Search

Living donation (LD) transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure as compared to donation after brain death (DBD), but age may play a role. We compared the 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after kidney transplantation for recipients of LD and DBD stratified by recipient and donor age between 2015 and 2018 in a matched cohort. The strength of the association between donation type and 1-year eGFR differed by recipient age (Pinteraction < 0.0001). For LD recipients aged 40-54 years versus same-aged DBD recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for eGFR =60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.16-1.90). For DBD recipients aged = 60 years, the aOR was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.12-0.29) versus DBD recipients aged 40-54 years but was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.67-1.24) versus LD recipients aged =60 years. In the matched cohort, 4-year graft and patient survival differed by donor age and type. As compared with DBD grafts, LD grafts increased the proportion of recipients with 1-year eGFR =60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Recipients aged =60 years benefited most from LD transplantation, even if the donor was aged =60 years. For younger recipients, large age differences between donor and recipient could also be addressed with a paired exchange program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, graft options for pediatric liver transplantation (PLT) include whole (WL) and partial (P) grafts, in the form of either deceased donor transplantation (DD) or living donor liver transplantation (LD). WL transplants from LD are commonly referred to as domino LT. The objective of this manuscript is to compare the outcomes of PLT performed with each of the available graft options. Retrospective cohort study from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2022. The variables included data on the recipients' preoperative clinical status, intraoperative technical aspects, post-operative complications, and survival studies. There were 4 groups: SPLIT (17), DD-WL (55), LD-WL (824), and LD-P (22). The median age and BW of the recipients was smaller in SPLIT, LD-P, and LD-WL compared to DDT-WL groups. HVOO (HR 15.87, 95% CI 1.89–133.06, P = 0.01), retransplantation (HR 7.94, 95% CI 2.63–24.02, P < 0.01), and malignancies (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.29–7.37, P = 0.01) were independently associated with decreased patient survival. HAT (HR 27.54, 95% CI 10.44–72.68, P < 0.01) and malignancies (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.10–5.34, P = 0.03) increased the risk of graft loss. The overall survival in this series was 91.4% (mean follow-up of 74.3 months). Patient and graft survival were not different among groups. HAT and malignancies were associated with reduced graft survival. Whole liver from living donors with MSUD presented 100% patient survival at 120 months. Even without statistical differences in survival among the studied groups, LD-P and LD-WL recipients presented a trend towards better outcomes. LEVEL III. • Liver transplantation (LT) in infants and small children presents significant challenges and necessitates specific technical refinements. • This paper delves into the outcomes of pediatric LT within a single center, covering more than 900 recipients over the past 12 years. • Notably, this report marks the first instance of comparing the outcomes of all available graft types used in pediatric LT. • The noteworthy addition in this study is the inclusion of whole livers from living donors (LD-WL), often referred to as domino LT. • Unexpectedly, the 10-year survival rate for LD-WL in this series reached 100%, whereas split LT showed lower survival rates during the same follow-up period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors' understanding of long-term consequences. Aim: To explore donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health's Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic). Results: Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18–49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001. Conclusion: Our findings display that donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In June 2021, the first robot‐assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) was performed at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to investigate whether this procedure has been implemented safely and efficiently. Methods: RADN was retrospectively compared to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed during the same time period (June 2021 until November 2022). Patients were assigned to RADN depending on the availability of the da Vinci robot and surgical team. The studied endpoints were postoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time (WIT), and postoperative pain experience. For analysis, the Student's t‐test and Chi‐squared test were used for, respectively, continuous and categorical data. Results: Forty RADN were compared to 63 LDN. Total insufflation time was significantly longer in RADN compared to LDN (188 min (169–214) versus 172 min (144–194); p = 0.02). Additionally, WIT was also found to be significantly higher in the robot‐assisted group (04:54 min vs. 04:07 min; p < 0.01). No statistical differences were found in postoperative outcomes (eGFR of the recipient at 3‐month follow‐up, RADN 54.08 mL/min ±18.79 vs. LDN 56.41 mL/min ±16.82; p = 0.52), pain experience, and complication rate. Conclusion: RADN was safely and efficiently implemented at the LUMC. It's results were not inferior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Operative time and warm ischemic times were longer in RADN. This may relate to a learning curve effect. No clinically relevant effect on postoperative outcomes was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors’ understanding of long-term consequences. Aim: To explore donors’ satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health’s Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic). Results: Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18–49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001. Conclusion: Our findings display that donors’ satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered.

Background: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients. Results: There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates. Conclusion: RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process. Methods: Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k‐means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision‐making process. Results: Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0–1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1–1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care. Conclusions: Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation‐related risks are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Longer end‐stage renal disease time has been associated with inferior kidney transplant outcomes. However, the contribution of transplant evaluation is uncertain. We explored the relationship between time from evaluation to listing (ELT) and transplant outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included 2535 adult kidney transplants from 2000 to 2015. Kaplan–Meier survival curves, log‐rank tests, and Cox regression models were used to compare transplant outcomes. Results: Patient survival for both deceased donor (DD) recipients (p <.001) and living donor (LD) recipients (p <.0001) was significantly higher when ELT was less than 3 months. The risks of ELT appeared to be mediated by other risks in DD recipients, as adjusted models showed no associated risk of graft loss or death in DD recipients. For LD recipients, ELT remained a risk factor for patient death after covariate adjustment. Each month of ELT was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.021, p =.04) but not graft loss in LD recipients in adjusted models. Conclusions: Kidney transplant recipients with longer ELT times had higher rates of death after transplant, and ELT was independently associated with an increased risk of death for LD recipients. Investigations on the impact of pretransplant evaluation on post‐transplant outcomes can inform transplant policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Oxidative stress has been implicated in complications after kidney transplantation (KT), including delayed graft function (DGF) and rejection. However, its role in long-term posttransplant outcomes remains unclear. Methods: We investigated oxidative damage and antioxidant defense dynamics, and their impact on the graft outcomes, in 41 KT recipients categorized by type of donation over 12 months. Oxidative status was determined using OxyScore and AntioxyScore indexes, which comprise several circulating biomarkers of oxidative damage and antioxidant defense. Donor types included donation after brain death (DBD [61.0%]), donation after circulatory death (DCD [26.8%]), and living donation (LD [12.1%]). Results: There was an overall increase in oxidative damage early after transplantation, which was significantly higher in DCD as compared to DBD and LD recipients. The multivariate adjustment confirmed the independent association of OxyScore and type of deceased donation with DGF, donor kidney function, and induction therapy with antithymocyte globulin. There were no differences in terms of antioxidant defense. Lower oxidative damage at day 7 predicted better graft function at 1-year posttransplant only in DBD recipients. Conclusion: DCD induced greater short-term oxidative damage after KT, whereas the early levels of oxidative damage were predictive of the graft function 1 year after KT among DBD recipients. Plain Language Summary: With advancements in therapies reducing the risk of graft-associated complications after kidney transplantation (KT), our focus shifts toward ensuring optimal graft conditions to improve the quality of life for KT patients. This emphasizes the importance of identifying prognostic factors of kidney function, even in populations without graft-associated complications. Oxidative stress, which is characterized by an imbalance in the production and neutralization of free radicals in the body, has been linked to graft-associated complications. Moreover, a significant determinant of graft function is the source of the graft, whether obtained from living donation (LD) or donation after circulatory or brain death (DCD and DBD). Therefore, we aimed to study whether oxidative stress differed in the short-term after KT in patients receiving LD, DCD, and DBD, and whether these levels of oxidative stress were predictive of graft function in KT patients without long-term complications such as rejection. We examined oxidative stress in 41 KT recipients over 12 months, finding increased oxidative damage early post-KT, notably higher in DCD donors. Moreover, lower oxidative damage in the first week after KT predicted better 1-year graft function in DBD recipients. In conclusion, DCD induced more short-term oxidative damage, while early oxidative levels predicted 1-year graft function in DBD recipients. These findings underscore the importance of early oxidative stress assessment in guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing long-term outcomes in KT recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Living donation (LD) transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure as compared to donation after brain death (DBD), but age may play a role. We compared the 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after kidney transplantation for recipients of LD and DBD stratified by recipient and donor age between 2015 and 2018 in a matched cohort. The strength of the association between donation type and 1-year eGFR differed by recipient age (Pinteraction < 0.0001). For LD recipients aged 40–54 years versus same-aged DBD recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.16–1.90). For DBD recipients aged ≥ 60 years, the aOR was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.12–0.29) versus DBD recipients aged 40–54 years but was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.67–1.24) versus LD recipients aged ≥60 years. In the matched cohort, 4-year graft and patient survival differed by donor age and type. As compared with DBD grafts, LD grafts increased the proportion of recipients with 1-year eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Recipients aged ≥60 years benefited most from LD transplantation, even if the donor was aged ≥60 years. For younger recipients, large age differences between donor and recipient could also be addressed with a paired exchange program.

Background: Pediatric (age < 18 years) kidney transplant (KT) candidates face increasingly complex choices. The 2014 kidney allocation system nearly doubled wait times for pediatric recipients. Given longer wait times and new ways to optimize compatibility, more pediatric candidates may consider kidney‐paired donation (KPD). Motivated by this shift and the potential impact of innovations in KPD practice, we studied pediatric KPD procedures in the US from 2008 to 2021. Methods: We describe the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric KPD recipients with comparison to pediatric non‐KPD living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), pediatric LDKT recipients, and pediatric deceased donor (DDKT) recipients. Results: Our study cohort includes 4987 pediatric DDKTs, 3447 pediatric non‐KPD LDKTs, and 258 pediatric KPD transplants. Fewer centers conducted at least one pediatric KPD procedure compared to those that conducted at least one pediatric LDKT or DDKT procedure (67, 136, and 155 centers, respectively). Five centers performed 31% of the pediatric KPD transplants. After adjustment, there were no differences in graft failure or mortality comparing KPD recipients to non‐KPD LDKT, LDKT, or DDKT recipients. Discussion: We did not observe differences in transplant outcomes comparing pediatric KPD recipients to controls. Considering these results, KPD may be underutilized for pediatric recipients. Pediatric KT centers should consider including KPD in KT candidate education. Further research will be necessary to develop tools that could aid clinicians and families considering the time horizon for future KT procedures, candidate disease and histocompatibility characteristics, and other factors including logistics and donor protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.

Introduction: Incidental kidneys cysts are typically considered benign, but the presence of cysts is more frequent in individuals with other early markers of kidney disease. We studied the association of donor kidney cysts with donor and recipient outcomes after living donor kidney transplantation. Methods: We retrospective identified 860 living donor transplants at our center (1/1/2011–7/31/2022) without missing data. Donor cysts were identified by review of pre‐donation CT scan reports. We used linear regression to study the association between donor cysts and 6‐month single‐kidney estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) increase, and time‐to‐event analyses to study the association between donor cysts and recipient death‐censored graft failure. Results: Among donors, 77% donors had no kidney cysts, 13% had ≥1 cyst on the kidney not donated, and 11% only had cysts on the donated kidney. In adjusted linear regression, cysts on the donated kidney and kidney not donated were not significantly associated with 6‐month single‐kidney eGFR increase. Among transplants, 17% used a transplanted kidney with a cyst and 6% were from donors with cysts only on the kidney not transplanted. There was no association between donor cyst group and post‐transplant death‐censored graft survival. Results were similar in sensitivity analyses comparing transplants using kidneys with no cysts versus 1–2 cysts versus ≥3 cysts. Conclusions: Kidney cysts in living kidney donors were not associated with donor kidney recovery or recipient allograft longevity, suggesting incidental kidney cysts need not be taken into account when determining living donor candidate suitability or the laterality of planned donor nephrectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of complex, intra‐ and extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis (PVT) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging. Although most of the patients remain asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic in the chronic setting, some of them may develop severe portal hypertension and related complications, notably gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. In the emergency scenario, clinical and endoscopic treatments as well as intensive support constitute the bases of conservative management, while more definitive treatment options such as surgical shunting and retransplantation are related to high morbidity rates. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) was largely considered of limited role due to technical difficulties arising from extensive PVT. Recently, however, new minimally invasive image‐guided techniques emerged, allowing portal vein recanalization and TIPS creation simultaneously (TIPS‐PVR), even in complex PVT pretransplant patients. Methods: Herein, we describe a novel indication for TIPS‐PVR in a post‐LT adolescent presenting with life‐threatening, refractory GI bleeding. Results: The patient presented with complete resolution of the hemorrhagic condition after the procedure, with no deterioration of hepatic function or hepatic encephalopathy. Follow‐up Doppler ultrasound after TIPS‐PVR showed normal hepatopetal venous flow within the stents, and no evidence of complications, including intraperitoneal or peri splenic bleeding. Conclusions: This report describes the feasibility of TIPS‐PVR in the post‐LT scenario complicated by extensive PVT. In this case, a complete resolution of the life‐threatening GI bleeding was achieved, with no major complications. Other patients with complex chronic PVT might benefit from the use of the described technique, but further studies are required to determine the correct timing and indications of the procedure, eventually before the occurrence of life‐threatening complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundInternational and national registries consistently report substantial differences in kidney transplant (KT) activity despite demonstrable clinical and financial benefits. The study aims to estimate the financial resources gained by KT and produce a benchmark analysis that would inform adequate strategies for the growth of the service.MethodsWe analyzed the KT activity in our region between 2017 and 2019. The benchmark analysis was conducted with programs identified from national and international registries. The estimate of financial resources was obtained by applying the kidney transplant coefficient of value; subsequently, we compared the different activity levels and savings generated by the three KT programs.FindingsThe KT activity in the region progressively declined in the study years, producing a parallel reduction of the estimated savings. Such savings were substantially inferior when compared to those generated by benchmark programs (range €18–22 million less).InterpretationThe factors influencing the reduced KT activity in the study period with the related “foregone savings” are multiple, as well as interdependent. Organ donation, access to the transplant waiting list, and KT from living donors appear to be the most prominent determinants of the observed different levels of activities. International experience suggests that a comprehensive strategy in the form of a “task force” may successfully address the critical areas of the service reversing the observed trend. The financial impact of a progressively reduced KT activity may be as critical as its clinical implications, jeopardizing the actual sustainability of services for patients with end-stage kidney disease.

Background: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN. Results: RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases. Conclusions: RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organ donation and transplantation has transformed the lives of many around the world. Despite its place as a treatment option for numerous forms of end-stage organ disease, the need for careful ethical and legal consideration is paramount. In this article we discuss three rules: the Dead Donor Rule, which underpins the use of organs for donation from deceased individuals; the 'Rule of Consent' which includes consideration of both deceased and living donors and the recipients of organs; and finally the 'Fair Transplant Rule', which offers protection from the challenging issues of exploitation and organ allocation fairness. When applied in combination these rules should provide an ethically robust platform on which to deliver organ donation and transplantation. These rules can act universally and are applicable across all jurisdictions. Clinicians are encouraged to see organ donation not as a single event, but as a complex combination of individual ethical and legal activities which require independent consideration specific to the donor patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The techniques involved in neonatal and infantile transplantation require approaches that can sculpt a left lateral segment (LLS) to the right shape and size and avoid large‐for‐size syndrome. The aim of this article is to describe the anterior hepatic resection (AHR) of the LLS in pediatric LDLT. Methods: A retrospective anatomical study of preoperative image studies, description of the technique for AHR, and short‐term results. Results: The AHR was performed in eight cases. All donors were male, with average age, BW, and BMI of 28.3 ± 5.9 years, 74.2 ± 9.3 kg, and 24.3 ± 2.6 kg/m2, respectively. Donors were discharged at an average of 3.6 ± 0.8 days. The median recipient age and BW at transplantation were 6.9 (2.7 to 11) months and 5.9 (3.9 to 8) kg, respectively, and the recipient‐to‐donor body weight ratio (RDBW) was <0.1 in all but one case. The mean percentage reduction in graft weight and in the antero‐posterior diameter were 33.2% ± 5.5% and 38.3% ± 12.6%, respectively. The average (SD) GRWR was 4.8% ± 1.7% before all the resections and 3.5% ± 1.0% after the procedures. Seven patients were primarily closed. Conclusion: After LLS resection, a nonanatomical anterior resection of the LLS was accomplished without hilar vascular dissection to segments II/III. The final liver graft allowed primary abdominal wall closure in all but one patient, with meaningful adjustments in GRWR. AHR proved to be simple, safe, reproducible, and effective in the presented case series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of reviewTo define patient advocacy and engagement for modern transplant and living donation care, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, describe the patient experience when transplant advocacy and engagement are optimized, and recommend opportunities for advocacy within three key areas: (1) including the patient voice in healthcare decisions and drug development, (2) access to the best evidence-based treatments and informed decision-making, and (3) present and future care innovations and policies.Recent findingsThere are many avenues for transplant and living donation advocacy and engagement at the patient, provider, family, system, community, and policy levels. Key recommendations include the following: (1) simplifying education to be health literate, written at the appropriate reading level, culturally sensitive, and available in multiple languages and across many delivery platforms, (2) inviting transplant patients and donors to the conversation through advisory panels, consensus conferences, and new mediums like digital storytelling and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), (3) training all members of the health team to understand their role as advocates, and (4) advancing policies and programs that support the financial neutrality of living donation, and support recipients with the cost of immunosuppressive drugs. Key recommendations specific to the COVID-19 pandemic include providing up-to-date, health literate, concise information about preventing COVID-19 and accessing care including telehealth.SummaryEnhancing advocacy and engagement for transplant patients and donors along the pre-to-post transplant/donation continuum can improve clinical outcomes and quality of life generally, and more so, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: There is an unmet need for optimizing hepatic allograft allocation from nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD). Materials and method: Using OPTN living donor liver transplant (LDLT) data (1/1/ 2000-12/31/2019), we identified 6328 LDLTs (4621 right, 644 left, 1063 left-lateral grafts). Random forest survival models were constructed to predict 10-year graft survival for each of the 3 graft types. Results: Donor-to-recipient body surface area ratio was an important predictor in all 3 models. Other predictors in all 3 models were: malignant diagnosis, medical location at LDLT (inpatient/ICU), and moderate ascites. Biliary atresia was important in left and left-lateral graft models. Re-transplant was important in right graft models. C-index for 10-year graft survival predictions for the 3 models were: 0.70 (left-lateral); 0.63 (left); 0.61 (right). Similar C-indices were found for 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survivals. Comparison of model predictions to actual 10-year graft survivals demonstrated that the predicted upper quartile survival group in each model had significantly better actual 10-year graft survival compared to the lower quartiles (p<0.005). Conclusion: When applied in clinical context, our models assist with the identification and stratification of potential recipients for hepatic grafts from ND-LLD based on predicted graft survivals, while accounting for complex donor-recipient interactions. These analyses highlight the unmet need for granular data collection and machine learning modeling to identify potential recipients who have the best predicted transplant outcomes with ND-LLD grafts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A successful living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is the culmination of a multifaceted process coordinated among key stakeholders. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of US liver transplant (LT) centers (August 26, 2021–October 10, 2021) regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators of LDLT to learn how to expand LDLT safely and effectively in preparation for the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Liver Transplant Consensus Conference. Results: Responses were received from staff at 58 programs (40.1% of US LT centers). There is interest in broadening LDLT (100% of LDLT centers, 66.7% of non‐LDLT centers) with high level of agreement that LDLT mitigates donor shortage (93.3% of respondents) and that it should be offered to all suitable candidates (87.5% of respondents), though LDLT was less often endorsed as the best first option (29.5% of respondents). Key barriers at non‐LDLT centers were institutional factors and surgical expertise, whereas those at LDLT centers focused on waitlist candidate and donor factors. Heterogeneity in candidate selection for LDLT, candidate reluctance to pursue LDLT, high donor exclusion rate, and disparities in access were important barriers. Conclusion: Findings from this study may help guide current and future expansion of LDLT more efficiently in the US. These efforts require clear and cohesive messaging regarding LDLT benefits, engagement of the public community, and dedicated resources to equitably increase LDLT access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is limited to transplant centers with specific experience. However, the impact of recipient characteristics on procedure selection (LDLT vs. deceased donor liver transplant [DDLT]) within these centers has not been described. Transplant registry data for centers that performed ≥1 LDLT in 2002–2019 were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling to quantify the impact of patient and center factors on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of LDLT (vs DDLT). Among 73,681 adult recipients, only 4% underwent LDLT, varying from <1% to >60% of total liver transplants. After risk adjustment, the likelihood of receiving an LDLT rose by 73% in recent years (aOR 1.73 for 2014‐2019 vs. 2002‐2007) but remained lower for older adults, men, racial and ethnic minorities, and obese patients. LDLT was less commonly used in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or alcoholic cirrhosis, and more frequently in those with hepatitis C and with lower severity of illness (Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 15). Patients with public insurance, lower educational achievement, and residence in the Northwest and Southeast had decreased access. While some differences in access to LDLT reflect clinical factors, further exploration into disparities in LDLT utilization based on center practice and socioeconomic determinants of health is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND:It is not common for people to come across a living kidney donor, let alone consider whether they would ever donate a kidney themselves while they are alive. Narrative storytelling, the sharing of first-person narratives based on lived experience, may be an important way to improve education about living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). Developing ways to easily standardize and disseminate diverse living donor stories using digital technology could inspire more people to consider becoming living donors and reduce the kidney shortage nationally. OBJECTIVE:This paper aimed to describe the development of the Living Donation Storytelling Project, a web-based digital library of living donation narratives from multiple audiences using video capture technology. Specifically, we aimed to describe the theoretical foundation and development of the library, a protocol to capture diverse storytellers, the characteristics and experiences of participating storytellers, and the frequency with which any ethical concerns about the content being shared emerged. METHODS:This study invited kidney transplant recipients who had received LDKTs, living donors, family members, and patients seeking LDKTs to record personal stories using video capture technology by answering a series of guided prompts on their computer or smartphone and answering questions about their filming experience. The digital software automatically spliced responses to open-ended prompts, creating a seamless story available for uploading to a web-based library and posting to social media. Each story was reviewed by a transplant professional for the disclosure of protected health information (PHI), pressuring others to donate, and medical inaccuracies. Disclosures were edited. RESULTS:This study recruited diverse storytellers through social media, support groups, churches, and transplant programs. Of the 137 storytellers who completed the postsurvey, 105/137 (76.6%) were white and 99/137 (72.2%) were female. They spent 62.5 min, on average, recording their story, with a final median story length of 10 min (00:46 seconds to 32:16 min). A total of 94.8% (130/137) of storytellers were motivated by a desire to educate the public; 78.1% (107/137) were motivated to help more people become living donors; and 75.9% (104/137) were motivated to dispel myths. The ease of using the technology and telling their story varied, with the fear of being on film, emotional difficulty talking about their experiences, and some technological barriers being reported. PHI, most commonly surnames and transplant center names, was present in 62.9% (85/135) of stories and was edited out. CONCLUSIONS:With appropriate sensitivity to ensure diverse recruitment, ethical review of content, and support for storytellers, web-based storytelling platforms may be a cost-effective and convenient way to further engage patients and increase the curiosity of the public in learning more about the possibility of becoming living donors.

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is an important organ resource, especially in countries with low deceased donation rates. Strategies for expanding access to transplantation should be developed by identifying the modifiable factors. In this study, we evaluated these factors in the relatives of patients from both medical centers and dialysis clinics using questionnaires. Methods: The questionnaires were anonymous and confidential. We collected questionnaires from previous donors, relatives of patients on the waitlist in the medical center, and relatives of dialysis patients in three nephrology clinics. The study groups were divided into three categories: donor group (n = 68), willing group (n = 43), and non-donor group (n = 65). Results: Respondents in the clinics had lower cognition and willingness towards LDKT than those in the medical center. More knowledge of LDKT, better relationship with patients, more familial support, and female gender were positively related to donation. The non-donor group tended to want to maintain an intact body for the afterlife. There was no significant difference in age, educational degree, average monthly income, and medical compliance among the three groups. Conclusion: More efforts need to be made in dialysis clinics, where general nephrologists are important for the outreach of information. In addition, dealing with religious ambivalence and reestablishing cultural mindsets with health education programs are important issues in a non-Christian country.

Living kidney donation contributes to increasing the donor pool. Since safety and excellent outcomes of living kidney donors (LKD) are essential, renal biopsy must be part of the pre-transplant evaluation in donors with isolated urine abnormalities or other risk factors. We retrospectively collected data on potential living donors evaluated in the pre-transplant outpatient clinic of Laiko General Hospital of Athens between 2007 and 2022, who underwent a pre-transplant biopsy. Biopsy indications included microscopic hematuria, borderline proteinuria and comorbidities suggestive of chronicity. Those with glomerular diseases or chronic lesions were excluded from donation. We identified 59 potential living donors who underwent renal biopsy. Of these, 10 (16.9%) were male. Median age was 58 (IQR 51–63) years, while 23 (39%) were older than 60 years. 49 out of 59 (83%) had glomerular hematuria, 10 (16.7%) had proteinuria (150–300 mg/d). Out of the 59 donors, 21 (35.6%) were hypertensive, three (5.1%) had impaired glucose tolerance and seven (11.9%) had a BMI > 30 kg/m2. A total of 32 (54.2%) potential donors were accepted for donation. Eight (13.6%) had IgA nephropathy, 10 (16.9%) TBMD and nine (15.3%) had increased chronicity including secondary FSGS. When compared with a control group of donors who did not need a pre-transplant biopsy, those 32 who donated were more frequently hypertensive (p = 0.003), but had similar eGFR [61.3 (±10.4) vs. 61.9 (±13.8), p = 0.866] after a follow-up of 79 (36–114) months. Renal biopsy is a useful tool in the evaluation of prospective LKD. Thorough assessment of donors with isolated urine abnormalities and marginal donors is critical to ensure good post-donation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lack of knowledge about living donor kidney transplant and difficulties in approaching potential donors constitute barriers for many patients and may contribute to inequality of access. Project Aims: Renal Education and Choices at Home was a UK single-centre pilot of home education; an initiative aiming to overcome barriers by increasing knowledge among patients and support networks and by facilitating living donation discussion in the patient's home. Design: This was a pre-post comparison of knowledge, attitude, and ability to communicate about transplant. Pre-visit knowledge about treatment options and attitudes towards transplant were measured using a validated questionnaire, repeated 4–6 weeks post-visit, to assess the session's impact, along with an evaluation survey, to determine how patients perceived the session. Results: From November 2018 to February 2020, a nurse specialist delivered living donor transplant education sessions in the homes of 86 patients, attended by 141 additional invitees. Home visits led to a significant improvement in knowledge about renal therapies, including living donor transplantation. The evaluation of the home visits by patients and invitees was overwhelmingly positive. Of the 86 patients visited, 46 (53%) had at least one potential donor initiating the assessment process following the visit. Overall, 78 potential donors initiated the assessment process. Conclusion: Home education contributed to addressing recognised barriers, in a way that was well received by patients and was novel in our health system. Home education may be particularly beneficial for patients affected by known barriers to living donor transplantation such as socio-economic deprivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The type of donation may affect how susceptible a donor kidney is to injury from pre-existing alloimmunity. Many centers are, therefore, reluctant to perform donor specific antibody (DSA) positive transplantations in the setting of donation after circulatory death (DCD). There are, however, no large studies comparing the impact of pre-transplant DSA stratified on donation type in a cohort with a complete virtual cross-match and long-term follow-up of transplant outcome. Methods: We investigated the effect of pre-transplant DSA on the risk of rejection, graft loss, and the rate of eGFR decline in 1282 donation after brain death (DBD) transplants and compared it to 130 (DCD) and 803 living donor (LD) transplants. Results: There was a significant worse outcome associated with pre-transplant DSA in all of the studied donation types. DSA directed against Class II HLA antigens as well as a high cumulative mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the detected DSA showed the strongest association with worse transplant outcome. We could not detect a significant additive negative effect of DSA in DCD transplantations in our cohort. Conversely, DSA positive DCD transplants appeared to have a slightly better outcome, possibly in part due to the lower mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the pre-transplant DSA. Indeed when DCD transplants were compared to DBD transplants with similar MFI (<6.5k), graft survival was not significantly different. Discussion: Our results suggest that the negative impact of pre-transplant DSA on graft outcome could be similar between all donation types. This suggests that immunological risk assessment could be performed in a similar way regardless of the type of donor kidney transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This article will review the trends in organ donation over the past 18 years in Iran. Material and methods: All donation and transplantation statistics were extracted by reviewing the Organ Procurement and Transplantation database of the Ministry of Health of Iran from 2002 to 2019. Results: Iran's national deceased donation rate from 2002 to 2019 increased 19.06‐fold from.75 to 14.3 per million population (PMP). After the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the rate of organ donation in Iran decreased significantly. Although 1 year after the onset of the pandemic, due to the widespread adoption of COVID19 vaccination, the rate of organ donation began to increase again, this system is still under performing. During the years under examination, the rate of deceased kidney donation increased significantly compared to living kidney donation and reached up to 2001 kidney transplantations in 2021. From 2002 to 2019, the rate of liver transplants increased to 12.8. Likewise, the rate of heart transplants increased 8.4‐fold, from 15 to 126 cases during the same time. Conclussion: Although a personal choice, the process of organ donation involves medical, legal, ethical, organizational, and social aspects. The trend in increasing donation rates over the past years can be attributed to multiple influences, which include rigorous team efforts in the organ donation and transplantation systems, in addition to creating a donation culture and promoting donation through media platforms. Moreover, we can say that the rising rates of deceased donor transplantation also can drive down rates of commercial living donor transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To present technical details and short-term experiences of liver transplantation as a 2-stage procedure using small for size grafts in a multicenter cohort study. Background: Two-stage liver transplantation using small for size grafts should be a feasible procedure with lower morbidity and mortality rates. Retrospective cohort study between 2015 and 2022 with multicenter experience. Twenty-three resection and partial liver transplantation with delayed total hepatectomy procedures for noncirrhotic indications were performed in 6 European centers (20 with grafts from living donors and 3 after deceased donation). Procedure's feasibility, graft volumetric changes, morbidity, and mortality of donor and recipient were explored. Results: There was a low donor morbidity (4.3%) in our cohort. Hypertrophy of the graft was rapid (mean graft volume increases 107% between both stages) and offered the opportunity for remnant hepatectomy after a median of 14 days. In all cases, portomesenteric flow was routed to the graft by right remnant portal vein ligation. Portal vein inflow modulation to alleviate transient harmful portal hypertension was not needed in any case. Early postoperative mortality (4.3%) of the recipients were low. Ten patients suffered from complications ≥IIIb according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Conclusions: Two-stage liver transplantation is a feasible option for noncirrhotic patients allowing the safe use of small for size grafts and could possibly be extended with caution to liver diseases with portal hypertension and cirrhosis. The resection and partial liver transplantation with delayed total hepatectomy technique might be a viable option for expanding the donor pool given the current organ shortage especially for low–model of end stage liver disease patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveThere is an unmet need for optimizing hepatic allograft allocation from nondirected living liver donors (ND-LLD).Materials and methodUsing OPTN living donor liver transplant (LDLT) data (1/1/2000-12/31/2019), we identified 6328 LDLTs (4621 right, 644 left, 1063 left-lateral grafts). Random forest survival models were constructed to predict 10-year graft survival for each of the 3 graft types.ResultsDonor-to-recipient body surface area ratio was an important predictor in all 3 models. Other predictors in all 3 models were: malignant diagnosis, medical location at LDLT (inpatient/ICU), and moderate ascites. Biliary atresia was important in left and left-lateral graft models. Re-transplant was important in right graft models. C-index for 10-year graft survival predictions for the 3 models were: 0.70 (left-lateral); 0.63 (left); 0.61 (right). Similar C-indices were found for 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survivals. Comparison of model predictions to actual 10-year graft survivals demonstrated that the predicted upper quartile survival group in each model had significantly better actual 10-year graft survival compared to the lower quartiles (p

Rationale & Objective: Most living kidney donors are members of a hemodialysis patient’s social network. Network members are divided into core members, those strongly connected to the patient and other members; and peripheral members, those weakly connected to the patient and other members. We identify how many hemodialysis patients’ network members offered to become kidney donors, whether these offers were from core or peripheral network members, and whose offers the patients accepted. Study Design: A cross-sectional interviewer-administered hemodialysis patient social network survey. Setting & Participants: Prevalent hemodialysis patients in 2 facilities. Predictors: Network size and constraint, a donation from a peripheral network member. Outcomes: Number of living donor offers, accepting an offer. Analytical Approach: We performed egocentric network analyses for all participants. Poisson regression models evaluated associations between network measures and number of offers. Logistic regression models determined the associations between network factors and accepting a donation offer. Results: The mean age of the 106 participants was 60 years. Forty-five percent were female, and 75% self-identified as Black. Fifty-two percent of participants received at least one living donor offer (range 1-6); 42% of the offers were from peripheral members. Participants with larger networks received more offers (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42; P = 0.001), including networks with more peripheral members (constraint, IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P

IntroductionThe type of donation may affect how susceptible a donor kidney is to injury from pre-existing alloimmunity. Many centers are, therefore, reluctant to perform donor specific antibody (DSA) positive transplantations in the setting of donation after circulatory death (DCD). There are, however, no large studies comparing the impact of pre-transplant DSA stratified on donation type in a cohort with a complete virtual cross-match and long-term follow-up of transplant outcome.MethodsWe investigated the effect of pre-transplant DSA on the risk of rejection, graft loss, and the rate of eGFR decline in 1282 donation after brain death (DBD) transplants and compared it to 130 (DCD) and 803 living donor (LD) transplants.ResultsThere was a significant worse outcome associated with pre-transplant DSA in all of the studied donation types. DSA directed against Class II HLA antigens as well as a high cumulative mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the detected DSA showed the strongest association with worse transplant outcome. We could not detect a significant additive negative effect of DSA in DCD transplantations in our cohort. Conversely, DSA positive DCD transplants appeared to have a slightly better outcome, possibly in part due to the lower mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of the pre-transplant DSA. Indeed when DCD transplants were compared to DBD transplants with similar MFI (

• What is currently known about this topic? Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (PLDLT) in infants and small children is a challenging procedure and requires particular technical refinements. Early vascular complications are still the main cause of patient and graft loss, especially in low body weight recipients, and centers responsible for the care of such patients utilize different strategies to mitigate the problem and achieve better outcomes.. • What new information is contained in this article? This paper analyzes the PLDLT outcomes in children with low body weight (<7 kg). It represents the largest population of PLDLT reported so far. With proper management and different technical strategies to avoid "large-for-size syndrome", that can increase the occurrence of early vascular complications, the long-term survival of small babies was similar to the group of patients with higher body weight. This series shows that, even challenging, PLDLT in small babies is feasible, with good outcomes. infants who require liver transplantation represent a treatment challenge because chronic liver disease at this early age affects the child's growth and development during a critical phase. The aim is to compare demographics, operative data, and long-term outcomes according to recipient weight at the time of LDLT. This retrospective study included primary LDLT analyzed in 2 groups: BW ≤ 7 kg (n = 322) and BW > 7 kg (n = 756). A historical comparison between periods was also investigated. BW ≤ 7 kg had significantly lower height/age and weight/age z-scores, with median PELD score of 19. Transfusion rates were higher in the BW ≤ 7 kg group (30.9 ml/kg versus 15.5 ml/kg, P < 0.001). Higher frequencies of PV complications were seen in the BW ≤ 7 kg cohort. HAT and retransplantation rates were similar. Those with BW ≤ 7 kg required longer ICU and hospital stays. Patient and graft survival were similar. Patient survival in BW≤ 7 kg was significantly better in the most recent period. Malnutrition and advanced liver disease were more frequent in BW ≤ 7 kg. Despite increased rates of PVT and longer hospital stay, patient and graft long-term survival were similar between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organ shortage is a prevalent problem within the global transplantation community. World Health Organization (WHO) calls on all countries to achieve self-sufficiency in organ transplantation by reducing the burden of diseases and expanding the effective source of organs in line with ethical principles. Donation after brain death (DBD) remains the major source of transplant organs. In recent years, some Asian countries, including China, have actively promoted the development of donation from deceased organs, which are gradually reshaping the situation of living organ donation as the main source of transplant organs in Asia. The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 slowed down the growth trend of global organ donation and transplantation in the past decade. On the premise that the burden of disease and the need for transplantation have not been significantly reduced, the work of organ donation and transplantation in China has been steadily carried out under the guidance of the general policy of epidemic prevention and control and relevant policies of “Put people and their lives first, and adhere to the dynamic zero-Covid policy”. This proves to a certain extent that under the continuous drive of the people’s medical demands and transplant demands, China has formed an organ donation and transplant work system with resilience, pressure resistance, operational inertia and the survival of the industry. Look at Asia from China, and look at the world from Asia. In this article, by compiling relevant data of organ donation and transplantation in Asia and around the world, the changes of the overall pattern of organ donation and transplantation in Asia during the new developmental trend of global organ transplantation were illustrated, the influencing factors of DBD were identified by analyzing the developmental characteristics and practical experience, and corresponding effective strategies were proposed, aiming to provide professional reference for sustainable and healthy development of organ donation and transplantation in China and throughout Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Medical Journal / Orvosi Hetilap is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is an important organ resource, especially in countries with low deceased donation rates. Strategies for expanding access to transplantation should be developed by identifying the modifiable factors. In this study, we evaluated these factors in the relatives of patients from both medical centers and dialysis clinics using questionnaires.Methods: The questionnaires were anonymous and confidential. We collected questionnaires from previous donors, relatives of patients on the waitlist in the medical center, and relatives of dialysis patients in three nephrology clinics. The study groups were divided into three categories: donor group (n = 68), willing group (n = 43), and non-donor group (n = 65).Results: Respondents in the clinics had lower cognition and willingness towards LDKT than those in the medical center. More knowledge of LDKT, better relationship with patients, more familial support, and female gender were positively related to donation. The non-donor group tended to want to maintain an intact body for the afterlife. There was no significant difference in age, educational degree, average monthly income, and medical compliance among the three groups.Conclusion: More efforts need to be made in dialysis clinics, where general nephrologists are important for the outreach of information. In addition, dealing with religious ambivalence and reestablishing cultural mindsets with health education programs are important issues in a non-Christian country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is in most transplant regions a contraindication for liver transplantation, even ruling out an active waiting list registration. However, recent studies showed that well-selected patients after a neo-adjuvant treatment benefit from liver transplantation with good long-term outcomes. The role of living donor liver transplantation is unclear for this indication. The current study focuses on LDLT for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.