Dataset Information

Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).

Approach and results

Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata.

Conclusions

The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

SUBMITTER: Wong TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Deceased-donor renal transplant (DDRT) is an expensive and potentially risky health intervention with the prospect of improved life and lower long-term costs compared with dialysis. Due to the increasing shortage of kidneys and the associated rise of transplantation costs, certain patient groups may not benefit from transplantation in a cost-effective manner compared with dialysis. The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DDRT relative to dialysis to treat adults with end-stage renal disease and patient-, donor-, and system-level factors that may modify the conclusion. A systematic search of articles was conducted on major databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EconLit, and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Eligible articles were restricted to those published in 2001 or thereafter. Two reviewers independently assessed the suitability of studies and excluded studies that focused on recipients with age <18 years old and those of a living-donor or multiorgan transplant. We show that while DDRT is generally a cost-effective treatment relative to dialysis at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds, a range of drivers including older patient age, comorbidity, and long wait times significantly reduce the benefit of DDRT while escalating healthcare costs. These findings suggest that the performance of DDRT on older patients with comorbidities should be carefully evaluated to avoid adverse results as evidence suggests that it is not cost-effective. Delayed transplantation may reduce the economic benefits of transplant which necessitates targeted policies that aim to shorten wait times. More recent findings have demonstrated that transplantation using high-risk donors may be a cost-effective and promising alternative to dialysis in the face of a lack of organ availability and fiscal constraints. This review highlights key concepts of health economic evaluations and the relevance of cost-effectiveness to inform care and decision-making in renal programs.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States. Quantification of lifetime survival benefit and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score range at which benefit outweighs risk in LDLT is necessary to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.ObjectiveTo assess the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list.Design, setting, and participantsThis case-control study was a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database of 119 275 US liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 1, 2012, to September 2, 2021. Liver transplant candidates aged 18 years or older who were assigned to the wait list (N = 116 455) or received LDLT (N = 2820) were included. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant and those with prior kidney or liver transplants were excluded.ExposuresLiving-donor liver transplant vs remaining on the wait list.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of this study was life-years saved from receiving an LDLT. Secondary outcomes included 1-year relative mortality and risk, time to equal risk, time to equal survival, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list. MELD-Na score ranges from 6 to 40 and is well correlated with short-term survival. Higher MELD-Na scores (>20) are associated with an increased risk of death.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 119 275 study participants was 55.1 (11.2) years, 63% were male, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.3% were Asian, 8.2% were Black or African American, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 70.2% were White. Mortality risk and survival models confirmed a significant survival benefit for patients receiving an LDLT who had a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.47-0.88]; P = .006). Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13 to 17 life-years compared with patients who never received an LDLT.Conclusions and relevanceAn LDLT is associated with a substantial survival benefit to patients with end-stage liver disease even at MELD-Na scores as low as 11. The findings of this study suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by any other lifesaving procedure or by a deceased-donor liver transplant. This study's findings challenge current perceptions regarding when LDLT survival benefit occurs.