• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

再探侵袭表型:高危肝移植物的利用。

The aggressive phenotype revisited: utilization of higher-risk liver allografts.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Department of Surgery, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

出版信息

Am J Transplant. 2013 Apr;13(4):936-942. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12151. Epub 2013 Feb 15.

DOI:10.1111/ajt.12151
PMID:23414232
Abstract

Organ shortage has led to increased utilization of higher risk liver allografts. In kidneys, aggressive center-level use of one type of higher risk graft clustered with aggressive use of other types. In this study, we explored center-level behavior in liver utilization. We aggregated national liver transplant recipient data between 2005 and 2009 to the center-level, assigning each center an aggressiveness score based on relative utilization of higher risk livers. Aggressive centers had significantly more patients reaching high MELDs (RR 2.19, 2.33 and 2.28 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30, p<0.001), a higher organ shortage ratio (RR 1.51, 1.60 and 1.51 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30 divided by number of organs recovered at the OPO, p<0.04), and were clustered within various geographic regions, particularly regions 2, 3 and 9. Median MELD at transplant was similar between aggressive and nonaggressive centers, but average annual transplant volume was significantly higher at aggressive centers (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.47-3.51, p<0.001). In cluster analysis, there were no obvious phenotypic patterns among centers with intermediate levels of aggressiveness. In conclusion, highwaitlist disease severity, geographic differences in organ availability, and transplant volume are the main factors associated with the aggressive utilization of higher risk livers.

摘要

器官短缺导致高危肝脏移植物的利用率增加。在肾脏中,中心层面积极使用一种高危移植物与积极使用其他类型移植物相结合。在这项研究中,我们探讨了肝脏利用方面的中心行为。我们将 2005 年至 2009 年期间的全国肝脏移植受者数据汇总到中心层面,根据高危肝脏的相对利用情况为每个中心分配一个积极性评分。积极中心的患者达到较高 MELD 评分的比例显著更高(达到 MELD>20、MELD>25 和 MELD>30 的患者人数分别为 2.19、2.33 和 2.28,p<0.001),器官短缺比例也更高(达到 MELD>20、MELD>25 和 MELD>30 的患者人数除以在 OPO 回收的器官数量,分别为 1.51、1.60 和 1.51,p<0.04),并且在各个地理区域内聚集,特别是区域 2、3 和 9。积极中心和非积极中心之间移植时的中位 MELD 评分相似,但积极中心的平均年度移植量明显更高(RR 2.27,95%CI 1.47-3.51,p<0.001)。在聚类分析中,积极性处于中等水平的中心之间没有明显的表型模式。总之,高等待名单疾病严重程度、器官可用性的地理差异和移植量是与高危肝脏积极利用相关的主要因素。

相似文献

1
The aggressive phenotype revisited: utilization of higher-risk liver allografts.再探侵袭表型:高危肝移植物的利用。
Am J Transplant. 2013 Apr;13(4):936-942. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12151. Epub 2013 Feb 15.
2
The aggressive phenotype: center-level patterns in the utilization of suboptimal kidneys.侵袭表型:中心层面的次优肾脏利用模式。
Am J Transplant. 2012 Feb;12(2):400-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03789.x. Epub 2011 Oct 12.
3
Improvement in the Outcomes of MELD ≥ 40 Liver Transplantation: An Analysis of 207 Consecutive Transplants in a Highly Competitive DSA.终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分≥40分的肝移植患者预后改善:对高度竞争的供体特异性抗体(DSA)情况下207例连续肝移植的分析
Transplantation. 2017 Oct;101(10):2360-2367. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001738.
4
Attitudes and barriers to the use of donation after cardiac death livers: Comparison of a United States transplant center survey to the united network for organ sharing data.心死亡器官捐献肝脏使用的态度和障碍:美国移植中心调查与联合器官共享网络数据的比较。
Liver Transpl. 2017 Nov;23(11):1372-1383. doi: 10.1002/lt.24855.
5
Impact of MELD 30-allocation policy on liver transplant outcomes in Italy.终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分30分分配政策对意大利肝移植结局的影响。
J Hepatol. 2022 Mar;76(3):619-627. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.10.024. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
6
Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients.活体捐赠与循环死亡后肝脏移植在低终末期肝病模型受体中的比较。
Liver Transpl. 2019 Apr;25(4):580-587. doi: 10.1002/lt.25073. Epub 2019 Mar 6.
7
Transplant center variability in utilizing nonstandard donors and its impact on the transplantation of patients with lower MELD scores.移植中心在利用非标准供体方面的差异及其对低 MELD 评分患者移植的影响。
Liver Transpl. 2024 May 1;30(5):461-471. doi: 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000294. Epub 2023 Oct 31.
8
The impact of geographic location versus center practice on center volume in liver transplantation after the acuity circle policy.急性病救治圈政策实施后,地理位置与中心实践对肝移植中心手术量的影响。
Clin Transplant. 2023 Apr;37(4):e14932. doi: 10.1111/ctr.14932. Epub 2023 Feb 17.
9
MELD score measured day 10 after orthotopic liver transplantation predicts death and re-transplantation within the first year.原位肝移植术后第10天测得的终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分可预测患者在第一年内的死亡和再次移植情况。
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016 Nov;51(11):1360-6. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1196497. Epub 2016 Jun 20.
10
MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes.根据等待名单规模划分的肝移植受者的终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分:器官分配的影响及患者预后
JAMA. 2004 Apr 21;291(15):1871-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.15.1871.

引用本文的文献

1
US Population Size and Outcomes of Adults on Liver Transplant Waiting Lists.美国肝移植等待名单上成年人的人口规模及结果。
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Mar 3;8(3):e251759. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.1759.
2
Declined Organs for Liver Transplantation: A Right Decision or a Missed Opportunity for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma?肝移植被拒绝的器官:对肝细胞癌患者来说是正确的决定还是错失的机会?
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb 21;15(5):1365. doi: 10.3390/cancers15051365.
3
Heterogeneous donor circles for fair liver transplant allocation.
异体供者肝移植公平分配的环。
Health Care Manag Sci. 2024 Mar;27(1):20-45. doi: 10.1007/s10729-022-09602-7. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
4
Gerrymandering for Justice: Redistricting U.S. Liver Allocation.为公平而操纵选区划分:美国肝脏分配的重新划分选区
Interfaces (Providence). 2015 Sep-Oct;45(5):462-480. doi: 10.1287/inte.2015.0810. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
5
Reexamining Risk Aversion: Willingness to Pursue and Utilize Nonideal Donor Livers Among US Donation Service Areas.重新审视风险规避:美国捐赠服务区内对非理想供体肝脏的追求与利用意愿
Transplant Direct. 2021 Aug 6;7(9):e742. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001173. eCollection 2021 Sep.
6
Associations Among Different Domains of Quality Among US Liver Transplant Programs.美国肝移植项目不同领域质量之间的关联。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 2;4(8):e2118502. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18502.
7
Trends in Outcomes for Marginal Allografts in Liver Transplant.肝移植中边缘供肝的预后趋势
JAMA Surg. 2020 Aug 5;155(10):926-32. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.2484.
8
Wide Variation in the Percentage of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Across Donor Service Areas: A Potential Target for Improvement.不同地区器官捐献者来源的脑死亡供体比例差异较大:一个潜在的改进目标。
Transplantation. 2020 Aug;104(8):1668-1674. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003019.
9
Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center.辅助患者选择肝移植中心的工具。
Liver Transpl. 2020 Mar;26(3):337-348. doi: 10.1002/lt.25715.
10
National Variation in Increased Infectious Risk Kidney Offer Acceptance.国家间增加传染性风险的肾脏捐献接受率的差异。
Transplantation. 2019 Oct;103(10):2157-2163. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002631.