4.6 Article

Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Patients Older Than 60 Years

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 433-437

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181e81b2d

关键词

Living donor liver transplantation; Elderly recipient; 60 Years of age

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been performed in adult patients. However, there are a few reports on how recipient age affects the outcome of LDLT. This study assessed LDLT outcome in patients aged 60 years or older. Methods. A total of 267 patients were enrolled and classified into two groups: those younger than 60 years (younger group, n=210) and those aged 60 years or older (older group, n=57). The 6-month and 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survivals and the incidence of complications were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the risk factors. Results. Fifty-five of 57 (96.5%) donors in the older group were younger than 50 years (range 25-47 years), whereas only 177 of 210 (84.3%) donors in the younger group were younger than 50 years (P<0.0001). The 6-month and 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates of the older group were 92.9%, 85.3%, 72.7%, and 70.3%, respectively, whereas those of the younger group were 87.4%, 85.8%, 80.2%, and 78.2%, respectively. Neither difference was significant. A multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of diabetes, lack of hepatocellular carcinoma, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Score more than or equal to 20 were independent risk factors for survival less than 1 year after LDLT (P=0.0003, P=0.014, and P=0.041, respectively). Another multivariate analysis revealed that the lack of consanguinity, MELD Score more than or equal to 20, and male recipient were independent risk factors for death 1 year or more after LDLT (P=0.004, P=0.005, and P=0.015, respectively). Conclusion. Recipient age did not affect LDLT outcome when patients with MELD Score less than 20 received grafts from consanguineous donors.

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

4.6
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