Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Using Left and Right Liver Grafts in Adult-to-adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1097/TP.0000000000005200
Hye-Sung Jo, Dong-Sik Kim, Jai Young Cho, Shin Hwang, YoungRok Choi, Jong Man Kim, Jae Geun Lee, Young Kyoung You, Donglak Choi, Je Ho Ryu, Bong-Wan Kim, Yang Won Nah, Man Ki Ju, Tae-Seok Kim, Suk-Won Suh
{"title":"Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Using Left and Right Liver Grafts in Adult-to-adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry.","authors":"Hye-Sung Jo, Dong-Sik Kim, Jai Young Cho, Shin Hwang, YoungRok Choi, Jong Man Kim, Jae Geun Lee, Young Kyoung You, Donglak Choi, Je Ho Ryu, Bong-Wan Kim, Yang Won Nah, Man Ki Ju, Tae-Seok Kim, Suk-Won Suh","doi":"10.1097/TP.0000000000005200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Living-donor liver transplantation has been widely performed as an alternative to the scarce liver grafts from deceased donors. More studies are reporting favorable outcomes of left liver graft (LLG). This study compared the clinical outcomes between living-donor liver transplantation using LLG and right liver graft (RLG) with similar graft-to-recipient body weight ratios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed 4601 patients from a multicenter observational cohort using the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry between 2014 and 2021. After matching the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and graft-to-recipient body weight ratios because of the extremely different number in each group, the LLG and RLG groups comprised 142 (25.1%) and 423 (74.9%) patients, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For donors, the median age was higher in the LLG group than in the RLG group (34 y [range, 16-62 y] versus 30 y [16-66 y] ; P  = 0.002). For recipients, the LLG group showed higher 90-d mortality than the RLG group (11 [7.7%] versus 9 [2.1%]; P  = 0.004). The long-term graft survival was significantly worse in the LLG group ( P  = 0.011). In multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for graft survival, LLG was not a significant risk factor (hazard ratio, 1.01 [0.54-1.87]; P  = 0.980). Otherwise, donor age (≥40 y; 2.18 y [1.35-3.52 y]; P  = 0.001) and recipients' body mass index (<18.5 kg/m 2 ; 2.98 kg/m 2 [1.52-5.84 kg/m 2 ]; P  = 0.002) were independent risk factors for graft survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the short-term and long-term graft survival was worse in the LLG group, LLG was not an independent risk factor for graft survival in multivariate analysis. LLGs are still worth considering for selected donors and recipients regarding risk factors for graft survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":23316,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":"e45-e53"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000005200","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Living-donor liver transplantation has been widely performed as an alternative to the scarce liver grafts from deceased donors. More studies are reporting favorable outcomes of left liver graft (LLG). This study compared the clinical outcomes between living-donor liver transplantation using LLG and right liver graft (RLG) with similar graft-to-recipient body weight ratios.

Methods: This study analyzed 4601 patients from a multicenter observational cohort using the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry between 2014 and 2021. After matching the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and graft-to-recipient body weight ratios because of the extremely different number in each group, the LLG and RLG groups comprised 142 (25.1%) and 423 (74.9%) patients, respectively.

Results: For donors, the median age was higher in the LLG group than in the RLG group (34 y [range, 16-62 y] versus 30 y [16-66 y] ; P  = 0.002). For recipients, the LLG group showed higher 90-d mortality than the RLG group (11 [7.7%] versus 9 [2.1%]; P  = 0.004). The long-term graft survival was significantly worse in the LLG group ( P  = 0.011). In multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for graft survival, LLG was not a significant risk factor (hazard ratio, 1.01 [0.54-1.87]; P  = 0.980). Otherwise, donor age (≥40 y; 2.18 y [1.35-3.52 y]; P  = 0.001) and recipients' body mass index (<18.5 kg/m 2 ; 2.98 kg/m 2 [1.52-5.84 kg/m 2 ]; P  = 0.002) were independent risk factors for graft survival.

Conclusions: Although the short-term and long-term graft survival was worse in the LLG group, LLG was not an independent risk factor for graft survival in multivariate analysis. LLGs are still worth considering for selected donors and recipients regarding risk factors for graft survival.

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
成人对成人活体肝移植中使用左肝和右肝移植物的临床结果比较:利用韩国器官移植登记处进行的回顾性队列研究。
背景:活体肝移植已广泛开展,以替代稀缺的死亡供体肝移植。越来越多的研究报告了左肝移植(LLG)的良好疗效。本研究比较了在移植物与受体体重比相似的情况下,使用左肝移植物和右肝移植物(RLG)进行活体肝移植的临床效果:本研究分析了2014年至2021年间使用韩国器官移植登记处的多中心观察队列中的4601名患者。由于每组患者人数相差悬殊,在对终末期肝病模型评分和移植物与受体体重比进行匹配后,LLG 组和 RLG 组分别包括 142 名(25.1%)和 423 名(74.9%)患者:就供体而言,LLG 组的中位年龄高于 RLG 组(34 岁 [16-62 岁] 对 30 岁 [16-66 岁];P = 0.002)。就受者而言,LLG 组的 90 天死亡率高于 RLG 组(11 [7.7%] 对 9 [2.1%];P = 0.004)。LLG组的长期移植物存活率明显低于RLG组(P = 0.011)。在移植物存活率的多变量 Cox 比例危险回归分析中,LLG 不是一个重要的风险因素(危险比为 1.01 [0.54-1.87]; P = 0.980)。此外,供体年龄(≥40 岁;2.18 岁 [1.35-3.52 岁];P = 0.001)和受体体重指数(结论:虽然短期和长期移植物存活率与供体年龄、受体体重指数和受体年龄有关,但这两个因素都不是重要的风险因素:虽然 LLG 组的短期和长期移植物存活率较低,但在多变量分析中,LLG 并非移植物存活率的独立风险因素。就移植物存活率的风险因素而言,LLG 仍值得选定的供体和受体考虑。
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
Transplantation 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.30%
发文量
1906
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of The Transplantation Society, and the International Liver Transplantation Society, Transplantation is published monthly and is the most cited and influential journal in the field, with more than 25,000 citations per year. Transplantation has been the trusted source for extensive and timely coverage of the most important advances in transplantation for over 50 years. The Editors and Editorial Board are an international group of research and clinical leaders that includes many pioneers of the field, representing a diverse range of areas of expertise. This capable editorial team provides thoughtful and thorough peer review, and delivers rapid, careful and insightful editorial evaluation of all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Transplantation is committed to rapid review and publication. The journal remains competitive with a time to first decision of fewer than 21 days. Transplantation was the first in the field to offer CME credit to its peer reviewers for reviews completed. The journal publishes original research articles in original clinical science and original basic science. Short reports bring attention to research at the forefront of the field. Other areas covered include cell therapy and islet transplantation, immunobiology and genomics, and xenotransplantation. ​
期刊最新文献
Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Amyloidosis: US National Database Study. All Cloak and No Dagger? Immunosuppression-free Lung Transplantation by Sustained Knockdown of Major Histocompatibility Complex Expression in the Graft. Metabolic Flexibility Predicts Response to Saroglitazar in Liver Transplant Recipients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Organ Transplantation in India: INDEED, for the Common Good! Photoacoustic Tomography Assessments During Ex Vivo Normothermic Perfusion. A Novel and Noninvasive Modality to Evaluate Endothelial Integrity.
×
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