移植类型对原发性硬化性胆管炎肝移植术后疗效的影响。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Shiva Kumar, Songhua Lin, Jesse D Schold
{"title":"移植类型对原发性硬化性胆管炎肝移植术后疗效的影响。","authors":"Shiva Kumar, Songhua Lin, Jesse D Schold","doi":"10.1007/s12072-024-10733-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited data exists regarding impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). Our goal was to evaluate the impact of graft type on outcomes following LT in PSC and determine predictors of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Scientific registry of transplant recipients (SRTR), retrospective cohorts were constructed of recipients with PSC over the time period 2010-2020, divided into 2 eras: 2010-2014, 2015-2020, stratified by graft type: living donor (LDLT), donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD). Outcome measures evaluated were graft and patient survival. Survival comparison was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazard models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2966 recipients underwent LT for PSC over the study period: LDLT-PSC 153 (5.2%), DCD-PSC 131 (4.4%) and DBD-PSC 2682 (90.4%). While LDLT utilization was higher in PSC (5.2% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), DCD use was lower (4.4% vs. 7.2%; p < 0.001) but increased over time (era 1 vs. era 2: 3.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.02). Outcomes following DCD-PSC were comparable to DBD and improved over time. Compared to DBD-PSC, there was a trend toward lower short-term graft survival following LDLT-PSC (1 Yr. 85.3 vs. 91.9; p = 0.07) with higher retransplant rate (LDLT-PSC vs. DCD-PSC vs. DBD-PSC: 15% vs 11% vs 7%; p < 0.001). Compared to recipients without PSC, long-term patient survival was superior in LDLT-PSC (5 Yr. 90.1 vs. 83.7%; p = 0.05) and DCD-PSC (93.3 vs. 79.7%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, LDLT but not DCD graft type, was associated with inferior graft survival in PSC (adjusted hazard Ratio = 1.65 (1.16-2.34); p = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In PSC, utilization of LDLT is higher, while DCD use is lower but increased over time. Outcomes following DCD LT in PSC are comparable to DBD and superior to recipients without PSC. Reduced graft survival and higher re-transplant rate following LDLT in PSC warrants further study. Consideration of DCD could help expand the donor pool in PSC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12901,"journal":{"name":"Hepatology International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis.\",\"authors\":\"Shiva Kumar, Songhua Lin, Jesse D Schold\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12072-024-10733-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited data exists regarding impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). Our goal was to evaluate the impact of graft type on outcomes following LT in PSC and determine predictors of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Scientific registry of transplant recipients (SRTR), retrospective cohorts were constructed of recipients with PSC over the time period 2010-2020, divided into 2 eras: 2010-2014, 2015-2020, stratified by graft type: living donor (LDLT), donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD). Outcome measures evaluated were graft and patient survival. Survival comparison was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazard models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2966 recipients underwent LT for PSC over the study period: LDLT-PSC 153 (5.2%), DCD-PSC 131 (4.4%) and DBD-PSC 2682 (90.4%). While LDLT utilization was higher in PSC (5.2% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), DCD use was lower (4.4% vs. 7.2%; p < 0.001) but increased over time (era 1 vs. era 2: 3.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.02). Outcomes following DCD-PSC were comparable to DBD and improved over time. Compared to DBD-PSC, there was a trend toward lower short-term graft survival following LDLT-PSC (1 Yr. 85.3 vs. 91.9; p = 0.07) with higher retransplant rate (LDLT-PSC vs. DCD-PSC vs. DBD-PSC: 15% vs 11% vs 7%; p < 0.001). Compared to recipients without PSC, long-term patient survival was superior in LDLT-PSC (5 Yr. 90.1 vs. 83.7%; p = 0.05) and DCD-PSC (93.3 vs. 79.7%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, LDLT but not DCD graft type, was associated with inferior graft survival in PSC (adjusted hazard Ratio = 1.65 (1.16-2.34); p = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In PSC, utilization of LDLT is higher, while DCD use is lower but increased over time. Outcomes following DCD LT in PSC are comparable to DBD and superior to recipients without PSC. Reduced graft survival and higher re-transplant rate following LDLT in PSC warrants further study. Consideration of DCD could help expand the donor pool in PSC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hepatology International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hepatology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-024-10733-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hepatology International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-024-10733-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有关原发性硬化性胆管炎(PSC)肝移植(LT)后移植物类型对预后影响的数据有限。我们的目标是评估移植物类型对原发性硬化性胆管炎肝移植术后疗效的影响,并确定预测疗效的因素:利用移植受者科学登记处(SRTR),对2010-2020年期间的PSC受者建立了回顾性队列,分为2010-2014年和2015-2020年两个时期,并按移植物类型进行了分层:活体捐献(LDLT)、循环死亡后捐献(DCD)和脑死亡后捐献(DBD)。评估的结果指标为移植物和患者存活率。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法进行生存率比较,并采用 Cox 比例危险模型进行多变量分析:LDLT-PSC为153例(5.2%),DCD-PSC为131例(4.4%),DBD-PSC为2682例(90.4%)。PSC患者的LDLT使用率更高(5.2% vs. 1.3%;P 结论:PSC患者的LDLT使用率更高(5.2% vs. 1.3%):在 PSC 中,LDLT 的使用率较高,而 DCD 的使用率较低,但随着时间的推移有所增加。PSC患者接受DCD LT后的疗效与DBD相当,优于无PSC的受者。PSC患者LDLT后移植物存活率降低,再移植率升高,这值得进一步研究。考虑使用 DCD 有助于扩大 PSC 的供体库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis.

Background: Limited data exists regarding impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). Our goal was to evaluate the impact of graft type on outcomes following LT in PSC and determine predictors of outcomes.

Methods: Using the Scientific registry of transplant recipients (SRTR), retrospective cohorts were constructed of recipients with PSC over the time period 2010-2020, divided into 2 eras: 2010-2014, 2015-2020, stratified by graft type: living donor (LDLT), donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD). Outcome measures evaluated were graft and patient survival. Survival comparison was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazard models.

Results: 2966 recipients underwent LT for PSC over the study period: LDLT-PSC 153 (5.2%), DCD-PSC 131 (4.4%) and DBD-PSC 2682 (90.4%). While LDLT utilization was higher in PSC (5.2% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), DCD use was lower (4.4% vs. 7.2%; p < 0.001) but increased over time (era 1 vs. era 2: 3.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.02). Outcomes following DCD-PSC were comparable to DBD and improved over time. Compared to DBD-PSC, there was a trend toward lower short-term graft survival following LDLT-PSC (1 Yr. 85.3 vs. 91.9; p = 0.07) with higher retransplant rate (LDLT-PSC vs. DCD-PSC vs. DBD-PSC: 15% vs 11% vs 7%; p < 0.001). Compared to recipients without PSC, long-term patient survival was superior in LDLT-PSC (5 Yr. 90.1 vs. 83.7%; p = 0.05) and DCD-PSC (93.3 vs. 79.7%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, LDLT but not DCD graft type, was associated with inferior graft survival in PSC (adjusted hazard Ratio = 1.65 (1.16-2.34); p = 0.005).

Conclusions: In PSC, utilization of LDLT is higher, while DCD use is lower but increased over time. Outcomes following DCD LT in PSC are comparable to DBD and superior to recipients without PSC. Reduced graft survival and higher re-transplant rate following LDLT in PSC warrants further study. Consideration of DCD could help expand the donor pool in PSC.

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
Hepatology International
Hepatology International 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
167
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Hepatology International is the official journal of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL). This is a peer-reviewed journal featuring articles written by clinicians, clinical researchers and basic scientists is dedicated to research and patient care issues in hepatology. This journal will focus mainly on new and emerging technologies, cutting-edge science and advances in liver and biliary disorders. Types of articles published: -Original Research Articles related to clinical care and basic research -Review Articles -Consensus guidelines for diagnosis and treatment -Clinical cases, images -Selected Author Summaries -Video Submissions
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信