Select your timezone:

Liver - Outcomes and recurrent disease

Tuesday September 13, 2022 - 16:25 to 17:25

Room: D

335.6 Long-term outcomes of living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in United States.

Behnam Saberi, United States

Gastroenterology and hepatology
BIDMC Harvard medical school

Abstract

Long-term outcomes of living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in United States

Behnam Saberi1, Ahmet Gurakar2.

1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States; 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States

Introduction: Acute Liver Failure (ALF) is rarely encountered but often is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely Liver Transplantation is universally the only accepted rescue therapy, but not much is known about the usage of Living Donor (LDLT) versus Deceased Donor (DDLT)Liver Transplantation in the United States for this indication.

Method: United Network of Organ Sharing / Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN) data was reviewed from January 2002 to December 2020. Adult and pediatric recipients with diagnostic codes for ALF and listed as Status 1 were included in the study. Clinical, laboratory, and demographic characteristics were compared between LDLT and  DDLT groups.  In addition, Post-transplant survival rates were compared between the two groups.

Results: There were a total of 246 LDLT (3.8%) and 6153 DDLT (96.2%) recipients with the diagnosis of ALF (Table 1). There was a difference in age and gender between the groups, with 93.5% of LDLT cases being for pediatric ALF cases versus 45.9% of DDLT cases being for pediatric recipients of age less than 18.  There were more female gender in the DDLT group. Race was not different between the two groups.  The proportion of patients waiting ≥ 3 days was 64.1% in DDLT compared to 77.2% in the LDLT group (P<0.001).  There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of sodium, bilirubin, and INR. There were more patients with hepatic encephalopathy, and on renal replacement therapy in the DDLT group compared to LDLT group. Overall, 1, 5 and 10 year overall survival among the DDLT and LDLT groups were also similar,  87.7% vs. 85.5%, 81.1% vs. 81.1%, 74.7% vs. 79.3% (p=0.16) ( Figure 1) (Log rank P=0.16).

Conclusions: In the US, LDLT constitutes of only 3.8% of all liver transplants for ALF. In addition, LDLT was mostly used among pediatric recipients (93.5%), whereas DDLT was mostly used for adult recipients (54.1%). Signs of decompensation with hepatic encephlopathy, ascites, and on renal replacement therapy were more common in DDLT than LDLT group. LDLT can be carefully considered in a select group of adult ALF cases, in early phases, before further progression into renal failure and advanced encephalopathy.

Social Media Promotion Image

right-click to download

© 2024 TTS 2022