Failure to rescue in living donor liver transplantation: Patterns and predictors

As a quality assessment tool, failure to rescue (FTR) has been employed in various surgical specialties. However, its role in liver transplantation has only recently been explored. To the best of our knowledge, role of FTR in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has not been assessed previously. The...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of surgery (London, England) England), 2017-08, Vol.44, p.281-286
Hauptverfasser: Hafeez Bhatti, Abu Bakar, Dar, Faisal Saud, Qureshi, Ammal Imran, Khan, Nusrat Yar, Zia, Haseeb Haider, Khan, Eitzaz ud din, Khan, Nasir Ayub, Salih, Mohammad, Shah, Najmul Hassan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:As a quality assessment tool, failure to rescue (FTR) has been employed in various surgical specialties. However, its role in liver transplantation has only recently been explored. To the best of our knowledge, role of FTR in living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has not been assessed previously. The objective of the current study was to determine failure to rescue (FTR) rate and it's predictors in an LDLT center. We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent LDLT at our center between 2012 and 2016. Patients who experienced grade 3B or above complications on Clavien-Dindo grading were included in this study. Primary outcome of interest was FTR rate in these patients. FTR was defined as a preventable major complication followed by death within one year after transplantation. We also looked at independent predictors of FTR in our patients and a multivariate analysis was performed. Median age was 48.4(18–73) years. Male to female ratio was 3.3:1. Median MELD score was 17(6–42). The FTR rate in the current study was 52/131 (39.6%). Infectious complications were more common in the FTR group i.e. 22/32(68.8%) versus 10/32 (31.2%) (P 
ISSN:1743-9191
1743-9159
DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.026