活体肝移植与死体肝移植后的存活率:倾向评分匹配研究。

IF 3.5 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":"活体肝移植与死体肝移植后的存活率:倾向评分匹配研究。","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":3.5000,"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":"{\"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\":3.5000,\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

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
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
期刊最新文献
Classifying histopathological growth patterns for resected colorectal liver metastasis with a deep learning analysis. Short-term outcomes depending on type of oesophagojejunostomy in laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: retrospective study based on a Korean Nationwide Survey for Gastric Cancer in 2019. Association of postoperative opioid type with mortality and readmission rates: multicentre retrospective cohort study. Effects of the superior mesenteric artery approach versus the no-touch approach during pancreatoduodenectomy on the mobilization of circulating tumour cells and clusters in pancreatic cancer (CETUPANC): randomized clinical trial. Reported outcomes in studies of intermittent claudication - first step toward a core outcome set: systematic review.
×
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