OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of elderly donors in liver transplantation (LT) and identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Use of livers from very old donors could expand the donor pool but is not universally implemented. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center medical record review. From January 2001 to December 2014, 1354 LTs were performed. After exclusion of donors <18 years, ABO-incompatible LT, re-LT and UNOS 1 status patients, LT recipients were stratified into 2 groups based on donor age: 18-69 (n=692) vs. ≥70 years (n=515) then matched using a propensity score approach. Two groups were finally matched (young group = 448 cases; old group = 515 cases). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 5.0 (2.0-8.4) years. Comparing the 2 identified groups, no differences were observed regarding early retransplants (1.8 vs. 2.9; P = 0.3), HCV-related death (7.6 vs. 8.7%; P = 0.6), vascular (5.8 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.7), and biliary complications (16.5 vs. 18.6%; P = 0.4). On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for graft loss were: HCV-positive recipient (HR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.6-2.7; P < 0.001), donor age (HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0-1.0; P < 0.001), cold ischemia time (HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0-1.0; P = 0.042), and donor history of diabetes mellitus (HR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.03-2.13; P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Use of elderly donors is not associated per se with an increased risk of vascular and biliary complications. In the presence of cold ischemia time and diabetes mellitus, appropriate donor-to-recipient matching is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of elderly donors in liver transplantation (LT) and identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Use of livers from very old donors could expand the donor pool but is not universally implemented. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center medical record review. From January 2001 to December 2014, 1354 LTs were performed. After exclusion of donors <18 years, ABO-incompatible LT, re-LT and UNOS 1 status patients, LT recipients were stratified into 2 groups based on donor age: 18-69 (n=692) vs. ≥70 years (n=515) then matched using a propensity score approach. Two groups were finally matched (young group = 448 cases; old group = 515 cases). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 5.0 (2.0-8.4) years. Comparing the 2 identified groups, no differences were observed regarding early retransplants (1.8 vs. 2.9; P = 0.3), HCV-related death (7.6 vs. 8.7%; P = 0.6), vascular (5.8 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.7), and biliary complications (16.5 vs. 18.6%; P = 0.4). On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for graft loss were: HCV-positive recipient (HR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.6-2.7; P < 0.001), donor age (HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0-1.0; P < 0.001), cold ischemia time (HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0-1.0; P = 0.042), and donor history of diabetes mellitus (HR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.03-2.13; P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Use of elderly donors is not associated per se with an increased risk of vascular and biliary complications. In the presence of cold ischemia time and diabetes mellitus, appropriate donor-to-recipient matching is warranted.
Authors: S Moosburner; P V Ritschl; L Wiering; J M G V Gassner; R Öllinger; J Pratschke; I M Sauer; N Raschzok Journal: Chirurg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Nicholas Gilbo; Ina Jochmans; Mauricio Sainz-Barriga; Frederik Nevens; Schalk van der Merwe; Wim Laleman; Chris Verslype; David Cassiman; Len Verbeke; Hannah van Malenstein; Tania Roskams; Jacques Pirenne; Diethard Monbaliu Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Jacob D de Boer; Joris J Blok; Hein Putter; Jacob J E Koopman; Bart van Hoek; Undine Samuel; Marieke van Rosmalen; Herold J Metselaar; Ian P J Alwayn; Markus Guba; Andries E Braat Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 5.799