AIM To compare trends in donor/recipient characteristics and outcomes using four period cohorts of liver transplant recipients from 1990 to 2009. METHODS Seventy thousand three hundred and seventy-seven adult first-ti...AIM To compare trends in donor/recipient characteristics and outcomes using four period cohorts of liver transplant recipients from 1990 to 2009. METHODS Seventy thousand three hundred and seventy-seven adult first-time recipients of whole-organ deceased-donor liver grafts from 1990 to 2009 were followed up until September 2013. Four periods based on transplantation dates were considered to account for developments in transplantation. Descriptive statistics were used to describe donor/recipient characteristics and transplant outcomes. Statistical comparisons between periods were performed using χ~2/Fischer's exact test(categorical variables) and t-tests/Mann-Whitney U test(continuous variables). Univariate descriptive statistics/survival data were generated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox Proportional Hazards models were used for regression analyses of patient and graft survival.RESULTS Mean age(years), body mass index(kg/m^2), and the proportion of males were, respectively, 39.1(± 17.4), 25.9(± 5.7) and 60.3 for donors, and 51.3(± 10.5), 27.7(± 5.6), and 64.4 for recipients. Donor and transplantation rates differed between racial/ethnic groups. Median(Q1-Q3) cold and warm ischemia, waitlist, and hospital stay times were 8(6.0-10.0) h and 45(35-59) min, 93(21-278) d, and 12(8-20) d. Total functional assistance was required by 8% of recipients at wait-listing and 13.4% at transplantation. Overall survival at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 87.3%, 79.4%, 73.6%, 59.8%, 46.7%, and 35.9%, respectively. The 2005-2009 cohort had better patient and graft survival than the 1990-1994 cohort overall [HR 0.67(0.62-0.72) and 0.66(0.62-0.71)] and at five years [HR 0.73(0.66-0.80) and 0.71(0.65-0.77)]. CONCLUSION Despite changes in donor quality, recipient characteristics, and declining functional status among transplant recipients, overall patient survival is superior and posttransplant outcomes continue to improve.展开更多
文摘AIM To compare trends in donor/recipient characteristics and outcomes using four period cohorts of liver transplant recipients from 1990 to 2009. METHODS Seventy thousand three hundred and seventy-seven adult first-time recipients of whole-organ deceased-donor liver grafts from 1990 to 2009 were followed up until September 2013. Four periods based on transplantation dates were considered to account for developments in transplantation. Descriptive statistics were used to describe donor/recipient characteristics and transplant outcomes. Statistical comparisons between periods were performed using χ~2/Fischer's exact test(categorical variables) and t-tests/Mann-Whitney U test(continuous variables). Univariate descriptive statistics/survival data were generated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox Proportional Hazards models were used for regression analyses of patient and graft survival.RESULTS Mean age(years), body mass index(kg/m^2), and the proportion of males were, respectively, 39.1(± 17.4), 25.9(± 5.7) and 60.3 for donors, and 51.3(± 10.5), 27.7(± 5.6), and 64.4 for recipients. Donor and transplantation rates differed between racial/ethnic groups. Median(Q1-Q3) cold and warm ischemia, waitlist, and hospital stay times were 8(6.0-10.0) h and 45(35-59) min, 93(21-278) d, and 12(8-20) d. Total functional assistance was required by 8% of recipients at wait-listing and 13.4% at transplantation. Overall survival at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 87.3%, 79.4%, 73.6%, 59.8%, 46.7%, and 35.9%, respectively. The 2005-2009 cohort had better patient and graft survival than the 1990-1994 cohort overall [HR 0.67(0.62-0.72) and 0.66(0.62-0.71)] and at five years [HR 0.73(0.66-0.80) and 0.71(0.65-0.77)]. CONCLUSION Despite changes in donor quality, recipient characteristics, and declining functional status among transplant recipients, overall patient survival is superior and posttransplant outcomes continue to improve.
