Surgery · 2023
Breaking distance barriers in liver transplantation: Risk factors and outcomes of long-distance liver grafts.
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.
Imaoka Yuki, Bozhilov Kliment Krassimirov, Bekki Yuki, Akabane Miho, Kwong Allison J, Ohira Masahiro, Ohdan Hideki, Esquivel Carlos O, Melcher Marc L, Sasaki Kazunari
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Long-distance-traveling liver grafts in liver transplantation present challenges due to prolonged cold ischemic time and increased risk of ischemia-reperfusion injury. We identified long-distance-traveling liver graft donor and recipient characteristics and risk factors associated with long-distance-traveling liver graft use.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from donor liver transplantation patients registered from 2014 to 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry database. Donor, recipient, and transplant factors of graft survival were compared between short-travel grafts and long-distance-traveling liver grafts (traveled >500 miles).
RESULTS: During the study period, 28,265 patients received a donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 3,250 a donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The long-distance-traveling liver graft rate was 6.2% in donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 7.1% in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The 90-day graft survival rates were significantly worse for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 95.7% vs 94.5%, donation after circulatory death: 94.5% vs 93.9%). The 3-year graft survival rates were similar for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 85.5% vs 85.1%, donation after circulatory death: 81.0% vs 80.4%). Cubic spline regression analyses revealed that travel distance did not linearly worsen the prognosis of 3-year graft survival. On the other hand, younger donor age, lower donor body mass index, and shorter cold ischemic time mitigated the negative impact of 90-day graft survival in long-distance-traveling liver grafts.
CONCLUSION: The use of long-distance-traveling liver grafts negatively impacts 90-day graft survival but not 3-year graft survival. Moreover, long-distance-traveling liver grafts are more feasible with appropriate donor and recipient factors offsetting the extended cold ischemic time. Mechanical perfusion can improve long-distance-traveling liver graft use. Enhanced collaboration between organ procurement organizations and transplant centers and optimized transportation systems are essential for increasing long-distance-traveling liver graft use, ultimately expanding the donor pool.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from donor liver transplantation patients registered from 2014 to 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry database. Donor, recipient, and transplant factors of graft survival were compared between short-travel grafts and long-distance-traveling liver grafts (traveled >500 miles).
RESULTS: During the study period, 28,265 patients received a donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 3,250 a donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The long-distance-traveling liver graft rate was 6.2% in donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 7.1% in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The 90-day graft survival rates were significantly worse for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 95.7% vs 94.5%, donation after circulatory death: 94.5% vs 93.9%). The 3-year graft survival rates were similar for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 85.5% vs 85.1%, donation after circulatory death: 81.0% vs 80.4%). Cubic spline regression analyses revealed that travel distance did not linearly worsen the prognosis of 3-year graft survival. On the other hand, younger donor age, lower donor body mass index, and shorter cold ischemic time mitigated the negative impact of 90-day graft survival in long-distance-traveling liver grafts.
CONCLUSION: The use of long-distance-traveling liver grafts negatively impacts 90-day graft survival but not 3-year graft survival. Moreover, long-distance-traveling liver grafts are more feasible with appropriate donor and recipient factors offsetting the extended cold ischemic time. Mechanical perfusion can improve long-distance-traveling liver graft use. Enhanced collaboration between organ procurement organizations and transplant centers and optimized transportation systems are essential for increasing long-distance-traveling liver graft use, ultimately expanding the donor pool.