Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Jun;38(6):1522-8.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2437-3.

Low-volume deceased donor liver transplantation alongside a strong living donor liver transplantation service

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Low-volume deceased donor liver transplantation alongside a strong living donor liver transplantation service

Kevin K W Chu et al. World J Surg. 2014 Jun.

Abstract

Background: At our center, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the main workload supported by a strong, mature service. Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is performed but in small volume. This study aimed to review the results of a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service.

Methods: Consecutive DDLTs for adults performed from 1991 to 2009 were reviewed. The 1st to the 50th DDLTs were categorized as Era I cases, and the rest were Era II cases. The outcomes of the DDLTs were analyzed and compared with those achieved overseas.

Results: Eras I and II consisted of 59 and 183 DDLTs, respectively. All donors were brain-dead and heart-beating with a median age of 49 years (range 7-76 years). Among the 242 DDLTS, 30.2 % were on a high-urgency basis and 15.3 % were for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients had a median model for end-stage liver disease score of 21 (range 6-40), and most (67.8 %) were hepatitis B virus carriers. Before transplantation, 16.1 % of the patients were in the intensive care unit and 30.2 % were in the hospital. The hospital mortality rate dropped from 13.6 % (8/59) during Era I to 3.8 % (7/183) during Era II (p = 0.012). For Era I, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 84.7, 79.7, and 76.3 %, respectively, which improved to 92.9, 89.0 and 87.2 % for Era II (p = 0.026).

Conclusions: The recipient survival of this series compares favorably with contemporary series. It is shown that a low-volume DDLT service alongside a strong LDLT service can have excellent results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Transpl Int. 2006 May;19(5):372-80 - PubMed
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963 Dec;117:659-76 - PubMed
    1. Am J Transplant. 2004 Jun;4(6):920-7 - PubMed
    1. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2011 Dec;10(6):649-56 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2004 Jul;240(1):151-8 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources