Viniyendra Pamecha1, Deeplaxmi Purushottam Borle2, Senthil Kumar2, Kishore Gurumoorthy Subramanya Bharathy2, Piyush Kumar Sinha2, Shridhar Vasantrao Sasturkar2, Vibuti Sharma3, Chandra Kant Pandey4, Shiv Kumar Sarin5. 1. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India. viniyendra@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India. 3. Department of Transplant Coordination, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India. 5. Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is an uncommon procedure in India. We present our experience of DDLT from a public sector teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all DDLT was performed from April 2012 till September 2016. Demographics, intraoperative, donor factors, morbidity, and outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 305 liver transplants were performed, of which 36 were DDLT (adult 32, pediatric 4; 35 grafts; 1 split). The median age was 42.5 (1-62) years; 78% were men. The median donor age was 28 (1-77) years; 72.2% were men. About 45% of organs were procured from outside of Delhi and 67% of all grafts used were marginal. Three of 38 liver grafts (7.8%) were rejected due to gross steatosis. Commonest indication was cryptogenic cirrhosis (19.4%). The median model for end-stage liver disease sodium and pediatric end-stage liver disease scores were 23.5 (9-40) and 14.5 (9-22), respectively. Median warm and cold ischemia times were 40 (23-56) and 396 (111-750) min, respectively. Major morbidity of grade III and above occurred in 63.8%. In hospital (90 days), mortality was 16.7% and there were two late deaths because of chronic rejection and biliary sepsis. The overall survival was 77.8% at median follow up of 8.6 (1-54) months. CONCLUSIONS: DDLT can be performed with increasing frequency and safety in a public sector hospital. The perioperative and long-term outcomes are acceptable despite the fact that most organs were extended criteria grafts.
BACKGROUND: Deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is an uncommon procedure in India. We present our experience of DDLT from a public sector teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all DDLT was performed from April 2012 till September 2016. Demographics, intraoperative, donor factors, morbidity, and outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 305 liver transplants were performed, of which 36 were DDLT (adult 32, pediatric 4; 35 grafts; 1 split). The median age was 42.5 (1-62) years; 78% were men. The median donor age was 28 (1-77) years; 72.2% were men. About 45% of organs were procured from outside of Delhi and 67% of all grafts used were marginal. Three of 38 liver grafts (7.8%) were rejected due to gross steatosis. Commonest indication was cryptogenic cirrhosis (19.4%). The median model for end-stage liver disease sodium and pediatric end-stage liver disease scores were 23.5 (9-40) and 14.5 (9-22), respectively. Median warm and cold ischemia times were 40 (23-56) and 396 (111-750) min, respectively. Major morbidity of grade III and above occurred in 63.8%. In hospital (90 days), mortality was 16.7% and there were two late deaths because of chronic rejection and biliary sepsis. The overall survival was 77.8% at median follow up of 8.6 (1-54) months. CONCLUSIONS: DDLT can be performed with increasing frequency and safety in a public sector hospital. The perioperative and long-term outcomes are acceptable despite the fact that most organs were extended criteria grafts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diseased donor liver transplantation; Marginal grafts; Public sector hospital
Authors: S Gruttadauria; D Cintorino; L Mandala'; A Musumeci; R Volpes; G B Vizzini; U Palazzo; M Spada; R Verzaro; B Gridelli Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Arash Nickkholgh; Jürgen Weitz; Jens Encke; Peter Sauer; Arianeb Mehrabi; Markus W Büchler; Jan Schmidt; Peter Schemmer Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Pedro P Joya-Vazquez; Forrest S Dodson; Igor Dvorchik; Edward Gray; Amy Chesky; Anthony J Demetris; Obaid Shakil; John J Fung; Hugo E Vargas Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-05-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: R Adam; V Cailliez; P Majno; V Karam; P McMaster; R Y Caine; J O'Grady; R Pichlmayr; P Neuhaus; J B Otte; K Hoeckerstedt; H Bismuth Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-08-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Tisone; T M Manzia; S Zazza; N De Liguori Carino; C Ciceroni; I De Luca; L Toti; C U Casciani Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Dronacharya Routh; Sanjay Sharma; C S Naidu; P P Rao; Anuj Kumar Sharma; Priya Ranjan Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 6.071