Published online Jun 28, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i24.3682
Peer-review started: January 24, 2021
First decision: February 23, 2021
Revised: March 8, 2021
Accepted: May 27, 2021
Article in press: May 27, 2021
Published online: June 28, 2021
Processing time: 151 Days and 14.6 Hours
The rates of liver transplantation having increasing but the donor pool has largely remained stagnant leading to high removals from liver transplant waitlists. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using fatty liver could potentially be used to expand the donor pool. However, due to negative effects of steatosis on Graft and recipient outcomes, current practice is to exclude overweight or obese donors with steatosis livers. Data on feasibility, efficacy, and safety of using weight loss interventions marginal donors to low-risk donors is lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility safety and efficacy of short-term weight loss interventions in converting marginal living liver donors to low-risk donors.
Data on safety, efficacy and donor, graft and recipient outcomes when using short term weight loss interventions to convert marginal steatotic liver grafts in LDLT, to low-risk grafts, is lacking. With continuing shortage of organs for transplantation, we looked into the safety and efficacy of using treated steatotic donors, for LDLT.
We did a meta-analysis on the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of weight loss interventions in converting marginal living liver donors to low-risk donors and analyzed the perioperative donor, graft and recipient outcomes.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies examining the role of short-term weight loss interventions in potential living liver donors with hepatic steatosis with the aim of increasing liver donation rates and improving donor, graft, and recipient outcomes.
A total of 6 studies with 102 potential donors were included. Most subjects were males (n = 71). All studies showed a significant reduction in body mass index post-intervention with a mean difference of -2.08 (-3.06, 1.10, I2 = 78%). A significant reduction or resolution of hepatic steatosis was seen in 93 of the 102 (91.2%). Comparison of pre- and post-intervention liver biopsies showed a significant reduction in steatosis with a mean difference of -21.22 (-27.02, -15.43, I2 = 56%). The liver donation rates post-intervention was 88.5 (74.5, 95.3, I2 = 42%). All donors who did not undergo LDLT had either recipient reasons or had fibrosis/steatohepatitis on post intervention biopsies. Post-operative biliary complications in the intervention group were not significantly different compared to controls with an odds ratio of 0.96 [(0.14, 6.69), I2 = 0]. The overall post-operative donor, graft, and recipient outcomes in treated donors were not significantly different compared to donors with no steatosis.
Our study has shown that using liver grafts from potential living liver donors with hepatic steatosis undergoing short term weight loss interventions, have comparable donor, graft, and recipient outcomes, to donors with no hepatic steatosis.
Use of appropriate short term weight loss interventions in living liver donors is a feasible, safe, and effective tool in turning marginal donors with liver steatosis to low-risk donors and therefore can help in expanding the donor pool.