Sadler K M, Walsh T S, Garden O J, Lee A
Department of Anesthesia, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 1 Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW, Scotland, UK.
Transplantation. 2001 Nov 27;72(10):1680-4. doi: 10.1097/00007890-200111270-00019.
During orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), it is standard procedure to reperfuse the liver via the portal vein (PV) despite having a lower oxygen content and perfusion pressure than the hepatic artery (HA). There are no published studies that describe graft function and outcome when the HA is used for reperfusion. We report a retrospective comparison of graft outcome after HA or PV reperfusion when the piggyback technique was used.
We identified 26 patients who had undergone OLT with HA reperfusion and 26 patients reperfused via the PV. Demographics, primary diagnosis, surgeon, warm and cold ischemic times, and blood product use were recorded. In each patient, whole blood lactate concentration, prothrombin time (PT), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were measured at defined time points during and after surgery as indices of graft lactate metabolism, synthetic function, and reperfusion injury, respectively. Thirty-day and 1-year outcome data were recorded. Data were compared between the HA and PV groups.
Demographics, blood product use, primary diagnosis, cold ischemic time, and surgeon were similar between the groups. Warm ischemic time was longer in the HA group (mean [SD] HA 51.2 [14.7], PV 40 [9.1] min, P=0.002). Blood lactate concentrations were similar at all time points. There was no difference in 24-hr postoperative PT between the groups (median [InterQuartile (IQ) range] HA 17.5 [16-28.3], PV 19 [16-24] sec, P=0.85). Peak postoperative ALT values were comparable (median [IQ range] HA 1031 [668-1701], PV 1107 [754-1824] IU/ml, P=0.78). There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality, but more early deaths occurred in the HA group. Using our data, we calculated that a prospective randomized trial would need approximately 300 patients to be sure that mortality was the same with both techniques.
We have demonstrated no clinically or statistically significant differences in indices of graft function, reperfusion injury, or outcome between primary HA or PV reperfusion.
在原位肝移植(OLT)过程中,尽管门静脉(PV)的氧含量和灌注压低于肝动脉(HA),但通过门静脉对肝脏进行再灌注仍是标准操作。目前尚无已发表的研究描述使用肝动脉进行再灌注时的移植物功能和结局。我们报告了在采用背驮式技术时,肝动脉或门静脉再灌注后移植物结局的回顾性比较。
我们确定了26例接受肝动脉再灌注的OLT患者和26例通过门静脉再灌注的患者。记录了人口统计学资料、主要诊断、外科医生、热缺血和冷缺血时间以及血液制品的使用情况。在每位患者中,分别在手术期间和术后的特定时间点测量全血乳酸浓度、凝血酶原时间(PT)和丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT),作为移植物乳酸代谢、合成功能和再灌注损伤的指标。记录了30天和1年的结局数据。对肝动脉组和门静脉组的数据进行了比较。
两组之间的人口统计学资料、血液制品使用情况、主要诊断、冷缺血时间和外科医生相似。肝动脉组的热缺血时间更长(均值[标准差]:肝动脉组51.2[14.7]分钟,门静脉组40[9.1]分钟,P = 0.002)。所有时间点的血乳酸浓度相似。两组术后24小时的PT无差异(中位数[四分位间距(IQ)范围]:肝动脉组17.5[16 - 28.3]秒,门静脉组19[16 - 24]秒,P = 0.85)。术后ALT峰值相当(中位数[IQ范围]:肝动脉组1031[668 - 1701],门静脉组1107[754 - 1824]IU/ml,P = 0.78)。30天或1年死亡率无统计学显著差异,但肝动脉组早期死亡更多。根据我们的数据计算,一项前瞻性随机试验大约需要300例患者才能确定两种技术的死亡率相同。
我们已经证明,在原发性肝动脉或门静脉再灌注之间,移植物功能、再灌注损伤或结局指标在临床和统计学上均无显著差异。