Literature DB >> 8707288

Donor age and outcome of liver transplantation.

J H Hoofnagle1, M Lombardero, R K Zetterman, J Lake, M Porayko, J Everhart, S H Belle, K M Detre.   

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of donor age on graft and patient outcome after liver transplantation an analysis of a large-scale cohort study was performed at three tertiary referral liver transplant centers. Between April 1990 and June 1994, 772 adults underwent an initial single-organ liver transplantation. The age of the donors averaged 35 years;193 (25%) were 50 or above, the age used to define "older" donors. Groups were compared for demographic, clinical, and biochemical features. Outcome was measured using results of biochemical tests after transplantation and by graft and patient survival. Compared with younger donors, older donors were more commonly women (59% vs. 33%:P < or = .001) and died of central nervous system causes (79% vs. 28%) as opposed to trauma (13% vs. 63%:P < or = .001). The recipients of the two groups of donor livers did not differ in important respects. However, intraoperatively, livers from older donors were more likely to be assessed as either "poor" or "fair" as opposed to "good" (17% vs. 4%:P < or = .001) by the harvesting surgeon and to have initial "poor" or "fair" bile production (29% vs. 18%:P < or = .001). During the first week postoperatively, the serum aminotransferase and bilirubin levels and prothrombin times were higher in recipients of older than those of younger donor livers. During follow-up, graft survival was less for recipients of older donor livers at 3 months (81% vs.91%:P = .0001) and at 1 (76% vs. 85%:P = .007) and 2 years (71% vs. 80%:P = .005); patient survival showed similar though less marked differences. This association of donor age and poorer graft survival persisted after adjusting for many variables using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Importantly, however, the association with poor graft survival was largely among recipients of older donor livers, the quality of which was assessed as fair or poor by the harvesting surgeon; recipients of older donor livers assessed as good had a retransplant-free survival similar to that of younger donor livers (87% vs. 91% at 3 months). Thus, use of older donor livers, the quality of which are judged to be good by the harvesting surgeon, is not associated with a decrease in patient or graft survival after liver transplantation. differences. This association of donor age and poorer graft survival persisted after adjusting for many variables using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Importantly, however, the association with poorer graft survival was largely among recipients of older donor livers, the quality of which was assessed as fair or poor by the harvesting surgeon; recipients of older donor livers, the quality of which was assessed as fair or poor by the harvesting surgeon; recipients of older donor livers assessed as good had a retransplant-free survival similar to that of younger donor livers (87% vs. 91% at 3 months). Thus, use of older donor livers, the quality of which are judged to be good by the harvesting surgeon, is not associated with a decrease in patient or graft survival after liver transplantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8707288     DOI: 10.1002/hep.510240116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hepatology        ISSN: 0270-9139            Impact factor:   17.425


  22 in total

1.  A mouse model of accelerated liver aging caused by a defect in DNA repair.

Authors:  Siobhán Q Gregg; Verónica Gutiérrez; Andria Rasile Robinson; Tyler Woodell; Atsunori Nakao; Mark A Ross; George K Michalopoulos; Lora Rigatti; Carrie E Rothermel; Irene Kamileri; George A Garinis; Donna Beer Stolz; Laura J Niedernhofer
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 17.425

2.  Outcome of acute liver failure in the elderly.

Authors:  Frank V Schiødt; Raymond T Chung; Michael L Schilsky; J Eileen Hay; Erik Christensen; William M Lee
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 3.  Transplant for the very sick: No limitations in donor quality?

Authors:  Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 4.  Using old liver grafts for liver transplantation: where are the limits?

Authors:  Carlos Jiménez-Romero; Oscar Caso Maestro; Félix Cambra Molero; Iago Justo Alonso; Cristina Alegre Torrado; Alejandro Manrique Municio; Jorge Calvo Pulido; Carmelo Loinaz Segurola; Enrique Moreno González
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Expanding the donor pool for liver transplantation.

Authors:  J F Trotter
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2000-02

6.  Patients' Age Rather Than Model of End-Stage Liver Disease Score Predicts Survival After Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  Yaara Leibovici-Weissman; Eytan Mor; Moshe Leshno; Amir Shlomai
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Liver grafts from selected older donors do not have significantly more ischaemia reperfusion injury.

Authors:  Paulo N Martins; Sue Chang; Basant Mahadevapa; Ann-Britt Martins; Patricia Sheiner
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Long-term results using old liver grafts for transplantation: sexagenerian versus liver donors older than 70 years.

Authors:  Carlos Jiménez-Romero; Marta Clemares-Lama; Alejandro Manrique-Municio; Alvaro García-Sesma; Jorge Calvo-Pulido; Enrique Moreno-González
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 9.  Expanded criteria donors.

Authors:  Sandy Feng; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 6.126

Review 10.  Matching donor to recipient in liver transplantation: Relevance in clinical practice.

Authors:  Mettu Srinivas Reddy; Joy Varghese; Jayanthi Venkataraman; Mohamed Rela
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2013-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.