Preoperative and Perioperative Predictors of the Need for Renal Replacement Therapy After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

Baylor Regional Transplant Institute, Dallas, Texas 75204, USA.
Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.83). 11/2004; 78(7):1048-54. DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000137176.95730.5B
Source: PubMed


Acute renal failure developing after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLTx) requiring renal replacement heralds a poor prognosis. Our center has previously reported a 1-year survival of only 41.8%. We undertook this study to determine whether we could identify preoperative and perioperative factors that would predict which patients are at risk.
OLTxs performed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2001, were included in our retrospective database review. Combined kidney-liver transplants or patients with preoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT) were excluded. A total of 724 OLTxs were studied, which were divided into group I: no RRT, n=637; group II: hemodialysis only post-OLTx, n=17; and group III: continuous RRT post-OLTx, n=70. Univariate and stepwise logistic multivariate analyses were performed.
Preoperative serum creatinine greater than 1.9 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR] 3.57), preoperative blood urea nitrogen greater than 27 mg/dL (OR 2.68), intensive care unit stay more than 3 days (OR 10.23), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score greater than 21 (OR 2.5) were significant. A clinical prediction model was constructed: probability of requiring dialysis posttransplant=(-2.4586+1.2726 [creatinine >1.9] + 0.9858 [blood urea nitrogen >27] + 0.4574 [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score >21] + 1.1625 [intensive care unit days >3]). A clinical prediction rule for patients with a score greater than 0.12 was applied to OLTx recipients who underwent transplantation in 2002. A total of 15 of 20 patients who received RRT and 111 of 121 who did not were correctly classified with the model.
This model allowed us to identify patients at high risk for developing the need for RRT postoperatively. Strategies for these patients to prevent or ameliorate acute renal failure and reduce the need for RRT postoperatively are needed.

Download full-text


Available from: Martin L Mai,
  • Source
    • "The most important is a previous lack of consensus with respect to the definition and timing of AKI. Earlier studies varied widely in the definition and timeframe in which AKI was studied[12,13]. To circumvent these issues, we used the AKIN definition of AKI, and limited our analysis to within 48 hours following OLT. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs commonly in the setting of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). To date, the correlation between AKI post-OLT and pre-operative changes in renal function has not been rigorously examined. To determine the impact of pre-OLT changes in renal function on AKI post-OLT, as well as to identify risk factors for AKI, we analyzed the prospectively maintained NIDDK Liver Transplantation Database, which includes patients who received their first OLT between April 15, 1990, and June 30, 1994. We used the AKI Network definition of AKI. Surprisingly, univariate analysis revealed that worsening renal function while awaiting OLT was protective to the development of AKI post-OLT. Independent predictors of AKI were increased body mass index, increased Childs-Pugh-Turcott score, decreased urine output during cross-clamp, improved renal function while awaiting OLT, increased post-operative stroke volume, non-Caucasian race, and post-operative use of tacrolimus. The correlation between improving renal function pre-OLT and AKI post-OLT may represent true protection (via ischemic pre-conditioning) or, alternatively, a masking of milder forms of AKI (via improved renal perfusion through correction of the cirrhotic milieu). These results highlight the complex interaction between liver and kidney disease, and suggest that not only the etiology but also the course of pre-OLT renal dysfunction may be a critical determinant of renal function post-OLT.
    BMC Nephrology 11/2010; 11(1):30. DOI:10.1186/1471-2369-11-30 · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: Liver transplantation continues to change as we further define appropriate criteria for allocation and utilization of this scarce resource. The following review highlights new trends and ideas in this evolving field. Recent findings: Although the model for end-stage renal disease (MELD) scoring system appears to fairly accurately predict mortality while waiting for transplant, the system may be less accurate in predicting outcomes following transplantation. MELD scores offer an additional advantage to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), bringing them to transplant sooner with overall better survivals. However, despite its advantages, the MELD scoring system does not resolve the disparity in the allocation of organs between various organ procurement organizations. Several variables appear to affect patients with hepatitis C undergoing liver transplantation. Selection of appropriate donors appears to be important when transplanting patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as increasing donor age is associated with poorer outcomes. However, the controversy over whether a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) results in poorer outcomes in HCV infected patients remains. Post-transplant medical treatment of HCV may result in both a sustained virologic response and improved histology. With improved overall survival in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant (OLT), increasing attention has been focused on the medical complications following transplant. Identifying specific contributing factors in the development of renal dysfunction and devising strategies to prevent its occurrence are critical to further improvements in outcome following OLT. Summary: As the gap between patients and available organs remains, continued investigation into appropriate allocation and maximization of outcomes following liver transplant will continue.
    Current Opinion in Gastroenterology 05/2005; 21(3):331-336. DOI:10.1097/01.mog.0000159830.36793.2b · 4.29 Impact Factor
Show more