BACKGROUND: Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved with a focus on donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate. METHODS: A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide. 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 LDLTs responded. RESULTS: Centers were categorized into predominantly LDLT (18) or deceased donor liver transplantation (6), and high- (10) or low-volume (14) centers. At most centers, the minimum acceptable graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.7 or less (67%), and remnant was 30% (75%). The median upper limit of donor age was 60 years and body mass index of 33 kg/m. At 63% centers, age influenced the upper limit of body mass index inversely. Majority preferred aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase less than 50 IU/mL. Most accepted donors with nondebilitating mild mental or physical disability and rejected donors with treated coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident and nonbrain, nonskin primary malignancies. Opinions were divided about previous psychiatric illness, substance abuse and abdominal surgery. Most performed selective liver biopsy, commonly for steatosis, raised transaminases and 1 or more features of metabolic syndrome. On biopsy, all considered macrovesicular and 50% considered microvesicular steatosis important. Nearly all (92%) rejected donors for early fibrosis, and minority for nonspecific granuloma or mild inflammation. Most anatomical anomalies except portal vein type D/E were acceptable at high-volume centers. There was no standard policy for preoperative or peroperative cholangiogram. CONCLUSIONS: This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization between centers, with potential expansion of the donor pool without compromising safety.
BACKGROUND: Although surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved with a focus on donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate. METHODS: A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide. 24 centers with a combined experience of 19 009 LDLTs responded. RESULTS: Centers were categorized into predominantly LDLT (18) or deceased donor liver transplantation (6), and high- (10) or low-volume (14) centers. At most centers, the minimum acceptable graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.7 or less (67%), and remnant was 30% (75%). The median upper limit of donor age was 60 years and body mass index of 33 kg/m. At 63% centers, age influenced the upper limit of body mass index inversely. Majority preferred aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase less than 50 IU/mL. Most accepted donors with nondebilitating mild mental or physical disability and rejected donors with treated coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident and nonbrain, nonskin primary malignancies. Opinions were divided about previous psychiatric illness, substance abuse and abdominal surgery. Most performed selective liver biopsy, commonly for steatosis, raised transaminases and 1 or more features of metabolic syndrome. On biopsy, all considered macrovesicular and 50% considered microvesicular steatosis important. Nearly all (92%) rejected donors for early fibrosis, and minority for nonspecific granuloma or mild inflammation. Most anatomical anomalies except portal vein type D/E were acceptable at high-volume centers. There was no standard policy for preoperative or peroperative cholangiogram. CONCLUSIONS: This first large live liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization between centers, with potential expansion of the donor pool without compromising safety.
Authors: Benjamin Samstein; Robert S Brown; Alyson Kaplan; Russell Rosenblatt; Whitney Jackson Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 6.112