4.7 Article

Biliary Complications After Liver Transplantation Using Grafts from Donors After Cardiac Death Results from a Matched Control Study in a Single Large Volume Center

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 254, 期 5, 页码 716-723

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318235c572

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) [AGH001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the incidence and impact of biliary complications in recipients transplanted from donors after cardiac death (DCD) at one single large institution. Background: Shortage of available cadaveric organs is a significant limiting factor in liver transplantation (LT). The use of DCD offers the potential to increase the organ pool. However, early results with DCD liver grafts were associated with a greater incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), leading to several programs to abandoning this source of organs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database from April 2001 to 2010 focused on 167 consecutive DCD-LT. Each DCD transplant was matched with 2 brain death donors (DBD) grafts (n = 333) according to the period of transplantation. Primary outcome measures were biliary complications including the severity of complications, graft survival and patient survival. Minimum follow-up was 3 months. Results: Anastomotic stricture was the most common biliary complication (DCD = 30, 19% vs. DBD = 41, 13%). Most were treated endocoscopically (grade IIIa = 72%), whereas hepatico-jejunostomy (grade IIIb) was performed in 22%. Primary IC occurred in 4 (2.5%) recipients from the DCD group and was absent in the DBD group (P = 0.005). However, none of these patients required retransplantation. Patient and graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years were similar between DCD and DBD groups (P = 0.106, P = 0.138, P = 0.113, respectively). Conclusions: The encouraging results with DCD-LT are probably due to the selection of DCD grafts and clear definition of warm ischemia.

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

4.7
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