4.5 Article

The Clinical Relevance of the Anhepatic Phase During Liver Transplantation

Journal

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages 1050-1055

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21791

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assesses the relation between the anhepatic phase duration and the outcome after liver transplantation. Of 645 patients who underwent transplantation between 1994 and 2006, 194 were recipients of consecutive adult primary piggyback liver transplants using heart-beating donors. The anhepatic phase was defined as the time from the physical removal of the liver from the recipient to recirculation of the graft. Other noted study variables were the cold and warm ischemia times, donor and recipient age, donor and recipient body mass index, perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, indication for transplantation, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. The primary outcome parameter was graft dysfunction, which was defined as either primary nonfunction or initial poor function according to the Ploeg-Maring criteria. The median anhepatic phase was 71 minutes (37-321 minutes). Graft dysfunction occurred in 27 patients (14%). Logistic regression analysis showed an anhepatic phase over 100 minutes [odds ratio (OR), 4.28], a recipient body mass index over 25 kg/m(2) (OR, 3.21), and perioperative RBC transfusion (OR, 3.04) to be independently significant predictive factors for graft dysfunction. One-year patient survival in patients with graft dysfunction was 67% versus 92% in patients without graft dysfunction (P < 0.001). A direct relation between the anhepatic phase duration and patient survival could, however, not be established. In conclusion, this study shows that liver transplant patients with an anhepatic phase over 100 minutes have a higher incidence of graft dysfunction. Patients with graft dysfunction have significantly worse 1-year patient survival. Liver Transpl 15:1050-1055, 2009. (C) 2009 AASLD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available