» Articles » PMID: 31305283

Adult Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant (LDLT Versus DDLT) at a Single Center: Time to Change Our Paradigm for Liver Transplant

Overview
Journal Ann Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2019 Jul 16
PMID 31305283
Citations 47
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) at a single center to demonstrate the advantages of LDLT and provide justification for the increased utilization and application of this procedure.

Summary Of Background Data: LDLT comprises a very small percentage of all liver transplants performed in the United States, this despite its advantages and a shortage of the availability of deceased donor organs.

Methods: A retrospective review of all adult LDLT (n = 245) and DDLT (n = 592) performed at a single center over 10 years (2009-2019), comparing survival outcomes by Kaplan-Meier analysis and comparing other measures of outcome such as recovery times, complications, costs, and resource utilization.

Results: Patient survival outcomes were superior in LDLT recipients (3-year 86% vs 80%, P = 0.03). Other outcomes demonstrated shorter length of hospital stay (11 vs 13 days, P = 0.03), less likelihood of intraoperative blood transfusion (52% vs 78%, P < 0.01), and less likelihood of need for posttransplant dialysis (1.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.01). Early reoperation and biliary/vascular complication rates were similar. Hospital costs related to the transplant were 29.5% lower for LDLT. Complications in living donors were acceptable with no early or late deaths, 3-month reoperation rate of 3.1%, and overall complication rate of 19.5%. Given its advantages, we have expanded LDLT-in 2018, LDLT comprised 53.6% of our transplants (national average 4.8%), and our transplant rate increased from 44.8 (rate per 100-person years) in 2015 to 87.5 in 2018.

Conclusions: LDLT offers advantages over DDLT including superior outcomes and less resource utilization. The time has come to change the paradigm of how LDLT is utilized in this country.

Citing Articles

AI-Based 3D Liver Segmentation and Volumetric Analysis in Living Donor Data.

Mun S, Choi S, Kim Y, Kim K, Lee W J Imaging Inform Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40087225 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-025-01468-9.


Comparison of Vascular Complications Between Living-donor and Deceased-donor Liver Transplantation - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Giri S, Panigrahi S, Mohapatra V, Nath P, Sahu S, Mallick B J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2024; 15(1):102414.

PMID: 39494314 PMC: 11525129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2024.102414.


Comparison of Biliary Complications Between Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Giri S, Sahu S, Mohapatra V, Chaudhary M, Panigrahi M, Nath P Cureus. 2024; 16(9):e69019.

PMID: 39385910 PMC: 11463893. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.69019.


American perspectives for LDLT in 2024.

Emond J, Di Sandro S, Pomfret E Updates Surg. 2024; .

PMID: 39302556 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01994-1.


Outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocelluler carcinoma from living donor versus deceased donor within University of Southern California San Francisco criteria: a report from Turkey.

Bati I, Tuysuz U Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1419740.

PMID: 39281373 PMC: 11393828. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1419740.