Objectives The outcomes of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) as a first line strategy is reported. Methods All consecutive patients treated with FEVAR for short neck, juxtarenal, or ...suprarenal aortic aneurysms under the guidance of the senior author within the period January 2010 to December 2014 were included. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Analyzed outcomes included technical success, defined by successful stent graft implantation with patent stented target vessels and no Type I/III endoleak, operative mortality and morbidity, target vessel patency, endoleak, re-intervention, and death. Survival, target vessel stent patency, and re-intervention during follow up were calculated by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results A total of 281 patients (245 male, mean age 72.1 ± 7.7 years) were treated. The mean aneurysm diameter was 60.2 ± 9.3 mm and median proximal neck length 2 mm (range 0–10 mm). Technical success was 96.8% (272/281). Technical failure included one intra-operative death due to embolization and cardiac arrest, one open conversion due to iliac rupture, and seven target vessel complications. The thirty day mortality was 0.7% (2/281). Mean follow up was 21 ± 15.9 months. Estimated survival at 1 and 3 years was 94.7% ± 1.6% and 84.6% ± 3.0%, respectively. Estimated freedom from re-intervention at 1 and 3 years was 96.1% ± 1.4%, and 90% ± 2.7%. Estimated target vessel stent patency at 1 and 3 years was 98.6% ± 0.5%, and 98.1% ± 0.6%, respectively. Mean aneurysm sac diameter decreased from 60.2 ± 9.3 mm pre-operatively to 53.2 ± 12.8 mm ( p < .001). Conclusions FEVAR as a first line strategy was associated with high technical success and a low operative mortality rate. Efficacy and durability in the mid-term appear very good, with significant regression of aneurysm sac diameter, high target vessel patency, and acceptable rate of re-intervention.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
We systematically reviewed and meta‐analyze the efficacy of universal prophylaxis (UP) and preemptive (PE) strategies (using ganciclovir or valganciclovir) in preventing cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease ...(CMD) among liver transplant recipients (LTRs). We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database till December 2013. Studies that assessed UP or PE for preventing CMD in LTRs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was CMD, secondary outcomes being acute cellular rejection (ACR), graft loss (GL) and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of comparative studies, an indirect comparison was performed. Pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated for each outcome using a random‐effects model. Thirty‐two studies involving 2456 LTRs were included. The majority of the studies were of low risk of bias. Irrespective of donor/recipient CMV sero‐status, CMD was 10% with UP (95% CI: 6–14; I2 = 87%; 16 studies, n = 1581) and 7% with PE (95% CI: 3–10; I2 = 84%; 16 studies, n = 875) (mean difference 2.6; 95% CI: −3.25 to 8.45, p = 0.34). Likewise, ACR and mortality were similar with the two strategies. However, GL was significantly lower in the UP group, regardless of donor/recipient sero‐status. In indirect comparison, the incidence of CMD, ACR and mortality in LTRs were similar with two strategies. Trials comparing the two strategies directly are needed.
This meta‐analysis of liver transplant recipients shows similar rates of CMV disease, acute rejection, and mortality among universal prophylaxis and preemptive strategies.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
To refine selection criteria for adult living liver donors and improve donor quality of care, risk factors for poor postdonation health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) must be identified. This ...cross‐sectional study examined donors who underwent a right hepatectomy at the University of Toronto between 2000 and 2007 (n = 143), and investigated predictors of (1) physical and mental health postdonation, as well as (2) willingness to participate in the donor process again. Participants completed a standardized HRQOL measure (SF‐36) and measures of the pre‐ and postdonation process. Donor scores on the SF‐36 physical and mental health indices were equivalent to, or greater than, population norms. Greater predonation concerns, a psychiatric diagnosis and a graduate degree were associated with lower mental health postdonation whereas older donors reported better mental health. The majority of donors (80%) stated they would donate again but those who perceived that their recipient engaged in risky health behaviors were more hesitant. Prospective donors with risk factors for lower postdonation satisfaction and mental health may require more extensive predonation counseling and postdonation psychosocial follow‐up. Risk factors identified in this study should be prospectively evaluated in future research.
Health related quality of life post‐donation was at least as good as population norms in adult right lobe living liver donors; however, factors such as pre‐donation concerns, the possession of a graduate degree, and a psychiatric diagnosis were associated with lower mental health scores.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation in patients with chronic liver disease and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) was compared using a matched pair study design. Thirty patients ...with HRS receiving a live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and 90 HRS patients receiving a full graft deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were compared. LDLT versus DDLT of patients with HRS was associated with decreased peak aspartate aminotransferase levels (339 ± 214 vs. 935 ± 1253 U/L; p = 0.0001), and similar 7‐day bilirubin (8.42 ± 7.89 vs. 6.95 ± 7.13 mg/dL; p = 0.35), and international normalized ratio levels (1.93 ± 0.62 vs. 1.78 ± 0.78; p = 0.314). LDLT vs. DDLT had a decreased intensive care unit (2 1–39 vs. 4 0–93 days; p = 0.004), and hospital stay (17 4–313 vs. 26 0–126 days; p = 0.016) and a similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (20% vs. 27%; p = 0.62). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding graft survival at 1 (80% vs. 82%), at 3 (69% vs. 76%) and 5 years (65% vs. 76%) (p = 0.63), as well as patient survival at 1 (83% vs. 82%), 3 (72% vs. 77%) and 5 years (72% vs. 77%) (p = 0.93). The incidence of chronic kidney disease post‐LT (10% vs. 6%; p = 0.4) was similar between both groups. LDLT results in identical long‐term outcome when compared with DDLT in patients with HRS.
Using a matched case‐control study, the authors find that live donor liver transplantation when compared to deceased donation provides similar outcome in patients suffering from hepatorenal syndrome, and they discuss live donation as a strategy to provide immediate access to transplantation for this patient population.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The increased prevalence of obesity worldwide threatens the pool of living liver donors. Although the negative effects of graft steatosis on liver donation and transplantation are well known, the ...impact of obesity in the absence of hepatic steatosis on outcome of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is unknown. Consequently, we compared the outcome of LDLT using donors with BMI <30 versus donors with BMI ≥30. Between April 2000 and May 2014, 105 patients received a right‐lobe liver graft from donors with BMI ≥30, whereas 364 recipients were transplanted with grafts from donors with BMI <30. Liver steatosis >10% was excluded in all donors with BMI >30 by imaging and liver biopsies. None of the donors had any other comorbidity. Donors with BMI <30 versus ≥30 had similar postoperative complication rates (Dindo‐Clavien ≥3b: 2% vs. 3%; p = 0.71) and lengths of hospital stay (6 vs. 6 days; p = 0.13). Recipient graft function, assessed by posttransplant peak serum bilirubin and international normalized ratio was identical. Furthermore, no difference was observed in recipient complication rates (Dindo‐Clavien ≥3b: 25% vs. 20%; p = 0.3) or lengths of hospital stay between groups. We concluded that donors with BMI ≥30, in the absence of graft steatosis, are not contraindicated for LDLT.
Right lobe live liver donation can be performed safely in select obese patients in the absence of steatosis and donor comorbidities, which could open an interesting approach to further increase the donor pool.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Abstract Background Obesity is thought to be associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT); however, its actual impact is difficult to evaluate, in part ...because of the confounding effects of fluid accumulation on body mass index (BMI). Objective We sought to define the effects of conventional BMI (cBMI) and modified BMI (mBMI; calculated by multiplying the BMI by serum albumin level to compensate for fluid accumulation), on the outcome of LT recipients overall. Methods A cohort of 507 patients who underwent LT from April 2000 to August 2006 were analyzed. Results Pre-LT diabetes mellitus was seen somewhat more frequently in the higher mBMI group ( P = .054), whereas there was no difference across cBMI categories. The recipients at extremes of cBMI (>40 kg/m2 and <18.5 kg/m2 ) had significantly lower patient and graft survival than other groups ( P = .038 and P = .010, respectively); however, no statistically significant differences were found in overall patient and graft survival across mBMI categories. There were no differences in duration of intensive care unit stay, duration of overall hospital stay, and vascular complications after LT among mBMI categories. Conclusions Pre-LT obesity alone, when estimated by mBMI rather than by cBMI, should not be a contraindication for LT.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our ...institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 0–7 vs. LDLT: 1 days 0–10; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18–72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo–Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work‐up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short‐ and long‐term outcomes.
The authors report that live donor liver transplantation can provide immediate access to liver transplantation in critically ill patients suffering from acute liver failure, with excellent donor and recipient outcomes. See editorial by Rosen and Emond on page 1455.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Long-term benzimidazole therapy benefits patients with non-resectable alveolar echinococcosis (AE). Methods to assess early therapeutic efficacy are lacking. Recently, AE liver lesions were reported ...to exhibit increased F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in positron emission tomography (PET). To assess the value of FDG-PET for diagnosis and follow-up of AE patients.
Twenty-six consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AE were enrolled. Baseline evaluation included CT and FDG-PET. Thirteen patients (11 women; median age 50 years, range 40-76) were resected, the remaining 13 (8 women; median age 60 years, range 39-72) had non-resectable disease, were started on benzimidazoles, and CT and FDG-PET were repeated at 6, 12 and 24 months of therapy. Twelve consecutive patients with newly diagnosed cystic echinococcosis (CE) of the liver were also subjected to baseline FDG-PET.
In 21/26 AE patients, baseline PET scans showed multifocally increased FDG uptake in the hepatic lesions' periphery, while liver lesions were FDG negative in 11/12 CE patients. Thus, sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET for AE vs. CE were 81% and 92%, respectively. In 5 of 10 non-resectable patients with increased baseline FDG uptake, the intensity of uptake decreased (or disappeared) during benzimidazole therapy, in 3 by >or=2 grades within the initial 6 months.
FDG-PET is a sensitive and specific adjunct in the diagnosis of suspected AE and can help in differentiating AE from CE. The rapid improvement of positive PET scans with benzimidazole therapy in some patients indicates that absent FDG uptake does not necessarily reflect parasite viability.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, VSZLJ, ZAGLJ
PDF
