ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
The perioperative period of liver transplantation from unconventional extended criteria donors: data from two high-volume centres.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting massive blood transfusions in liver transplantation: the McCluskey Risk Index revised 20 years later.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangueObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs literature largely focuses on long-term outcomes, this study aimed at elucidating the perioperative outcomes of liver transplant patients receiving a graft from two groups of unconventional expanded criteria donors: brain dead aged > 80 years and cardiac dead.
methodsData of 247 cirrhotic patients transplanted at two high volume liver transplant centers were analysed. Confounders were balanced using a stabilized inverse probability therapy weighting and a propensity score for each patient on the original population was generated. The score was created using a multivariate logistic regression model considering a Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 42 (no versus yes) as the dependent variable and 11 possible clinically relevant confounders as covariate.
resultsForty-four patients received the graft from a cardiac-dead donor and 203 from a brain-dead donor aged > 80 years. Intraoperatively, cardiac-dead donors liver transplant cases required more fresh frozen plasma units (P < 0.0001) with similar reduced need of fibrinogen to old brain-dead donors cases. The incidence of reperfusion syndrome was similar (P = 0.80). In the Intensive Care Unit, both the groups presented a comparable low need for blood transfusions, renal replacement therapy and inotropes. Cardiac-dead donors liver transplantations required more time to tracheal extubation (P < 0.0001) and scored higher Comprehensive Complication Index (P < 0.0001) however the incidence of a severe complication status (Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 42) was similar (P = 0.52). ICU stay (P = 0.97), total hospital stay (P = 0.57), in hospital (P = 1.00) and 6 months (P = 1.00) death were similar.
conclusionSelected octogenarian and cardiac-dead donors can be used safely for liver transplantation.
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.