| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Schramm, Christoph, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary liver transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis: a comparative analysis of the European Liver Transplant Registry.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-6473. ; 16:4, s. 461-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The principal aim of this study was to compare the probability of and potential risk factors for death and graft loss after primary adult and pediatric liver transplantation in patients undergoing transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) to those in patients undergoing transplantation for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC; used as the reference group) or alcoholic cirrhosis (used as an example of a nonautoimmune liver disease). The 5-year survival of patients undergoing transplantation for AIH (n = 827) was 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.67-0.77]. This was similar to that of patients undergoing transplantation for alcoholic cirrhosis (0.74, 95% CI = 0.72-0.76, n = 6424) but significantly worse than that of patients undergoing transplantation for PBC (0.83, 95% CI = 0.80-0.85, n = 1588). Fatal infectious complications occurred at an increased rate in patients with AIH (hazard ratio = 1.8, P = 0.002 with PBC as the reference). The outcome of pediatric AIH patients was similar to that of adult patients undergoing transplantation up to the age of 50 years. However, the survival of AIH patients undergoing transplantation beyond the age of 50 years (0.61 at 5 years, 95% CI = 0.51-0.70) was significantly reduced in comparison with the survival of young adult AIH patients (0.78 at 18-34 years, 95% CI = 0.70-0.86) and in comparison with the survival of patients of the same age group with PBC or alcoholic cirrhosis. In conclusion, age significantly affects patient survival after liver transplantation for AIH. The increased risk of dying of infectious complications in the early postoperative period, especially above the age of 50 years, should be acknowledged in the management of AIH patients with advanced-stage liver disease who are listed for liver transplantation. It should be noted that not all risk factors relevant to patient and graft survival could be analyzed with the European Liver Transplant Registry database.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vonlanthen, René, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 268:5, s. 712-724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations.Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents.Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education.There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.
|
|
