Long‐term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged in the 1980s as a viable alternative to scarce cadaveric organs for pediatric patients. However, pediatric waitlist mortality remains high. Long‐term outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are inconsistently described in t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Liver transplantation 2022-03, Vol.28 (3), p.437-453
Hauptverfasser: Shingina, Alexandra, Vutien, Philip, Uleryk, Elizabeth, Shah, Prakesh S., Renner, Eberhard, Bhat, Mamatha, Tinmouth, Jill, Kim, Joseph
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged in the 1980s as a viable alternative to scarce cadaveric organs for pediatric patients. However, pediatric waitlist mortality remains high. Long‐term outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are inconsistently described in the literature. Our aim was to systematically review the safety and efficacy of LDLT after 1 year of transplantation among pediatric patients with all causes of liver failure. We searched the MEDLINE, Medline‐in‐Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase + Embase Classic (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) from February 1, 1947 to February 26, 2020, without language restrictions. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival beyond 1 year following transplantation. A meta‐analysis of unadjusted and adjusted odds and hazard ratios was performed using a random‐effects model. A total of 24 studies with 3677 patients who underwent LDLT and 9098 patients who underwent DDLT were included for analysis. In patients with chronic or combined chronic liver failure and acute liver failure (ALF), 1‐year (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53‐0.88), 3‐year (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61‐0.89), 5‐year (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57‐0.89), and 10‐year (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18‐1.00) patient and 1‐year (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35‐0.70), 3‐year (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.83), 5‐year (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32‐0.76), and 10‐year (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14‐0.49) graft survival were consistently better in LDLT recipients compared with those in DDLT recipients. In patients with ALF, no difference was seen between the 2 groups except for 5‐year patient survival (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38‐0.95), which favored LDLT. Sensitivity analysis by era showed improved survival in the most recent cohort of patients, consistent with the well‐described learning curve for the LDLT technique. LDLT provides superior patient and graft survival outcomes relative to DDLT in pediatric patients with chronic liver failure and ALF. More resources may be needed to develop infrastructures and health care systems to support living liver donation.
ISSN:1527-6465
1527-6473
DOI:10.1002/lt.26250