Polak, Wojciech G.

Early allograft failure (EAF) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains a clinical challenge. Existing prediction models developed for deceased donor transplantation poorly apply to LDLT due to distinct surgical and physiological factors. This study identifies clinical determinants of EAF and develops an LDLT-specific prediction model. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study from 17 high-volume LDLT centers (January 2016–December 2020) with external validation at a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia (January 2015–December 2022). The primary outcome was EAF (graft loss or patient death ≤90 d). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression identified preoperative/intraoperative risk factors. The EAGLE-LDLT model was constructed using postoperative laboratory values. Performance was compared against established models (EAD, MEAF, A2ALL) using ROC analysis and decision curve analysis. The development cohort included 2944 adult LDLT recipients (67.7% male; median age 55 y; median MELD 14) with a 5.5% EAF rate. External validation included 1020 recipients (median MELD 21, 6.7% EAF). Independent risk factors for EAF were MELD (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08), donor BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.10), portal vein thrombosis (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13–2.63), and hepaticojejunostomy (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06–2.36). The EAGLE-LDLT model incorporating peak ALT (>468 U/L), peak INR (>1.9), and bilirubin (>3.5 mg/dL) and INR (>1.3) at POD7, demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC=0.81) compared with MEAF (AUC=0.77, p =0.004), EAD (AUC=0.67, p <0.001), and A2ALL (AUC=0.65, p <0.001). EAGLE-LDLT achieved balanced sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (73.7%), effectively stratifying patients into high-risk (15% of patients; 40.4% EAF incidence) and low-risk groups. Preoperative and intraoperative clinical factors predict EAF in LDLT. The EAGLE-LDLT model accurately identifies LDLT recipients at the highest risk for EAF postoperatively.

The success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has bridged the growing gap between organ demand and availability in patients with liver failure or liver cancer. Safety of the living liver donor (LLD) is paramount, and astute intraoperative management plays a critical role in ensuring optimal outcomes for them. Given that intraoperative surgical and anesthesia practices vary widely across centers, the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a global consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for intraoperative management of the LLD. This manuscript details the recommendations on intraoperative considerations for the safety of LLD developed by Working Group II of the Consensus Scientific Committee, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus. Working Group II focused on intraoperative monitoring, fluid and ventilation strategies, surgical techniques for vascular and biliary division, surgeon and center-specific experience, and intraoperative crises planning. These guidelines aim to support both established and emerging LDLT teams to ensure high-quality and safe intraoperative care for the LLD.

Variations in liver allocation systems worldwide are presented, with a specific focus on regional differences and their potential impact on outcomes, with the goal of serving as a reference for future policy development. Summaries of liver allocation across multiple European, Scandinavian, and Asian systems, as well as the combined allocation system of Australia plus Canada, the United States, and the systems in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean are reviewed. A comprehensive comparison of how different regions address MELD exceptions, primarily focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma, along with the most common etiologies of liver disease requiring transplantation is presented. In addition, the adoption of living donation and donation after circulatory death is discussed. The study involves contributions from a diverse group of world experts in liver transplantation and may serve as an essential resource to foster international dialogue as countries strive to optimize organ allocation policies, including MELD exceptions.

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

Objective: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Background: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. Methods: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016–2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers’ medians. Results: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). Conclusions: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Objective: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons. Background: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC. Methods: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P<0.001). Conclusion: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC.

Objective: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons. Background: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking. Methods: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes. Conclusion: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.