Premium
Posttransplantation growth in pediatric liver recipients
Author(s) -
Renz John F.,
de Roos Marnix,
Rosenthal Philip,
Mudge Christine,
Bacchetti Peter,
Watson Jessica,
Roberts John P.,
Ascher Nancy L.,
Emond Jean C.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
liver transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.814
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1527-6473
pISSN - 1527-6465
DOI - 10.1053/jlts.2001.29413
Subject(s) - medicine , biliary atresia , transplantation , immunosuppression , liver transplantation , pediatrics
The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the growth of 96 pediatric liver transplant recipients from February 1988 to June 1999. Inclusion criteria were the following: age younger than 18 years, follow‐up longer than 1 year, transplantation for a nontumor indication, and no retransplantation. Linear height and growth velocity SD scores were correlated to age, sex, indication for transplantation, immunosuppression, and graft type. Transplant recipients of all ages and indications and both sexes were growth retarded at transplantation. Recipients aged younger than 24 months showed growth within the first year to achieve a height distribution equal to that of an age‐matched population. Posttransplantation growth inversely correlated with height standard score at transplantation. Children older than 2 years at transplantation established new growth curves, but remained growth retarded. As children approached the prepubertal growth acceleration, growth deficits frequently were erased. Transplant recipients with biliary atresia and α 1 ‐antitrypsin deficiency showed increased growth performance compared with those who underwent transplantation for chronic hepatitis or fulminant hepatic failure. Boys were less growth retarded at transplantation and showed improved posttransplantation growth performance versus girls. No correlation to immunosuppression or graft type was identified. We conclude that early transplantation of children who show growth retardation is optimal for restoration of growth potential, whereas delaying transplantation in older children impedes potential growth.