Textbook Outcomes in Solid Transplantation: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2024-09-17 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694
Alessandro Martinino, Joseph Matthew Ladowski, Davide Schilirò, Matthew G Hartwig, Dimitrios Moris, Andrew S Barbas
{"title":"Textbook Outcomes in Solid Transplantation: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Alessandro Martinino, Joseph Matthew Ladowski, Davide Schilirò, Matthew G Hartwig, Dimitrios Moris, Andrew S Barbas","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of TO is expanding across various surgical disciplines to establish a standardized, comprehensive quality benchmark. Traditional metrics such as 1-y patient and graft survival have been key for evaluating transplant program performance but are now deemed inadequate because of significant field advancements. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and validity of textbook outcome (TO) in the setting of solid organ transplantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured search, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on March 10, 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, 2 studies addressed TO in heart transplantation, 3 in lung transplantation, 2 in kidney transplantation, and 7 in liver transplantation. A subgroup analysis was conducted to categorize the different definitions of TOs and identify the most common reasons for TO failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic review highlights the ongoing efforts in the field of solid organ transplantation to define TO and emphasizes the importance of developing a universally recognized set of TO criteria for each type of transplant. TO provides a valuable framework for transplant centers to benchmark their performance against similar institutions on a risk-adjusted basis and to pinpoint specific areas for enhancing patient outcomes. Even the most successful programs may discover aspects within the composite outcome with scope for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"10 10","pages":"e1694"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11410326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The concept of TO is expanding across various surgical disciplines to establish a standardized, comprehensive quality benchmark. Traditional metrics such as 1-y patient and graft survival have been key for evaluating transplant program performance but are now deemed inadequate because of significant field advancements. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and validity of textbook outcome (TO) in the setting of solid organ transplantation.

Methods: A structured search, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on March 10, 2024.

Results: Fourteen articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, 2 studies addressed TO in heart transplantation, 3 in lung transplantation, 2 in kidney transplantation, and 7 in liver transplantation. A subgroup analysis was conducted to categorize the different definitions of TOs and identify the most common reasons for TO failure.

Conclusions: Our systematic review highlights the ongoing efforts in the field of solid organ transplantation to define TO and emphasizes the importance of developing a universally recognized set of TO criteria for each type of transplant. TO provides a valuable framework for transplant centers to benchmark their performance against similar institutions on a risk-adjusted basis and to pinpoint specific areas for enhancing patient outcomes. Even the most successful programs may discover aspects within the composite outcome with scope for improvement.

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
实体器官移植的教科书成果:系统回顾
背景:TO 的概念正扩展到各个外科领域,以建立一个标准化的综合质量基准。患者和移植物 1 年存活率等传统指标一直是评估移植项目绩效的关键,但由于该领域的重大进展,这些指标现在已被认为不够充分。本系统综述旨在全面了解教科书结果(TO)在实体器官移植中的适用性和有效性:方法:2024 年 3 月 10 日,根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,在 PubMed、Embase 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了结构化检索:结果:共确定了 14 篇文章纳入本综述。其中,2 项研究涉及心脏移植中的 TO,3 项研究涉及肺移植中的 TO,2 项研究涉及肾移植中的 TO,7 项研究涉及肝移植中的 TO。我们对不同定义的器官移植进行了分组分析,并确定了器官移植失败的最常见原因:我们的系统综述强调了实体器官移植领域为定义TO所做的不懈努力,并强调了为每种类型的移植制定一套普遍认可的TO标准的重要性。TO为移植中心提供了一个有价值的框架,使其可以在风险调整的基础上将自己的表现与同类机构进行比较,并确定提高患者疗效的具体领域。即使是最成功的项目也可能会发现综合结果中有待改进的方面。
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
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiorespiratory Fitness From Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Is a Comprehensive Risk-stratifying Tool in Liver Transplant Candidates. Critical Considerations for Expanding Indications for Nonvascularized Rectus Fascia Transplantation: Clarifying Definitions, Techniques, and Immunogenicity. First Longitudinal Analysis of the Immunological Mechanism at Play in Uterus Transplantation. Mitigating High-risk EBV and CMV Through Kidney Paired Donation: A Survey of Potential Donor and Recipient Candidates. Outcomes Using High KDPI Kidneys in Recipients Over 65 y of Age.
×
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:481959085
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