4.6 Article

Recipient Morbidity After Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: Findings from the A2ALL Retrospective Cohort Study†

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 2569-2579

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02440.x

关键词

A2ALL; complications; learning curve; liver transplant; living donor; outcomes

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [U01-DK62536, U01-DK62444, U01-DK62467, U01-DK62483, U01-DK62484, U01-DK62494, U01-DK62496, U01-DK62498, U01-DK62505, U01-DK62531]
  2. U. S. Department of Health Resources and Services Administration
  3. American Society of Transplant Surgeons

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients considering living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) need to know the risk and severity of complications compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). One aim of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) was to examine recipient complications following these procedures. Medical records of DDLT or LDLT recipients who had a living donor evaluated at the nine A2ALL centers between 1998 and 2003 were reviewed. Among 384 LDLT and 216 DDLT, at least one complication occurred after 82.8% of LDLT and 78.2% of DDLT (p = 0.17). There was a median of two complications after DDLT and three after LDLT. Complications that occurred at a higher rate (p < 0.05) after LDLT included biliary leak (31.8% vs. 10.2%), unplanned reexploration (26.2% vs. 17.1%), hepatic artery thrombosis (6.5% vs. 2.3%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.9% vs. 0.0%). There were more complications leading to retransplantation or death (Clavien grade 4) after LDLT versus DDLT (15.9% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.023). Many complications occurred more commonly during early center experience; the odds of grade 4 complications were more than two-fold higher when centers had performed <= 20 LDLT (vs. > 40). In summary, complication rates were higher after LDLT versus DDLT, but declined with center experience to levels comparable to DDLT.

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