4.4 Article

Liver Transplantation for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in the US: Temporal Trends and Outcomes

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 62, Issue 10, Pages 2915-2922

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4684-x

Keywords

Fatty liver disease; Hepatitis C virus; Alcoholic liver disease; Liver transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a rapidly growing etiology of end-stage liver disease in the US. Temporal trends and outcomes in NASH-related liver transplantation (LT) in the US were studied. A retrospective cohort study utilizing the United Network for Organ Sharing and Organ Procurement and Transplantation (UNOS/OPTN) 2003-2014 database was conducted to evaluate the frequency of NASH-related LT. Etiology-specific post-transplant survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 63,061 adult patients underwent LT from 2003 to 2014, including 20,782 HCV (32.96%), 9470 ALD (15.02%), and 8262 NASH (13.11%). NASH surpassed ALD and became the second leading indication for LT beginning in 2008, accounting for 17.38% of LT in 2014. From 2003 to 2014, the number of LT secondary to NASH increased by 162%, whereas LT secondary to HCV increased by 33% and ALD increased by 55%. Due to resurgence in ALD, the growth in NASH and ALD was comparable from 2008 to 2014 (NASH +50.15% vs. ALD +41.87%). The post-transplant survival in NASH was significantly higher compared to HCV (5-year survival: NASH -77.81%, 95% CI 76.37-79.25 vs. HCV -72.15%, 95% CI 71.37-72.93, P < .001). In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, NASH demonstrated significantly higher post-transplant survival compared to HCV (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.71-0.79, P < .001). Currently, NASH is the most rapidly growing indication for LT in the US. Despite resurgence in ALD, NASH remains the second leading indication for LT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available