循环死亡后捐献与脑死亡后捐献的肝细胞癌肝移植结果比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of hepatology Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101484
Abdulahad Abdulrab Mohammed Al-Ameri , Shusen Zheng
{"title":"循环死亡后捐献与脑死亡后捐献的肝细胞癌肝移植结果比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Abdulahad Abdulrab Mohammed Al-Ameri ,&nbsp;Shusen Zheng","doi":"10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and Objectives</h3><p>Due to organ shortages, liver transplantation (LT) using donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) grafts has become more common. There is limited and conflicting evidence on LT outcomes using DCD grafts compared to those using donation-after-brain death (DBD) grafts for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to summarize the current evidence on the outcomes of DCD-LT and DBD-LT in patients with HCC.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>Online databases were searched for studies comparing DCD-LT and DBD-LT outcomes in patients with HCC and a meta-analysis was conducted using fixed- or random-effects models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies involving 487 (33.4%) HCC DCD-LT patients and 973 (66.6%) DBD-LT patients were included. The meta-analysis showed comparable 1-year [relative risk (RR)=0.99, 95%CI:0.95 to 1.03, p=0.53] and 3-year [RR=0.99, 95%CI:0.89 to 1.09, p=0.79] recurrence-free survival. The corresponding 1-year [RR=0.98, 95%CI:0.93 to 1.03, p=0.35] and 3-year [RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.87 to 1.01, p=0.08] patient survival and 1-year [RR=0.91, 95%CI:0.71 to 1.16, p=0.43] and 3-year [RR=0.92, 95%CI:0.67 to 1.26, p=0.59] graft survival were also comparable. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts regarding the tumor characteristics, donor/recipient risk factors and the incidence of post-operative complications, including acute rejection, primary non-function, biliary complications and retransplantation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Based on the current evidence, it has been found that comparable outcomes can be achieved in HCC patients using DCD-LT compared to DBD-LT, particularly when employing good quality graft, strict donor and recipient selection, and effective surgical management. The decision to utilize DCD-LT for HCC patients should be personalized, taking into consideration the risk of post-LT HCC recurrence. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023445812).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7979,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepatology","volume":"29 3","pages":"Article 101484"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124002783/pdfft?md5=677db4e13ee0ff002d37514dba73575b&pid=1-s2.0-S1665268124002783-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in donation after circulatory death compared with donation after brain death: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Abdulahad Abdulrab Mohammed Al-Ameri ,&nbsp;Shusen Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction and Objectives</h3><p>Due to organ shortages, liver transplantation (LT) using donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) grafts has become more common. There is limited and conflicting evidence on LT outcomes using DCD grafts compared to those using donation-after-brain death (DBD) grafts for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to summarize the current evidence on the outcomes of DCD-LT and DBD-LT in patients with HCC.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>Online databases were searched for studies comparing DCD-LT and DBD-LT outcomes in patients with HCC and a meta-analysis was conducted using fixed- or random-effects models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies involving 487 (33.4%) HCC DCD-LT patients and 973 (66.6%) DBD-LT patients were included. The meta-analysis showed comparable 1-year [relative risk (RR)=0.99, 95%CI:0.95 to 1.03, p=0.53] and 3-year [RR=0.99, 95%CI:0.89 to 1.09, p=0.79] recurrence-free survival. The corresponding 1-year [RR=0.98, 95%CI:0.93 to 1.03, p=0.35] and 3-year [RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.87 to 1.01, p=0.08] patient survival and 1-year [RR=0.91, 95%CI:0.71 to 1.16, p=0.43] and 3-year [RR=0.92, 95%CI:0.67 to 1.26, p=0.59] graft survival were also comparable. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts regarding the tumor characteristics, donor/recipient risk factors and the incidence of post-operative complications, including acute rejection, primary non-function, biliary complications and retransplantation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Based on the current evidence, it has been found that comparable outcomes can be achieved in HCC patients using DCD-LT compared to DBD-LT, particularly when employing good quality graft, strict donor and recipient selection, and effective surgical management. The decision to utilize DCD-LT for HCC patients should be personalized, taking into consideration the risk of post-LT HCC recurrence. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023445812).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of hepatology\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124002783/pdfft?md5=677db4e13ee0ff002d37514dba73575b&pid=1-s2.0-S1665268124002783-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124002783\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124002783","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言和目的:由于器官短缺,使用脑死亡后捐献(DCD)移植物进行肝移植(LT)已变得越来越普遍。与使用脑死亡后捐献(DBD)移植物治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)患者相比,使用脑死亡后捐献移植物进行肝移植的结果证据有限且相互矛盾。我们旨在总结目前有关肝细胞癌患者使用DCD-LT和DBD-LT治疗效果的证据:在在线数据库中搜索了比较 DCD-LT 和 DBD-LT 对 HCC 患者疗效的研究,并使用固定或随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析:结果:共纳入5项研究,涉及487例(33.4%)HCC DCD-LT患者和973例(66.6%)DBD-LT患者。荟萃分析显示,1年[相对风险(RR)=0.99,95%CI:0.95~1.03,P=0.53]和3年[RR=0.99,95%CI:0.89~1.09,P=0.79]无复发生存率相当。相应的1年[RR=0.98,95%CI:0.93至1.03,p=0.35]和3年[RR=0.94,95%CI:0.87至1.01,p=0.08]患者生存率以及1年[RR=0.91,95%CI:0.71至1.16,p=0.43]和3年[RR=0.92,95%CI:0.67至1.26,p=0.59]移植物生存率也相当。两组患者在肿瘤特征、供体/受体风险因素和术后并发症(包括急性排斥反应、原发性无功能、胆道并发症和再移植)发生率方面无明显差异:根据目前的证据发现,与 DBD-LT 相比,使用 DCD-LT 可以为 HCC 患者带来相似的疗效,尤其是在采用优质移植物、严格选择供体和受体以及有效手术管理的情况下。考虑到LT后HCC复发的风险,HCC患者使用DCD-LT的决定应该是个性化的。(prospero id: crd42023445812).
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in donation after circulatory death compared with donation after brain death: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction and Objectives

Due to organ shortages, liver transplantation (LT) using donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) grafts has become more common. There is limited and conflicting evidence on LT outcomes using DCD grafts compared to those using donation-after-brain death (DBD) grafts for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to summarize the current evidence on the outcomes of DCD-LT and DBD-LT in patients with HCC.

Materials and Methods

Online databases were searched for studies comparing DCD-LT and DBD-LT outcomes in patients with HCC and a meta-analysis was conducted using fixed- or random-effects models.

Results

Five studies involving 487 (33.4%) HCC DCD-LT patients and 973 (66.6%) DBD-LT patients were included. The meta-analysis showed comparable 1-year [relative risk (RR)=0.99, 95%CI:0.95 to 1.03, p=0.53] and 3-year [RR=0.99, 95%CI:0.89 to 1.09, p=0.79] recurrence-free survival. The corresponding 1-year [RR=0.98, 95%CI:0.93 to 1.03, p=0.35] and 3-year [RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.87 to 1.01, p=0.08] patient survival and 1-year [RR=0.91, 95%CI:0.71 to 1.16, p=0.43] and 3-year [RR=0.92, 95%CI:0.67 to 1.26, p=0.59] graft survival were also comparable. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts regarding the tumor characteristics, donor/recipient risk factors and the incidence of post-operative complications, including acute rejection, primary non-function, biliary complications and retransplantation.

Conclusions

Based on the current evidence, it has been found that comparable outcomes can be achieved in HCC patients using DCD-LT compared to DBD-LT, particularly when employing good quality graft, strict donor and recipient selection, and effective surgical management. The decision to utilize DCD-LT for HCC patients should be personalized, taking into consideration the risk of post-LT HCC recurrence. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023445812).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of hepatology
Annals of hepatology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Hepatology publishes original research on the biology and diseases of the liver in both humans and experimental models. Contributions may be submitted as regular articles. The journal also publishes concise reviews of both basic and clinical topics.
期刊最新文献
Editorial board Global multi-societies endorsement of the MAFLD definition An Acknowledgement Biological aging accelerates hepatic fibrosis: Insights from the NHANES 2017-2020 and genome-wide association study analysis. Development of a biodegradable prosthesis through tissue engineering, for the organ-replacement or substitution of the extrahepatic bile duct
×
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