Incident portal vein thrombosis in liver transplant recipients in New Zealand: Predictors of risk and validation of portal vein thrombosis risk index calculator

Paras Garg, B. Harrison, E. Gane
{"title":"Incident portal vein thrombosis in liver transplant recipients in New Zealand: Predictors of risk and validation of portal vein thrombosis risk index calculator","authors":"Paras Garg, B. Harrison, E. Gane","doi":"10.3389/frtra.2022.1042684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The risk of spontaneous portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is increased in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation and increases perioperative risks. A predictive PVT risk-index (PVT-RI) calculator has been proposed to determine the risk of incident PVT. We performed a retrospective analysis on adult liver transplant recipients at the NZ Liver Transplant Unit between January 1998 and February 2020. Variables reviewed included age at listing and transplantation, wait time from listing to transplant, indication for listing, gender, ethnicity, etiology of liver disease, listing MELD score, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), moderate-to-severe ascites, hepatic encephalopathy (>grade 2), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and diabetes. Incident PVT was determined by imaging of patients while on the waiting list and assessment at transplantation. A total of 553 out of 706 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those 553, 18 (3.3%) patients had incident PVT. The PVT-RI calculator was not validated in our cohort with only one of those 18 (6%) patients having a score of >4.6 (high risk cut-off score). Longer waiting time for transplant and listing for liver failure rather than HCC were independent predictors of the risk of incident PVT. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of PVT in viral vs. non-viral and cholestatic vs. non-cholestatic etiology of chronic liver disease. Patients with longer waiting times on the transplant waiting list should be monitored regularly for PVT.","PeriodicalId":317938,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Transplantation","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frtra.2022.1042684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The risk of spontaneous portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is increased in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation and increases perioperative risks. A predictive PVT risk-index (PVT-RI) calculator has been proposed to determine the risk of incident PVT. We performed a retrospective analysis on adult liver transplant recipients at the NZ Liver Transplant Unit between January 1998 and February 2020. Variables reviewed included age at listing and transplantation, wait time from listing to transplant, indication for listing, gender, ethnicity, etiology of liver disease, listing MELD score, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), moderate-to-severe ascites, hepatic encephalopathy (>grade 2), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and diabetes. Incident PVT was determined by imaging of patients while on the waiting list and assessment at transplantation. A total of 553 out of 706 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those 553, 18 (3.3%) patients had incident PVT. The PVT-RI calculator was not validated in our cohort with only one of those 18 (6%) patients having a score of >4.6 (high risk cut-off score). Longer waiting time for transplant and listing for liver failure rather than HCC were independent predictors of the risk of incident PVT. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of PVT in viral vs. non-viral and cholestatic vs. non-cholestatic etiology of chronic liver disease. Patients with longer waiting times on the transplant waiting list should be monitored regularly for PVT.
新西兰肝移植受者门静脉血栓事件:风险预测因素和门静脉血栓风险指数计算器的验证
自发性门静脉血栓形成(PVT)的风险在等待肝移植的患者中增加,并增加围手术期风险。提出了一种预测PVT风险指数(PVT- ri)计算器来确定PVT事件的风险。我们对1998年1月至2020年2月在新西兰肝移植部门的成人肝移植受者进行了回顾性分析。评估的变量包括入组和移植时的年龄、入组到移植的等待时间、入组适应症、性别、种族、肝病病因、入组MELD评分、肝细胞癌(HCC)、中度至重度腹水、肝性脑病(> 2级)、经颈静脉肝内门系统分流术(TIPSS)、自发性细菌性腹膜炎(SBP)和糖尿病。PVT的发生是通过患者在等待名单和移植评估时的成像来确定的。706例患者中有553例符合纳入标准。在这553例患者中,18例(3.3%)患者发生了pvt。PVT-RI计算器在我们的队列中没有得到验证,这18例患者中只有1例(6%)的评分为bbbb4.6(高风险截止评分)。较长的移植等待时间和肝功能衰竭而非HCC是PVT发生风险的独立预测因素。慢性肝病病毒性与非病毒性、胆汁淤积性与非胆汁淤积性病因的PVT发生率无统计学差异。在移植等待名单上等待时间较长的患者应定期监测PVT。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信