4.6 Article

The effect of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus on outcome of liver transplantation

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 74, Issue 7, Pages 1007-1012

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200210150-00019

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. It is not known whether there was a difference in outcome between insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (type 1) and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (type 2) after liver transplantation. Methods. The outcome of liver transplantation in adult patients with type 1 (n=1,629) and type 2 (n=1,618) was compared to those without diabetes mellitus (DM) (nondiabetics, n=17,974) using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 1994 to 2001, after excluding patients who had living donor or multiple organs or who underwent retransplantation, and those with incomplete data. Results. Cryptogenic cirrhosis, hypertension, and coronary artery disease (CAD) were two to three times more common in types 1 and 2 compared with nondiabetics. Five-year patient and graft survivals by Kaplan-Meier analysis were significantly lower for type 1 (P<0.0001) compared with type 2 or nondiabetics; only patient survival was lower for type 2 (P=0.04). Cox regression survival analysis, after adjusting for confounding variables, showed a lower 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year patient and graft survival in patients with type 1 compared with nondiabetics; however, type 2 was not an independent predictor of survival. Preexisting CAD, and not hypertension, was also an independent predictor of poor 5-year survival. Patients who had both DM and CAD had a lower survival compared with those with either DM or CAD. Conclusions. Type 1 and CAD are both independent predictors of poor outcome after liver transplantation. Liver transplant recipients with type 1 or CAD have approximately 40% lower 5-year survival compared with patients without DM or CAD.

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