BACKGROUND: Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical center of evaluation. Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and the nonmaturation of potential into actual donors may sometimes prove fatal for patients with end-stage liver disease. On the contrary, a thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcomes in otherwise healthy donors. We aimed to study the reasons for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 was done. RESULTS: Overall, 324 donors were evaluated for 219 potential recipients, and 171 (52.7%) donors were disqualified. Common reasons for donor nonmaturation included the following: (1) donor reluctance, 21%; (2) greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis, 16%; (3) assisted donor withdrawal, 14%; (4) inadequate remnant liver volume, 13%; and (5) psychosocial issues, 7%, and thrombophilia, 7%. Ten donors (6%) were turned down because of anatomic variations (8 biliary and 2 arterial anomalies). Donors older than 50 years and those with body mass index of more than 25 were less likely to be accepted for donation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that donor reluctance, hepatic steatosis, and assisted donor withdrawal are major reasons for nonmaturation of potential into actual donors. Anatomic variations and underlying medical conditions were not a major cause of donor rejection. A system in practice to recognize these factors early in the course of donor evaluation to improve the efficiency of the selection process and ensure donor safety is proposed.
BACKGROUND:Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical center of evaluation. Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and the nonmaturation of potential into actual donors may sometimes prove fatal for patients with end-stage liver disease. On the contrary, a thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcomes in otherwise healthy donors. We aimed to study the reasons for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 was done. RESULTS: Overall, 324 donors were evaluated for 219 potential recipients, and 171 (52.7%) donors were disqualified. Common reasons for donor nonmaturation included the following: (1) donor reluctance, 21%; (2) greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis, 16%; (3) assisted donor withdrawal, 14%; (4) inadequate remnant liver volume, 13%; and (5) psychosocial issues, 7%, and thrombophilia, 7%. Ten donors (6%) were turned down because of anatomic variations (8 biliary and 2 arterial anomalies). Donors older than 50 years and those with body mass index of more than 25 were less likely to be accepted for donation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that donor reluctance, hepatic steatosis, and assisted donor withdrawal are major reasons for nonmaturation of potential into actual donors. Anatomic variations and underlying medical conditions were not a major cause of donor rejection. A system in practice to recognize these factors early in the course of donor evaluation to improve the efficiency of the selection process and ensure donor safety is proposed.
Authors: Mary Ann Simpson; Julia Kendrick; Jennifer E Verbesey; Denise S Morin; Mary Amanda Dew; Agnes Trabucco; James J Pomposelli; Elizabeth A Pomfret Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: A Marcos; R A Fisher; J M Ham; A T Olzinski; M L Shiffman; A J Sanyal; V A Luketic; R K Sterling; M E Olbrisch; M P Posner Journal: Transplantation Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Robert S Brown; Mark W Russo; Michelle Lai; Mitchell L Shiffman; Michael C Richardson; James E Everhart; Jay H Hoofnagle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas Pascher; Igor M Sauer; Marc Walter; Enrique Lopez-Haeninnen; Tom Theruvath; Antonino Spinelli; Ruth Neuhaus; Utz Settmacher; Andrea R Mueller; Thomas Steinmueller; Peter Neuhaus Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Elizabeth A Pomfret; James J Pomposelli; Fredric D Gordon; Nazli Erbay; Lori Lyn Price; W David Lewis; Roger L Jenkins Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Valeria R Mas; Robert A Fisher; Daniel G Maluf; David S Wilkinson; Carleton T Garrett; Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Eric S Orman; Maria E Mayorga; Stephanie B Wheeler; Rachel M Townsley; Hector H Toro-Diaz; Paul H Hayashi; A Sidney Barritt Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Glenn S Gerhard; Peter Benotti; G Craig Wood; Xin Chu; George Argyropoulos; Anthony Petrick; William E Strodel; Jon D Gabrielsen; Anna Ibele; Christopher D Still; Christopher Kingsley; Johanna DiStefano Journal: J Obes Date: 2014-12-24
Authors: John T Rose; Paola Vargas; Tara Seay; Arthur J Pesch; Tessa Williams; Anita Sites; Zachary Henry; Patrick G Northup; Shawn J Pelletier; Jose Oberholzer; Curtis K Argo; Nicolas Goldaracena Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-05-25