Clinical transplantation · 2026
Outcomes of a Modified Portal Venovenous Bypass Technique During Liver Transplantation in High-MELD Recipients.
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.
Megaly Michael G, Waller Daniel C, Matthews David, Adams Andrew, Pruett Timothy L, Ramanathan Karthik, Kandaswamy Raja, Finger Erik B, Sutherland Hannah, Humphreville Vanessa, Chinnakotla Srinath
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although portal (venovenous) bypass (pVVB) is uncommon in liver transplantation (LT), it may provide some advantages, particularly for high-acuity recipients.
METHODS: To examine its use in high-risk patients, we retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a modified pVVB technique among adult LT recipients at a single center, stratified by MELD score (≥35 vs. <35). Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival evaluated withKaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression; secondary outcomes included biliary complications, transfusion requirements, viscoelastic parameters, laboratory trends, length of stay, readmission, and need for dialysis.
RESULTS: Between January 2016 and July 2025, 548 patients underwent LT with pVVB; 111 (20.3%) had MELD ≥35. Despite greater baseline severity, higher transfusion requirements, and longer postoperative ICU stay, MELD ≥35 was not associated with increased risk of graft failure (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.72-1.96), mortality (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.46-1.61), or biliary complications (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.65-1.60). Post-reperfusion viscoelastic measures were similar across groups. Dialysis was more frequent before and after LT in MELD ≥35. No complications or deaths were attributable to pVVB.
CONCLUSION: Among LT recipients treated with pVVB, MELD ≥35 was not significantly associated with graft failure, mortality, or biliary complications. These findings support the feasibility of pVVB in high-acuity recipients.
METHODS: To examine its use in high-risk patients, we retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a modified pVVB technique among adult LT recipients at a single center, stratified by MELD score (≥35 vs. <35). Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival evaluated withKaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression; secondary outcomes included biliary complications, transfusion requirements, viscoelastic parameters, laboratory trends, length of stay, readmission, and need for dialysis.
RESULTS: Between January 2016 and July 2025, 548 patients underwent LT with pVVB; 111 (20.3%) had MELD ≥35. Despite greater baseline severity, higher transfusion requirements, and longer postoperative ICU stay, MELD ≥35 was not associated with increased risk of graft failure (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.72-1.96), mortality (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.46-1.61), or biliary complications (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.65-1.60). Post-reperfusion viscoelastic measures were similar across groups. Dialysis was more frequent before and after LT in MELD ≥35. No complications or deaths were attributable to pVVB.
CONCLUSION: Among LT recipients treated with pVVB, MELD ≥35 was not significantly associated with graft failure, mortality, or biliary complications. These findings support the feasibility of pVVB in high-acuity recipients.