Assuntos
Transplante de Fígado , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos , Humanos , Alfabetização , Doadores Vivos , Fígado , MarketingRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Transplante de Fígado/estatística & dados numéricos , Doadores Vivos/estatística & dados numéricos , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/métodos , Sistema ABO de Grupos Sanguíneos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Incompatibilidade de Grupos Sanguíneos , COVID-19/mortalidade , Causas de Morte , Feminino , Humanos , Rim , Doadores Vivos/provisão & distribuição , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/estatística & dados numéricos , Transplantados/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) at a single center to demonstrate the advantages of LDLT and provide justification for the increased utilization and application of this procedure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LDLT comprises a very small percentage of all liver transplants performed in the United States, this despite its advantages and a shortage of the availability of deceased donor organs. METHODS: A retrospective review of all adult LDLT (n = 245) and DDLT (n = 592) performed at a single center over 10 years (2009-2019), comparing survival outcomes by Kaplan-Meier analysis and comparing other measures of outcome such as recovery times, complications, costs, and resource utilization. RESULTS: Patient survival outcomes were superior in LDLT recipients (3-year 86% vs 80%, P = 0.03). Other outcomes demonstrated shorter length of hospital stay (11 vs 13 days, P = 0.03), less likelihood of intraoperative blood transfusion (52% vs 78%, P < 0.01), and less likelihood of need for posttransplant dialysis (1.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.01). Early reoperation and biliary/vascular complication rates were similar. Hospital costs related to the transplant were 29.5% lower for LDLT. Complications in living donors were acceptable with no early or late deaths, 3-month reoperation rate of 3.1%, and overall complication rate of 19.5%. Given its advantages, we have expanded LDLT-in 2018, LDLT comprised 53.6% of our transplants (national average 4.8%), and our transplant rate increased from 44.8 (rate per 100-person years) in 2015 to 87.5 in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT offers advantages over DDLT including superior outcomes and less resource utilization. The time has come to change the paradigm of how LDLT is utilized in this country.