Dataset Information

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation.

ABSTRACT: Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81-0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R² 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

SUBMITTER: Barbetta A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9048132 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation.

Barbetta Arianna A Aljehani Mayada M Kim Michelle M Tien Christine C Ahearn Aaron A Schilperoort Hannah H Sher Linda L Emamaullee Juliet J

American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons 20210105 7

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international ...[more]

PMID: 33300241

Similar Datasets

Project description:Adult-to-adult living donors and recipients were studied to characterize patterns of liver growth and identify associated factors in a multicenter study. Three hundred and fifty donors and 353 recipients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) receiving transplants between March 2003 and February 2010 were included. Potential predictors of 3-month liver volume included total and standard liver volumes (TLV and SLV), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (in recipients), the remnant and graft size, remnant-to-donor and graft-to-recipient weight ratios (RDWR and GRWR), remnant/TLV, and graft/SLV. Among donors, 3-month absolute growth was 676 ± 251 g (mean ± SD), and percentage reconstitution was 80% ± 13%. Among recipients, GRWR was 1.3% ± 0.4% (8 < 0.8%). Graft weight was 60% ± 13% of SLV. Three-month absolute growth was 549 ± 267 g, and percentage reconstitution was 93% ± 18%. Predictors of greater 3-month liver volume included larger patient size (donors and recipients), larger graft volume (recipients), and larger TLV (donors). Donors with the smallest remnant/TLV ratios had larger than expected growth but also had higher postoperative bilirubin and international normalized ratio at 7 and 30 days. In a combined donor-recipient analysis, donors had smaller 3-month liver volumes than recipients adjusted for patient size, remnant or graft volume, and TLV or SLV (P = 0.004). Recipient graft failure in the first 90 days was predicted by poor graft function at day 7 (HR = 4.50, P = 0.001) but not by GRWR or graft fraction (P > 0.90 for each). Both donors and recipients had rapid yet incomplete restoration of tissue mass in the first 3 months, and this confirmed previous reports. Recipients achieved a greater percentage of expected total volume. Patient size and recipient graft volume significantly influenced 3-month volumes. Importantly, donor liver volume is a critical predictor of the rate of regeneration, and donor remnant fraction affects postresection function. Liver Transpl 21:79-88, 2015. © 2014 AASLD.

Project description:BackgroundLiving donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.ResultsThirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 - 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 - 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 - 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 - 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 - 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 - 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.ConclusionsLDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of pediatric grafts for liver transplantation (LT) into adult recipients is rare, and reported outcomes are conflicting. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes in adult recipients following LT with grafts from deceased pediatric donors.MethodsA retrospective study identifying adult LT between 2010 and 2020 using pediatric deceased donor liver grafts was conducted. Adults undergoing LT with deceased donor pediatric grafts (age ≤ 12) were identified and matched 1:2 with adults receiving adult grafts (age ≥ 18) based on recipient age (±10 y), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at transplant (±5 points) and etiology of liver disease. To assess real liver size differences between the pediatric-donor and adult-donor groups, patients receiving a graft from a donor between 13 and 17 y were excluded from the main analysis and studied independently. Outcomes between the groups were compared. Complication rates were identified and graded using Clavien-Dindo classification. Graft and patient survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves.ResultsTwelve adult LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased pediatric donors were matched with 24 adult recipients of adult donors. Recipient age and MELD score were similar between groups. Recipients of pediatric grafts were more likely to be female (66.7% versus 16.7%, P = 0.007) and leaner (body mass index = 24.4 versus 29.9, P = 0.013). Alcohol-related cirrhosis was the most prevalent liver disease etiology in both groups (P = 0.96). There was no significant difference in length of stay, readmissions, early complications, or major complications between groups. Vascular and biliary complication rates were similar. Actuarial graft and patient survival at 1, 3, and 5 y were 100/100/100 versus 96/96/96 (P = 0.48).ConclusionsExcellent patient and graft survival is achievable with LT using young pediatric deceased donor grafts in smaller adult recipients. Outcomes are comparable with recipients of age and MELD-matched adult donors. Careful donor MELD-score recipient matching and close monitoring for potential biliary and vascular complications are crucial to achieve acceptable outcomes.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation.

Publications

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets