Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY BJS Open Pub Date : 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae058
Christof Kaltenmeier, Hao Liu, Xingyu Zhang, Armando Ganoza, Andrew Crane, Colin Powers, Vikraman Gunabushanam, Jaideep Behari, Michele Molinari
{"title":"Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Christof Kaltenmeier, Hao Liu, Xingyu Zhang, Armando Ganoza, Andrew Crane, Colin Powers, Vikraman Gunabushanam, Jaideep Behari, Michele Molinari","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11152206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae058","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification.

Results: After propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT.

Conclusions: In this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
活体肝移植与死体肝移植后的存活率:倾向评分匹配研究。
背景:对于晚期肝病患者来说,活体肝移植(LDLT)和死亡供体肝移植(DDLT)的疗效是否一致尚不确定:方法:利用从移植受者科学登记处提取的数据进行了一项回顾性队列研究。采用倾向分数匹配法对 2002 年至 2020 年期间在美国首次接受 DDLT 或 LTDL 的成人进行配对,配对比例为 1:10,无替换。使用终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分对患者和移植物存活率进行分层比较:结果:经过倾向分数匹配后,31 522 名 DDLT 和 3854 名 LDLT 受者被纳入其中。对于MELD评分≤15分的受者,LDLT与较高的患者生存率相关(HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013)。MELD评分在16到30之间的患者生存率无明显差异。相反,对于 MELD 评分大于 30 分的患者,LDLT 与较高的死亡率相关(HR 2.57;95% c.i. 1.35 至 4.62;P = 0.003)。对于 MELD≤15 和 MELD 介于 21-30 之间的患者,两组的移植物存活率相当。然而,对于 MELD 在 16 到 20 之间(HR = 1.15;95% c.i. 1.00 到 1.33;P = 0.04)和 MELD > 30(HR = 2.85;95% c.i. 1.65 到 4.91;P = 0.001)的患者,LDLT 后的移植物存活率要短得多。无论MELD评分如何,LDLT术后第一年内的再移植率明显更高:结论:在这项利用全国数据进行的大型倾向评分匹配研究中发现,对于 MELD 评分在 16 分至 30 分之间的受者,LDLT 和 DDLT 的患者存活率相当。相反,对于 MELD > 30 分的患者,LDLT 与较差的预后相关。这些发现强调了对 MELD 评分较高的患者进行移植选择的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Comparison of two bundles for reducing surgical site infection in colorectal surgery: multicentre cohort study. Best of upper gastrointestinal surgery in 2025. Long-term outcomes of Lichtenstein and laparoscopic primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: registry-based propensity score-matched analysis. Effect of hospital volume on gastric cancer resection outcome in Switzerland: 24-year nationwide retrospective analysis. Impact of prehabilitation on patient-perceived quality of recovery after surgery: prospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1