Ziogas Ioannis A, Kakos Christos D, Esagian Stepan M, Skarentzos Konstantinos, Alexopoulos Sophoclis P, Shingina Alexandra, Montenovo Martin I
Department of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.
Clin Transplant. 2022 Feb;36(2):e14521. doi: 10.1111/ctr.14521. Epub 2021 Oct 30.
Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an increasingly utilized alternative to donation after brain death (DBD) to expand the liver donor pool. We compared the outcomes of liver transplant (LT) after DCD versus DBD.
A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases (end-of-search-date: July 2, 2020). US outcomes were analyzed using the UNOS database (February, 2002-September, 2020). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for patient and graft survival were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias.
Thirteen studies reporting on 1426 DCD and 5385 DBD LT recipients were included. 5620 DCD and 87561 DBD LT recipients were analyzed from the UNOS database. Meta-analysis showed increased risk of patient mortality for DCD (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.09-1.70; P = .01; I = 53.6%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed no difference in patient survival between DCD and DBD (HR = 1.15; 95%CI, .91-1.45; P = .25; I = 61.5%). Meta-analysis showed increased risk of graft loss for DCD (HR = 1.50; 95%CI, 1.20-1.88; P < .001; I = 67.8%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed a reduction in effect size (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.06-1.74; P = .02; I = 73.5%).
When adjusted for publication bias, no difference was identified between DCD and DBD regarding patient survival, while DCD was associated with an increased risk of graft loss.
心脏死亡后捐赠(DCD)作为脑死亡后捐赠(DBD)的一种替代方式,越来越多地被用于扩大肝脏供体库。我们比较了DCD与DBD后肝移植(LT)的结果。
使用PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase数据库进行了一项符合PRISMA标准的系统文献综述(检索截止日期:2020年7月2日)。使用UNOS数据库(2002年2月至2020年9月)分析美国的结果。通过随机效应荟萃分析获得患者和移植物存活的合并风险比(HR),并对发表偏倚进行校正。
纳入了13项研究,报告了1426例DCD肝移植受者和5385例DBD肝移植受者。从UNOS数据库分析了5620例DCD肝移植受者和87561例DBD肝移植受者。荟萃分析显示DCD患者死亡风险增加(HR = 1.36;95%CI,1.09 - 1.70;P = 0.01;I = 53.6%)。校正发表偏倚后,荟萃分析显示DCD和DBD患者生存率无差异(HR = 1.15;95%CI,0.91 - 1.45;P = 0.25;I = 61.5%)。荟萃分析显示DCD移植物丢失风险增加(HR = 1.50;95%CI,1.20 - 1.88;P < 0.001;I = 67.8%)。校正发表偏倚后,荟萃分析显示效应量降低(HR = 1.36;95%CI,1.06 - 1.74;P = 0.02;I = 73.5%)。
校正发表偏倚后,DCD和DBD在患者生存率方面无差异,而DCD与移植物丢失风险增加相关。