Conclusions
Liver transplant effectively functions as a zero-sum game. Efforts to save individual patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis can result in trade-offs to other patients on the wait list. Balancing the ethical principles of utility and justice is challenging. A strict 6-month rule, while convenient, does not strike the balance. The decision to transplant a patient with alcoholic hepatitis should be made on a case-by-case basis. As stewards of donor organs, transplant centers have a duty to carefully evaluate a potential candidate based on medical needs and recipient outcome without the influence of bias. We feel that, when considering liver transplant in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis, the principle of justice or fairness to the patient is the overriding ethical principle. Provided the patient meets medical and psychosocial criteria that available evidence suggests would result in long-term survival post transplantation, we would support listing for liver transplantation.
References
1. Goldberg D et al. Gastroenterology, 2017;152(5):1090-9.e1.
2. Cholankeril G, Ahmed A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(8):1356-8.
3. Neuberger J et al. J Hepatol. 2002;36(1):130-7.
4. DiMartini A, et al. Clin Liver Dis. 2011;15(4):727-51.
5. Mathurin P et al. N Engl J Med, 2011;365(19):1790-800.
6. Im GY et al. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(3):841-9.
7. Lee BP et al. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):20-9.
8. Lee BP et al. Gastroenterology. 2018. 155(2):422-30.e1.
9. Asrani SK et al. Liver Transpl. 2020;26(1):127-40.
10. Singal AK et al. Transplantation. 2013;95(5):755-60.
11. Stroh G et al. Am J Transplant. 2015;15(6):1598-604.
12. Moss AH, Siegler M. JAMA. 1991;265(10):1295-8.
Dr. Wang is a gastroenterology fellow in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine; Dr. Aronsohn is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine.
