4.8 Article

Liver transplantation for HBV-related cirrhosis in Europe: An ELTR study on evolution and outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 287-296

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.016

关键词

Liver transplantation; Hepatitis B; Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: HBV-related chronic liver disease is one of the most common indications for liver transplantation (LT) in Europe. The ELTR database was used to evaluate outcomes and evolution over 20 years (01/1988 and 12/2010). Methods: HBV transplanted patients were analysed according to indication for LT: decompensated cirrhosis (HBVdec) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HBV/HCC). These groups were compared with co-infected patients HBV/HDV (HBDV), HBV/HCV (HBCV), HBV/HDV/HCV (HBDCV); n = 16,664 and with HCV patients (n = 2452) according to LT indication. Results: 5912 patients were transplanted for HBV (78% HBVdec, 22% HBV/HCC), with HBV/HCC patients who increased from 15.8% in 1988-1995 to 29.6% in 2006-2010 (p <0.001). In HBVdec patients, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year patient and graft survival was 83%, 78%, 75%, 68%, and 80%, 74%, 71%, 64%, respectively, significantly better than HBV/HCC (84%, 73%, 68%, 61%, and 81%, 70%, 65%, 58% respectively; p = 0.001 and p = 0.026). In 2006-2010 patient and graft survival significantly improved compared to 1988-1995, both for HBVdec and HBV/HCC (each p <0.001). A better patient and graft survival was seen in HBV/HCC patients with HBV-DNA(-) compared to HBV-DNA(+) at the time of LT (p <0.001). Disease recurrence, as cause of death/graft loss, was significantly reduced in recent years compared to the past: currently <1% for HBVdec and 3% for HBV/HCC. Conclusions: Outcomes of LT for HBV have improved in recent years, with disease recurrence being no longer a significant cause of death/graft loss. HBV-DNA at the time of LT seems to influence survival only in HBV/HCC patients. (C) 2012 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据