Daniela P. Ladner

Ischemic Cholangiopathy After Controlled Donation After Cardiac Death Liver Transplantation: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To conduct a meta-analysis to enhance understanding of the risks of biliary complications, particularly ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), after donation after cardiac death (DCD) compared with donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. BACKGROUND Biliary complications after liver transplantation have profound health and economic implications which merit further investigation. METHODS The MEDLINE (1950–2009), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched and supplemented by review of conference proceedings and publication bibliographies. All original single institution studies reporting outcomes for DCD and DBD liver transplant recipients were considered. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random effects models were calculated. RESULTS Eleven publications, all retrospective cohort studies, involving 489 DCD and 4455 DBD recipients, were included. Donation after cardiac death recipients had a 2.4 times increased odds of biliary complications (95% CI= 1.8–3.4) and a 10.8 times increased odds of IC (95% CI = 4.8–24.2).Ischemic cholangiopathy was present in 16% of DCD compared with 3% of DBD recipients. Donation after cardiac death recipients also experienced higher odds of 1-year patient mortality (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.04–2.5) and graft failure (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5–2.8). CONCLUSIONS Donation after cardiac death liver transplantation is marred by inferior outcomes including higher rates of biliary complications and IC as well as increased mortality and graft failure. Despite current federal mandates to increase DCD donation, these serious complications translate into poor outcomes for individuals and increased healthcare costs. These risks should be considered in decisions regarding the utilization of these grafts.

Laparoscopy-assisted and open living donor right hepatectomy: A comparative study of outcomes

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive liver surgery is a rapidly advancing field with demonstrated applicability to living donation. In this paper, we compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH) to open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). METHODS We performed a retrospective, comparative analysis of 33 LADRH to the most recent 33 ODRH performed at our institution, evaluating donor complications, costs, and recipient outcomes. RESULTS Donor demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and vascular and biliary anomalies were comparable. Donor complication rates were equivalent for LADRH and ODRH. Donor operative times were shorter for LADRH (LADRH 265 minutes, ODRH 316; P < .001) even after adjusting for BMI. Blood loss and length of stay were comparable. Additionally, total hospitalization costs were equivalent (LADRH

A comprehensive risk assessment of mortality following donation after cardiac death liver transplant – An analysis of the national registry

1.11, ODRH

Disparities in kidney transplant outcomes: a review.

1.00; P = .19). Higher operative supply costs for LADRH were balanced by higher time-based operative costs for ODRH resulting in no significant differences in total operative costs. Finally, there were no differences in graft size, recipient patient or graft survival, or recipient vascular or biliary complications. CONCLUSION Our experience suggests that LADRH compares favorably with ODRH with equivalent safety, resource utilization, and effectiveness. We believe that LADRH provides potential physical and psychological benefits without an adverse effect on outcomes.

Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: A review of the literature†

BACKGROUND & AIMS Organ scarcity has resulted in increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Prior analysis of patient survival following DCD liver transplantation has been restricted to single institution cohorts and a limited national experience. We compared the current national experience with DCD and DBD livers to better understand survival after transplantation. METHODS We compared 1113 DCD and 42,254 DBD recipients from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 1996 and 2007. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox regression. RESULTS DCD recipients experienced worse patient survival compared to DBD recipients (p<0.001). One and 3 year survival was 82% and 71% for DCD compared to 86% and 77% for DBD recipients. Moreover, DCD recipients required re-transplantation more frequently (DCD 14.7% vs. DBD 6.8%, p<0.001), and re-transplantation survival was markedly inferior to survival after primary transplant irrespective of graft type. Amplification of mortality risk was observed when DCD was combined with cold ischemia time >12h (HR = 1.81), shared organs (HR = 1.69), recipient hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.80), recipient age >60 years (HR = 1.92), and recipient renal insufficiency (HR = 1.82). CONCLUSIONS DCD recipients experience significantly worse patient survival after transplantation. This increased risk of mortality is comparable in magnitude to, but often exacerbated by other well-established risk predictors. Utilization decisions should carefully consider DCD graft risks in combination with these other factors.

Perception versus reality ?: Virtual crossmatch - How to overcome some of the technical and logistic limitations

Sociocultural and socioeconomic disparities in graft survival, graft function, and patient survival in adult kidney transplant recipients are reviewed. Studies consistently document worse outcomes for black patients, patients with low income, and patients with less education, whereas better outcomes are reported in Hispanic and Asian kidney transplant recipients. However, the distinct roles of racial/ethnic versus socioeconomic factors remain unclear. Attention to potential pathways contributing to disparities has been limited to immunologic and nonimmunologic factors, for which the mechanisms have yet to be fully illuminated. Interventions to reduce disparities have focused on modifying immunosuppressant regimens. Modifying access to care and health care funding policies for immunosuppressive medication coverage also are discussed. The implementation of culturally sensitive approaches to the care of transplant candidates and recipients is promising. Future research is needed to examine the mechanisms contributing to disparities in graft survival and ultimately to intervene effectively.

Comparative effectiveness of donation after cardiac death versus donation after brain death liver transplantation: Recognizing who can benefit

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases the shortage of liver grafts for patients in need of a liver transplant, but it involves 2 patients: a recipient and a living donor. Despite the magnitude of the procedure for LDLT donors, only a few studies have investigated the effect of LDLT on the quality of life (QOL) of donors. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE database to identify peer‐reviewed articles assessing QOL in adults after LDLT donation. Nineteen studies describing 768 unique donors met our inclusion criteria for this review. The median number of donors enrolled in each study was 30 (range = 10‐143), and the median follow‐up period was 10.4 months (range = 3‐51.3 months). Before donation, donor QOL was significantly better than that in control adult populations across all measured QOL domains. Within the first 3 months after donation, the physical domains of QOL were significantly worse than the predonation levels, but they returned to baseline levels within 6 months for the majority of patients (80%‐93%). Mental domains of QOL remained unchanged throughout the donation process. Common donor concerns after LDLT included bloating, loss of muscle tone, poor body image, and fatigue. In conclusion, according to our review of the existing literature, most LDLT donors return to their baseline QOL within 6 months. However, there is a lack of long‐term data on donor QOL after LDLT, and few standardized assessments include measures of common patient concerns. Additional studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive risk profile for LDLT that includes a rigorous assessment of donor QOL. Liver Transpl 16:1352–1358, 2010.

Transplant Center Provision of Education and Culturally and Linguistically Competent Care: A National Study

The goal of this work was to evaluate concordance between (a) actual flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM) that is performed by the OPO laboratory servicing our transplant center and (b) virtual XM (vXM) prediction based on antibody identification by solid‐phase methods performed in our laboratory.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

Due to organ scarcity and wait‐list mortality, transplantation of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers has increased. However, the group of patients benefiting from DCD liver transplantation is unknown. We studied the comparative effectiveness of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. A Markov model was constructed to compare undergoing DCD transplantation with remaining on the wait‐list until death or DBD liver transplantation. Differences in life years, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs according to candidate Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were considered. A separate model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without MELD exception points was constructed. For patients with a MELD score <15, DCD transplantation resulted in greater costs and reduced effectiveness. Patients with a MELD score of 15 to 20 experienced an improvement in effectiveness (0.07 QALYs) with DCD liver transplantation, but the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was >

The extent and predictors of waiting time geographic disparity in kidney transplantation in the United States

2,000,000/QALY. Patients with MELD scores of 21 to 30 (0.25 QALYs) and >30 (0.83 QALYs) also benefited from DCD transplantation with ICERs of