No abstract

Summary Background There is limited information on the effects of statins on the outcomes of liver transplantation (LT), regarding either their use by LT recipients or donors. Aim To analyse the association between statin exposure and recipient and graft survival. Methods We included adult LT recipients with deceased donors in a nationwide prospective database study. Using a multistate modelling approach, we examined the effect of statins on the transition hazard between LT, biliary and vascular complications and death, allowing for recurring events. The observation time was 3 years. Results We included 998 (696 male, 70%, mean age 54.46 ± 11.14 years) LT recipients. 14% of donors and 19% of recipients were exposed to statins during the study period. During follow‐up, 141 patients died; there were 40 re‐LT and 363 complications, with 66 patients having two or more complications. Treatment with statins in the recipient was modelled as a concurrent covariate and associated with lower mortality after LT (HR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.12–0.98; p = 0.047), as well as a significant reduction of re‐LT (p = 0.004). However, it was not associated with lower incidence of complications (HR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.85–1.83; p = 0.266). Moreover, in patients developing complications, statin use was significantly associated with decreased mortality (HR = 0.10; 95% CI = 0.01–0.81; p = 0.030), and reduced recurrence of complications (HR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.20–0.93; p = 0.032). Conclusions Statin use by LT recipients may confer a survival advantage. Statin administration should be encouraged in LT recipients when clinically indicated.

Background:In patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the impact of the severity of steatosis and inflammatory activity on the accuracy of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) and by two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) in staging liver fibrosis is still debated and scarce. We aimed to focus on this aspect. Methods:We prospectively studied 104 patients requiring biopsy for the assessment of NAFLD. We used ordinary least squares regression to test for differences in the association between fibrosis and LSM by TE and 2D-SWE when other factors (steatosis and inflammatory activity) are considered.Results: Among 104 patients, 102 had reliable LSM by TE, and 88 had valid LSM by 2D-SWE. The association between fibrosis based on histology and LSM was significantly stronger when 2D-SWE assessed LSM compared to TE (Spearman's correlation coefficient of .71; P < .001 vs .51, P < .001; Z = 2.21, P = .027). Inflammatory activity was an independent predictor of LSM by TE but not of LSM by 2D-SWE. After controlling for fibrosis, age, sex and body mass index, the inflammatory activity and the interaction between inflammatory activity and fibrosis independently explained 11% and 13% of variance in LSM by TE respectively. Steatosis did not affect the association of fibrosis and LSM by either method. Conclusion:Inflammatory activity on histology significantly affects LSM by TE, but not LSM by 2D-SWE in NAFLD. LSM by 2D-SWE reflects liver fibrosis more accurately than LSM by TE. Furthermore, the severity of steatosis on histology did not influence the association of LSM and fibrosis by either elastography method.