Early- and long-term outcomes of liver transplantation with rescue allocation grafts.
extended criteria donor
liver transplantation
propensity score matching
rescue allocation
Journal
Clinical transplantation
ISSN: 1399-0012
Titre abrégé: Clin Transplant
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8710240
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
24
02
2020
revised:
20
06
2020
accepted:
11
07
2020
pubmed:
21
7
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
21
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In France, liver grafts which have been refused by at least five centers are proposed as rescue allocation (RA). The aim of this study is to clarify the feasibility and safety of RA grafts in liver transplantation (LT). Short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received RA grafts (RA group) were compared with those of patients who received standard allocation (SA) grafts (SA group). From a total of 1635 patients, 102 patients received RA grafts. Before matching, the RA group was characterized primarily by less severe liver disease, but the quality of graft was worse. After matching recipients' characteristics of 102 patients who used RA grafts with 306 patients who used SA grafts, recipients' characteristics were well balanced (1:3 matching). Although the rate of primary dysfunction was significantly higher in the RA group, there is no significant difference in the occurrence of major complications, length of hospitalization, and mortality between two groups. Graft survival (GS) and overall survival (OS) in the RA group were not significantly different from the SA group (GS; HR = 1.03 P = .89, OS; HR = 1.03 P = .90). In the French allocation system, the feasibility and safety of RA grafts might be comparable to SA grafts for carefully selected patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14046Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Busuttil RW, Tanaka K. The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003;9:651-663.
Cameron AM, Ghobrial RM, Yersiz H, et al. Optimal utilization of donor grafts with extended criteria: a single-center experience in over 1000 liver transplants. Ann Surg. 2006;243:748-755; discussion 753-745.
Tector AJ, Mangus RS, Chestovich P, et al. Use of extended criteria livers decreases wait time for liver transplantation without adversely impacting posttransplant survival. Ann Surg. 2006;244:439-450.
Nemes B, Gaman G, Polak WG, et al. Extended-criteria donors in liver transplantation Part II: reviewing the impact of extended-criteria donors on the complications and outcomes of liver transplantation. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;10:841-859.
Olthoff KM, Kulik L, Samstein B, et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:943-949.
Nanashima A, Pillay P, Verran DJ, et al. Analysis of initial poor graft function after orthotopic liver transplantation: experience of an australian single liver transplantation center. Transplant Proc. 2002;34:1231-1235.
Briceno J, Ciria R, de la Mata M. Donor-recipient matching: myths and realities. J Hepatol. 2013;58:811-820.
Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, Peine CJ, Rank J, ter Borg PC. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology. 2000;31:864-871.
Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Shusang V, et al. A systematic review of the performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the setting of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:1049-1061.
Francoz C, Belghiti J, Castaing D, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease exceptions in the context of the French model for end-stage liver disease score-based liver allocation system. Liver Transpl. 2011;17:1137-1151.
Giretti G, Barbier L, Bucur P, et al. Recipient selection for optimal utilization of discarded grafts in liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2018;102:775-782.
Schemmer P, Nickkholgh A, Gerling T, Weitz J, Buchler MW, Schmidt J. Rescue allocation for liver transplantation within Eurotransplant: the Heidelberg experience. Clin Transplant. 2009;23(Suppl 21):42-48.
Doenecke A, Scherer MN, Tsui TY, Schnitzbauer AA, Schlitt HJ, Obed A. “Rescue allocation offers” in liver transplantation: is there any reason to reject "unwanted" organs? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:1516-1517.
Mossdorf A, Kalverkamp S, Langenbrinck L, et al. Allocation procedure has no impact on patient and graft outcome after liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2013;26:886-892.
Allard MA, Lopes F, Frosio F, et al. Extreme large-for-size syndrome after adult liver transplantation: a model for predicting a potentially lethal complication. Liver Transpl. 2017;23:1294-1304.
Cherqui D, Lauzet JY, Rotman N, et al. Orthotopic liver transplantation with preservation of the caval and portal flows. Technique and results in 62 cases. Transplantation. 1994;58:793-796.
Rajakannu M, Awad S, Ciacio O, et al. Intention-to-treat analysis of percutaneous endovascular treatment of hepatic artery stenosis after orthotopic liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2016;22:923-933.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187-196.
Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1092-1097.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083-3107.
Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. Int J Biostat. 2009;5:Article 13.
Nemes B, Gelley F, Zadori G, et al. Outcome of liver transplantation based on donor graft quality and recipient status. Transplant Proc. 2010;42:2327-2330.
Marcon F, Schlegel AA, Bartlett D, et al. Utilisation of declined liver grafts yields comparable transplant outcomes and previous decline should not be a deterrent to graft use. Transplantation. 2018;102:e211-e218.