4.3 Article

Screening colonoscopy in liver transplant candidates: risks and findings

Journal

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages E161-E168

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12083

Keywords

candidate evaluation; colonoscopy; endoscopy; liver transplantation; model for end-stage liver disease; screening

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the Integrated Research and Treatment Center - Transplantation (IFB-TX) [01EO0802]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The indication for mandatory screening colonoscopies in liver transplant candidates is controversial. Since the introduction of MELD-based allocation, patients with advanced liver disease and often severe comorbidities are prioritized for liver transplantation (LT). This study evaluated safety and outcome of colonoscopy in this high-risk patient group. During a two-yr period, we performed 243 colonoscopies in potential LT candidates. Endoscopic findings were registered in a standardized form, and correlations with biochemical or clinical parameters were analyzed using MannWhitney U-test and chi-square test. Only 57 patients (23.5%) had an endoscopically normal colon. Main findings were polyps (45.7%), hypertensive colopathy (24.3%), diverticulosis (21%), rectal varices (19.8%), and hemorrhoids (13.6%). In 21% of all patients, the removed polyps were diagnosed as adenomas. The prevalence of neoplastic polyps increased significantly with age: 13.6% (patients <50yr) vs. 25% (patients 50yr) (p=0.03). Advanced neoplasia was found only in patients older than 40yr. No major complications were observed; post-interventional hemorrhage was observed in 1.7% and controlled by clipping or injection therapy. In conclusion, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is safe and effective in LT candidates. Due to the age dependency of neoplastic polyps, a screening colonoscopy should be performed in LT candidates older than 40yr or with symptoms or additional risk factors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available