Is there any correlation between liver graft regeneration and recipient's pretransplant skeletal muscle mass?-a study in extended left lobe graft living-donor liver transplantation.
Liver regeneration
living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT)
malnutrition
sarcopenia
skeletal muscle mass index
Journal
Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition
ISSN: 2304-3881
Titre abrégé: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr
Pays: China (Republic : 1949- )
ID NLM: 101600750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
2
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The end-stage liver disease causes a metabolic dysfunction whose most prominent clinical feature is the loss of skeletal muscle mass (SMM). In living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), liver graft regeneration (GR) represents a crucial process to normalize the portal hypertension and to meet the metabolic demand of the recipient. Limited data are available on the correlation between pre-LDLT low SMM and GR. Retrospective study on a cohort of 106 LDLT patients receiving an extended left liver lobe graft. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) at L3 level was used for muscle mass measurement, and the recommended cut-off values of the Japanese Society of Hepatology guidelines were used as criteria for defining low muscularity. GR was evaluated as rate of volume increase at 1 month post-LT [graft regeneration rate (GRR)]. The median GRR at 1 month post-LT was 91% (IQR, 65-128%) and a significant correlation with graft volume-to-recipient standard liver volume ratio (GV/SLV) (rho -0.467, P<0.001), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) (rho -0.414, P<0.001), donor age (rho -0.306, P=0.001), 1 month post-LT cholinesterase serum levels (rho 0.397, P=0.002) and pre-LT low muscularity [absent Additionally to the hemodynamic factors of portal circulation and the quality of the graft, the metabolic status of the recipients has a significant role in the GR process. A pre-LT low SMM is associated with impaired GRR and this negative impact is more evident in male recipients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The end-stage liver disease causes a metabolic dysfunction whose most prominent clinical feature is the loss of skeletal muscle mass (SMM). In living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), liver graft regeneration (GR) represents a crucial process to normalize the portal hypertension and to meet the metabolic demand of the recipient. Limited data are available on the correlation between pre-LDLT low SMM and GR.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective study on a cohort of 106 LDLT patients receiving an extended left liver lobe graft. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) at L3 level was used for muscle mass measurement, and the recommended cut-off values of the Japanese Society of Hepatology guidelines were used as criteria for defining low muscularity. GR was evaluated as rate of volume increase at 1 month post-LT [graft regeneration rate (GRR)].
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median GRR at 1 month post-LT was 91% (IQR, 65-128%) and a significant correlation with graft volume-to-recipient standard liver volume ratio (GV/SLV) (rho -0.467, P<0.001), graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) (rho -0.414, P<0.001), donor age (rho -0.306, P=0.001), 1 month post-LT cholinesterase serum levels (rho 0.397, P=0.002) and pre-LT low muscularity [absent
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Additionally to the hemodynamic factors of portal circulation and the quality of the graft, the metabolic status of the recipients has a significant role in the GR process. A pre-LT low SMM is associated with impaired GRR and this negative impact is more evident in male recipients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32355676
doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.11.08
pii: hbsn-09-02-183
pmc: PMC7188548
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
183-194Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
2020 Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2019.11.08). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun 7;22(21):4966-76
pubmed: 27275089
Surg Today. 2015 Jun;45(6):663-71
pubmed: 24894564
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jul;30(7):1217-24
pubmed: 25682855
Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Nov;58(11):3103-11
pubmed: 23912247
Nutrients. 2018 Dec 18;10(12):
pubmed: 30567387
Am J Transplant. 2014 Dec;14(12):2777-87
pubmed: 25395154
Liver Transpl. 2015 Jan;21(1):79-88
pubmed: 25065488
Liver Transpl. 2016 Nov;22(11):1519-1525
pubmed: 27342832
World J Surg. 2012 May;36(5):1102-11
pubmed: 22374540
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Apr;43(7):765-77
pubmed: 26847265
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Feb;30(2):244-51
pubmed: 25087838
Liver Transpl. 2003 Jun;9(6):547-51
pubmed: 12783393
Liver Transpl. 2017 Nov;23(11):1451-1464
pubmed: 29072825
Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2011;2011:526379
pubmed: 21912543
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Feb;8(1):113-121
pubmed: 27239424
Liver Transpl. 2016 Jan;22(1):103-10
pubmed: 26202132
Ann Transplant. 2018 Jul 27;23:507-519
pubmed: 30050031
Hepatol Res. 2016 Sep;46(10):951-63
pubmed: 27481650
Am J Transplant. 2009 Jun;9(6):1382-8
pubmed: 19459827
Ann Transplant. 2018 Jul 17;23:481-490
pubmed: 30013021
Clin Transplant. 2019 Apr;33(4):e13495
pubmed: 30773726
Liver Transpl. 2009 Sep;15(9):1043-9
pubmed: 19718645
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Nov;95(46):e5404
pubmed: 27861381
Transplantation. 2000 Dec 27;70(12):1703-7
pubmed: 11152100
Clin Imaging. 2008 Jan-Feb;32(1):6-10
pubmed: 18164387