4.6 Article

Waiting List Mortality and Transplant Rates for NASH Cirrhosis When Compared With Cryptogenic, Alcoholic, or AIH Cirrhosis

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 113-121

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002355

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis have excellent postliver transplant survival despite having many comorbidities. We hypothesized that this could be due to a selection bias. Methods. We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing data from 2002 to 2016 and compared postliver transplant survival of NASH (n = 7935) patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis (CC) (n = 6087), alcoholic cirrhosis (AC) (n = 16810), and autoimmune hepatitis cirrhosis (AIH) (n = 2734). Results. By 3 years of listing, the cumulative incidence (CI) of death or deterioration was 29% for NASH, 28% for CC and AC, and 24% for AIH, but when adjusted for risk factors, the Cl was similar for NASH and AIH. The factors that increased the risk of wafting list removal due to death/deterioration were poor performance status, encephalopathy, diabetes, high Model for End-stage Liver Disease, Hispanic race, older age and a low serum albumin. Most patients were transplanted within the first year (median, 2 months; interquartile range, 1-7 months) of listing and by 5 years, the unadjusted Cl of transplantation was 54% for NASH, 52% for CC, 51% for AIH, and 48% for AC. The adjusted Cl of transplantation within 2 months of listing was higher for AC (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.17), AIH (SHR, 1.17), and CC (SHR, 1.13) when compared with NASH, but after 2 months, adjusted transplantation rates decreased in AC (SHR, 0.6), AIH (SHR, 0.78), and CC (SHR, 0.95). The negative predictors of receiving a transplant were dialysis, female sex, nonwhite race, high albumin, and creatinine. Conclusions. Patients with NASH cirrhosis are not disadvantaged by higher waltlist removal or lower transplantation rates.

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