Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation

BackgroundDeath rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous persons who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (A-LLD).MethodsCandidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact.Results50 A-LLD liver transplants (LT) were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59 yrs.). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal supports in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was six days. There was one Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision.ConclusionsThis is the first and only report of the motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability

Superior Outcomes and Reduced Wait Times in Pediatric Recipients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Background. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasingly used to bridge the gap between the current supply and demand imbalance for deceased donor organs to provide lifesaving liver transplantation. Methods. Outcomes of 135 children who underwent LDLT were compared with 158 recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at the largest pediatric liver transplant program in Canada. Results. Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger than deceased donor recipients (P ≤ 0.001), less likely to require dialysis pretransplant (P < 0.002) and had shorter wait time duration when the primary indication was cholestatic liver disease (P = 0.003). The LDLT donors were either related genetically or emotionally (79%), or unrelated (21%) to the pediatric recipients. One-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (97%, 94%, and 94%) compared with DDLT (92%, 87%, and 80%; log-rank P = 0.02) recipients, as were graft survival rates (96%, 93%, and 93% for LDLT versus 89%, 81.4%, and 70%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.001). Medical and surgical complications were not statistically different between groups. Graft failure was higher in recipients of DDLT (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 6.58) than in the LDLT group after adjustment for clinical characteristics and propensity score. Conclusions. Living donor liver transplantation provides superior outcomes for children and is an excellent and effective strategy to increase the chances of receiving a liver transplant