4.1 Article

Liver transplantation using non-heart-beating donors: Belgian experience

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1481-1484

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.02.077

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mortality on liver transplantation (OLT) waiting lists has increased dramatically. Until recently, non-heart-beating donors (NHBD) were not considered suitable for OLT, because of a higher risk of primary graft nonfunction (PNF) and biliary strictures. However, recent experimental/clinical evidence has indicated that NHBD-OLT is feasible when the period of warm ischemia is short. Purpose. To characterize the results of NHBD-OLT in Belgium, a survey was sent to all Belgian OLT centers. Results. Between January 2003 and November 2005, 16 livers originating from NHBD were procured and transplanted. The mean donor age was 48.8 years, including 9 males and 7 females with mean time of stop-therapy to cardiac arrest being 18 minutes and from cardiac arrest to liver cold perfusion, 10.5 minutes. Mean recipient age was 52.2 years including 12 males and 4 females. Mean cold ischemia time was 7 hours 15 minutes. No PNF requiring re-OLT was observed. Mean post-OLT peak transaminase was 2209 IU/L, which was higher among imported versus locally procured grafts. Biliary complications occurred in 6 patients requiring re-OLT (n = 2), endoscopic treatment (n = 2), surgical treatment (n = 1), or left untreated (n = 1). These tended to be more frequent after prolonged warm ischemia. Graft and patient survivals were 62.5% and 81.3%, respectively, with a follow-up of 3 to 36 months. Conclusion. This survey showed acceptable graft/patient survivals after NHBD-LT. The NHBD-liver grafts suffered a high rate of ischemic injury and biliary complications and therefore should be used carefully, namely with no additional donor risk factors, lower risk recipients, and short cold/warm ischemia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available