Olthoff, Kim M.

Background and Objectives: Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an effective technique to improve recipient outcomes. However, no valid methods for determining liver viability exist. Identifying relevant biological markers with clinical correlation to liver viability and recipient clinical outcomes is imperative to improve decision-making. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four donors undergoing NRP and their recipients were included. FMN was measured at the start, 1 h, and end of NRP. Lactate was measured at the start, 30, 60, and 90 min of NRP. Primary outcomes were early allograft function using the early allograft dysfunction (EAD) criteria and the model for early allograft function (MEAF). Secondary outcomes included the association with donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), stratified by 30 min. Spearman’s rho assessed correlations. Results: Forty (74%) livers were transplanted, with 5 (12.5%) recipients developing EAD and the mean MEAF score was 3.13 (1.49). FMN at all time points was significantly greater in the EAD group compared to the non-EAD group and was significantly correlated with the MEAF score (Peak FMN: rho = 0.507, p = 0.001). FMN during perfusion did not differ between DWIT < and ≥30 min. Lactate levels were similar across all groups and did not discriminate for adverse allograft outcomes. However, lactate levels during perfusion were higher in the DWIT ≥ 30 min group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that during NRP, elevated FMN, but not lactate, is associated with early allograft function.

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.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver disease. As its use expands worldwide, ensuring the safety and well-being of live liver donors (LLD) is of paramount importance. Published evidence on early postoperative complications after living donor hepatectomy—those occurring within 90 days of surgery—is limited, and standardized postoperative care protocols are lacking. The International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for the safe care of the LLDs. This manuscript details the recommendations on early postoperative considerations for the safety of LLDs developed by Working Group III (WGIII) 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. WGIII addressed four key areas: (1) standardized postoperative care, (2) early biliary complications, (3) early postoperative liver dysfunction, and (4) early postdischarge follow-up. This report emphasizes the need for vigilant postoperative monitoring in specialized units, with access to experienced providers and defined clinical pathways. Structured clinical and psychosocial follow-up protocols, perioperative prophylaxis for surgical site infections and venous thromboembolism, and management of early biliary and vascular complications are discussed. These may help standardize care, reduce complications and improve short-term outcomes in LLDs.

Living liver donation is a critical component for addressing organ shortage and improving outcomes for patients with end-stage liver disease. As the prevalence of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases worldwide, understanding and optimizing long-term donor health is paramount. The 2025 International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS-iLDLT) Consensus Conference convened experts in the field of liver transplantation to establish evidence-based guidelines focused on the long-term medical, psychological, and social considerations following living liver donation. The aim of this working group was to integrate current evidence and expert consensus on donor follow-up protocols, risk assessment, and management strategies to promote long-term donor health, quality of life, and living liver donor programs globally to safeguard the welfare of this unique population.

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 evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post–living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. Background: LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% (P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% (P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. Conclusions: Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

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: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. Background: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). Methods: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was “early allograft dysfunction” (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. Results: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, “as-treated” rather than “intent-to-treat,” subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, “postreperfusion syndrome,” as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). Conclusions: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.

PURPOSEHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has well-defined environmental risk factors. In addition, epidemiologic studies have suggested hereditary risk factors. The goals of this study were to determine the rate of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in cancer predisposition genes in patients with HCC, possible enrichment of P/LP variants in particular genes, and potential impact on clinical management.MATERIALS AND METHODSA prospective study at a tertiary medical center enrolled 217 patients with a personal history of HCC. Multigene panel testing was performed for 134 cancer predisposition genes in all patients. The rate of P/LP variants was compared with population rates. A separate retrospective cohort included 219 patients with HCC who underwent testing at a commercial laboratory.RESULTSIn the prospective cohort, P/LP germline variants were identified in 25 of 217 patients with HCC (11.5%). Four patients (1.8%) had P/LP variants in the highly penetrant cancer genes BRCA2 (n = 2), MSH6 (n = 1), and PMS2 (n = 1). In addition, multiple patients had P/LP variants in FANCA (n = 5) and BRIP1 (n = 4), which were significantly enriched in HCC compared with the general population. Detection of P/LP variants led to changes in clinical management in regard to therapy selection, screening recommendations, and cascade testing of relatives. In a separate retrospective analysis of 219 patients with HCC, 30 (13.7%) were positive for P/LP variants including 13 (5.9%) with highly penetrant genes APC (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 1), BRCA2 (n = 6), MSH2 (n = 2), or TP53 (n = 2).CONCLUSIONP/LP germline variants in cancer predisposition genes were detected in 11%-14% of patients with HCC. Inherited genetics should not be overlooked in HCC as there are important implications for precision treatment, future risk of cancers, and familial cancer risk.

Surgical innovation and multidisciplinary management have allowed children born with univentricular physiology congenital heart disease to survive into adulthood. An estimated global population of 70 000 patients have undergone the Fontan procedure and are alive today, most of whom are <25 years of age. Several unexpected consequences of the Fontan circulation include Fontan-associated liver disease. Surveillance biopsies have demonstrated that virtually 100% of these patients develop clinically silent fibrosis by adolescence. As they mature, there are increasing reports of combined heart-liver transplantation resulting from advanced liver disease, including bridging fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, in this population. In the absence of a transplantation option, these young patients face a poor quality of life and overall survival. Acknowledging that there are no consensus guidelines for diagnosing and monitoring Fontan-associated liver disease or when to consider heart transplantation versus combined heart-liver transplantation in these patients, a multidisciplinary working group reviewed the literature surrounding Fontan-associated liver disease, with a specific focus on considerations for transplantation.