4.6 Article

Waiting List Mortality and Transplant Rates for NASH Cirrhosis When Compared With Cryptogenic, Alcoholic, or AIH Cirrhosis

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 113-121

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002355

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis have excellent postliver transplant survival despite having many comorbidities. We hypothesized that this could be due to a selection bias. Methods. We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing data from 2002 to 2016 and compared postliver transplant survival of NASH (n = 7935) patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis (CC) (n = 6087), alcoholic cirrhosis (AC) (n = 16810), and autoimmune hepatitis cirrhosis (AIH) (n = 2734). Results. By 3 years of listing, the cumulative incidence (CI) of death or deterioration was 29% for NASH, 28% for CC and AC, and 24% for AIH, but when adjusted for risk factors, the Cl was similar for NASH and AIH. The factors that increased the risk of wafting list removal due to death/deterioration were poor performance status, encephalopathy, diabetes, high Model for End-stage Liver Disease, Hispanic race, older age and a low serum albumin. Most patients were transplanted within the first year (median, 2 months; interquartile range, 1-7 months) of listing and by 5 years, the unadjusted Cl of transplantation was 54% for NASH, 52% for CC, 51% for AIH, and 48% for AC. The adjusted Cl of transplantation within 2 months of listing was higher for AC (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.17), AIH (SHR, 1.17), and CC (SHR, 1.13) when compared with NASH, but after 2 months, adjusted transplantation rates decreased in AC (SHR, 0.6), AIH (SHR, 0.78), and CC (SHR, 0.95). The negative predictors of receiving a transplant were dialysis, female sex, nonwhite race, high albumin, and creatinine. Conclusions. Patients with NASH cirrhosis are not disadvantaged by higher waltlist removal or lower transplantation rates.

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