| 1. |
- Ivanics, Tommy, et al.
(författare)
-
Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in Western countries despite excellent outcomes : International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hepatology. - : Elsevier. - 0168-8278 .- 1600-0641. ; 77:6, s. 1607-1618
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background & Aims: Adult-to-adult living donor liver trans-plantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada.Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (>-18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan -20 08 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling.Results: A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for charac-teristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non -statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78).Conclusions: The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Goto, Toru, et al.
(författare)
-
Superior long‐term outcome of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation : A cumulative single‐center cohort study with 20 years follow‐up
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Liver transplantation. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1527-6465 .- 1527-6473. ; 28:5, s. 834-842
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Although both modalities have similar short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes are not well studied. We compared the 20-year outcomes of 668 adults who received LDLT with1596 DDLTs at the largest liver transplantation (LT) program in Canada. Recipients of LDLT were significantly younger and more often male than DDLT recipients (P < 0.001). Autoimmune diseases were more frequent in LDLT, whereas viral hepatitis and alcohol-related liver disease were more frequent in DDLT. LDLT recipients had lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (P = 0.008), spent less time on the waiting list (P < 0.001), and were less often inpatients at the time of LT (P < 0.001). In a nonadjusted analysis, 1-year, 10-year, and 20-year patient survival rates were significantly higher in LDLT (93%, 74%, and 56%, respectively) versus DDLT (91%, 67%, and 46%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.02) as were graft survival rates LDLT (91%, 67%, and 50%, respectively) versus (90%, 65%, and 44.3%, respectively, for DDLT; log-rank P = 0.31). After multivariable adjustment, LDLT and DDLT were associated with a similar hazard of patient and graft survival. Our data of 20 years of follow-up of LDLT from a single, large Western center demonstrates excellent long-term outcomes for recipients of LDLT.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ivanics, Tommy, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation : A Western experience
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0039-6060 .- 1532-7361. ; 173:2, s. 529-536
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated. Method: We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant. Results: A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intentionto-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P =.30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P =.40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant. Conclusion: Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.
|
|
