Author Year
(LDLT/DDLT)MELD score (LDLT/DDLT) Donor age (LDLT/DDLT) Cold ischemia time (h) (LDLT/DDLT) Follow up (mo) Histologic progression Patient survival LDLT/DDLT (%) Graft survival LDLT/DDLT (%) Comments Gaglio et al. [224 ] 2003 68 (23/45) 12.6/28* NA NA 24 NA 87/89 87/85 No difference in outcomes, increased risk of cholestatic hepatitis in LDLT Shiffman et al. [46 ] 2004 76 (23/53) 13.5 ± 1.1/16.2 ± 1.0 47.6 ± 2/47.8 ± 0.8 NA 36 No difference 79/82 76/82 No difference in outcomes Humar et al. [48 ]
2005 51 (12/39) 17 (14–27)/24 (17–40)* 37.7 ± 9.2/42.8 ± 16.2¶ 10.2 ± 4.2/<1† 28.3 Significantly severe in DDLT 92/90 NA LDLT may be at a low risk for HCV recurrence Garcia-Retortillo et al. [225 ] 2004 117 (22/95) 11 (5–24)/11 (2–28) 31 (19–58)/47 (13–86)¶ NA 22 Significantly severe in LDLT NA NA Severe hepatitis C recurrence in LDLT Maluf et al. [226 ]
2005 126 (29/97) 13.2 ± 1.1/21 ± 0.8* NA 0.6 ± 0.2/7.5 ± 2.8† 72 NA 67/70 64/69 No difference in survival, more rejection in DDLT and biliary complications in LDLT
Thuluvath and Yoo [227 ] 2004 619 (207/412) NA 35.8 ± 0.4/38.9 ± 18.1¶ 3.9 ± 7.3/8.4 ± 4.5† 24 NA 79/81 74/73 Lower graft survival in LDLT Russo et al. [228 ] 2004 4234 (279/3955) NA (TB, PT and Cre were significantly worse in DDLT) 37/40¶ 8.1/2.6† 24 NA 83/81 72/75 No difference in outcomes Bozorgzadeh et al. [229 ] 2004 100 (35/65) 14.9 ± 4/15.9 ± 5.3 34.6 ± 9.7/49.2 ± 20.4 NA 39 No difference 89/75 83/64 No difference in outcomes Van Vlierberghe et al. [230 ] 2004 43 (17/26) 15 ± 9/15 ± 8 31 ± 8/48 ± 17 3.1 ± 1.3/11.1 ± 2.6† 12 No difference No difference (Presented with only figure) No difference (Presented with only figure) No difference in outcomes in short-term Schiano et al. [231 ] 2005 26 (11/15) 14 (9–19)/18 (10–31)
33 (20–54)/47 (13–73) 0.6 (0.3–1.0)/10 (4.4–20)† 24 NA 73/80 73/80 No difference in survival, accelerated viral load increase in LDLT Guo et al. [49 ] 2006 67 (15/52) 16.9 ± 6.9/19.0 ± 8.3 NA NA 24 No difference 93/96 87/94 No difference in outcomes Terrault et al. [50 ] 2007 275 (181/94) 14 (6–40)/18 (7–40)* 38 (19–57)/41 (9–72) 0.8 (0.1–8)/6.7 (0.2–10)† 36 No difference 74/82 68/80 f No significant difference in patient/graft survival in experienced LDLT centers Schmeding et al. [47 ] 2007 289 (20/269) NA 38.6 ± 15.2/44.2 ± 12 NA 60 No difference Better in DDLT (
) Better in DDLT (
) LDLT does not increase the risk and severity of HCV recurrence, No difference in patient/graft survival when HCC beyond Milan excluded. Selzner et al. [232 ] 2008 201 (46/155) 14 (7–39)/17 (6–40) 38 (19–59)/46 (11–79)¶ 1.5 (0.5–4.9)/7.5 (1.1–16)† 60 Significantly severe in DDLT 84/78 76/74 Donor age, rather than transplant approach affects the progression of HCV Gallegos-Orozco et al. [21 ] 2009 200 (32/168) 14.6 ± 4.7/25.5 ± 5.9* 35 ± 12/40 ± 16
NA 60 No difference 81/81 NA LDLT is a good option for HCV cirrhosis Jain et al. [233 ] 2011 100 (35/65) 14.5 ± 3.9/16.8 ± 7.3* 34.3 ± 9.3/47.2 ± 19.8¶ 11 ± 3.1 in DDLT 84 Significantly severe in DDLT at all time points 77/65 71/46 Both patient/graft survival and histologic findings were better in LDLT
