Bhangui, Pooja

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established therapy with curative intent for pediatric and adult patients with acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Donor safety remains paramount and commences during preoperative evaluation and assessment. Given the importance of the topic, the International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group consensus conference on Living Liver Donor Safety was convened in March 2025 (Toronto, Canada). Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus was followed. This report presents 28 recommendations from the working group focused on addressing clinically relevant questions related to the preoperative aspects of living donor safety including assessment of donor acceptability (age, body mass index and hepatic steatosis; medical conditions and contraindications), medical and surgical workup (liver function and procoagulant workup; anatomical considerations and safe remnant), and psychosocial evaluation (timing and team; underlying conditions; non-directed, paired, and anonymous directed donors; urgent living donor workups for acute liver failure).

Background. During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). Methods. A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. Results. It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. Conclusions. Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Background. We sought to establish consensus on the essential skills, knowledge, and attributes that a liver transplant (LT) anesthesiologist should possess in a bid to help guide the further training process. Methods. Consensus was achieved via a modified Delphi methodology, surveying 15 identified international experts in the fields of LT anesthesia and critical care. Results. Key competencies were identified in preoperative management and optimization of a potential LT recipient; intraoperative management, including hemodynamic monitoring; coagulation and potential crisis management; and postoperative intensive and enhanced recovery care. Conclusions. This article provides an essential guide to competency-based training of an LT anesthesiologist.

AbstractBackgroundIn the era of enhanced recovery after surgery, there is significant discussion regarding the impact of intraoperative anesthetic management on short‐term outcomes following liver transplantation (LT), with no clear consensus in the literature.ObjectivesTo identify whether or not intraoperative anesthetic management affects short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation.Data SourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021239758). An international expert panel made recommendations for clinical practice using the GRADE approach.ResultsAfter screening, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Six were prospective randomized clinical trials, three were prospective nonrandomized clinical trials, and five were retrospective studies. These manuscripts were reviewed to look at five questions regarding anesthetic care and its impact on short term outcomes following liver transplant. After review of the literature, the quality of evidence according to the following outcomes was as follows: intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality (low), early allograft dysfunction (low), and hospital and ICU length of stay (moderate).ConclusionsFor optimal short term outcomes after liver transplantation, the panel recommends the use of volatile anesthetics in preference to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak) and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) versus bispectral index (BIS) for depth of anesthesia monitoring (Level of Evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Weak). Regarding ventilation and oxygenation, the panel recommends a restrictive oxygenation strategy targeting a PaO2 of 70–120 mmHg (10–14 kPa), a tidal volume of 6–8 ml/kg ideal body weight (IBW), administration of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) tailored to patient intraoperative physiology, and recruitment maneuvers. (Level of evidence: Very low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). Finally, the panel recommends the routine use of antiemetic prophylaxis. (Level of evidence: low; Strength of Recommendation: Strong).