Article

Contribution of marginal donors to liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus infection

Liver Transplantation Unit, Hospital Reina Sofia, Córdoba, Spain.
Transplantation Proceedings (Impact Factor: 0.95). 09/2007; 39(7):2297-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.07.069
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The use of marginal liver donors can affect the outcomes of liver transplantation in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. There are no firm conclusions about which donor criteria are important for allocation of high-risk grafts to recipients with HCV cirrhosis. We performed 120 consecutive liver transplantations for HCV infection between 1995 and 2005. Marginal donor criteria were considered to be: age >70 years, macrovesicular steatosis >30%, moderate-to-severe liver preservation injury, high inotropic drug dose (dopamine >15 microg/kg/min; epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dobutamine at any doses), peak serum sodium >155 mEq/L, any hypotensive episode <60 mm Hg and >1 hour, cold ischemia time >12 hours, ICU hospitalization >4 days, bilirubin >2 mg/dL, AST and/or ALT >200 UI/dL. Graft survival with donors showing these marginal criteria was compared with optimal donors using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Independent predictors of survival were computed with the Cox proportional hazards model. Fifty-six grafts (46%) were lost during follow-up irrespective of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of the recipients in each category. Upon univariate analysis, grafts with moderate-to-severe steatosis (P = .012), those with severe liver preservation injury (P = .007) and prolonged cold ischemia time (P = .0001) showed a dismal prognosis at 1, 3, and 5 years. Upon multivariate analysis, fat content (P = .0076; OR = 4.2) and cold ischemia time >12 hours (P = .034; OR = 7.001) were independent predictors of graft survival. Among HCV recipients, marginal liver donors worked similar to those from "good" donors, except for those with fatty livers >30%, especially when combined with a prolonged cold ischemia time.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse survival than those without DM after liver transplantation. However, the effect of liver grafts from DM donors on the post-transplantation survival of recipients is unclear. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database (2004-2008), 25,413 patients were assessed. Among them, 2,469 recipients received grafts from donors with DM. The demographics and outcome of patients were assessed. Patient survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox regression analyses. Recipients from DM donors experienced worse graft survival than recipients from non-DM donors (one-year survival: 81% versus 85%, and five-year survival: 67% versus 74%, P<0.001, respectively). Graft survival was significantly lower for recipients from DM donors with DM duration >5 years (P<0.001) compared with those with DM duration <5 years. Cox regression analyses showed that DM donors were independently associated with worse graft survival (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19). The effect of DM donors was more pronounced on certain underlying liver diseases of recipients. Increases in the risk of graft loss were noted among recipients from DM donors with hepatitis-C virus (HCV) infection, whereas those without HCV experienced similar outcomes compared with recipients from non-DM donors. These data suggest that recipients from DM donors experience significantly worse patient survival after liver transplantation. However, in patients without HCV infection, using DM donors was not independently associated with worse post-transplantation graft survival. Matching these DM donors to recipients without HCV may be safe.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e98104. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0098104 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2014; 20(32):11095-11115. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i32.11095 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 11/2003; 6(6):794-795. DOI:10.1016/S1098-3015(10)62023-2 · 2.89 Impact Factor