Search

Although steroid avoidance (SA) has been studied in deceased donor liver transplant, little is known about SA in living donor liver transplant (LDLT). We report the characteristics and outcomes, including the incidence of early acute rejection (AR) and complications of steroid use, in 2 cohorts of LDLT recipients.MethodsRoutine steroid maintenance (SM) after LDLT was stopped in December 2017. Our single-center retrospective cohort study spans 2 eras. Two hundred forty-two adult recipients underwent LDLT with SM (January 2000-December 2017), and 83 adult recipients (December 2017-August 2021) underwent LDLT with SA. Early AR was defined as a biopsy showing pathologic characteristics within 6 mo after LDLT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the effects of relevant recipient and donor characteristics on the incidence of early AR in our cohort.ResultsNeither the difference in early AR rate between cohorts (SA 19/83 [22.9%] versus SM 41/242 [17%]; P = 0.46) nor a subset analysis of patients with autoimmune disease (SA 5/17 [29.4%] versus SM 19/58 [22.4%]; P = 0.71) reached statistical significance. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions for early AR identified recipient age to be a statistically significant risk factor (P

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive option to decrease waitlist dropout, particularly for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who face lengthening waiting times. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) national database, trends in LDLT utilization for patients with HCC were evaluated, and post-LT outcomes for LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were compared. From 1998 to 2018, LT was performed in 20,161 patients with HCC including 726 (3.6%) who received LDLT. The highest LDLT utilization was prior to the 2002 HCC Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception policy (17.5%) and dropped thereafter (3.1%) with a slight increase following the 6-month wait policy in 2015 (3.8%). LDLT was more common in patients from long-wait UNOS regions with blood type O, in those with larger total tumor diameter (2.3 vs. 2.1 cm, p = 0.02), and higher alpha-fetoprotein at LT (11.5 vs. 9.0 ng/ml, p = 0.04). The 5-year post-LT survival (LDLT 77% vs. DDLT 75%), graft survival (72% vs. 72%), and HCC recurrence (11% vs. 13%) were similar between groups (all p > 0.20). In conclusion, LDLT utilization for HCC has remained low since 2002 with only a slight increase after the 6-month wait policy introduction in 2015. Given the excellent post-LT survival, LDLT appears to be an underutilized but valuable option for patients with HCC, especially those at high risk for waitlist dropout.

BackgroundMost patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time.MethodsPatients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation.ResultsFive-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death.ConclusionsPatients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.

HLA antibodies are typically produced after exposure to transplanted tissue, pregnancy, and blood products. Sensitization delays access to transplantation and preclude utilization of donor organs. Infections and vaccinations have also been reported to result in HLA antibody formation. It is not known if patients develop HLA antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2. Here we analyzed a series of eighteen patients waiting for kidney transplantation who had symptomatic COVID-19 disease and recovered. None of the patients in this initial series developed de novo HLA antibodies. Notably, there was no increase in preexisting HLA antibodies in four highly sensitized patients with a CPRA > 80%. These preliminary data suggest that there may not be a need to repeat HLA antibody testing or perform a physical crossmatch on admission serum before kidney transplant for COVID-19 recovered patients. Data from a large number of patients with different demographics needed.

BackgroundThe use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT.MethodsA retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed.ResultsOf the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%).ConclusionsApproximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P

BackgroundShare 35 was a policy implemented in 2013 to increase regional sharing of deceased donor livers to patients with model for end-stage liver disease ≥ 35 to decrease waitlist mortality for the sickest patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). The purpose of this study was to determine whether live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) volume was impacted by the shift in allocation of deceased donor livers to patients with higher model for end-stage liver disease scores.MethodsUsing Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files, we identified all adults who received a primary LT between October 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018. LT from October 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013, was designated as the pre-Share 35 era and July 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, as the post-Share 35 era. Primary outcomes included transplant volumes, graft survival, and patient survival in both eras.ResultsIn total, 48 779 primary adult single-organ LT occurred during the study period (22 255 pre-Share 35, 26 524 post). LDLT increased significantly (6.8% post versus 5.7% pre, P

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) enjoys widespread use in Asia, but remains limited to a handful of centers in North America and comprises only 5% of liver transplants performed in the United States. In contrast, living donor kidney transplantation is used frequently in the United States, and has evolved to commonly include paired exchanges, particularly for ABO-incompatible pairs. Liver paired exchange (LPE) has been utilized in Asia, and was recently reported in Canada; here we report the first LPE performed in the United States, and the first LPE to be performed on consecutive days. The LPE performed at our institution was initiated by a nondirected donor who enabled the exchange for an ABO-incompatible pair, and the final recipient was selected from our deceased donor waitlist. The exchange was performed over the course of 2 consecutive days, and relied on the use and compliance of a bridge donor. Here, we show that LPE is feasible at centers with significant LDLT experience and affords an opportunity to expand LDLT in cases of ABO incompatibility or when nondirected donors arise. To our knowledge, this represents the first exchange of its kind in the United States.

Stopping immunosuppression in a transplant patient with donor-derived malignancy offers the theoretical benefit that reconstitution of the patient's immune system will allow "rejection" of the malignancy, as the malignancy also originates from allogeneic tissue. However, this option exists with the caveat that the patient's allograft(s) will likely be rejected too. In simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) recipients, the normal continued functioning and possible absence of malignancy in either the unaffected kidney or pancreas further complicate this decision.MethodsThe charts of 3 patients with donor-derived metastatic malignancies after SPK were retrospectively reviewed in detail. We provide treatment and management recommendations based on successful outcomes and a review of the existing literature.ResultsConsistent with a broad review of the literature, in all 3 cases, complete immunosuppression cessation, removal of both grafts, and in 1 case treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor to augment the immune response was successful. One patient is doing well 1 year after successfully undergoing kidney retransplantation, while a second patient is active on the waitlist for SPK retransplantation after no evidence of metastatic disease for 2 years.ConclusionThe successful management of metastatic donor-derived malignancies requires allograft removal, immunosuppression cessation, and adjuvant therapy that includes occasional use of checkpoint inhibitors to augment the immune response.

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.

BackgroundSix percent of opioid-naïve patients develop opioid dependence post-operatively. We implemented a protocol in our renal transplant recipients that eliminated opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and included a multi-modal non-opioid regimen. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of PCA elimination on opioid requirements at discharge in renal transplant recipients.MethodsWe reviewed adult renal transplant recipients for the three months prior to, and following, the protocol's implementation. Patients with an intra-abdominal transplant, pancreas-renal transplant, or chronic pain were excluded. The number of opioid pills prescribed on the day prior to discharge were categorized as A) 0, B) 1-3, and C) ≥4. Discharge opioid prescriptions were then evaluated based on a recent recommendation that group A receive 0 pills, group B 15 pills, and group C 30 pills, to satisfy the outpatient pain needs of 85% of patients. Pre- and post-intervention metrics were compared using independent t-tests and Chi squared tests.Results150 recipients were included (79 pre-intervention, 71 post; 51% male). PCA use decreased significantly (81% vs. 4.2%, p

BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease has transformed innumerable aspects of medical practice, particularly in the field of transplantation.Main bodyHere we describe a single-center approach to creating a generalizable, comprehensive, and graduated set of recommendations to respond in stepwise fashion to the challenges posed by these conditions, and the underlying principles guiding such decisions.ConclusionsCreation of a stepwise plan will allow transplant centers to respond in a dynamic fashion to the ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundAlcoholic liver disease (ALD) accounts for 15%-30% of transplants performed in the United States and Europe; however, the data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD remain sparse. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes following LDLT for ALD using data from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) study, which represents the largest Western experience with adult-to-adult LDLT.MethodsA retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor liver transplant. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of graft and patient survival were assessed.ResultsOf the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 168 (15.8%) were transplanted for a diagnosis of ALD. Comparing patients who underwent transplant for ALD with those who were transplanted for other etiologies of liver disease, there was no significant difference in graft survival at 1 (88% versus 84%), 5 (76% versus 74%), or 10 years following transplant (55% versus 61%, P = 0.29). Similarly, there was no difference in patient survival at 1 (94% versus 91%), 5 (83% versus 79%), or 10 years following transplant (61% versus 66%, P = 0.32).ConclusionsLDLT for ALD results in excellent 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft and patient survival. Patients with ALD and impaired renal function have a higher risk of graft loss and death. These findings support the notion that early LDLT for patients with ALD may help optimize outcomes.

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is now a well-recognized indication for liver transplantation. This paper reviews existing literature on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD and presents data from a single, high volume United States liver transplant center.For the literature review, a PubMed search was undertaken using the search terms 'living donor' and 'alcoholic liver disease'. Studies were included that presented outcome data for patients who underwent LDLT for ALD. For the single-center data collection, all patients who underwent LDLT from 2003 to 2016 at our center were reviewed and the data for recipients with ALD was subsequently analyzed and compared with those patients who underwent LDLT for other indications.Of 110 studies that resulted from the PubMed query, only 5 contained data that was relevant to this manuscript. These studies represented data collected from two Asian countries: one single center in Korea and a collection of centers in Japan. The relapse rate following LDLT for ALD ranged from 7.9% to 22%, and pre-transplant abstinence did not impact post-transplant relapse in any of these studies. For the single-center data, of 136 LDLT performed at our institution during the time period, 22 were performed for ALD. There was no difference in 1- or 5-year survival between patients transplanted for ALD and those transplanted for other etiologies (94.7% vs. 93.4%, P = 0.79 and 78.9% vs. 87.5%, P = 0.6).There is a very limited amount of data available on LDLT for ALD. Existing data suggests that LDLT for ALD results in excellent outcomes.Published data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for alcoholic liver disease (ALD) are limited. One- and five-year survival rates range from 82% to 100% and 78% to 87%, respectively. Rates of alcohol relapse following transplant appear low, ranging from 7% to 23%; 6-month abstinence periods prior to LDLT for ALD do not appear to have a significant impact on relapse.

BackgroundWith the use of split liver grafts as well as living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) it is imperative to know the minimum graft volume to avoid complications. Most current formulas to predict standard liver volume (SLV) rely on weight-based measures that are likely inaccurate in the setting of cirrhosis. Therefore, we sought to create a formula for estimating SLV without weight-based covariates.MethodsLDLT donors underwent computed tomography scan volumetric evaluation of their livers. An optimal formula for calculating SLV using the anthropomorphic measure thoracoabdominal circumference (TAC) was determined using leave-one-out cross-validation. The ability of this formula to correctly predict liver volume was checked against other existing formulas by analysis of variance. The ability of the formula to predict small grafts in LDLT was evaluated by exact logistic regression.ResultsThe optimal formula using TAC was determined to be SLV = (TAC × 3.5816) - (Age × 3.9844) - (Sex × 109.7386) - 934.5949. When compared to historic formulas, the current formula was the only one which was not significantly different than computed tomography determined liver volumes when compared by analysis of variance with Dunnett posttest. When evaluating the ability of the formula to predict small for size syndrome, many (10/16) of the formulas tested had significant results by exact logistic regression, with our formula predicting small for size syndrome with an odds ratio of 7.94 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-91.36; P = 0.025).ConclusionWe report a formula for calculating SLV that does not rely on weight-based variables that has good ability to predict SLV and identify patients with potentially small grafts.

BackgroundLiving donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in an effort to increase organ availability for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. Donor safety is a primary concern in LDLT. The majority of complications experienced by living donors are infectious or biliary in nature. The purpose of this paper was to review the existing literature on biliary complications in living donors.MethodsStudies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English between 2006-present, focused on adult-to-adult LDLT, and were available via PubMed/MEDLINE.ResultsA total of 33 studies reporting outcomes from 12,653 donors (right lobe: 8231, left lobe: 4422) were included. Of 33 studies, 12 reported outcomes from right lobe donors, 1 from left lobe donors, 14 compared left and right, and 6 focused specifically on biliary complications. A total of 830 biliary complications (6.6%) were reported, with 75 donors requiring re-operation for biliary complications and 1 donor death attributed to biliary complications.ConclusionAlthough bile leaks and strictures are still relatively common following living donor hepatectomy, the majority of complications are minor and resolve with conservative measures. Approximately 6% of living donors will experience a biliary complication and, of these 6%, approximately 9% (total of 0.6% of donors) will require operative management of the biliary complication.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess first-year medical students' implicit perceptions of surgeons, focusing on the roles of gender and demeanor (communal = supportive, associated with women; agentic = assertive, associated with men).DesignSurvey study. Each survey had 1 of 8 possible scenarios; all began with a short description of a surgeon who was described as accomplished and well trained, then varied by surgeon gender (male/female), surgeon demeanor (agentic/communal), and type of surgery (breast cancer/lung cancer). Using a 0 to 5 scale, respondents rated their perception of the surgeon through 5 questions. These 5 items were averaged to create a composite perception score scaled from 0 to 5.SettingSurveys were administered at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Los Angeles.ParticipantsWe administered surveys to 333 first-year medical students who could read English and voluntarily agreed to participate.ResultsA total of 238 students responded (71.5%). They preferred the communal vs agentic surgeon (4.2 ± 0.7 vs 3.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.002) and male medical students perceived surgeons more favorably than female medical students did (4.2 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.8, p = 0.036). The preference score did not differ according to surgeon gender (female 4.12 vs male 3.98, p = 0.087). There were no significant interactions between the factors of student gender, surgeon gender, or demeanor. Students who reported an interest in surgery as a career did not perceive surgeons more favorably than the students interested in other fields (4.3 ± 0.7 vs 4.0 ± 0.7 respectively, p = 0.066).ConclusionsBased on our findings, surgeon educators would likely find success in teaching and recruiting medical students by employing a communal demeanor in their interactions with all students, regardless of the students' gender or stated interest in surgery.

BackgroundOptimizing the surgeon-nurse relationship to improve interprofessional communication is increasingly recognized as an essential component of patient care. The increasing number of women surgeons has altered the surgeon-nurse dynamic, which has traditionally been a male-female relationship. In particular, this shift has raised the issue of whether implicit perceptions regarding gender and demeanor influence the interactions between surgeons and nurses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand nurses' implicit perceptions of surgeons, with a particular focus on gender and gender-normative demeanor. We defined two types of demeanor: communal, which is classically associated with women and includes being supportive and nurturing, and agentic, which is a male-associated trait that includes being direct and assertive.MethodsWe administered surveys to 1701 nurses at the main campus of our institution. Each survey had one of eight possible scenarios; all began with a short description of a surgeon who was described as accomplished and well-trained, then varied by surgeon gender (male/female), surgeon demeanor (agentic/communal) and type of surgery (breast cancer/lung cancer). Using a 0 to 5 scale, respondents rated their perception of the surgeon through five questions. These five items were averaged to create a composite perception score scaled from 0 to 5.ResultsWe received 493 surveys. The overall average perception score was 3.8±0.99. Respondents had a statistically significant preference for the communal surgeon (4.1±0.91) versus the agentic surgeon (3.6±1.0, p

BackgroundPerceptions underlie bias and drive behavior. This study assessed female surgeons' implicit perceptions of surgeons, with a focus on the roles of sex and demeanor (communal = supportive, associated with women; agentic = assertive, associated with men).MethodsElectronic surveys were administered via the Association of Women Surgeons e-mail listserve to 550 post-training female surgeons. Each survey had one of the 4 possible scenarios that varied by surgeon sex (male/female) and surgeon demeanor (agentic/communal). Respondents rated their perception of the surgeon through 5 questions regarding preference and 5 questions regarding professional opinion (1 to 5 scale).ResultsWe received 212 surveys. In both preference and professional scores, female surgeons were rated significantly higher compared with their male counterparts (4.7 vs 4.4 and 4.3 vs 4.0, respectively). Communal surgeons were rated significantly higher versus agentic surgeons in both scores (4.7 vs 4.4 and 4.6 vs 3.7).ConclusionsFemale surgeons demonstrated a significant preference for female surgeons and for communal surgeons.