Humar Abhinav, Khwaja Khalid, Glessing Brooke, Larson Elizabeth, Asolati Massimo, Durand Brenda, Lake John, Payne William D
Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Liver Transpl. 2004 May;10(5):661-5. doi: 10.1002/lt.20161.
On August 21, 1999, Region 7 of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) adopted a policy of regionwide sharing of cadaver livers for UNOS Status 1 recipients. We examined what impact this policy had at our center on their waiting times, waiting list mortality, and outcomes. From January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2002, our center listed 39 patients for an emergent (Status 1) transplant, according to the current criteria for Status 1 listing: patients (adult and pediatric) with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), hepatic artery thrombosis, or primary nonfunction early after a liver transplant, or critically ill pediatric patients with chronic liver disease. These 39 candidates were analyzed in 2 groups: those listed before regionwide sharing (Group I, n = 19) and those listed after (Group II, n = 20). Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, including mean donor and recipient age, proportion of pediatric patients, and type of graft used (i.e., living or deceased donor, segmental or whole-organ). FHF was the most common cause of liver failure in both groups-74% versus 70% (P = ns). The next most common cause in both groups was hepatic artery thrombosis, followed by primary nonfunction. Most transplants used deceased donors; however, 2 of the transplants in Group I versus only 1 in Group II used living donors. Waiting list mortality (the patient death rate before a transplant could take place) was 32% in Group I versus only 5% in Group II (P =.03). The mean number of days on the waiting list was also substantially lower in Group II (2.9 days) than in Group I, (5.8 days) (P =.04). For patients who underwent a transplant, graft and patient survival rates at 6 months posttransplant were 69.2% in Group I versus 89.5% in Group II (P =.03). In conclusion, the introduction of regionwide sharing seems to have been of benefit for Status 1 patients at our center. They have a significantly lower risk of dying while waiting for a transplant and undergo one in a much shorter period of time.
1999年8月21日,器官共享联合网络(UNOS)的第7区采用了一项政策,即对UNOS 1级受者进行全区域尸体肝脏共享。我们研究了这项政策对我们中心患者的等待时间、等待名单死亡率和治疗结果产生了什么影响。从1995年1月1日至2002年12月31日,根据当前1级名单标准,我们中心将39例患者列为紧急(1级)移植对象:患有暴发性肝衰竭(FHF)、肝动脉血栓形成或肝移植术后早期原发性无功能的患者(成人和儿童),或患有慢性肝病的危重症儿童患者。这39名候选人被分为两组:在全区域共享之前列入名单的患者(第一组,n = 19)和之后列入名单的患者(第二组,n = 20)。两组患者的特征没有显著差异,包括供体和受体的平均年龄、儿童患者的比例以及所使用移植物的类型(即活体或已故供体、节段性或全器官)。FHF是两组中最常见的肝衰竭原因——分别为74%和70%(P = 无显著性差异)。两组中第二常见的原因是肝动脉血栓形成,其次是原发性无功能。大多数移植使用已故供体;然而,第一组中有2例移植使用了活体供体,而第二组中只有1例。等待名单死亡率(移植前患者死亡率)在第一组中为32%,而在第二组中仅为5%(P = 0.03)。第二组患者在等待名单上的平均天数(2.9天)也明显低于第一组(5.8天)(P = 0.04)。对于接受移植的患者,移植后6个月时移植物和患者的存活率在第一组中为69.2%,而在第二组中为89.5%(P = 0.03)。总之,全区域共享政策的引入似乎对我们中心的1级患者有益。他们在等待移植期间死亡的风险显著降低,并且在更短的时间内接受了移植。