Premium
Outcomes after combined liver–kidney transplant vs. kidney transplant followed by liver transplant
Author(s) -
Chan Edie Y.,
Bhattacharya Renuka,
Eswaran Sheila,
Hertl Martin,
Shah Nikunj,
Fayek Sameh,
Cohen Eric B.,
Hollinger Edward F.,
Olaitan Oyedolamu,
Jensik Stephen C.,
Perkins James D.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1399-0012
pISSN - 0902-0063
DOI - 10.1111/ctr.12484
Subject(s) - medicine , cirrhosis , united network for organ sharing , liver disease , kidney , liver transplantation , model for end stage liver disease , transplantation , surgery , gastroenterology , urology
The decision for isolated kidney transplant ( KT ) vs. combined liver–kidney transplant ( CLKT ) in patients with end‐stage renal disease ( ESRD ) with compensated cirrhosis remains controversial. We sought to determine outcomes of patients requiring listing for a liver transplant ( LT ) following either a cadaveric or living donor KT and compare these outcomes to similar patients receiving a CLKT . Methods Our dataset included the United Network for Organ Sharing ( UNOS )/Standard Transplant and Analysis and Research ( STAR ) kidney files from 1987 to 2012 after being joined with the liver files from 2002 to 2012. Outcomes of patients who received a CLKT with an international normalized ratio ( INR ) ≤1 and total bilirubin ≤1 were compared to patients who received a primary KT and subsequently required listing for LT between zero and five yr or after five yr. Results For the three groups, 244 patients had a CLKT , 216 were wait‐listed for LT between zero and five yr after KT (0–5 WL ), and 320 were wait‐listed five yr after KT (+5 WL ). From the time of KT , the 0–5 WL group had significantly worse survival than the CLKT group and the +5 WL group. The +5 WL had the best survival of all groups. For the 0–5 WL group, 45% underwent LT and 40% died while waiting compared to the +5 WL group with 53% having LT and 26% died while waiting. At the time of LT , the 0–5 WL group had a higher model for end‐stage liver disease ( MELD ) score, higher incidence of being in the ICU at the time of transplant, and higher incidence of requiring life support. From the time of LT , the CLKT trended toward better survival (p = 0.0549) than both the 0–5 WL and +5 WL groups, which had equivalent survival. Conclusion The 0–5 WL group is a higher risk group with poorer survival due to a higher incidence of dying on the waitlist. Better identification of patients with a high risk for hepatic decompensation following KT and agreement for regional exception for LT in the event of decompensation may improve utilization of organs and better survival for those patients.