Intention of Donors to Re-Donate Livers after Living Donor Liver Transplantation in a Liver Transplant Center in Asia

Chang, Yuan-Min; Chung, Kuo‐Piao; Chen, Teng-Wei; Cc, Hsieh

doi:10.12659/aot.890821

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Bhatti et al [32] showed that acceptable post-donation QoL was achieved and no significant difference in scores was observed between donors with and without surgical complications. This report is similar with those of Beavers et al [33], who reported that regardless of recipient outcome, 100% of donors would donate again and of Chang et al [34] who reported that 87% of donors showed a willingness to re-donate. In contrast, Kousoulas et al [35] reported that donors did not regret their decision to donate but development of postoperative donor complications and the postoperative recipient mortality had a negative effect on the Health-related QoL of donors.…”

Section: Quality Of Lifesupporting

confidence: 90%

Morbidity and Mortality of Hepatic Right Lobe Living Donors: Systematic Review and Perspectives

Brige

Hery

Chopinet

et al. 2018

JGLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & Aims: The main restriction in the development of adult-adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) is the risk of morbidity and mortality for donors, which raises ethical questions. The objectives of this study are to review published studies dealing with morbidity and mortality in LDLT and to identify the proposed management and strategies for preventing donor mortality and morbidity in LDLT.Methods: The Medline database was searched from 2000 to 2017 using the MeSH terms “liver transplantation” and “morbidity” or “mortality” in combination with keywords “living donor liver transplantation”.Results: Among the 382 articles obtained, 43 articles were relevant for morbidity, 15 for mortality and 6 for both morbidity and mortality. Twenty-three papers reported donor deaths. The major cause of death was sepsis (30%). Morbidity ranged from 10% to 78.3% depending on the studies.Conclusions: The living donors’ morbidity and mortality is high, currently representing the main restriction in the development of LDLT. Some promising techniques, such as the donor portal vein flow modulation could lead to the further development of LDLT.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Lifesupporting

confidence: 90%

Morbidity and Mortality of Hepatic Right Lobe Living Donors: Systematic Review and Perspectives

Brige

Hery

Chopinet

et al. 2018

JGLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sixty-seven unique studies, including 3 conference abstracts, met our inclusion criteria. 6-8,21-75 Fifty-three articles compared surgical outcomes between RL and LL donors and 31 between RL- and LL-LDLT recipients. Included studies were conducted mostly in Asia (n = 52, 77.6%), with few reports from Europe (n = 9, 13.4%) and the Americas (n = 5, 7.5%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22,23,26-32,37,39-41,44-46,49,59,63,65,66,73,74 All remaining 4 studies had scores between 5 and 7 and were classified as of moderate quality. 6-8,24,25,33-35,38,42,43,47,48,50,51,53-58,60-62,64,67-72,75 Publication bias was evaluated for 6 meta-analyses including ≥10 studies ( Figure S1, SDC , http://links.lww.com/TP/C459). Asymmetry was only identified for the donor bile leak meta-analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious. Methods. MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity. Results. Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I 2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I 2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I 2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I 2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I 2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I 2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I 2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I 2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I 2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I 2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I 2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I 2 = 44%). Conclusions. LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

show abstract

“…Chang et al had a similar observation in their study in which they found the majority were motivated to donate again. Close relations, donor satisfaction and recipient complications were the factors associated with a willingness to redonate 25 . These factors if taken into consideration can help to enhance the pool of liver donors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…complications were the factors associated with a willingness to redonate. 25 These factors if taken into consideration can help to enhance the pool of liver donors. Parolin et al also concluded that donation had changed the lives of donors and would consider donating again hence donor safety and quality of life should remain the priority.…”

Section: N (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the living‐related pediatric liver transplantation donor's decision process: A questionnaire‐based retrospective study

Jain,

Kumar,

Malhotra

et al. 2024

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVESTo analyse the donor characteristics and understand the sociocultural and familial aspects of the decision to donate for living donor liver transplant.METHODSThis is a retrospective study done in the Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Hepatology of a liver transplant centre. We enrolled the consenting donors of pediatric liver transplantation between January 2020 and January 2022. The study was conducted through an anonymized questionnaire which was drafted in a multiple‐choice format. The questionnaire had three domains having questions pertaining to demographic details, donor characteristics and sociofamilial aspects of the decision‐making process.RESULTSThe study cohort consisted of 50 donors, 23 males (46%) and 27 females (54%), with the mean age being 31.8 ± 5.6 years. Parent‐to‐child was the most frequent relationship (n = 39, 78%). More than half of our donors had annual income <2.5 lakh/annum or <3500 USD (n = 27, 54%). Twenty‐six (52%) responders had >4 members in their family; 62% were residing in urban areas and 52% of the donors were graduates. The main source of information regarding the feasibility of living donor liver transplantation was primary physicians in 46%. Financial management was the main hurdle in 72%. Majority (74%) denied any effect on their marital relationship and 6% of donors thought that the degree of information provided to them before the transplantation regarding donation was insufficient.CONCLUSIONOur study serves as an essential tool for health professionals to provide sufficient support to the donor. Clinical outcomes and cost must be part of the discussion between caregivers, health professionals and fund contributors.

show abstract

Intention of Donors to Re-Donate Livers after Living Donor Liver Transplantation in a Liver Transplant Center in Asia

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Morbidity and Mortality of Hepatic Right Lobe Living Donors: Systematic Review and Perspectives

Morbidity and Mortality of Hepatic Right Lobe Living Donors: Systematic Review and Perspectives

Right Lobe Versus Left Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Donor and Recipient Outcomes

Understanding the living‐related pediatric liver transplantation donor's decision process: A questionnaire‐based retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About