Hillary J Braun1, Anna Mello1, Rishi Kothari2, Elaine Ku3, Mignote Yilma1, Mehdi Tavakol1, Li Zhang4, Claus U Niemann1,2, Nancy L Ascher1, Dieter Adelmann2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time. METHODS: Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation. RESULTS: Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.
BACKGROUND: Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time. METHODS: Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation. RESULTS: Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.
Authors: S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Derek A DuBay; Paul A MacLennan; Rhiannon D Reed; Brittany A Shelton; David T Redden; Mona Fouad; Michelle Y Martin; Stephen H Gray; Jared A White; Devin E Eckhoff; Jayme E Locke Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David S Goldberg; Benjamin French; Kimberly A Forde; Peter W Groeneveld; Therese Bittermann; Lisa Backus; Scott D Halpern; David E Kaplan Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272