ArticleHepatology international2017
Lipid profiles of donors and recipients of liver transplant: like father like son.
Article in Hepatology international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of drug-drug interaction between rosuvastatin and tacrolimus and the risk of hepatic injury in rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Predicting dyslipidemia after liver transplantation: A significant role of recipient metabolic inflammation profile.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeDyslipidemia is common in liver transplant recipients. This retrospective study investigates whether donors play a role.
methodsProspectively collected data of donors and recipients of deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were reviewed. Total cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and fasting glucose were compared between groups. HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L at 2 years after transplant was considered the marker of a favorable post-transplant lipid profile in recipients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for this marker.
resultsThere were 85 DDLTs and 80 LDLTs. LDLT donors were younger (30 vs. 50 years, p < 0.001) and lighter (58.2 vs. 63.4 kg, p = 0.008) and had a lower body mass index (21.2 vs. 23.7, p < 0.001). The DDLT group had more fatty grafts (p = 0.001) and longer cold (375 vs. 103.5 min, p < 0.001) and warm (50.5 vs. 46 min, p = 0.034) ischemia. LDLT donors had lower fasting glucose (4.85 vs. 7.21 mmol/L, p < 0.001) and triglyceride (0.87 vs. 1.22 mmol/L, p = 0.016) but higher HDL (1.58 vs. 1.39 mmol/L, p = 0.022). LDLT recipients also had higher HDL at 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.28 mmol/L, p = 0.026) and 2 years (1.43 vs. 1.21 mmol/L, p = 0.008). Fourteen (16.5%) DDLT recipients and 27 (33.8%) LDLT recipients had HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L at 2 years. On multivariate analysis, donor HDL ≥1.6 mmol/L (RR 4.311, 95% CI 1.666-11.158, p = 0.003) and recipient body mass index <24 (RR 2.753, 95% CI 1.064-7.127, p = 0.037) were the two independent predictive factors.
conclusionLDLT recipients had better lipid profiles than DDLT recipients. The feature of high HDL level in donors was transferred to recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.