Potential value and limitations of different clinical scoring systems in the assessment of short- and long-term outcome following orthotopic liver transplantation.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
02
02
2019
accepted:
10
03
2019
entrez:
22
3
2019
pubmed:
22
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In an attempt to further improve liver allograft utilization and outcome in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), a variety of clinical scoring systems have been developed. Here we aimed to comparatively investigate the association of the Balance-of-Risk (BAR), Survival-Outcomes-Following-Liver-Transplant (SOFT), Preallocation-Survival-Outcomes-Following-Liver-Transplant (pSOFT), Donor-Risk-Index (DRI), and the Eurotransplant-Donor-Risk-Index (ET-DRI) scores with short- and long-term outcome following OLT. We included 338 consecutive patients, who underwent OLT in our institution between May 2010 and November 2017. For each prognostic model, the optimal cutoff values were determined with the help of the Youden-index and their diagnostic accuracy for 90-day post OLT-mortality and major postoperative complications was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Patient- and graft survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Morbidity was assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the Comprehensive-Complication-Index. BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT performed well above the conventional AUROC-threshold of 0.70 with good prediction of early mortality. Only BAR showed AUC>0.70 for both mortality and major morbidity. With the cutoffs of 14, 31, and 22 respectively for BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT, subgroup analysis showed significant differences (p<0.001) in morbidity and mortality, length of intensive care- and hospital-stay and early allograft dysfunction rates. Five-years patient survival was inferior in the high BAR, pSOFT, and SOFT groups. Out of all scores tested, the BAR-score had the best value in predicting both 90-day morbidity and mortality after OLT showing the highest AUCs. The pSOFT and SOFT scores demonstrated an acceptable accuracy in predicting 90-day morbidity and mortality. The used BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT cutoffs allowed the identification of patients at risk in terms of five-year patient survival. The DRI and ET-DRI scores have failed to predict recipient outcomes in the present setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In an attempt to further improve liver allograft utilization and outcome in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), a variety of clinical scoring systems have been developed. Here we aimed to comparatively investigate the association of the Balance-of-Risk (BAR), Survival-Outcomes-Following-Liver-Transplant (SOFT), Preallocation-Survival-Outcomes-Following-Liver-Transplant (pSOFT), Donor-Risk-Index (DRI), and the Eurotransplant-Donor-Risk-Index (ET-DRI) scores with short- and long-term outcome following OLT.
METHODS
We included 338 consecutive patients, who underwent OLT in our institution between May 2010 and November 2017. For each prognostic model, the optimal cutoff values were determined with the help of the Youden-index and their diagnostic accuracy for 90-day post OLT-mortality and major postoperative complications was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Patient- and graft survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Morbidity was assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the Comprehensive-Complication-Index.
RESULTS
BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT performed well above the conventional AUROC-threshold of 0.70 with good prediction of early mortality. Only BAR showed AUC>0.70 for both mortality and major morbidity. With the cutoffs of 14, 31, and 22 respectively for BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT, subgroup analysis showed significant differences (p<0.001) in morbidity and mortality, length of intensive care- and hospital-stay and early allograft dysfunction rates. Five-years patient survival was inferior in the high BAR, pSOFT, and SOFT groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Out of all scores tested, the BAR-score had the best value in predicting both 90-day morbidity and mortality after OLT showing the highest AUCs. The pSOFT and SOFT scores demonstrated an acceptable accuracy in predicting 90-day morbidity and mortality. The used BAR, SOFT, and pSOFT cutoffs allowed the identification of patients at risk in terms of five-year patient survival. The DRI and ET-DRI scores have failed to predict recipient outcomes in the present setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30897167
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214221
pii: PONE-D-19-03254
pmc: PMC6428268
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0214221Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Liver Transpl. 2012 Jan;18(1):112-9
pubmed: 21987454
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963 Dec;117:659-76
pubmed: 14100514
Ann Surg. 2005 Oct;242(4):556-63; discussion 563-5
pubmed: 16192816
Liver Transpl. 2010 Aug;16(8):943-9
pubmed: 20677285
Am J Transplant. 2006 Apr;6(4):783-90
pubmed: 16539636
J Negat Results Biomed. 2013 Dec 24;12:18
pubmed: 24365258
Liver Transpl. 2017 Sep;23(9):1216-1225
pubmed: 28590542
Ann Surg. 2017 Feb;265(2):388-396
pubmed: 28059967
Am J Transplant. 2008 Dec;8(12):2537-46
pubmed: 18945283
J Hepatol. 2012 Sep;57(3):675-88
pubmed: 22609307
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
Am J Transplant. 2012 Oct;12(10):2789-96
pubmed: 22823098
Transplantation. 2004 Jan 15;77(1):99-106
pubmed: 14724442
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0136604
pubmed: 26378786
Hepatol Int. 2015 Jan;9(1):3-4
pubmed: 25788372
Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):1-7
pubmed: 23728278
Clin Transplant. 2013 Jul-Aug;27(4):627-32
pubmed: 23808891
Liver Int. 2019 Feb;39(2):228-249
pubmed: 30129192
Am J Transplant. 2007 Aug;7(8):1984-8
pubmed: 17617863
Pediatr Transplant. 2016 Sep;20(6):807-12
pubmed: 27478012
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Am J Transplant. 2017 Apr;17(4):1050-1063
pubmed: 27676319
Liver Transpl. 2014 Jul;20(7):831-7
pubmed: 24692309
J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Mar;23(3):529-537
pubmed: 30097968
Ann Surg. 2011 Nov;254(5):745-53; discussion 753
pubmed: 22042468
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014 Apr;15(2):94-8
pubmed: 24283760
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 10;7(10):e017558
pubmed: 29018070
Ann Surg. 2000 Oct;232(4):490-500
pubmed: 10998647
Int J Hepatol. 2012;2012:264015
pubmed: 23091734
Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6
pubmed: 12512033
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014 Dec;399(8):1011-9
pubmed: 25218679
Clin Transplant. 2016 May;30(5):508-17
pubmed: 26854873