Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Hepatology ; 73(6): 2441-2454, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33006772

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata. CONCLUSIONS: The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.


Assuntos
Doença Hepática Terminal , Síndrome Hepatorrenal , Transplante de Fígado , Doadores Vivos/estatística & dados numéricos , China/epidemiologia , Doença Hepática Terminal/epidemiologia , Doença Hepática Terminal/cirurgia , Feminino , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Síndrome Hepatorrenal/epidemiologia , Síndrome Hepatorrenal/cirurgia , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Testes de Função Renal/métodos , Testes de Função Renal/estatística & dados numéricos , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Transplante de Fígado/métodos , Transplante de Fígado/mortalidade , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Período Perioperatório/efeitos adversos , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Análise de Sobrevida , Listas de Espera/mortalidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA