The predictive score performed well and could not be improved. This provides opportunities for individualizing patient consent and selection, and treatment and research applications.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons.
Background:
Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking.
Methods:
This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers.
Results:
Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes.
Conclusion:
Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.
AIMTo identify objective predictive factors for donor after cardiac death (DCD) graft loss and using those factors, develop a donor recipient stratification risk predictive model that could be used to calculate a DCD risk index (DCD-RI) to help in prospective decision making on organ use.METHODSThe model included objective data from a single institute DCD database (2005-2013, n = 261). Univariate survival analysis was followed by adjusted Cox-regressional hazard model. Covariates selected via univariate regression were added to the model via forward selection, significance level P = 0.3. The warm ischemic threshold was clinically set at 30 min. Points were given to each predictor in proportion to their hazard ratio. Using this model, the DCD-RI was calculated. The cohort was stratified to predict graft loss risk and respective graft survival calculated.RESULTSDCD graft survival predictors were primary indication for transplant (P = 0.066), retransplantation (P = 0.176), MELD > 25 (P = 0.05), cold ischemia > 10 h (P = 0.292) and donor hepatectomy time > 60 min (P = 0.028). According to the calculated DCD-RI score three risk classes could be defined of low (DCD-RI < 1), standard (DCD-RI 2-4) and high risk (DCD-RI > 5) with a 5 years graft survival of 86%, 78% and 34%, respectively.CONCLUSIONThe DCD-RI score independently predicted graft loss (P < 0.001) and the DCD-RI class predicted graft survival (P < 0.001).
The early outcome of liver transplantation in HIV seropositive patients can be good, and patients should not be excluded from transplantation if their liver disease determines their prognosis. More effective antiviral therapy for hepatitis C given posttransplantation, and for hepatitis B reinfection, should improve the longer-term outcome of HIV patients with end-stage liver disease due to hepatitis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.