Feasibility of adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure
T. Ikegami,A. Taketomi,Y. Soejima,Y. Maehara
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21684
2009-01-01
Liver Transplantation
Abstract:We read with interest the article by Campsen et al. describing the outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure (ALF) in the United States. They described 2 concerns in applying LDLT for ALF: appropriate donor evaluation during the rapid evolution of ALF and the outcome of the critically ill recipients receiving a partial graft. Because we have reported the largest adult-toadult LDLT series in the literature, comments on their report with an update of our series are herein described. Up to September 2007, 47 LDLTs (16%) were performed for ALF among 294 LDLTs at Kyushu University Hospital. Among them, 44 cases were adult-to-adult LDLTs for ALF, including16 males and 28 females, who ranged in age from 18 to 47 years (mean, 45 12 years). The majority of the patients (n 32, 73%) received left-lobe LDLT. Because the opportunity to perform deceased donor liver transplantation is almost not an option in Japan, possible donor candidates were transferred with an ALF patient to our center and underwent donor evaluation, including a history and physical, blood work, sonogram, and computed tomography volumetry, on the day of arrival. There was no donor mortality in our series. Non– liver-associated complications occurred in 12 donors (23%), including peptic ulcer (n 2), gastric stasis (n 3), wound problem (n 3), alopecia (n 1), and temporary ulnar nerve palsy (n 1). Liver-associated complications occurred in 5 donors (11%), including biliary problems (n 3) and hyperbilirubinemia (n 2). The donor complication rate in ALF (34%) was the same as that in patients with other indications (34%), and the evaluation process, carried out within a short period, did not cause any significant harm to the patients. Despite such acceptable outcomes, we need to mention that a recent LDLT case for ALF turned out to have small-cell esophageal cancer, which was diagnosed by screening endoscopy 1 month after LDLT. The patient thereafter died of multiple systemic cancer dissemination 1 year after LDLT. The patient was a 61-year-old male who had a history of both smoking and drinking. This event was clearly attributed to a nondetailed evaluation of the recipient under an emergent setting. Since that case, informed consent for possible unidentified medical conditions in both donors and recipients in emergent transplant settings has always been obtained. Regarding the possible negative impacts of implanting partial grafts in ALF patients suggested by Campsen et al, we have a different opinion than them. We can use smaller grafts such as GV (graft volume)/SLV (standard liver volume) of 30-35% for ALF. The reason for this is that ALF is an acute event and most patients are usually healthy before the event and do not have portal hypertension, although they usually have a high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (mean, 25 6 in our series). By counting the possible errors in counting GV using CT scan, we use the algorithm for accepting estimated GV/SV 35% in universal LDLT, even for ALF. The 1-year and 3-year survival rates are 78.3% and 71.6%, respectively. In summary, ALF is considered to be an acceptable indication for LDLT. However, the limitation of the emergent evaluation process in both donors and recipients needs to be carefully taken into account, that is, the possibility of unidentified medical issues in either the donors or the recipients. In addition, the routine graft selection algorithm can be safely applied for ALF cases.