4.6 Article

Risk of biliary tract disease in living liver donors: A population-based cohort study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230840

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan [MOHW108-TDU-B-212-133004]
  2. China Medical University Hospital [DMR-107-192, CMU107-ASIA-19]
  3. Academia Sinica Stroke Biosignature Project [BM10701010021]
  4. MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke [MOST 107-2321-B-039 -004-]
  5. Tseng-Lien Lin Foundation, Taichung, Taiwan
  6. Katsuzo and Kiyo Aoshima Memorial Funds, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims Whether living liver donors have a higher risk of biliary tract disease compared with nondonors remains unknown. Methods Data were collected from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database for the 20032011 period. The study cohort comprised 1,446 patients aged. 18 years who had served as living liver donors. The primary outcome was the incidence of biliary tract disease. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine the hazard ratios. Results The incidence density rate of biliary tract disease was 13.9-fold higher in the liver donor (LD) cohort than in the non-LD cohort (10.2 vs. 0.71 per 1,000 person-years), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 14.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.73-26.1). Stratified by comorbidity, the relative risk of biliary tract disease was higher in the LD cohort than in the non-LD cohort for both patients with or without comorbidity. The incidence density rate of biliary tract disease was significantly higher in the first 3 years (13.5 per 1,000 person-years in the LD cohort). The highest adjusted HR of biliary tract disease for LD patients compared with the non-LD cohort was 22.4 (95% CI = 10.8-46.1) in the follow-up <= 3 years. Conclusion Living liver donors had a higher risk of biliary tract disease compared with non-donors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available