TY - JOUR
T1 - Balanced approach can help initial outcomes
T2 - Analysis of initial 50 cases of a new liver transplantation program in East Asia
AU - Kim, Dong Sik
AU - Yu, Young Dong
AU - Jung, Sung Won
AU - Yang, Kyung Sook
AU - Seo, Yeon Seok
AU - Um, Soon Ho
AU - Suh, Sung Ock
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate patient triage pattern and outcomes according to types of liver transplantation as part of a new liver transplant program developed in an East Asian country with a limited number of deceased donors. Methods: Medical records of initial 50 liver transplantations were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and 21 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Mean model for end-stage liver disease scores of recipients of DDLT and LDLT were 24.9 ± 11.6 and 13.1 ± 5.4, respectively (P < 0.0001). Twenty-eight patients had HCCs and 17 of them (60.7%) underwent LDLT, which was 80.9% of LDLTs. There were 2 cases of perioperative mortality; each was from DDLT and LDLT, respectively. Median follow-up was 18 months. Overall patient and graft survival rates at 6 months, 1 and 2 years were 95.7%, 93.4%, and 89.8 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival between DDLT and LDLT. Overall recurrence-free survival rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients at 6 month, 1, and 2 years were 96.3%, 96.3%, and 90.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival between DDLT and LDLT. Conclusion: As a new liver transplant program with limited resource and waiting list, patients with critical condition could undergo DDLT whereas relatively stable patients with HCCs were mostly directed to LDLT. We recommend a balanced approach between DDLT and LDLT for initiating liver transplant programs.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate patient triage pattern and outcomes according to types of liver transplantation as part of a new liver transplant program developed in an East Asian country with a limited number of deceased donors. Methods: Medical records of initial 50 liver transplantations were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and 21 patients underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Mean model for end-stage liver disease scores of recipients of DDLT and LDLT were 24.9 ± 11.6 and 13.1 ± 5.4, respectively (P < 0.0001). Twenty-eight patients had HCCs and 17 of them (60.7%) underwent LDLT, which was 80.9% of LDLTs. There were 2 cases of perioperative mortality; each was from DDLT and LDLT, respectively. Median follow-up was 18 months. Overall patient and graft survival rates at 6 months, 1 and 2 years were 95.7%, 93.4%, and 89.8 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival between DDLT and LDLT. Overall recurrence-free survival rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients at 6 month, 1, and 2 years were 96.3%, 96.3%, and 90.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival between DDLT and LDLT. Conclusion: As a new liver transplant program with limited resource and waiting list, patients with critical condition could undergo DDLT whereas relatively stable patients with HCCs were mostly directed to LDLT. We recommend a balanced approach between DDLT and LDLT for initiating liver transplant programs.
KW - Donor selection
KW - Liver transplantation
KW - Liver transplantation program
KW - Outcome
KW - Survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904974116&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4174/astr.2014.87.1.22
DO - 10.4174/astr.2014.87.1.22
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84904974116
SN - 2288-6575
VL - 87
SP - 22
EP - 27
JO - Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
JF - Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
IS - 1
ER -