4.0 Article

Pediatric heart-liver transplant outcomes in the United States: A 25-year National Cohort Study

期刊

PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/petr.14066

关键词

heart transplant; liver transplant; heart-liver transplant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pediatric HLT is a rare but acceptable option for recipients with combined end-organ failure, with intermediate survival outcomes comparable to those of single-organ recipients.
Background Pediatric HLT remains uncommon in the United States and criteria for HLT are unclear. The objectives of this study were to review the indications, and outcomes of pediatric HLT. Methods Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients heart and liver databases were used to identify 9245 pediatric isolated heart transplants (PHT), 14 134 pediatric isolated liver transplant (PLT), and 20 pediatric HLT (16 patients underwent sHLT [same organ donor] and four patients with a history of PHT followed by PLT [different organ donors]; age <= 21 years) between 1992 and 2017. Outcomes included patient survival, and 1-year rates of acute heart and liver rejection. Results The median age for pediatric HLT was 15.6 (IQR: 10.5, 17.9) years, and included 12 males (12/20 = 60%). In the HLT group, the most common indication for HT was CHD (12/20 = 60%), and the most common indication for liver transplant was cirrhosis (9/20 = 45%). The 1, 3, and 5 year actuarial survival rates in pediatric simultaneous HLT recipients (n = 16) were 93%, 93%, and 93%, respectively, and was similar to isolated PHT alone (88%, 81%, and 75.5%, respectively and isolated PLT alone (84%, 82%, and 80%), respectively. There was no heart or liver rejection reported in the HLT group versus 9.9% in heart and 10.6% in liver transplant-only groups, respectively. Conclusion Pediatric HLT is an uncommon but acceptable option for recipients with combined end-organ failure, with intermediate survival outcomes comparable to those of single-organ recipients.

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

4.0
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