ANZ journal of surgery · 2023
The impact of perceived donor liver quality on post-transplant outcome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dirchwolf Melisa, Becchetti Chiara, Stampf Susanne, Haldimann Christa, Immer Franz, Beyeler Franziska, Toso Christian, Dutkowski Philipp, Candinas Daniel, Dufour Jean-Francois, Banz Vanessa, Swiss Transplant Cohort Study
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We analysed the impact of perceived liver donor quality on transplant recipient outcomes.
METHODS: this prospective cohort study included all deceased liver donors during 2008-2018 in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Perceived low-quality liver donors were defined when refused for ≥5 top listed recipients or for all recipients in at least one centre before being transplanted. The effect of liver donor quality on relisting or recipient death at 1 week and 1 year after transplantation was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. A 1:3 matching was also performed using a recipient score.
RESULTS: Of 973 liver donors, 187 (19.2%) had perceived poor-quality. Males, obesity, donation after circulatory death and alanine aminotransferase values were significantly associated with perceived poor-quality, with no significant effect of the perceived quality on re-listing or death within the first week and first year post-transplant [(aHR) = 1.45, 95% CI: (0.6, 3.5), P = 0.41 and aHR = 1.52 (95% CI 0.98-2.35), P = 0.06], adjusting by recipient age and gender, obesity, diabetes, prior liver transplantation and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. At 1 year, prior liver transplantation and higher MELD score associated with higher risk of re-listing or death.
CONCLUSION: Comparable post-transplant outcomes with different perceived quality liver donors stresses the need to improve donor selection in liver transplantation.
METHODS: this prospective cohort study included all deceased liver donors during 2008-2018 in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Perceived low-quality liver donors were defined when refused for ≥5 top listed recipients or for all recipients in at least one centre before being transplanted. The effect of liver donor quality on relisting or recipient death at 1 week and 1 year after transplantation was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. A 1:3 matching was also performed using a recipient score.
RESULTS: Of 973 liver donors, 187 (19.2%) had perceived poor-quality. Males, obesity, donation after circulatory death and alanine aminotransferase values were significantly associated with perceived poor-quality, with no significant effect of the perceived quality on re-listing or death within the first week and first year post-transplant [(aHR) = 1.45, 95% CI: (0.6, 3.5), P = 0.41 and aHR = 1.52 (95% CI 0.98-2.35), P = 0.06], adjusting by recipient age and gender, obesity, diabetes, prior liver transplantation and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. At 1 year, prior liver transplantation and higher MELD score associated with higher risk of re-listing or death.
CONCLUSION: Comparable post-transplant outcomes with different perceived quality liver donors stresses the need to improve donor selection in liver transplantation.