Outcomes following liver transplantation for patients with alcohol- versus nonalcohol-induced liver disease.

OBJECTIVE: To document and compare the outcomes of adult patients who received liver transplants for alcohol- and nonalcohol-induced liver diseases who attended a liver transplantation follow-up clinic in an urban, nontransplantation centre at a time when no formal alcohol abuse program for transplant candidates and/or recipients was offered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 10 alcoholic patients and 48 nonalcoholic patients followed for an average of 41 months (range five to 79 months) and 46 months (range two to 116 months), respectively. Primary outcome variables included rates of recidivism, duration of abstinence after transplantation and compliance with post-transplant medical follow-up visits. Time to discharge after transplantation, episodes of graft rejection, liver and renal biochemical abnormalities, diabetes, hypertension, sepsis, strictures, complications unrelated to transplantation and changes in psychosocial status were secondary outcome variables. RESULTS: Significant differences were found with respect to a higher incidence of recidivism (50% for alcoholic patients compared with 2% for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.0001), a shorter period of abstinence after transplantation (14.7+/-17.2 months for alcoholic patients compared with 26.3+/-23.0 months for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.05) and more missed office visits (2.7+/-3.5 for alcoholic patients compared with 1.0+/-1.9 for nonalcoholic patients, P=0.05) in the alcoholic group. The alcoholic group also had a lower incidence of rejection episodes (10% for alcoholic patients compared with 44% for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.05) but higher rates of post-transplantation diabetes (40% for alcoholic patients compared with 2% for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.05), more nontransplantation-related complications (20% for alcoholic patients compared with 0% for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.05), and higher serum creatinine but lower bilirubin and cyclosporine A levels (P<0.05, respectively). Marital separations were also more common in the alcoholic group (20% for alcoholic patients compared with 0% for nonalcoholic patients, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of formal alcohol abuse programs, the post-transplantation outcome in alcoholic patients generally does not compare well with that of patients who undergo transplantation for nonalcohol-related liver diseases.

Profile of a liver transplant follow-up clinic in a nontransplant Canadian urban centre.

Care of the growing number of liver transplant recipients will increasingly fall on the referring centres. Thus, there is a need to define more clearly the demographic, clinical and laboratory profiles of liver transplant recipients, particularly in the setting of a centre where a liver transplantation program does not exist. The present study documented these features in 37 patients attending an adult ambulatory care clinic in an urban, nonliver transplant centre. Mean +/- SD age of the study population was 44 +/- 11.9 years. Twenty-one patients (57%) were male. Annual enrolment in the clinic increased from three patients at the completion of the clinic's first year (1988) to 16 patients in the final year of the study (1993). Time between the transplantation procedure and the patient's return to the referring centre decreased from a mean of 12 weeks in 1988 to four weeks in 1993. During those seven years no patient required an unscheduled return to the transplant centre for surgical complications or problems associated with immuno-suppressive therapy. In conclusion, these data provide a profile of liver transplant patients attending a nonliver transplant centre for follow-up and support the concept that nontransplant centres are capable of providing safe and, in terms of travel, less expensive care for liver transplant recipients.