4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

The choice of recipient does not have a bearing on early outcome in liver transplant patients receiving grafts from non-heart-beating donors: A reappraisal?

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 2675-2677

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.08.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Donation after cardiac death has reemerged as a potential way of increasing the supply of organs for transplantation. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of non-heart-beating donor (NHBD) liver transplantation (OLT) experience and compared with standard heart-beating donation (HBD) at a single center. Methods. From October 2003 to November 2006, 13/111 liver transplantations were performed in our institution with NHBD. Living donor liver transplantation, splitting procedures, combined, and pediatric liver transplantations were excluded from this analysis. Results. Donor population was similar in both groups. The median warm ischemia time was 10 minutes (range 6 to 38). The median cold ischemia times 6 hours and 16 minutes (2.4 to 6.30 hours and 9 hours and 14 minutes (2.15 to 15.35 hours) for NHBD and HBD groups, respectively (P = .0002). In the NHBD groups, 4/13 (31%) grafts were retransplanted within 3 months, due to ischemic biliary lesions with severe cholestasis (n = 3) or due to the occurrence of primary nonfunction (n = 1). The retransplantation rate was significantly lower in the HBD group (11/98, 11%; P = .03). One-year patient and graft survivals were 62% and 54% versus 86% and 79%, respectively, for the NHBD and HBD groups (P = .107 and P = .003). Conclusion. Liver grafts procured from donors after cardiac death accounted for a significantly greater retransplantation rates, mainly due to nonanastomotic biliary strictures. This risk must be taken into account when transplanting such grafts. Based upon this experience, NHBD cannot rival HBD to be a comparable source of quality organs for liver transplantation.

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

4.1
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