Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences
- PMID: 37477016
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006038
Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences
Abstract
Objective: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
Background: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments.
Methods: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016-2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers' medians.
Results: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%).
Conclusions: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Comment in
-
Benchmark center volume and regional disparity in living donor liver transplantation.Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2025 Apr 1;14(2):286-289. doi: 10.21037/hbsn-2024-712. Epub 2025 Mar 25. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2025. PMID: 40342777 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Fisher RA. Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:373–382.
-
- Kim PTW, Testa G. Living donor liver transplantation in the USA. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016;5:133–140.
-
- Miller CM, Quintini C, Dhawan A, et al. The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline. Transplantation. 2017;101:938–944.
-
- Ivanics T, Wallace D, Claasen MPAW, et al. Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada. J Hepatol. 2022;77:1607–1618.
-
- Kirchner VA, Goldaracena N, Sapisochin G, et al. Current status of liver transplantation in North America. Int J Surg. 2020;82:9–13.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
