalized Linear Model-Logit (GLM-L) results showed that effect of female education attainment had significant contribution on deceased liver donor (B = -3290.605; P < .01). Effects of significantly correlated community factors on living liver donor numbers were found to be statistically insignificant (P > .05). Research findings reveal that among community factors, especially women's participation in education has a statistically significant effect on liver donors. These results show that the health expenditures made over the years do not provide any added value for liver donors, and role of women on liver donor is significantly dominant., Competing Interests: Author decelerates no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The number of living kidney donors in the United States has declined since 2005, with variations based on the donor-recipient relationship. The reasons for this decline are unclear, and strategies to mitigate declined donations remain elusive. We examined the change in donor number monthly (within-year) versus annually (between-years) to inform potentially modifiable factors for future interventions., Methods: In this registry-based cohort analysis of 141 759 living kidney donors between 1995 and 2019, we used linear mixed-effects models for donor number per month and year to analyze between-year and within-year variation in donation. We used Poisson regression to quantify the change in the number of donors per season before and after 2005, stratified by donor-recipient relationship and zip-code household income tertile., Results: We observed a consistent summer surge in donations during June, July, and August. This surge was statistically significant for related donors (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range: 1.12-1.33) and unrelated donors (IRR range: 1.06-1.16) across donor income tertiles., Conclusion: Our findings indicate lower rates of living kidney donation in non-summer months across income tertiles. Interventions are needed to address barriers to donation in non-summer seasons and facilitate donations throughout the year. Since the Organ Donor Leave Law provides a solid foundation for supporting year-round donation, extending the law's provisions beyond federal employees may mitigate identified seasonal barriers., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [ p <0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [ p <0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p =0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [ p >0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Graft survival is a critical end point in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT), where graft procurement endangers the lives of healthy individuals. Therefore, ALDLT must be responsibly performed in the perspective of a positive harm-to-benefit ratio. This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model for early (3 months) graft failure (EGF) following ALDLT. Donor and recipient factors associated with EGF in ALDLT were studied using data from the European Liver Transplant Registry. An artificial neural network classification algorithm was trained on a set of 2073 ALDLTs, validated using cross-validation, tested on an independent random-split sample (n=518), and externally validated on United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data. Model performance was assessed using the AUC, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Graft type, graft weight, level of hospitalization, and the severity of liver disease were associated with EGF. The model ( http://ldlt.shinyapps.io/eltr&#95;app ) presented AUC values at cross-validation, in the independent test set, and at external validation of 0.69, 0.70, and 0.68, respectively. Model calibration was fair. The decision curve analysis indicated a positive net benefit of the model, with an estimated net reduction of 5-15 EGF per 100 ALDLTs. Estimated risks>40% and<5% had a specificity of 0.96 and sensitivity of 0.99 in predicting and excluding EGF, respectively. The model also stratified long-term graft survival ( p <0.001), which ranged from 87% in the low-risk group to 60% in the high-risk group. In conclusion, based on a panel of donor and recipient variables, an artificial neural network can contribute to decision-making in ALDLT by predicting EGF risk., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: There is sustained interest in understanding the perspectives of liver transplant recipients and living donors, with several qualitative studies shedding light on this emotionally charged subject. However, these studies have relied primarily on traditional semi-structured interviews, which, while valuable, come with inherent limitations. Consequently, there remains a gap in our comprehension of the broader public discourse surrounding living liver donation. This study aims to bridge this gap by delving into public conversations related to living liver donation through a qualitative analysis of Twitter (now X) posts, offering a fresh perspective on this critical issue., Methods: To compile a comprehensive dataset, we extracted original tweets containing the hashtags "#donateliver" OR "#liverdonor", all posted in English from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2022. We then selected tweets from individual users whose Twitter (X) accounts featured authentic human names, ensuring the credibility of our data. Employing Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis approach, the study investigators read and analysed the included tweets, identifying two main themes and six subthemes. The Health Policy Triangle framework was applied to understand the roles of different stakeholders involved in the discourse and suggest areas for policy improvement., Results: A total of 361 unique tweets from individual users were analysed. The major theme that emerged was the persistent shortage of liver donors, underscoring the desperation faced by individuals in need of life-saving liver transplants and the urgency of addressing the organ shortage problem. The second theme delved into the experiences of liver donors post-surgery, shedding light on a variety of aspects related to the transplantation process, including the visibility of surgical scars, and the significance of returning to physical activity and exercise post-surgery., Conclusion: The multifaceted experiences of individuals involved in the transplantation process, both recipients and donors, should be further studied in our efforts to improve the critical shortage of liver donors., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives : To evaluate the effects of the pulse index continuous cardiac output and MostCare Pressure Recording Analytical Method hemodynamic monitoring systems on short-term graft and patient outcomes during living donor liver transplantation in adult patients. Materials and Methods : Overall, 163 adult patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation between January 2018 and March 2022 and met the study inclusion criteria were divided into two groups based on the hemodynamic monitoring systems used during surgery: the MostCare Pressure Recording Analytical Method group ( n = 73) and the pulse index continuous cardiac output group ( n = 90). The groups were compared with respect to preoperative clinicodemographic features (age, sex, body mass index, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score), intraoperative clinical characteristics, and postoperative biochemical parameters (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, and platelet count). Results : There were no significant between-group differences with respect to recipient age, sex, body mass index, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, Child, Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, ejection fraction, systolic pulmonary artery pressure, surgery time, anhepatic phase, cold ischemia time, warm ischemia time, erythrocyte suspension use, human albumin use, crystalloid use, urine output, hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. However, there was a significant difference in fresh frozen plasma use ( p < 0.001) and platelet use ( p = 0.037). Conclusions : The clinical and biochemical outcomes are not significantly different between pulse index continuous cardiac output and MostCare Pressure Recording Analytical Method as hemodynamic monitoring systems in living donor liver transplantation. However, the MostCare Pressure Recording Analytical Method is more economical and minimally invasive.

Given liver transplantation organ scarcity, selection of recipients and donors to maximize post-transplant benefit is paramount. Several scores predict post-transplant outcomes by isolating elements of donor and recipient risk, including the donor risk index, Balance of Risk, pre-allocation score to predict survival outcomes following liver transplantation/survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), improved donor-to-recipient allocation score for deceased donors only/improved donor-to-recipient allocation score for both deceased and living donors (ID2EAL-D/-DR), and survival benefit (SB) models. No studies have examined the performance of these models over time, which is critical in an ever-evolving transplant landscape. This was a retrospective cohort study of liver transplantation events in the UNOS database from 2002 to 2021. We used Cox regression to evaluate model discrimination (Harrell's C) and calibration (testing of calibration curves) for post-transplant patient and graft survival at specified post-transplant timepoints. Sub-analyses were performed in the modern transplant era (post-2014) and for key donor-recipient characteristics. A total of 112,357 transplants were included. The SB and SOFT scores had the highest discrimination for short-term patient and graft survival, including in the modern transplant era, where only the SB model had good discrimination (C ≥ 0.60) for all patient and graft outcome timepoints. However, these models had evidence of poor calibration at 3- and 5-year patient survival timepoints. The ID2EAL-DR score had lower discrimination but adequate calibration at all patient survival timepoints. In stratified analyses, SB and SOFT scores performed better in younger (< 40 y) and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (≥ 25) patients. All prediction scores had declining discrimination over time, and scores relying on donor factors alone had poor performance. Although the SB and SOFT scores had the best overall performance, all models demonstrated declining performance over time. This underscores the importance of periodically updating and/or developing new prediction models to reflect the evolving transplant field. Scores relying on donor factors alone do not meaningfully inform post-transplant risk., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: In Japan, approximately 90% of kidney transplantations involve living donors who are relatives. Selection of a living donor from potential family member donors could affect the entire family. However, reports focusing on preliving-related kidney transplant (LRKT) family functioning are lacking. Family functioning comprises ways that family members communicate and cooperate with each other. The Family Assessment Device (FAD) was used to measure family functioning from the perspective of donors and recipients just prior to LRKT., Method: A total of 122 donor-recipient pairs (244 participants in total) who planned to have LRKT were recruited consecutively from July 2020 to July 2021 and included in the analysis., Results: There was no significant difference in FAD scores between donors and recipients, with approximately 20% of both groups reporting poor family functioning. Differences in family functioning according to types of relatives were shown in recipients. The rate of poor family functioning was significantly lower in the spouse group than in the parent-to-child group (recipient: 6.6%, 29.3%; donor: 8.2%, 34.1%, respectively). However, agreement regarding good or poor family functioning assessment was high in the parent-to-child pairs and low in the spouse pairs., Discussion: Most LRKT donors and recipients reported good family functioning; however, some perceived poor family functioning. Evaluations by donors did not always align with that of recipients, especially among spouse pairs. It is important to treat them as independent entities. Preoperative assessment to connect them with appropriate support can enhance recovery after LRKT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

This study investigated the relationship between self-determination, physical health status, and Health related Quality of Life (=HRQoL) among living kidney donors. A descriptive survey was conducted between 2019 and 2020 and included 111 kidney donors. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire on general and donation-related characteristics, self-determination, and HRQoL. The data also included medical records reflecting the physical health status at the time of the survey. Data were analyzed using a multiple regression model. Factors associated with HRQoL were perceived health recovery after donation (β = 0.42, P < .001), up to 1 year since donation (β = 0.33, P = .008), more than 1 up to 5 years since donation (β = 0.52, P < .001), more than 5 up to 10 years since donation (β = 0.53, P < .001), and competence of self-determination (β = 0.23, P = .033). The explanatory power of these variables was 43.3%. HRQoL of living kidney donors can be affected by subjective and psychological factors. Therefore, health care providers should help living kidney donors have high self-determination during pre and post donation and concentrate on the subjective and psychological factors as well as objective health status., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: Previous studies suggested that living kidney donors do not have a higher risk of death or kidney failure than the general population. However, living kidney donor risk is controversial. Furthermore, only a few studies have evaluated long-term kidney function after kidney donation., Methods: This study evaluated Japanese kidney donor' long-term outcomes, including mortality and kidney function. From 1965 to 2015, 230 donors (76 males, 154 females, and a median age of 54) were enrolled in this study. The median observation period was 11.0 (range, 0.3-41.0) years., Results: In total, 215 donors were still alive, and 15 had died. Causes of death included malignancies, cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, suicide, gastrointestinal bleeding, and kidney failure. Actual donor survival rates at 10, 20, and 30 years were 95.3%, 90.7%, and 80.9%, respectively. These values were comparable to age- and gender-matched expected survival. Long-term kidney function after donation was evaluated in 211 donors with serum creatinine data. Two donors developed kidney failure 24 and 26 years post-donation, respectively. The percentage of donors whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) remained ≥45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 at 10, 20, and 30 years after donation were 84.2%, 73.0%, and 63.9%, respectively. Survival rates of donors with eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 were comparable to those in persons with eGFR >45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ., Conclusion: Our findings revealed that kidney donors did not have a higher long-term risk of death than the general population. Although some donors showed decreased kidney function after donation, kidney function did not impact their survival., (© 2024 The Japanese Urological Association.)

There is a scarcity of publications evaluating the performance of the national liver transplantation (LTx) program in Kazakhstan. Spanning from 2012 to 2023, it delves into historical trends in LTx surgeries, liver transplant centers, and the national cohort of patients awaiting LTx. Survival analysis for those awaiting LTx, using life tables and Kaplan-Meier, is complemented by time series analysis projecting developments until 2030. The overall per million population (pmp) LTx rate varied from 0.35 to 3.77, predominantly favoring living donor LTx. Liver transplant center rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.40. Of 474 LTx patients, 364 on the waiting list did not receive transplantation. The 30-day and 1-year survival rates on the waiting list were 87.0% and 68.0%, respectively. Viral hepatitis and cirrhosis prevalence steadily rose from 2015 to 2023, with projections indicating a persistent trend until 2030. Absent targeted interventions, stable pmp rates of LTx and liver transplant centers may exacerbate the backlog of unoperated patients. This study sheds light on critical aspects of the LTx landscape in Kazakhstan, emphasizing the urgency of strategic interventions to alleviate the burden on patients awaiting transplantation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To analyze the features and outcomes of 500 liver transplantations in adults over a 12-year period., Materials and Methods: The study included data on 500 liver transplantations between May 2010 and April 2023. We analyzed 483 adults who underwent transplantation and 438 candidates for this procedure. All data were obtained from local liver transplantation registry. Clinical outcomes were recorded as of June 1, 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica 12 (StatSoft Inc., USA) and Jamovi version 2.3.21.0 software (Jamovi project)., Results: Among 438 patients in the waiting list between January 2012 and May 2023, liver transplantation was performed in 198 (45%) cases including 27 (6%) transplantations from living-related donors and 37 (8%) procedures in other centers. There were 109 (25%) deaths. The 1- and 3-year survival rates were 81% (95% CI 76-85%) and 50% (95% CI 42-59%), respectively. Organs from deceased donors ( n =134, 27%) and living-related donors ( n =366, 73%) were used for transplantations. Redo transplantations were necessary in 21 (4%) cases. The median age of recipients was 45 years (range 18-72), median MELD-Na score - 16 (range 6-43). The most common indications for transplantation were viral cirrhosis (37%), cholestatic liver disease (16%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (14%). Monotherapy with calcineurin inhibitors was performed in 39% of cases, combination of calcineurin inhibitors and glucocorticoids, antimetabolites or mTOR inhibitors - 52%, three-component schemes - 8% of cases. Annual, 5- and 7-year survival rates of recipients after primary transplantation were 87% (95% CI: 84-90%), 79% (95% CI: 75-83%) and 75% (95% CI: 70-80%), respectively. In case of liver transplantation from living-related donors, these values were 89% (95% CI: 86-92%), 84% (95% CI: 80-88%) and 80% (95% CI: 75-85%), after transplantation from deceased donors - 81% (95% CI: 74-88%), 66% (95% CI: 57-76%) and 58% (95% CI: 45-72%), respectively., Conclusion: Liver transplantation is highly effective for patients with diffuse and focal liver diseases. Living donors not only significantly improve availability of this technology, but also provide substantial advantages in outcomes compared to liver transplantation from deceased donors, reducing the likelihood of recipient mortality by 10% after one post-transplantation year and by more than 20% after five years.

Background & Aims: Donor death is the most serious complication of living liver donation but is reported rarely. We investigated the actual mortality of living liver donors (LLDs) compared with matched control groups based on analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance Services (NHIS) database., Methods: This cohort study included 12,372 LLDs who donated a liver graft between 2002 and 2018, and were registered in the Korean Network for Organ Sharing. They were compared to 3 matched control groups selected from the Korean NHIS and comprising a total of 123,710 individuals: healthy population (Group I); general population without comorbidities (Group II); and general population with comorbidities (Group III)., Results: In this population, 78.5% of living liver donors were 20-39 years old, and 64.7% of all donors were male. Eighty-nine donors (0.7%) in the LLD group died (68 males and 21 females), a mortality rate (/1,000 person-years) of 0.91 (0.74-1.12). Mortality rate ratio and the adjusted hazard ratio of the LLD group was 2.03 (1.61-2.55) and 1.71 (1.31-2.25) compared to Control Group I, 0.75 (0.60-0.93) and 0.63 (0.49-0.82) compared to Control Group II, and 0.58 (0.46-0.71) and 0.49 (0.39-0.60) compared to Control Group III. LLD group, depression, and lower income were risk factors for adjusted mortality. The incidence of liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the LLD group was significantly higher than in Control Group I., Conclusions: Outcomes of the LLD group were worse than those of the matched healthy control group despite the small number of deaths and medical morbidities in this group. LLDs should receive careful medical attention for an extended period after donation., Lay Summary: The incidence of mortality, liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the living liver donor group was significantly higher than in the matched healthy group. Careful donor evaluation and selection processes can improve donor safety and enable safe living donor liver transplantation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) has collected data on liver transplant procedures performed in Europe since 1968., Approach and Results: Over a 50-year period (1968-2017), clinical and laboratory data were collected from 133 transplant centers and analyzed retrospectively (16,641 liver transplants in 14,515 children). Data were analyzed according to three successive periods (A, before 2000; B, 2000-2009; and C, since 2010), studying donor and graft characteristics and graft outcome. The use of living donors steadily increased from A to C (A, n = 296 [7%]; B, n = 1131 [23%]; and C, n = 1985 [39%]; p = 0.0001). Overall, the 5-year graft survival rate has improved from 65% in group A to 75% in group B (p < 0.0001) and to 79% in group C (B versus C, p < 0.0001). Graft half-life was 31 years, overall; it was 41 years for children who survived the first year after transplant. The late annual graft loss rate in teenagers is higher than that in children aged <12 years and similar to that of young adults. No evidence for accelerated graft loss after age 18 years was found., Conclusions: Pediatric liver transplantation has reached a high efficacy as a cure or treatment for severe liver disease in infants and children. Grafts that survived the first year had a half-life similar to standard human half-life. Transplantation before or after puberty may be the pivot-point for lower long-term outcome in children. Further studies are necessary to revisit some old concepts regarding transplant benefit (survival time) for small children, the role of recipient pathophysiology versus graft aging, and risk at transition to adult age., (© 2021 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of the US healthcare system, including liver transplantation. The objective of this study was to understand national changes to pediatric liver transplantation during COVID-19., Methods: Using SRTR data, we compared waitlist additions, removals, and liver transplantations for pre-COVID-19 (March-November 2016-2019), early COVID-19 (March-May 2020), and late COVID-19 (June-November 2020)., Results: Waitlist additions decreased by 25% during early COVID-19 (41.3/month vs. 55.4/month, p < .001) with black candidates most affected (p = .04). Children spent longer on the waitlist during early COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (140 vs. 96 days, p < .001). There was a 38% decrease in liver transplantations during early COVID-19 (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78), recovering to pre-pandemic rates during late COVID-19 (IRR 1.03, NS), and no change in percentage of living and deceased donors. White children had a 30% decrease in overall liver transplantation but no change in living donor liver transplantation (IRR 0.7, 95% CI 0.50-0.95; IRR 0.96, NS), while non-white children had a 44% decrease in overall liver transplantation (IRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77) and 81% decrease in living donor liver transplantation (IRR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02-0.76)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic decreased access to pediatric liver transplantation, particularly in its early stage. There were no regional differences in liver transplantation during COVID-19 despite the increased national sharing of organs. While pediatric liver transplantation has resumed pre-pandemic levels, ongoing racial disparities must be addressed., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Since the waiting time for deceased donor kidney transplantation continues to increase, living donor kidney transplantation is an important treatment for end stage kidney disease patients. Barriers to living kidney donation have been rarely investigated despite a growing interest in the utilization of living donor transplantation and the satisfaction of donor safety. Here, we retrospectively analyzed 1658 potential donors and 1273 potential recipients who visited the Seoul National University Hospital for living kidney transplantation between 2010 and 2017 to study the causes of donation discontinuation. Among 1658 potential donors, 902 (54.4%) failed to donate kidneys. The average number of potential donors that received work-up was 1.30 ± 0.66 per recipient. Among living donor kidney transplant patients, 75.1% received kidneys after work-up of the first donor and 24.9% needed work-up of two or more donors. Donor-related factors (49.2%) were the most common causes of donation discontinuation, followed by immunologic or size mismatches between donors and recipients (25.4%) and recipient-related factors (16.2%). Interestingly, withdrawal of donation consent along with refusal by recipients or family were the commonest causes, suggesting the importance of non-biomedical aspects. The elucidation of the barriers to living kidney donation could ensure more efficient and safer living kidney donation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US., Study Design: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE., Results: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months)., Conclusions: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between hepatic steatosis (HS) evaluated by biopsy and visceral adiposity assessed by computed tomography in lean living liver donor candidates and to determine the risk factors for lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)., Methods: This retrospective study included 250 lean (body mass index, < 23 kg/m 2 ) potential living liver donors (mean age, 31.1 ± 8.6 years; 141 men) who had undergone liver biopsy and abdominal computed tomography between 2017 and 2018. Anthropometry, laboratory parameters, body composition, and the degree of HS were evaluated. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of lean NAFLD., Results: The visceral fat area (VFA) was significantly correlated with the degree of HS in men (r = 0.408; P < 0.001) and women (r = 0.360; P < 0.001). The subcutaneous fat area was significantly correlated with the degree of HS in men (r = 0.398; P < 0.001), but not in women. The skeletal muscle area did not correlate with the degree of HS in either men or women. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the VFA (odds ratio [OR], 1.028; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.013-1.044; P < 0.001) and subcutaneous fat area (OR, 1.016; 95% CI, 1.004-1.028; P = 0.009) were independent risk factors for lean NAFLD in men, and the VFA (OR, 1.036; 95% CI, 1.013-1.059; P = 0.002) was an independent risk factor for lean NAFLD in women., Conclusions: The severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver was positively correlated with visceral fat accumulation in a lean Asian population. Visceral adiposity may be a risk factor for lean NAFLD in potential living liver donors., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Obesity is associated with the two archetypal kidney disease risk factors: hypertension and diabetes. Concerns that the effects of diabetes and hypertension in obese kidney donors might be magnified in their remaining kidney have led to the exclusion of many obese candidates from kidney donation., Methods: We compared mortality, diabetes, hypertension, proteinuria, reduced eGFR and its trajectory, and the development of kidney failure in 8583 kidney donors, according to body mass index (BMI). The study included 6822 individuals with a BMI of <30 kg/m 2 , 1338 with a BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m 2 , and 423 with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m 2 . We used Cox regression models, adjusting for baseline covariates only, and models adjusting for postdonation diabetes, hypertension, and kidney failure as time-varying covariates., Results: Obese donors were more likely than nonobese donors to develop diabetes, hypertension, and proteinuria. The increase in eGFR in obese versus nonobese donors was significantly higher in the first 10 years (3.5 ml/min per 1.73m 2 per year versus 2.4 ml/min per 1.73m 2 per year; P <0.001), but comparable thereafter. At a mean±SD follow-up of 19.3±10.3 years after donation, 31 (0.5%) nonobese and 12 (0.7%) obese donors developed ESKD. Of the 12 patients with ESKD in obese donors, 10 occurred in 1445 White donors who were related to the recipient (0.9%). Risk of death in obese donors was not significantly increased compared with nonobese donors., Conclusions: Obesity in kidney donors, as in nondonors, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and hypertension. The absolute risk of ESKD is small and the risk of death is comparable to that of nonobese donors., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Acceptance of liver transplantation (LT) as an established treatment modality for end-stage liver disease has led to an exponential increase in the demand for organs, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the availability of organs and the number of sick patients waiting for them. Interestingly, influenced by cultural, socio-economic and other constraints, the West and the East have attempted to address this problem of shortage in different ways. Living donor LT (LDLT) became polarised to the East with over 90% of LT in this region being LDLT. On the other hand, the West chose to concentrate their efforts on optimising the use of cadaveric livers with techniques such as split LT, or by using extended criteria donors (including donation after cardiac death donors) and machine perfusion devices etc. Consequently, LDLT did not find the widespread acceptance it did in the East and hence over 90% of all LT are DDLT in this region. We review each regions' perspective and attempt to provide a globally viable roadmap to bridge the widening gap between the demand and availability of livers for LT., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In kidney transplantation, microthrombi and fibrin deposition may lead to local perfusion disorders and subsequently poor initial graft function. Microthrombi are often regarded as donor-derived. However, the incidence, time of development, and potential difference between living donor kidneys (LDK) and deceased donor kidneys(DDK), remains unclear. Two open-needle biopsies, taken at preimplantation and after reperfusion, were obtained from 17 LDK and 28 DDK transplanted between 2005 and 2008. Paraffin-embedded sections were immunohistochemically stained with anti-fibrinogen antibody. Fibrin deposition intensity in peritubular capillaries(PTC) and glomeruli was categorized as negative, weak, moderate or strong and the number of microthrombi/mm 2 was quantified. Reperfusion biopsies showed more fibrin deposition (20% to 100% moderate/strong, p < 0.001) and more microthrombi/mm 2 (0.97 ± 1.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.53, p < 0.01) than preimplantation biopsies. In addition, more microthrombi/mm 2 (0.38 ± 0.61 vs. 0.09 ± 0.22, p = 0.02) and stronger fibrin intensity in glomeruli (28% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and PTC (14% vs. 0%, p = 0.02) were observed in preimplantation DDK than LDK biopsies. After reperfusion, microthrombi/mm 2 were comparable (p = 0.23) for LDK (0.09 ± 0.22 to 0.76 ± 0.49, p = 0.03) and DDK (0.38 ± 0.61 to 0.90 ± 1.11, p = 0.07). Upon reperfusion, there is an aggravation of microthrombus formation and fibrin deposition within the graft. The prominent increase of microthrombi in LDK indicates that they are not merely donor-derived., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: To date, several studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the mortality risk faced by living kidney donors and controls. Our study assessed the methodological quality of previous studies and performed an updated meta-analysis of the mortality risk., Methods: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted involving the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through September 2020. The search terms used included 'living donor' and 'kidney transplantation' and 'kidney donor' and 'mortality' or 'death' or 'survival'. We evaluated the risk of bias in such studies using ROBINS-I tool. Mortality risk was analyzed using OR and HR., Results: The qualitative review involved 18 studies and the meta-analysis included nine studies. We identified 3 studies with an overall risk of bias rated as "Low", 2 studies rated as "Moderate", 8 studies rated as "Serious", and 5 studies rated as "Critical". The pooled overall mortality risk in the meta-analysis was 0.984 (95% CI: 0.743, 1.302). In the subgroup analysis of HR and OR, the summary effect estimates did not reach statistical significance. The meta-regression analysis revealed that the donor group of more than 60,000 (1.836, 95% CI: 0.371, 6.410) carried a significantly high mortality risk compared with the donor group of less than 60,000 (0.810, 95% CI: 0.604, 1.086) (P = 0.007). The number of total patients was associated with slightly elevated mortality risks (0.796 for < 10,000, 0.809 for 10,000-60,000, and 1.852 for > 60,000; P < .054)., Conclusions: Current evidence based on this systematic review suggests that the methodology of previous studies was inconsistent and also carried a high risk in several aspects. Updated meta-analysis showed that the mortality risk was not significantly different. Future studies with well-designed methodology are necessary., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background: Studies have reported agreement between computed tomography (CT) and renography for the determination of split kidney function. However, their correlation with post-donation kidney function remains unclear. We compared CT measurements with renography in assessment of split kidney function (SKF) and their correlations with post-donation kidney function., Methods: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 248 donors from January 1, 2009-July 31, 2019 were assessed. Pearson correlations were used to assess post-donation kidney function with renography and CT-based measurements. Furthermore, we examined high risk groups with SKF difference greater than 10% on renography and donors with post-donation eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2., Results: 62% of donors were women with a mean (standard deviation) pre-donation eGFR 99 (20) and post-donation eGFR 67 (22) mL/min/1.73m2 at 31 months of follow-up. Post-donation kidney function was poorly correlated with both CT-based measurements and renography, including the subgroup of donors with post-donation eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (r less than 0.4 for all). There was agreement between CT-based measurements and renography for SKF determination (Bland-Altman agreement [bias, 95% limits of agreement] for renography vs: CT volume, 0.76%, -7.60-9.15%; modified ellipsoid,1.01%, -8.38-10.42%; CC dimension, 0.44%, -7.06-7.94); however, CT missed SKF greater than 10% found by renography in 20 out 26 (77%) of donors., Conclusions: In a single centre study of 248 living donors, we found no correlation between CT or renography and post-donation eGFR. Further research is needed to determine optimal ways to predict remaining kidney function after donation., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AB received a research grant from LeoPharma. MMS received a speaker fee from Astra Zeneca. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program pairs kidney transplant candidates (TC) with a friend or family member for advocacy training to help identify donors and achieve living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). However, some TCs participate alone as self-advocates., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of TCs in the LDN program (04/2017-06/2019), we evaluated the likelihood of LDKT using Cox proportional hazards regression and rate of donor screenings using ordered events conditional models by advocate type., Results: Self-advocates (25/127) had lower likelihood of LDKT compared to patients with an advocate (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-1.66, p = 0.14). After LDN enrollment, rate of donor screenings increased 2.5-fold for self-advocates (aHR: 2.48, 95%CI: 1.26-4.90, p = 0.009) and 3.4-fold for TCs with an advocate (aHR: 3.39, 95%CI: 2.20-5.24, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Advocacy training was beneficial for self-advocates, but having an independent advocate may increase the likelihood of LDKT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To identify the clinical and pharmacological risk factors associated with tacrolimus pharmacodynamics for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in pediatric patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from a matched related donor. A retrospective cohort single center chart review study was conducted with pediatric patients who received tacrolimus prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Potential risk factors were tested separately between aGVHD and non-aGVHD cohorts and were further analyzed in a logistic regression model with backward elimination and a partial least squares discriminant analysis. Thirty-three patient cases were included in our study and 52% (17/33) developed aGVHD while on tacrolimus prophylaxis. When tested independently, donor age and sibling versus parent donor/recipient relation were shown to be statistically significant between aGVHD and non-aGVHD patients (p < 0.005). Pharmacological factors associated with tacrolimus treatment failed to demonstrate a significant impact on patient's risk of aGVHD. Using a best fit logistic regression model that tested all the variables together, donor age was the only significant variable predicting patient's risk of aGVHD (p < 0.01). Donor relationship and donor age were unable to be evaluated separately and are therefore confounding variables. Among pediatric patients receiving allogeneic HSCT, aGVHD risk is significantly decreased by either sibling donor and/or younger donors. Although no conclusions were drawn on the effect of tacrolimus therapy (p = 0.08), results warrant additional research with a larger sample size to evaluate the accuracy of monitoring tacrolimus serum trough levels., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Abstract: Cosmetic appearance is a major concern for living donors. However, little is known about the impact of a surgical scar on body image changes in living liver donors. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that cause displeasing upper midline incision scar, and to evaluate the overall satisfaction regarding body image and scarring after living donor hepatectomy.Donors who underwent right lobe hepatectomy were recruited. Exclusion criteria included reoperation, refusal to participate, and lost follow-up. All donors were invited to complete the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the body image questionnaire. According to the VSS results of upper midline incision scar, donors were divided into 2 groups: good scarring group (VSS ≤4) and bad scarring group (VSS >4). we compared the clinical outcomes, including the demographics, preoperation, intraoperation, and postoperation variables. The study also analyzed the results of the body image questionnaire.The proportion of male donors was 48.9%. The bad scarring group consisted of 63% of the donors. On multivariate analysis, being a male donor was found to be an independent predictor of a cosmetically displeasing upper midline incision scar with statistical significance. The results of body image questionnaires, there were significant differences in cosmetic score and confidence score among the 2 groups.The upper midline incision and male donors have higher rates of scarring in comparison with the transverse incision and female donors. Donors who reported having a higher satisfaction with their scar appearance usually had more self-confidence. However, the body image won't be affected. Medical staff should encourage donors to take active participation in wound care and continuously observe the impact of surgical scars on psychological changes in living liver donors., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background and Aims: Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS)., Approach and Results: Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata., Conclusions: The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff., (© 2020 The Authors. Hepatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Importance: The proportion of living donor kidney transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients is increasing in the US., Objective: To examine the association between donor-recipient biological relationship and allograft survival after living donor kidney transplant., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data on US adult living donor kidney transplants (n = 86 154) performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, excluding cases in which recipients previously received a kidney transplant (n = 10 342) or key data were missing (n = 2832). Last follow-up was March 20, 2020., Exposures: Donor-recipient biological relationship., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death-censored allograft failure. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed for death-censored allograft failure for the overall cohort, then separately for recipients with and without primary diagnoses of cystic kidney disease and for transplants from African American and non-African American donors., Results: Among the 72 980 transplant donor and recipients included in the study (median donor age, 41 years; interquartile range [IQR], 32-50 years; 43 990 [60%] female; 50 014 [69%] White), 43 174 (59%) donors and recipients were biologically related and 29 806 (41%) were unrelated. Donors related to their recipients were younger (median [IQR] age, 39 [31-48] vs 44 [35-52] years) and less likely to be female (24 848 [58%] vs 19 142 [64%]) or White (26 933 [62%] vs 23 081 [77%]). Recipients related to their donors were younger (median [IQR] age, 48 [34-58] vs 50 [40-58] years), more likely to be female (18 035 [42%] vs 10 530 [35%]), and less likely to have cystic kidney disease (2530 [6%] vs 4600 [15%]). Related pairs had fewer HLA mismatches overall (median [IQR], 3 [2-3] vs 5 [4-5]). After adjustment for HLA mismatches, donor and recipient characteristics, and transplant era, donor-recipient biological relationship was associated with higher death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .03). When stratified by primary disease, this association persisted only for recipients without cystic kidney disease. When stratified by donor race, this association persisted only for transplants from African American donors., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, living donor kidney transplants from donors biologically related to their recipients had higher rates of allograft failure than transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients after HLA matching was accounted for. Further study is needed to determine which genetic or socioenvironmental factors are associated with this finding.

Introduction: Estimation of kidney function is crucial in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates. Despite the multitude of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) formulas, no equation is universal, and none were validated in the population of kidney donors. Novel biomarkers, including beta trace protein (BTP) and cystatin C, are studied to help estimate GFR and improve the safe qualification of living kidney donors., Aim: This study compares the accuracy of different formulas that estimate GFR with reference scintigraphy-measured GFR in the population of living kidney donor candidates., Material and Methods: This study enrolled 30 healthy living kidney donor candidates. GFR was measured using the following 11 different formulas. For reference, GFR was assessed using 99m-Technetium-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid., Results: The accuracy of estimation was generally low in all formulas. The strongest correlation between measured GFR (mGFR) and estimated GFR (eGFR) was achieved by the Nankivell formula (R = 0.47, P = .009); however, in the group of patients with a body mass index of >25 kg/m 2 , only the equations based on BTP had a statistically significant correlation with mGFR: White (R = 0.59; P = .016) and Poge (R = 0.53; P = .035). Bland-Altman plots revealed wide limits of agreement between eGFRs and mGFR in all groups of patients., Conclusion: In living kidney donor candidates, GFR estimation formulas should be chosen individually. White formula, which is based on BTP, may be a promising tool in estimating GFR in overweight potential living kidney donor candidates. More than 1 formula and personalized choice of GFR estimation method regarding the given patient should be performed in qualification of kidney donors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].

Background: Ureteral obstruction is one of the most frequent urologic complications of kidney transplantation. This study aimed to analyze independent factors that contribute to ureteral obstruction following kidney transplantation and develop predictive models form those factors., Methods: As many as 545 kidney transplantations were analyzed. Patients underwent transplantation between January 2014 and December 2018. Logistic regression analysis was used to develop the predictive model. Both donor and recipient demographic characteristics and operative parameters were analyzed and presented., Results: There were 37 (6.8%) subjects who developed ureteral obstruction. The independent risk factors for ureteral obstruction were multiple allograft renal arteries, older donor ages (>38 years), and older recipient age (>60 years). From the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under the ROC curve of the predictive model was 0.843 (P < .001). Subjects with >2 renal allograft arteries, recipient age >60 years, and donor age >38 years had 83.8% probability of developing ureteral stenosis after kidney transplantation., Conclusion: Donor age, recipient age, and multiple renal arteries were independent risk factors of graft ureteral obstruction. Probability of developing ureteral obstruction should be considered pre-operatively in our population, using the proposed predictive model., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To investigate access to paediatric renal transplantation and examine potential barriers within the process., Methods: Cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study where paediatric nephrology centres in the UK were requested to provide data on transplantation plans for all children (<18 years) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)., Results: 308 children with ESKD were included in this study from 12 out of 13 UK paediatric nephrology centres. 139 (45%) were being prepared for living donor transplantation and 82 (27%) were listed for deceased donor transplantation. The most common cited factors delaying transplantation from occurring in children were disease factors (36%), donor availability (27%) and size of the child (20%). Psychosocial factors were listed as a barrier in 19% of children., Conclusions: In this study we have documented the main barriers to renal transplantation in children. Some identified factors may be modifiable through local or national intervention, including donor availability and patient psychosocial factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Live-related renal transplantation in India by "caregiver donors" provides huge financial, emotional, and physical support. Their psychological and mental health has not been addressed. We performed a prospective study using the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL) BREF Scores and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales preoperatively, at two weeks and three months after transplant. We included 30 pairs; most donors were females (80%, 60% mothers, 28% wives). The mean age of donors was 43.77 ± 10.64 years (34.8 ± 9.01 for recipients). There was improvement in the WHOQoL BREF after two weeks and three months as follows: physical domain (74.30 ± 9.74 vs. 78.30 ± 8.20; P = 0.001), and (74.30 ± 9.74 vs. 86.23 ± 7.25; P <0.001); psychological (74.90 ± 8.44 vs. 82.07 ± 7.19; P <0.001) and (74.90 ± 8.44 vs. 88.07 ± 6.89; P <0.001); environmental (75.33 ± 8.09 vs. 79.57 ± 6.18; P <0.001), and, (75.33 ± 8.09 vs. 86.97 ± 3.8; P <0.001); social-relationships (77.73 ± 8.28 vs. 79.77 ± 7.99; P <0.001), and (77.73 ± 8.28 vs. 84.77 ± 7.45; P <0.001). The recipient scores were similar. Factors with significant Pearson's or standardized beta co-efficient were donor age <20 years, donor complications, donor anxiety, education (<12 th standard), recipient hospital stay (>3 weeks), and, recipient complications (increased creatinine, hemodialysis, lymphocele, and graft dysfunction). The median anxiety scores of donors increased significantly two weeks after operation but later became normal. Caregiver donors have improved QoL scores, despite kidney donation; a larger study is needed.

Purpose: The main goal of this study was to determine the relationship of cleaved-caspase-3 (C3)-related apoptosis and hepatic proliferation, during the liver repopulation in a living liver donor rat model., Material/methods: Thirty-three animals were randomized into eleven groups and evaluated on postoperative from 3 ​h until 384 ​h after 30%-partial hepatectomy (30%-PHx). Liver sections (5 ​μm) were processed by hematoxylin-eosin, and immunostaining for C3, accompanied by hepatic function test. C3 content and the hepatic lobule enlargement were analyzed by optical density, followed by cell counting., Results: Transient variations of alanine transferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were found. Significant increase in the C3 levels, and cell nuclei number, were detected at 12 ​h and 48 ​h after 30%-PHx, evidencing a correlation of p ​= ​-0.3679., Conclusion: In the 30%-PHx rat model, C3-related apoptosis prevents proliferative pathological conditions during the hepatic lobule re-modeling., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2021 Medical University of Bialystok. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Living-donor transplantation is the best treatment option in patients with chronic kidney failure. Global data show that women are less likely to be kidney recipients than men but are more likely to become living kidney donors. We explored the experience of women who donate a kidney to relatives with biological and socio-cultural ties and to understand the similarities and differences in their experience., Methods: A qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study with an intersectional analysis of gender. Ten women donors accepted in the transplant evaluation period participated, all of whom donated a kidney to a pre-dialysis relative. Two categories were included: women with biological kinship ties (mothers, sisters) and women who have a socio-cultural relationship (wives) with kidney recipient. The data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Women donate their kidneys in a convinced manner, without worrying about their health, with an optimistic and positive attitude, and without believing that they are acting heroically. Women with biological kinship ties see it as a 'naturalization thing'. In contrast, wives donate conditioned by gender roles, but also as a form of empowerment and as a personal benefit: they donate in order to avoid taking on carer role for their husband and as a way of protecting their children., Conclusion: The study's findings expand the conception of kidney donation as solely altruistic and may help professionals to pay attention to the complexity and intersectionality of features present in women who are living kidney donors.

Living kidney donors represent a unique population of patients. Potential donors are selected based on the belief that their preoperative fitness is likely to mitigate the risks of long- and short-term harm following uninephrectomy. Studies performed on postdonation outcomes have largely focused on mortality and the risk of end-stage renal failure, but have also investigated secondary outcomes such as cardiovascular morbidity and hypertension. It has been postulated that hypertension is a possible outcome of living kidney donation. A variety of studies have been conducted to investigate the prevalence, epidemiology, mechanisms, treatment strategies, and long-term ramifications of hypertension postdonation. These studies are heterogeneous in their population, design, methodology, and outcome measures and have presented contradicting outcomes. Additionally, the absence of a well-matched control group has made it challenging to interpret and generalise the reported findings. As such, it is not possible to definitively conclude that hypertension occurs at a higher rate among donors than the general population. This article will review the evidence of postdonation hypertension prevalence, mechanisms, treatment, and complications., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Stuart Deoraj et al.)

Purpose of Review: Organ shortage forces those responsible to streamline allocation rules to provide a maximum of candidates with a graft and to optimize transplant outcome. Recently, repeated kidney re-transplantation was investigated in several studies with different analytic settings concerning the control group, the donors, parameters influencing outcome, and demographic characteristics. This review gives an overview on the candidates awaiting a repeated re-transplantation, summarizes the outcome, and comments on the relevance of these findings in the context of sustained organ shortage., Recent Findings: Repeated kidney re-transplantation is technically and immunologically feasible and the recipients' survival is better compared to candidates remaining on dialysis or on the waiting-list. However, the outcome is mainly reported to be worse as compared to first or second kidney transplantation. Kidneys from living donors seem to have a favorable impact on outcome in this setting., Summary: The survival benefit of repeated re-transplantation recipients over patients on dialysis demands for continuation of this procedure. Comprehensive registries are essential to continuously optimize allocation. Governmental authorities are obliged to set the course to increase organ donation rather than forcing transplant decision makers to withhold a third or fourth graft from any candidate., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Living kidney donation has been an established practice for many years. Although studies from the past decade have uncovered risks to the donor, living kidney donation is still promoted. In this review, the most recent studies are summarized., Recent Findings: Retrospective studies with long follow-up have detected an increased risk of hypertension among donors. Donors with hypertension at the time of donation may be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but results differ. Recent studies have not found increased long-term mortality, but follow-up is short and control groups are of different quality., Summary: In all, the most recent findings more or less corroborate previous knowledge in the field of living donation. There is still a need for new studies on mortality with appropriate control groups and long enough follow-up., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In March 2020, COVID-19 infections began to rise exponentially in the USA, placing substantial burden on the healthcare system. As a result, there was a rapid change in transplant practices and policies, with cessation of most procedures. Our goal was to understand changes to pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) at the national level during the COVID-19 epidemic., Methods: Using SRTR data, we examined changes in pediatric waitlist registration, waitlist removal or inactivation, and deceased donor and living donor (DDKT/LDKT) events during the start of the disease transmission in the USA compared with the same time the previous year., Results: We saw an initial decrease in DDKT and LDKT by 47% and 82% compared with expected events and then a continual increase, with numbers reaching expected prepandemic levels by May 2020. In the early phase of the pandemic, waitlist inactivation and removals due to death or deteriorating condition rose above expected values by 152% and 189%, respectively. There was a statistically significant decrease in new waitlist additions (IRR 0.49 0.65 0.85 ) and LDKT (IRR 0.17 0.38 0.84 ) in states with high vs. low COVID activity. Transplant recipients during the pandemic were more likely to have received a DDKT, but had similar calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) values, waitlist time, and cause of kidney failure as before the pandemic., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic initially reduced access to kidney transplantation among pediatric patients in the USA but has not had a sustained effect.

Introduction: Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment modality of the patients having an end-stage liver disease with hepatocellular carcinoma., Discussion: The number of living donor liver transplantations has been increased because of the deceased donor organ shortage, especially in Asian countries., Conclusion: Reports of different clinics about the postoperative course and tumor recurrence rates comparing living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantations, besides patient selection criteria, are reviewed along with our clinic's experiences.