Singh Navdeep, Helfrich Katelynn, Mumtaz Khalid, Washburn Kenneth, Logan April, Black Sylvester, Schenk Austin, Limkemann Ashley, Alebrahim Musab, El-Hinnawi Ashraf
From the Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Exp Clin Transplant. 2021 Aug;19(8):771-778. doi: 10.6002/ect.2021.0013. Epub 2021 Apr 16.
Liver allograft shortage has necessitated greater use of donations after circulatory death. Limited data are available to compare recipients' health care utilization for donation after circulatory death versus brain death.
Liver transplant data for our center from November 2016 until May 2019 were obtained (208 donations after brain death and 39 after circulatory death). We excluded patients <18 years old and multiorgan transplants; for cost data only, we also excluded retransplants. Primary outcome was recipients' health care utilization in donation after circulatory death versus brain death and included index admission length of stay, readmissions, and charges from transplant to 6 months. Secondary outcomes were patient and graft survival.
Donors from circulatory death were younger than donors from brain death (median age 32 vs 40 years; P < .01). Recipient body mass index (31.23 vs 29.38 kg/m2), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (17 vs 19), portal vein thrombosis (15.8% vs 18.0%), length of stay (7 vs 8 days), and 30-, 90-, and 180-day posttransplant index admissions were not significantly different. Charges for index admission were equivalent for donation after circulatory death ($370771) and brain death ($374272) (P = .01). Charges for readmissions at 30 and 180 days were not significantly different (P = .80 and P = .19, respectively). Rates for graft failure (10.3% vs 4.8%; P = .08) and recipient death (10.3% vs 3.8%; P = .17) at 6 months posttransplant were similar.
Donation after circulatory death versus brain death liver transplant recipients had similar lengths of stay and equivalent index admission charges. Graft and patient survival and charges from transplant to 6 months were similar. Donation after circulatory death liver allografts provide a safe, costequivalent donor pool expansion after careful donorrecipient selection.
肝移植供体短缺使得循环性死亡后捐赠器官的使用更为普遍。目前可用于比较循环性死亡后捐赠器官与脑死亡后捐赠器官受者医疗保健利用情况的数据有限。
获取了本中心2016年11月至2019年5月的肝移植数据(208例脑死亡后捐赠和39例循环性死亡后捐赠)。我们排除了年龄<18岁的患者和多器官移植患者;仅就成本数据而言,我们还排除了再次移植患者。主要结局是循环性死亡后捐赠与脑死亡后捐赠受者的医疗保健利用情况,包括首次住院时间、再入院情况以及从移植到6个月的费用。次要结局是患者和移植物存活率。
循环性死亡供体比脑死亡供体年轻(中位年龄32岁对40岁;P <.01)。受者的体重指数(31.23对29.38kg/m²)、终末期肝病模型评分(17对19)、门静脉血栓形成(15.8%对18.0%)、住院时间(7天对8天)以及移植后30天、90天和180天的首次入院情况无显著差异。循环性死亡后捐赠的首次住院费用(370771美元)与脑死亡后捐赠的首次住院费用(374272美元)相当(P =.01)。30天和180天再入院费用无显著差异(分别为P =.80和P =.19)。移植后6个月时移植物失败率(10.3%对4.8%;P =.08)和受者死亡率(10.3%对3.8%;P =.17)相似。
循环性死亡后捐赠与脑死亡后捐赠的肝移植受者住院时间相似,首次住院费用相当。移植物和患者存活率以及从移植到6个月的费用相似。经过仔细的供体-受者选择后,循环性死亡后捐赠的肝移植可提供一个安全、成本相当的供体库扩展方式。