Optimizing pre-donation physiologic evaluation for enhanced recovery after living liver donation - Systematic review and multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations.
Review
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: While preoperative physiologic evaluation of live liver donors is routinely performed to ensure donor safety and minimize complications, the optimal approach to this evaluation is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify predonation physiologic evaluation strategies to improve postoperative short-term outcomes, enhance donor's recovery, and reduce length of stay. We also aim to provide multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, and the recommendations were formulated using GRADE approach and experts' opinion. The search included retrospective or prospective studies, describing outcomes of physiologic evaluation predonation. The outcomes of interest were length of stay, postoperative complications (POC), recovery after donation, and mortality. PROSERO protocol ID CRD42021260662. RESULTS: Of 1386 articles screened, only three retrospective cohort studies met eligibility criteria. Two studies demonstrated no impact of age (< 70 years) on POC. Increased body mass index's (BMI) association with POC was present in one study (23.8 vs 21.7 kg/m2 , OR 1.67 (1.14-2.48), P = .01) and absent in another (< 30 vs 30-35 kg/m2 , P = .61). One study demonstrated decreased risk for postdonation subclinical hepatic dysfunction in donors with higher normal platelet count (PLT). None of the studies noted donor death. Given the scarce data on predonation physiologic testing, the expert panel recommended a battery of tests to guide clinical practice and future investigations. CONCLUSION: Advancing age (60-69 years) is not a contraindication for liver donation. There is insufficient evidence for a specific predonation BMI cut-off. Abbreviated predonation physiologic testing is recommended in all candidates. Comprehensive testing is recommended in high-risk candidates while considering the pretest probability in various populations (Quality of evidence; Low to Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).
