Display options
Cite
Barbas AS, Goldaracena N, Dib MJ, et al. Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience. Transplant Direct. 2017;3(6):e158doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674.
Barbas, A. S., Goldaracena, N., Dib, M. J., Al-Adra, D. P., Aravinthan, A. D., Lilly, L. B., Renner, E. L., Selzner, N., Bhat, M., Cattral, M. S., Ghanekar, A., McGilvray, I. D., Sapisochin, G., Selzner, M., Greig, P. D., & Grant, D. R. (2017). Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience. Transplantation direct, 3(6), e158. https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674
Barbas, Andrew S, et al. "Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience." Transplantation direct vol. 3,6 (2017): e158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674
Barbas AS, Goldaracena N, Dib MJ, Al-Adra DP, Aravinthan AD, Lilly LB, Renner EL, Selzner N, Bhat M, Cattral MS, Ghanekar A, McGilvray ID, Sapisochin G, Selzner M, Greig PD, Grant DR. Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience. Transplant Direct. 2017 May 10;3(6):e158. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674. eCollection 2017 Jun. PMID: 28620642; PMCID: PMC5464777.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Transplant Direct. 2017 May 10;3(6):e158. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674. eCollection 2017 Jun.

Early Intervention With Live Donor Liver Transplantation Reduces Resource Utilization in NASH: The Toronto Experience.

Transplantation direct

Andrew S Barbas, Nicolas Goldaracena, Martin J Dib, David P Al-Adra, Aloysious D Aravinthan, Leslie B Lilly, Eberhard L Renner, Nazia Selzner, Mamatha Bhat, Mark S Cattral, Anand Ghanekar, Ian D McGilvray, Gonzalo Sapisochin, Markus Selzner, Paul D Greig, David R Grant

Affiliations

  1. Multi-Organ Transplant Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

PMID: 28620642 PMCID: PMC5464777 DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000674

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In parallel with the obesity epidemic, liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing dramatically in North America. Although survival outcomes are similar to other etiologies, liver transplantation in the NASH population has been associated with significantly increased resource utilization. We sought to compare outcomes between live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high volume North American transplant center, with a particular focus on resource utilization.

METHODS: The study population consists of primary liver transplants performed for NASH at Toronto General Hospital from 2000 to 2014. Recipient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, graft and patient survivals, and resource utilization were compared for LDLT versus DDLT.

RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included in the study (48 LDLT vs 128 DDLT). LDLT recipients had a lower model for end-stage liver disease score and were less frequently hospitalized prior to transplant. Estimated blood loss and early markers of graft injury were lower for LDLT. LDLT recipients had a significantly shorter hospitalization (intensive care unit, postoperative, and total hospitalization).

CONCLUSIONS: LDLT for NASH facilitates transplantation of patients at a less severe stage of disease, which appears to promote a faster postoperative recovery with less resource utilization.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Clin Transplant. 2014 Jun;28(6):713-21 - PubMed
  2. Ann Surg. 2000 Jun;231(6):814-23 - PubMed
  3. World J Hepatol. 2015 Jun 18;7(11):1484-93 - PubMed
  4. Transplantation. 2013 Mar 15;95(5):755-60 - PubMed
  5. Clin Transplant. 2012 Sep-Oct;26(5):E505-12 - PubMed
  6. Gastroenterology. 2015 Mar;148(3):547-55 - PubMed
  7. Liver Transpl. 2012 Oct;18(10):1147-53 - PubMed
  8. Am J Transplant. 2009 Apr;9(4):782-93 - PubMed
  9. Am J Transplant. 2010 Feb;10(2):364-71 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;45(4):372-8 - PubMed
  11. Liver Transpl. 2010 Apr;16(4):431-9 - PubMed
  12. Hepatol Res. 2014 Oct;44(10):E3-E10 - PubMed
  13. Liver Transpl. 2012 Jan;18(1):29-37 - PubMed
  14. Transpl Int. 2015 Feb;28(2):148-55 - PubMed
  15. Hepatology. 2006 Apr;43(4):682-9 - PubMed
  16. Clin Transplant. 2012 Nov-Dec;26(6):910-8 - PubMed
  17. JAMA. 2015 Jun 9;313(22):2263-73 - PubMed
  18. Hepatology. 2014 Jun;59(6):2188-95 - PubMed
  19. Am J Transplant. 2004 May;4(5):751-7 - PubMed
  20. Clin Transplant. 2015 Sep;29(9):728-37 - PubMed
  21. Am J Transplant. 2014 Dec;14(12):2788-95 - PubMed
  22. Am J Transplant. 2015 Jun;15(6):1591-7 - PubMed
  23. Liver Transpl. 2009 Dec;15(12):1814-20 - PubMed
  24. Transpl Int. 2013 Aug;26(8):780-7 - PubMed
  25. Liver Int. 2015 Jul;35(7):1902-9 - PubMed
  26. Gastroenterology. 2011 Oct;141(4):1249-53 - PubMed
  27. Am J Transplant. 2007 Apr;7(4):998-1002 - PubMed
  28. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Aug;34(3):274-85 - PubMed
  29. Ann Surg. 2012 Oct;256(4):624-33 - PubMed
  30. Clin Liver Dis. 2016 May;20(2):313-24 - PubMed
  31. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 14;20(42):15532-8 - PubMed
  32. HPB (Oxford). 2012 Sep;14(9):625-34 - PubMed
  33. Am J Transplant. 2005 Nov;5(11):2764-9 - PubMed

Publication Types