ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is the first choice, but living donor transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to be considered in special situations, such as lack of donated organs and emergencies. So far, there is no consensus on which transplantation method provides better survival and fewer complications, which is still an open point for discussion. Methods This meta-analysis compared the 1, 3, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates of LDLT and DDLT. We included studies published from April-2009 to June-2021 and adopted the generic model of the inverse of variance for the random effect of hazard ratios. The adequacy of the studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale — NOS (WELLS). Results For patient survival analysis, we included a total of 32,258 subjects. We found a statistically significant better survival for the LDLT group at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively: 1.35 HR (95%CI 1.10—1.66, P=0.005), 1.26 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.46, P=0.002) and 1.27 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.48, P=0.002). Our meta-analysis evaluated a total of 21,276 grafts. In the overall analysis, the 1-year survival was improved in favor of the LDLT group (1.36 HR, 95%CI 1.16—1.60, P<0.0001), while the 3-year survival (1.13 HR, 95%CI 0.96—1.33, P<0.13), and 5 (0.99 HR, 95%CI 0.74—1.33, P<0.96), did not differ significantly. Conclusion This metanalysis detected a statistically significant greater 1-, 3- and 5-years patient survival favoring LDLT compared to DDLT as well as a statistically significant difference better 1-year graft survival favoring the LDLT group.
RESUMO Contexto O transplante de fígado com doador falecido é a primeira escolha, mas o transplante de doador vivo é uma alternativa a ser considerada em situações especiais, como falta de órgãos doados e emergências. Até o momento, não há consenso sobre qual método de transplante proporciona melhor sobrevida e menos complicações, sendo, ainda, um ponto em aberto para discussão. Métodos Esta meta-análise comparou as taxas de sobrevida de pacientes e enxertos de 1, 3 e 5 anos de transplante de doador vivo e transplante de fígado com doador falecido. Incluímos estudos publicados de abril de 2009 a junho de 2021 e adotamos o modelo genérico do inverso da variância para o efeito aleatório das razões de risco. A adequação dos estudos foi determinada por meio da Escala de Newcastle-Ottawa — NOS (WELLS). Resultados Para análise de sobrevida do paciente, incluímos um total de 32.258 indivíduos. Encontramos uma melhor sobrevida estatisticamente significativa para o grupo de transplante de fígado de doador vivo em 1, 3 e 5 anos, respectivamente: 1,35 HR (IC95% 1,10—1,66, P=0,005), 1,26 HR (IC95% 1,09—1,46, P=0,002) e 1,27 HR (IC95% 1,09—1,48, P=0,002). Nossa meta-análise avaliou um total de 21.276 enxertos. Na análise geral, a sobrevida em 1 ano foi melhorada em favor do grupo de transplante de doador vivo (1,36 HR, IC95% 1,16—1,60, P<0,0001), enquanto a sobrevida em 3 anos (1,13 HR, IC95% 0,96—1,33, P<0,13) e 5 (0,99 HR, IC95% 0,74—1,33, P<0,96), não diferiram significativamente. Conclusão Esta meta-análise detectou uma sobrevida estatisticamente significativa maior do paciente em 1, 3 e 5 anos favorecendo o transplante de doador vivo em comparação com o transplante de fígado com doador falecido, bem como uma diferença estatisticamente significativa melhor na sobrevida do enxerto em 1 ano favorecendo o grupo de transplante de doador vivo.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Although a number of technical problems and donor safety issues associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been resolved, some initial clinical studies showed an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in LDLT. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in tumor recurrence between LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).@*Methods@#After systematic retrievals of studies about LDLT and DDLT for HCC, articles were selected with a rationale of emphasizing inter-group comparability. Results from multivariate analyses were combined and discussed together with univariate analyses. In subgroup analysis, the impact of organ allocation policy was taken into consideration.@*Results@#Seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, a salient result that emerged from the seven studies was a significant increased risk of HCC recurrence in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group (P = 0.01). The most significant increase in hazard ratio was found in studies where organs tended to be allocated to non-tumor patients.@*Conclusions@#An increased risk for HCC recurrence in LDLT as compared with DDLT patients was found. The relatively shorter preoperative observation windows in LDLT may lead to fewer cases of HCC with invasive features being screened out, which may provide a possible explanation for the high rates of HCC recurrence.
ABSTRACT
Living donor liver graft can be used for the first or second liver transplantation. The timing of retransplantation also should be stratified as 2 types according to the reoperation timing. Combination of these two classifications results in 6 types of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT)-associated retransplantation. However, late retransplantation to LDLT might have not been performed in most LDLT programs, thus other 4 types of LDLT-associated retransplantation can be taken into account. The most typical type of LDLT-associated retransplantation might be early living donor-to-deceased donor retransplantation. For early living donor-to-living donor retransplantation, its eligibility criteria might be similar to those of early living donor-to-deceased donor retransplantation. For early deceased donor-to-living donor retransplantation, its indications are exactly the same to those for aforementioned living donor-to-living donor retransplantation. Late deceased donor retransplantation after initial LDLT has the same indication for ordinary late deceased donor retransplantation.
Subject(s)
Adult , Humans , Cinnarizine , Liver , Liver Transplantation , Living Donors , Reoperation , Tissue Donors , TransplantsABSTRACT
Liver transplantation has become a lifesaving procedure for patients who have chronic end-stage liver disease and acute liver failure. The satisfactory outcome of liver transplantation has led to insufficient supplies of deceased donor organs, particularly in East Asia. Hence, East Asian surgeons are concentrating on developing and performing living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This review article describes an update on the present status of liver transplantation, mainly in adults, and highlights some recent developments on indications for transplantation, patient selection, donor and recipient operation between LDLT and deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT), immunosuppression, and long-term management of liver transplant recipients. Currently, the same indication criteria that exist for DDLT are applied to LDLT, with technical refinements for LDLT. In highly experienced centers, LDLT for high-scoring (>30 points) Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) patients and acute- on-chronic liver-failure patients yields comparably good outcomes to DDLT, because timely liver transplantation with good-quality grafting is possible. With increasing numbers of liver transplantations and long- term survivors, specialized attention should be paid to complications that develop in the long term, such as chronic renal failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, obesity, bone or neurological complications, and development of de novo tumors, which are highly related to the immunosuppressive treatment.