4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Revealing the cause of cryptogenic cirrhosis by posttransplant liver biopsy

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 2334-2337

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.07.003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Because of the tendency for preexisting diseases to recur following liver transplantation, studying the course of patients who were transplanted for their cryptogenic cirrhosis may reveal features of the original cause. We examined the clinicopathological posttransplant progression of patients transplanted due to cryptogenic cirrhosis with emphasis on the detection of posttransplant steatosis and steatohepatitis. Methods. The data on all patients transplanted for cryptogenic cirrhosis and their routine 1-year posttransplant liver biopsies were compared to a control group of a randomized sample of patients transplanted for other indications matched for length of follow-up. The posttransplant histological diagnosis was based on the latest available biopsy. Results. Among 1710 patients, 39 present with cryptogenic etiology survived at least 1 year after transplantation. The control group consisted of 78 patients. The mean ages of the two groups were 50.7 and 49.3 years and the mean follow-up periods 6.2 and 5.7 years, both of which were similar. There was a significantly greater prevalence of posttransplant steatosis and steatohepatitis among the cryptogenic group (37.5 vs 16.7%, P =.048). The difference in patients with at least moderate steatosis was more pronounced (18.8 vs 3.3%, P =.035). Half of these cases progressed to fibrosis and cirrhosis after 48 months. Conclusions. This study found a greater incidence of allograft steatosis and steatohepatitis among patients transplanted for cryptogenic cirrhosis compared with a control group. A significant proportion of these patients developed a picture resembling nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, which progressed to fibrosis and cirrhosis.

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