4.5 Article

In-Hospital Mortality in Adult Recipients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Experience of 576 Consecutive Cases at a Single Center

Journal

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 1420-1425

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21873

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was developed against the background of a scarcity of deceased donors and has a number of disadvantages leading to in-hospital mortality, such as marginal donors and grafts and recipients suffering from severe conditions. We have thus developed surgical and medical innovations to overcome these disadvantages. The present study analyzes the causes of death and factors affecting in-hospital mortality in adult recipients of LDLT. Between November 1994 and December 2007, 576 consecutive adult patients underwent LDLT at a single medical center. Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.9%. The peak rate was 55.6% in 1996, and the rate gradually decreased thereafter to 4.4% in 2007. The most frequent cause of death was infection (62.5%), which was followed by rejection (15.7%) and nonseptic multiple-organ failure (8.9%). Being intensive care unit-bound before the operation, ABO blood type incompatibility, an absence of postoperative enteral nutrition, and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 25 or higher were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. In ABO-identical and ABO-compatible cases, retransplantation and a positive lymphocyte crossmatch test were additional independent risk factors. In conclusion, even aggressive efforts, preoperative conditions such as being intensive care unit-bound, a high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, retransplantation, and a positive lymphocyte crossmatch test are still risk factors. Enteral nutrition could be a promising strategy to improve adult LDLT, Liver Transpl 15:1420-1425, 2009. (C) 2009 AASLD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available