Faculty Bibliography

In the United States, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is limited to transplant centers with specific experience. However, the impact of recipient characteristics on procedure selection (LDLT vs. deceased donor liver transplant [DDLT]) within these centers has not been described. Transplant registry data for centers that performed ≥1 LDLT in 2002-2019 were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling to quantify the impact of patient and center factors on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of LDLT (vs DDLT). Among 73,681 adult recipients, only 4% underwent LDLT, varying from <1% to >60% of total liver transplants. After risk adjustment, the likelihood of receiving an LDLT rose by 73% in recent years (aOR 1.73 for 2014-2019 vs. 2002-2007) but remained lower for older adults, men, racial and ethnic minorities, and obese patients. LDLT was less commonly used in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or alcoholic cirrhosis, and more frequently in those with hepatitis C and with lower severity of illness (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 15). Patients with public insurance, lower educational achievement, and residence in the Northwest and Southeast had decreased access. While some differences in access to LDLT reflect clinical factors, further exploration into disparities in LDLT utilization based on center practice and socioeconomic determinants of health is needed.

The practice of LDLT currently delivers limited impact in western transplant centers. The American Society of Transplantation organized a virtual consensus conference in October 2021 to identify barriers and gaps to LDLT growth, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to foster safe expansion of LDLT in the United States. This article reports the findings and recommendations regarding innovations and advances in approaches to donor-recipient matching challenges, the technical aspects of the donor and recipient operations, and surgical training. Among these themes, the barriers deemed most influential/detrimental to LDLT expansion in the United States included: (1) prohibitive issues related to donor age, graft size, insufficient donor remnant, and ABO incompatibility; (2) lack of acknowledgment and awareness of the excellent outcomes and benefits of LDLT; (3) ambiguous messaging regarding LDLT to patients and hospital leadership; and (4) a limited number of proficient LDLT surgeons across the United States. Donor-recipient mismatching may be circumvented by way of liver paired exchange. The creation of a national registry to generate granular data on donor-recipient matching will guide the practice of liver paired exchange. The surgical challenges to LDLT are addressed herein and focuses on the development of robust training pathways resulting in proficiency in donor and recipient surgery. Utilizing strong mentorship/collaboration programs with novel training practices under the auspices of established training and certification bodies will add to the breadth and depth of training.

INTRODUCTION:A successful living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is the culmination of a multifaceted process coordinated among key stakeholders. METHODS:We conducted an electronic survey of US liver transplant (LT) centers (August 26, 2021-October 10, 2021) regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators of LDLT to learn how to expand LDLT safely and effectively in preparation for the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Liver Transplant Consensus Conference. RESULTS:Responses were received from staff at 58 programs (40.1% of US LT centers). There is interest in broadening LDLT (100% of LDLT centers, 66.7% of non-LDLT centers) with high level of agreement that LDLT mitigates donor shortage (93.3% of respondents) and that it should be offered to all suitable candidates (87.5% of respondents), though LDLT was less often endorsed as the best first option (29.5% of respondents). Key barriers at non-LDLT centers were institutional factors and surgical expertise, whereas those at LDLT centers focused on waitlist candidate and donor factors. Heterogeneity in candidate selection for LDLT, candidate reluctance to pursue LDLT, high donor exclusion rate, and disparities in access were important barriers. CONCLUSION:Findings from this study may help guide current and future expansion of LDLT more efficiently in the US. These efforts require clear and cohesive messaging regarding LDLT benefits, engagement of the public community, and dedicated resources to equitably increase LDLT access.

INTRODUCTION:Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) reduces liver transplant waitlist mortality and provides excellent long-term outcomes for persons with end stage liver disease. Yet, utilization of LDLT has been limited in the United States (US). METHODS:In October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation held a consensus conference to identify important barriers to broader expansion of LDLT in the US, including data gaps, and make recommendations for impactful and feasible mitigation strategies to overcome these barriers. Domains addressed encompassed the entirety of the LDLT process. Representation from international centers and living donor kidney transplantation were included for their perspective/experience in addition to members across disciplines within the US liver transplantation community. A modified Delphi approach was employed as the consensus methodology. RESULTS:The predominant theme permeating discussion and polling results centered on culture; the beliefs and behaviors of a group of people perpetuated over time. CONCLUSIONS:Creating a culture of support for LDLT in the US is key for expansion and includes engagement and education of stakeholders across the spectrum of the process of LDLT. A shift from awareness of LDLT to acknowledgement of benefit of LDLT is the primary goal. Propagation of the maxim "LDLT is the best option" is pivotal.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS:In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS:Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS:Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg² ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

BACKGROUND:In 2017, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition published clinical guidelines recommending the use of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) upper reference limits (URL) of 33, 25, 26, and 22 U/l for men, women, boys, and girls, respectively. This was opposed by laboratory experts who advocated for the use of higher URL of 59, 41, 33, and 24 U/l instead. We suspected that the variable inclusion of individuals who consumed alcohol to be a major contributing source of URL variability and debate. METHODS:Outpatient ALT data (n = 7379) were collected from unique individuals ≥13 y with BMIs of ≥19 and ≤25. A total of 222 (3%) were excluded due to suspected liver disease. Patients were split into a pediatric group (age 13-17 y), an alcohol-restricted adult group (age 18-20 y), and adults with access to alcohol by decade (i.e., age 21-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 y). All ALT values were measured on Roche Cobas 8000 with pyridoxal phosphate and traceable to the IFCC-reference measurement procedure. RESULTS:We derived URL similar to CALIPER for our pediatric population, but closer to ACG-proposed URL in our alcohol-restricted adult group. The URL increased significantly in men and women for all other age groups. CONCLUSIONS:The discrepancy in ALT URL in clinical laboratories may be attributable in part due to the variable inclusion of individuals who recently consumed alcohol in local population derivation studies.