Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
LDLT Recipients (ldlt + recipient)
Selected AbstractsGraft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2004Paul J. Thuluvath Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in the United States and around the world. In this study, we compared the outcome of 764 patients who received LDLT in the United States and compared the results with a matched population that received deceased donor transplantation (DDLT) using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. For each LDLT recipient (n = 764), two DDLT recipients (n = 1,470), matched for age, gender, race, diagnosis, and year of transplantation, were selected from the UNOS data after excluding multiple organ transplantation or retransplantation, children, and those with incomplete data. Despite our matching, recipients of LDLT had more stable liver disease, as shown by fewer patients with UNOS status 1 or 2A, in an intensive care unit, or on life support. Creatinine and cold ischemia time were also lower in the LDLT group. Primary graft nonfunction, hyperacute rejection rates, and patient survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis were similar in both groups (2-year survival was 79.0% in LDLT vs. 80.7% in case-controls; P = .5), but graft survival was significantly lower in LDLT (2-year graft survival was 64.4% vs. 73.3%; P < .001). Cox regression (after adjusting for confounding variables) analysis showed that LDLT recipients were 60% more likely to lose their graft compared to DDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval 1.1-2.5). Among hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, LDLT recipients showed lower graft survival when compared to those who received DDLT. In conclusion, short-term patient survival in LDLT is similar to that in the DDLT group, but graft survival is significantly lower in LDLT recipients. LDLT is a reasonable option for patients who are unlikely to receive DDLT in a timely fashion. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:1263,1268.) [source] Adefovir dipivoxil therapy in liver transplant recipients for recurrence of hepatitis B virus infection despite lamivudine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin prophylaxisJOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 12 2007Murat Akyildiz Abstract Background:, Treatment of post-transplantation recurrence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection despite prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and lamivudine combination therapy is not easy. Because HBV reinfection has a severe course and could result in graft failure in liver transplant recipients, prompt medication is essential. Herein is reported the authors' experience with adefovir dipivoxil (AD) therapy in 11 liver transplant recipients who had HBV reinfection despite the administration of lamivudine and HBIG. Method:, Two-hundred and nine patients underwent liver transplantation (100 deceased donor liver transplantations [DDLT], 109 living donor liver transplantation [LDLT]) due to chronic hepatitis B infection between April 1997 and May 2005 in Ege University Medical School, Liver Transplantation Unit. Patients had prophylaxis with lamivudine and low-dose HBIG combination after liver transplantation. Treatment of recurrence consisted of AD 10 mg once a day and lamivudine 300 mg/daily and HBIG was discontinued in those patients. Results:, In total there were 11 HBV recurrences: five occurred in DDLT recipients and six in LDLT recipients, at a median follow up of 18 months (range, 6,48 months). In one of 11 patients, pretransplant HBV-DNA and HBeAg were positive. Three patients had a severe course and one patient had fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. After AD treatment, HBV-DNA level decreased in all patients and became negative in seven patients. Two patients died due to hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after 12 and 14 months of follow up. Serum creatinine level increased mildly in one patient and no other side-effect was observed, and all patients continued therapy. Conclusion:, Adefovir dipivoxil is a safe, effective treatment option for post-transplant HBV recurrence even among patients with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis caused by lamivudine-resistant HBV. [source] Solitary pulmonary nodule in the liver transplant candidate: Importance of diagnosis and treatmentLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 6 2010Allan M. Concejero Our objectives were to define the incidence and etiology of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), describe a diagnostic approach to the management of SPNs in LDLT, and define the impact of SPNs on the overall survival of adult LDLT recipients. Nine patients (9/152, 5.9%) were diagnosed with an SPN on the basis of chest radiography findings during the pretransplant survey. All were male. The mean age was 52 years. All the patients had hepatitis B virus,related cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma. All were asymptomatic for the lung lesion. All underwent contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) to verify the presence and possible etiology of the SPNs. In 3 cases, CT was used to definitely determine that there was no pulmonary nodule; in 2, CT led to a definite diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. In 4, CT led to a definite identification of an SPN but not to an etiological diagnosis. Two patients underwent outright thoracoscopy and biopsy of their SPNs. Biopsy showed cryptococcosis in both patients. One received a therapeutic trial of an antituberculosis treatment, and repeat CT after 1 month showed a regression in the size of the SPN. A diagnosis of tuberculosis was made. One patient had an inconclusive whole body positron emission tomography scan and subsequently underwent thoracoscopy where biopsy showed tuberculosis. A concomitant malignancy, either primary lung cancer or metastasis from the liver tumor, was not identified. All patients were surviving with their original grafts and were lung infection,free. The overall mean posttransplant follow-up was 54 months (range = 33-96 months). Liver Transpl 16:760-766, 2010. © 2010 AASLD. [source] Characteristics and management of splenic artery aneurysms in adult living donor liver transplant recipientsLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 11 2009Deok-Bog Moon Splenic artery aneurysms (SAAs), occurring in 7% to 17% of patients with cirrhosis, often result in catastrophic rupture after liver transplantation. We had experienced 3 cases of ruptured SAAs after adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), and we then performed this study to find risk factors for coexisting SAAs in liver transplant candidates with cirrhosis and to propose ideal approaches for them. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiograms and axial views were reviewed for 310 adult LDLT recipients who had cirrhosis from January 2004 to August 2005. The recorded variables were the preoperative diagnosis, the presence of SAA and its characteristics, the splenic artery (SA) diameter, and the presence and size of portosystemic collaterals. Devastating SAA rupture accompanied by hypovolemic shock occurred on postoperative days 6, 82, and 8, respectively, and it was treated emergently by embolization in cases 1 and 2 and by splenectomy in case 3. Cases 1 and 3 recovered well, but case 2 died of an unrelated cause with a long hospital stay. The incidence of SAA during the study period was 14.2% (44/310), and the size was 16.6 ± 5.7 mm. Most SAAs were single (70.6%, 31/44) and were located in the distal one-third of the SA (82.4%, 36/44). Large portosystemic collaterals demonstrating longstanding severe portal hypertension were significantly correlated with the occurrence of SAAs. Nine patients with SAAs were preventively treated by proximal ligation (n = 4) intraoperatively and by embolization (n = 5) 1 day before or after LDLT. No patient showed severe postembolization syndrome. In conclusion, a careful preoperative evaluation of SAAs by high-resolution 3-dimensional computed tomography in liver transplant candidates, especially in those showing large portosystemic collaterals, is merited. Preventive treatment should be encouraged regardless of the size in order to avoid severe morbidity and mortality related to SAA rupture, and methods such as radiological and surgical interventions need to be individualized according to the location and number of SAAs. Liver Transpl 15:1535,1541, 2009. © 2009 AASLD. [source] Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: The adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study,,§LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2008Jeffrey Campsen For acute liver failure (ALF), living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may reduce waiting time and provide better timing compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, there are concerns that a partial graft would result in reduced survival of critically ill LDLT recipients and that the rapid evolution of ALF would lead to selection of inappropriate donors. We report outcomes for ALF patients (and their donors) evaluated for LDLT between 1998 and April 2007 from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort. Of the 1201 potential LDLT recipients, 14 had ALF, only 6 of whom had an identified cause. The median time from listing to first donor evaluation was 1.5 days, and the median time from evaluation to transplantation was 1 day. One patient recovered without liver transplant, 3 of 10 LDLT recipients died, and 1 of 3 DDLT recipients died. Five of the 10 living donors had a total of 7 posttransplant complications. In conclusion, LDLT is rarely performed for ALF, but in selected patients it may be associated with acceptable recipient mortality and donor morbidity. Liver Transpl 14:1273,1280, 2008. © 2008 AASLD. [source] Graft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2004Paul J. Thuluvath Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in the United States and around the world. In this study, we compared the outcome of 764 patients who received LDLT in the United States and compared the results with a matched population that received deceased donor transplantation (DDLT) using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. For each LDLT recipient (n = 764), two DDLT recipients (n = 1,470), matched for age, gender, race, diagnosis, and year of transplantation, were selected from the UNOS data after excluding multiple organ transplantation or retransplantation, children, and those with incomplete data. Despite our matching, recipients of LDLT had more stable liver disease, as shown by fewer patients with UNOS status 1 or 2A, in an intensive care unit, or on life support. Creatinine and cold ischemia time were also lower in the LDLT group. Primary graft nonfunction, hyperacute rejection rates, and patient survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis were similar in both groups (2-year survival was 79.0% in LDLT vs. 80.7% in case-controls; P = .5), but graft survival was significantly lower in LDLT (2-year graft survival was 64.4% vs. 73.3%; P < .001). Cox regression (after adjusting for confounding variables) analysis showed that LDLT recipients were 60% more likely to lose their graft compared to DDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval 1.1-2.5). Among hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, LDLT recipients showed lower graft survival when compared to those who received DDLT. In conclusion, short-term patient survival in LDLT is similar to that in the DDLT group, but graft survival is significantly lower in LDLT recipients. LDLT is a reasonable option for patients who are unlikely to receive DDLT in a timely fashion. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:1263,1268.) [source] Incidence and Severity of Acute Cellular Rejection in Recipients Undergoing Adult Living Donor or Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation,AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 2 2009A. Shaked Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may have better immunological outcomes compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) after LDLT and DDLT. Data from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) retrospective cohort study on 593 liver transplants done between May 1998 and March 2004 were studied (380 LDLT; 213 DDLT). Median LDLT and DDLT follow-up was 778 and 713 days, respectively. Rates of clinically treated and biopsy-proven ACR were compared. There were 174 (46%) LDLT and 80 (38%) DDLT recipients with ,1 clinically treated episodes of ACR, whereas 103 (27%) LDLT and 58 (27%) DDLT recipients had ,1 biopsy-proven ACR episode. A higher proportion of LDLT recipients had clinically treated ACR (p = 0.052), but this difference was largely attributable to one center. There were similar proportions of biopsy-proven rejection (p = 0.97) and graft loss due to rejection (p = 0.16). Longer cold ischemia time was associated with a higher rate of ACR in both groups despite much shorter median cold ischemia time in LDLT. These data do not show an immunological advantage for LDLT, and therefore do not support the application of unique posttransplant immunosuppression protocols for LDLT recipients. [source] | ||||||||||