ArticleHepatology international2025
Impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis.
Article in Hepatology international, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation and management of primary sclerosing cholangitis patients awaiting liver transplantation.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited data exists regarding impact of graft type on outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). Our goal was to evaluate the impact of graft type on outcomes following LT in PSC and determine predictors of outcomes.
methodsUsing the Scientific registry of transplant recipients (SRTR), retrospective cohorts were constructed of recipients with PSC over the time period 2010-2020, divided into 2 eras: 2010-2014, 2015-2020, stratified by graft type: living donor (LDLT), donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD). Outcome measures evaluated were graft and patient survival. Survival comparison was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazard models.
results2966 recipients underwent LT for PSC over the study period: LDLT-PSC 153 (5.2%), DCD-PSC 131 (4.4%) and DBD-PSC 2682 (90.4%). While LDLT utilization was higher in PSC (5.2% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), DCD use was lower (4.4% vs. 7.2%; p < 0.001) but increased over time (era 1 vs. era 2: 3.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.02). Outcomes following DCD-PSC were comparable to DBD and improved over time. Compared to DBD-PSC, there was a trend toward lower short-term graft survival following LDLT-PSC (1 Yr. 85.3 vs. 91.9; p = 0.07) with higher retransplant rate (LDLT-PSC vs. DCD-PSC vs. DBD-PSC: 15% vs 11% vs 7%; p < 0.001). Compared to recipients without PSC, long-term patient survival was superior in LDLT-PSC (5 Yr. 90.1 vs. 83.7%; p = 0.05) and DCD-PSC (93.3 vs. 79.7%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, LDLT but not DCD graft type, was associated with inferior graft survival in PSC (adjusted hazard Ratio = 1.65 (1.16-2.34); p = 0.005).
conclusionsIn PSC, utilization of LDLT is higher, while DCD use is lower but increased over time. Outcomes following DCD LT in PSC are comparable to DBD and superior to recipients without PSC. Reduced graft survival and higher re-transplant rate following LDLT in PSC warrants further study. Consideration of DCD could help expand the donor pool in PSC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39476285What 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.