Expedited evaluation for liver transplantation: A critical look at processes and outcomes.


Journal

Clinical transplantation
ISSN: 1399-0012
Titre abrégé: Clin Transplant
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8710240

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2022
Historique:
revised: 07 10 2021
received: 22 02 2021
accepted: 30 10 2021
pubmed: 19 11 2021
medline: 26 4 2022
entrez: 18 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time. Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation. Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death. Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time.
METHODS
Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation.
RESULTS
Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34791697
doi: 10.1111/ctr.14539
pmc: PMC8898283
mid: NIHMS1757173
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e14539

Subventions

Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI125222
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001872
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Transplantation. 2016 Oct;100(10):2146-52
pubmed: 27490419
Am J Transplant. 2006 Apr;6(4):783-90
pubmed: 16539636
Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2019 Dec 20;14(5):171-175
pubmed: 31879558
J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Oct;223(4):611-620.e4
pubmed: 27457252
J Surg Res. 2013 Aug;183(2):936-43
pubmed: 23558257
J Hepatol. 2015 Apr;62(1 Suppl):S131-43
pubmed: 25920082
JAMA. 2014 Mar 26;311(12):1234-43
pubmed: 24668105

Auteurs

Hillary J Braun (HJ)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Anna Mello (A)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Rishi Kothari (R)

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Elaine Ku (E)

Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mignote Yilma (M)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mehdi Tavakol (M)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Li Zhang (L)

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, California, USA.

Claus U Niemann (CU)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Nancy L Ascher (NL)

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Dieter Adelmann (D)

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH