Show simple item record

Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation era

dc.contributor.authorBerg, Carl L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMerion, Robert M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShearon, Tempie H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOlthoff, Kim M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Robert S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Talia B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEverson, Gregory T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHong, Johnny C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTerrault, Norah A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHayashi, Paul H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Robert A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEverhart, James E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-10T15:32:43Z
dc.date.available2012-12-03T21:17:29Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationBerg, Carl L.; Merion, Robert M.; Shearon, Tempie H.; Olthoff, Kim M.; Brown, Robert S.; Baker, Talia B.; Everson, Gregory T.; Hong, Johnny C.; Terrault, Norah; Hayashi, Paul H.; Fisher, Robert A.; Everhart, James E. (2011). "Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation era ." Hepatology 54(4): 1313-1321. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86878>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0270-9139en_US
dc.identifier.issn1527-3350en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86878
dc.description.abstractReceipt of a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been associated with improved survival compared with waiting for a deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT). However, the survival benefit of liver transplant has been questioned for candidates with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scores <15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has not been demonstrated during the MELD allocation era, especially for low MELD patients. Transplant candidates enrolled in the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study after February 28, 2002 were followed for a median of 4.6 years. Starting at the time of presentation of the first potential living donor, mortality for LDLT recipients was compared to mortality for patients who remained on the waiting list or received DDLT (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score (<15 or ≥15) and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Of 868 potential LDLT recipients (453 with MELD <15; 415 with MELD ≥15 at entry), 712 underwent transplantation (406 LDLT; 306 DDLT), 83 died without transplant, and 73 were alive without transplant at last follow‐up. Overall, LDLT recipients had 56% lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32‐0.60; P < 0.0001). Among candidates without HCC, mortality benefit was seen both with MELD <15 (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0003) and MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.42; P = 0.0006). Among candidates with HCC, a benefit of LDLT was not seen for MELD <15 (HR = 0.82, P = 0.65) but was seen for MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.29, P = 0.043). Conclusion: Across the range of MELD scores, patients without HCC derived a significant survival benefit when undergoing LDLT rather than waiting for DDLT in the MELD liver allocation era. Low MELD candidates with HCC may not benefit from LDLT. (H EPATOLOGY 2011;54:1313–1321)en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.titleLiver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation eraen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan and Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NYen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, ILen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, COen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NCen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Surgery, Medical College of Virginia Hospitals, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Virginia Health System, P.O. Box 800708, Charlottesville VA 22908‐0708en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21688284en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86878/1/24494_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hep.24494en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHepatologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerg CL, Gillespie BW, Merion RM, Brown RS Jr, Abecassis MM, Trotter JS, et al. Improvement in survival associated with adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1806 ‐ 1813.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSarasin FP, Majno PE, Llovet JM, Bruix J, Mentha G, Hadengue A. Living donor liver transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma: a life‐expectancy and cost‐effectiveness perspective. HEPATOLOGY 2001; 33: 1703 ‐ 1709.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheng SJ, Pratt DS, Freeman RB Jr, Kaplan MM, Wong JB. Living‐donor versus cadaveric liver transplantation for non‐resectable small hepatocellular carcinoma and compensated cirrhosis: a decision analysis. Transplantation 2001; 72: 861 ‐ 868.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher RA, Kulik LM, Freise CE, Lok AS, Shearon TH, Brown RS Jr, et al. Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma and death following living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation in the A2ALL cohort study. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 1601 ‐ 1608.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMerion RM, Schaubel DE, Dykstra DM, Freeman RB, Port FK, Wolfe RA. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 307 ‐ 313.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchaubel DE, Guidinger MK, Biggins SW, Kalbfleisch JD, Pomfret EA, Sharma P, et al. Survival benefit‐based deceased‐donor liver allocation. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 970 ‐ 981.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim WR, Thernau TM, Benson JT, Kremers WK, Rosen CB, Gores GJ, et al. Deaths on the liver transplant waiting list: an analysis of competing risks. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 43: 345 ‐ 351.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman RB Jr, Wiesner RH, Roberts JP, McDiarmid S, Dykstra DM, Merion RM. Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD. Am J Transplant 2004; 4 ( Suppl 9 ): 114 ‐ 131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg‐Gresham JL, Dykstra DM, Punch JD, Debroy MA, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 783 ‐ 790.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference2009 Annual Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1999‐2008: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation, Rockville, MD; 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end‐stage liver disease. HEPATOLOGY 2001; 33: 464 ‐ 470.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWiesner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, Harper A, Kim R, Kamath P, et al. Model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 91 ‐ 96.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.