Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26115520›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Hepatic Venous Outflow and Renal Function after Conventional versus Piggyback Liver Transplantation.

Marília D'Elboux Guimarães Brescia, Paulo Celso Bosco Massarollo, Ernesto Sasaki Imakuma, Sérgio Mies

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01707810 (Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Clinical Efficiency of Conventional Versus Piggyback Method in Venous Drainage of the Transplanted Liver), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01707810 nacompletednot on this map

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Clinical Efficiency of Conventional Versus Piggyback Method in Venous Drainage of the Transplanted Liver

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan1999 to 2000Enrolled32ConditionsEnd-stage Liver DiseaseArmsPiggyback method, conventional method
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Risk Factors for the Incidence and Severity of Acute Kidney Injury After Liver Transplantation.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marília D'Elboux Guimarães BresciaLaboratório de Anatomia Médico-Cirúrgica (LIM-02), Departamento de Cirurgia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo Celso Bosco MassarolloLaboratório de Anatomia Médico-Cirúrgica (LIM-02), Departamento de Cirurgia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ernesto Sasaki ImakumaLaboratório de Anatomia Médico-Cirúrgica (LIM-02), Departamento de Cirurgia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sérgio MiesLaboratório de Anatomia Médico-Cirúrgica (LIM-02), Departamento de Cirurgia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis randomized prospective clinical trial compared the hepatic venous outflow drainage and renal function after conventional with venovenous bypass (n = 15) or piggyback (n = 17) liver transplantation.

methodsFree hepatic vein pressure (FHVP) and central venous pressure (CVP) measurements were performed after graft reperfusion. Postoperative serum creatinine (Cr) was measured daily on the first week and on the 14th, 21st and 28th postoperative days (PO). The prevalence of acute renal failure (ARF) up to the 28th PO was analyzed by RIFLE-AKIN criteria. A Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach was used for comparison of longitudinal measurements of renal function.

resultsFHVP-CVP gradient > 3 mm Hg was observed in 26.7% (4/15) of the patients in the conventional group and in 17.6% (3/17) in the piggyback group (p = 0.68). Median FHVP-CVP gradient was 2 mm Hg (0-8 mmHg) vs. 3 mm Hg (0-7 mm Hg) in conventional and piggyback groups, respectively (p = 0.73). There is no statistically significant difference between the conventional (1/15) and the piggyback (2/17) groups regarding massive ascites development (p = 1.00). GEE estimated marginal mean for Cr was significantly higher in conventional than in piggyback group (2.14 ± 0.26 vs. 1.47 ± 0.15 mg/dL; p = 0.02). The conventional method presented a higher prevalence of severe ARF during the first 28 PO days (OR = 3.207; 95% CI, 1.010 to 10.179; p = 0.048).

conclusionPatients submitted to liver transplantation using conventional or piggyback methods present similar results regarding venous outflow drainage of the graft. Conventional with venovenous bypass technique significantly increases the harm of postoperative renal dysfunction.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01707810.

Indexed as

Hepatic VeinsKidney Function TestsLiver TransplantationRegional Blood FlowAcute Kidney InjuryAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLiverMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeVenous Pressure

Identifiers

PMID26115520
PMCPMC4482688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.