| 1. |
- Aberg, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Differences in long-term mortality among liver transplant recipients and the general population: A population-based Nordic study.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.). - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-3350 .- 0270-9139. ; 61:2, s. 668-677
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dramatic improvement in first-year outcomes post-liver transplantation (LT) has shifted attention to long-term survival, where efforts are now needed to achieve improvement. Understanding the causes for premature death is a prerequisite for improving long-term outcome. Overall and cause-specific mortality of 3299 Nordic LT patients (1985-2009) having survived 1 year post-LT were divided by expected rates in the general population, adjusted for age, sex, calendar time, and country to yield standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Data came from the Nordic Liver-Transplant Registry and WHO mortality-indicator database. Stagnant patient survival rates >1 year post-LT were 21% lower at 10 years than expected survival for the general population. Overall SMR for death before age 75 (premature mortality) was 5.8 (95%CI 5.4-6.3), with improvement from 1985-1999 to 2000-2010 in hepatitis C (HCV) (SMR change 23.1-9.2), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (SMR 38.4-18.8), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (SMR 11.0-4.2), and deterioration in alcoholic liver disease (8.3-24.0) and acute liver failure (ALF) (5.9-7.6). SMRs for cancer and liver disease (recurrent or transplant-unrelated disease) were elevated in all indications except primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Absolute mortality rates underestimated the elevated premature mortality from infections (SMR 22-693) and kidney disease (SMR 13-45) across all indications, and from suicide in HCV and ALF. SMR for cardiovascular disease was significant only in PBC and alcoholic liver disease, owing to high mortality in the general population. Transplant-specific events caused 16% of deaths. Conclusion: standardized premature mortality provided an improved picture of long-term post-LT outcome, showing improvement over time in some indications, not revealed by overall absolute mortality rates. Causes with high premature mortality (infections, cancer, kidney and liver disease, and suicide) merit increased attention in clinical patient follow-up and future research. (Hepatology 2014;).
|
|
| 3. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
