			Home About us Contact

Recipient Mortality (recipient + mortality)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Paired donor interchange to avoid ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation,

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2010
See Ching Chan
We report an emergency paired donor interchange living donor liver transplant performed on January 13, 2009. The 4 operations (2 liver transplants) were performed simultaneously. The aim was to avoid 2 ABO-incompatible liver transplants. One recipient in acute liver failure underwent transplantation in a high-urgency situation. The abdomen of the other recipient had severe adhesions from previous spontaneous bacterial peritonitis that rendered the recipient operation almost impossible. The ethical and logistical issues are discussed. Approaches adopted in anticipation of potential adverse outcomes are explained in view of the higher donor and recipient mortality and morbidity rates in comparison with kidney transplantation. Liver Transpl , 2010. © 2010 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 2008
Jeffrey 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]

Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT) Score: A Novel Method to Predict Patient Survival Following Liver Transplantation

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 12 2008
A. Rana
It is critical to balance waitlist mortality against posttransplant mortality. Our objective was to devise a scoring system that predicts recipient survival at 3 months following liver transplantation to complement MELD-predicted waitlist mortality. Univariate and multivariate analysis on 21 673 liver transplant recipients identified independent recipient and donor risk factors for posttransplant mortality. A retrospective analysis conducted on 30 321 waitlisted candidates reevaluated the predictive ability of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We identified 13 recipient factors, 4 donor factors and 2 operative factors (warm and cold ischemia) as significant predictors of recipient mortality following liver transplantation at 3 months. The Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplant (SOFT) Score utilized 18 risk factors (excluding warm ischemia) to successfully predict 3-month recipient survival following liver transplantation. This analysis represents a study of waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients of liver allografts after the MELD score was implemented. Unlike MELD, the SOFT score can accurately predict 3-month survival following liver transplantation. The most significant risk factors were previous transplantation and life support pretransplant. The SOFT score can help clinicians determine in real time which candidates should be transplanted with which allografts. Combined with MELD, SOFT can better quantify survival benefit for individual transplant procedures. [source]

Factors affecting kidney-transplant outcome in recipients with lupus nephritis

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2008
Hongying Tang
Abstract:, Background:, Factors associated with outcome in renal transplant recipients with lupus nephritis have not been studied. Methods:, Using the data from the United States Renal Data System of patients transplanted between January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2002 (and followed through December 31, 2003) (n = 2882), we performed a retrospective analysis of factors associated with long-term death-censored graft survival and recipient survival. Results:, The number of pretransplant pregnancies incrementally increased the risk of graft failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.54, p < 0.05] in the entire subgroup of females and in the subgroup of recipients aged 25,35 yr. Recipient and donor age had an association with both the risk of graft failure (HR 0.96, p < 0.001; HR 1.01, p < 0.005) and recipient death (HR 1.04, p < 0.001; HR 1.01, p < 0.05). Greater graft-failure risk accompanied increased recipient weight (HR 1.01, p < 0.001); African Americans compared with whites (HR 1.55, p < 0.001); greater Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.17, p < 0.05); and greater panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels (HR 1.06, p < 0.001). Pretransplant peritoneal dialysis as the predominant modality had an association with decreased risk of graft failure (HR 0.49, p < 0.001), while prior transplantation was associated with greater risk of graft failure and recipient death (HR 2.29, p < 0.001; HR 3.59, p < 0.001, respectively) compared with hemodialysis (HD). The number of matched human leukocyte antigens (HLA) antigens and living donors (HR 0.92, p < 0.05; HR 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) was associated with decreased risk of graft failure. Increased risk of graft failure and recipient death was associated with nonuse of calcineurin inhibitors (HR 1.89, p < 0.005; HR 1.80, p < 0.005) and mycophenolic acid (MPA) (including mycophenolate mofetil and MPA) or azathioprine (HR 1.41, p < 0.05; HR 1.66, p < 0.01). Using both cyclosporine and tacrolimus was associated with increased risk of graft failure (HR 2.09, p < 0.05). Using MPA is associated with greater risk of recipient death compared with azathioprine (HR 1.47, p < 0.05). Conclusion:, In renal transplant recipients with lupus nephritis, multiple pregnancies, multiple blood transfusions, greater comorbidity index, higher body weight, age and African American race of the donor or recipient, prior history of transplantation, greater PRA levels, lower level of HLA matching, deceased donors, and HD in pretransplant period have an association with increased risk of graft failure. Similarly, higher recipient and donor age, prior transplantations, and higher rate of pretransplant transfusions are associated with greater risk of recipient mortality. Using neither cyclosporine nor tacrolimus or using both (compared with tacrolimus) and neither MPA nor azathioprine (compared with azathioprine) was associated with increased risk of graft failure and recipient death. Using MPA is associated with greater risk of recipient death compared with azathioprine. Testing these results in a prospective study might provide important information for clinical practice. [source]