Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2024
The effects of venovenous bypass use in liver transplantation with piggyback technique: a propensity score-weighted analysis.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
- ARC in Critical Ill OLT Recipients: True Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impact on Early Aggressive PK/PD Target Non-Attainment of CI Beta-Lactam Therapy for Posttransplant Gram-Negative Infections.Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venovenous bypass (VVB) use during liver transplantation (LT) is notably variable among the centres and it is actually restricted to surgically complex cases, severely unstable recipients or grafts from high-risk donors. Historically, VVB was associated with the classical LT with caval cross clamping, while not much is known about the safety of this technique applied to piggyback LT. This retrospective observational study evaluated the effects of VVB applied to piggyback LT on mortality, hospital outcomes, postoperative graft and other organ dysfunction. We retrospectively collected data about recipient status, surgical complexity and graft quality of all the piggyback LTs performed at the Transplant Unit of IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy, from January 2012 to December 2022. A propensity score (PS) was built taking into account the variables possibly associated with either VVB choice and the investigated outcomes with the average treatment overlap method. PS-weighted general linear models (GLMs) were developed to investigate the adjusted effect of VVB use on the selected outcomes. The final analysis included 874 LT cases, of whom 74 (8.5%) underwent VVB. The effective sample sizes after PS-weighting were 280.2 and 64.3 patients in the no-VVB and VVB groups, respectively. PS-weighted GLMs did not show any differences regarding hospital and graft-related outcomes. However, significantly higher odds ratios for serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL and AKIN stage 2 or 3 during the first 24 h after ICU admission together with a higher renal replacement therapy need during ICU stay were reported for VVB exposure in the weighted analyses. This study suggests similar mortality and length of stay but a higher risk for postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing piggyback LT with VVB.
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.