OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35. BACKGROUND: No data was available to support LDLT of such patients. METHODS: Data of 672 consecutive adult liver transplant recipients from 2005 to 2014 at our center were reviewed. Patients with MELD scores ≥35 were divided into the deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group and the LDLT group and were compared. Univariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors affecting survival. RESULTS: The LDLT group (n = 54) had younger (33 yrs vs 50 yrs, P < 0.001) and lighter (56 Kg vs 65 Kg, P = 0.004) donors, lighter grafts (627.5 g vs 1252.5 g, P < 0.001), lower graft-weight-to-recipient-standard-liver-volume rates (51.28% vs 99.76%, P < 0.001), shorter cold ischemic time (106.5 min vs 389 min, P < 0.001), and longer operation time (681.5 min vs 534 min, P < 0.001). The groups were comparable in postoperative complication, hospital mortality, and graft survival and patient survival at one year (88.9% vs 92.5%; 88.9% vs 94.7%), three years (87.0% vs 86.9%; 87.0% vs 88.8%), and five years (84.8% vs 81.8%; 84.8% vs 83.3%). Univariate analysis did not show inferior survival in LDLT recipients. CONCLUSIONS: At centers with experience, the outcomes of LDLT can be comparable with those of DDLT even in patients with MELD scores ≥35. When donor risks and recipient benefits are fully considered and balanced, an MELD score ≥35 should not be a contraindication to LDLT. In Hong Kong, where most waitlisted patients have acute-on-chronic liver failure from hepatitis B, LDLT is a wise alternative to DDLT.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35. BACKGROUND: No data was available to support LDLT of such patients. METHODS: Data of 672 consecutive adult liver transplant recipients from 2005 to 2014 at our center were reviewed. Patients with MELD scores ≥35 were divided into the deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group and the LDLT group and were compared. Univariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors affecting survival. RESULTS: The LDLT group (n = 54) had younger (33 yrs vs 50 yrs, P < 0.001) and lighter (56 Kg vs 65 Kg, P = 0.004) donors, lighter grafts (627.5 g vs 1252.5 g, P < 0.001), lower graft-weight-to-recipient-standard-liver-volume rates (51.28% vs 99.76%, P < 0.001), shorter cold ischemic time (106.5 min vs 389 min, P < 0.001), and longer operation time (681.5 min vs 534 min, P < 0.001). The groups were comparable in postoperative complication, hospital mortality, and graft survival and patient survival at one year (88.9% vs 92.5%; 88.9% vs 94.7%), three years (87.0% vs 86.9%; 87.0% vs 88.8%), and five years (84.8% vs 81.8%; 84.8% vs 83.3%). Univariate analysis did not show inferior survival in LDLT recipients. CONCLUSIONS: At centers with experience, the outcomes of LDLT can be comparable with those of DDLT even in patients with MELD scores ≥35. When donor risks and recipient benefits are fully considered and balanced, an MELD score ≥35 should not be a contraindication to LDLT. In Hong Kong, where most waitlisted patients have acute-on-chronic liver failure from hepatitis B, LDLT is a wise alternative to DDLT.
Authors: Kenneth Siu Ho Chok; Albert C Y Chan; James Y Y Fung; Wing Chiu Dai; Tan To Cheung; Chung Mau Lo Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Wong Hoi She; Kenneth Sh Chok; James Yy Fung; Albert Cy Chan; Chung Mau Lo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 5.742