Early Allograft Dysfunction and Liver Transplant Outcomes: A Single Center Retrospective Study

Abstract Background Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) had been related to poor transplant outcomes during the early years of liver transplantation. We sought to determine the incidence of EAD at our unit and to evaluate its impact on posttransplant outcomes. Methods This single-center retrospective...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transplantation proceedings 2012-10, Vol.44 (8), p.2449-2451
Hauptverfasser: Salvalaggio, P.R, Felga, G.E, Afonso, R.C, Ferraz-Neto, B.H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) had been related to poor transplant outcomes during the early years of liver transplantation. We sought to determine the incidence of EAD at our unit and to evaluate its impact on posttransplant outcomes. Methods This single-center retrospective study included primary deceased donor liver grafts transplanted under the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease system. EAD was defined as a peak values of aminotransferase >2000 IU/mL during the first week or an International Normalized Ratio of ≥1.6 and/or bilirubin ≥10 mg/dL at day 7. The main endpoints were patient and graft survivals. Results Patients with versus without EAD showed similar recipient characteristics. Donors who experienced EAD who comprises 56% of recipients were heavier with larger body mass indices. EAD was an independent risk factor for allograft loss. Most retransplants were performed early due to nonfunction. The primary nonfunction rate among subjects with versus without EAD were 7% and 12% respectively ( P < .05). Patient survival among those with EAD was 87.4%, while without EAD it was 90% ( P = NS) with graft survivals of 81.4% and 88.7% respectively ( P < .05). Conclusion Patients with EAD show a significantly higher risk for allograft loss, but with a comparable survival after transplantation. Despite their worse outcomes, it seems that not all of these recipients behave equally.
ISSN:0041-1345
1873-2623
DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.08.002