Living Donor Availability Improves Patient Survival in a North American Center

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of having a living donor on waitlist outcomes and overall survival through an intention-to-treat analysis. BACKGROUND: Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an alternative to deceased donation in the face of organ shortage. An as-treated analysis revealed that undergoing LDLT, compared with staying on the waiting list, is associated with improved survival, even at Model for End-stage Liver Disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score of 11. METHODS: Liver transplant candidates listed at the Ajmera Transplant Centre (2000-2021) were categorized as pLDLT (having a potential living donor) or pDDLT (without a living donor). Employing Cox proportional-hazard regression with time-dependent covariates, we evaluated pLDLT's impact on waitlist dropout and overall survival through a risk-adjusted analysis. RESULTS: Of 4124 candidates, 984 (24%) had potential living donors. The pLDLT group experienced significantly lower overall waitlist dropouts (5.2% vs 34.4%, P <0.001) and mortality (3.8% vs 24.4%, P <0.001) compared with the pDDLT group. Possessing a living donor correlated with a 26% decline in the risk of waitlist dropout (adjusted hazard ratio=0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99, P =0.042). The pLDLT group also demonstrated superior survival outcomes at 1 year (84.9% vs 80.1%), 5 years (77.6% vs 61.7%), and 10 years (65.6% vs 52.9%) from listing (log-rank P <0.001) with a 35% reduced risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio=0.65, 95% CI: 0.56-0.76, P <0.001). Moreover, the predicted hazard ratios consistently remained <1 across the MELD-Na range of 11 to 26. CONCLUSIONS: Having a potential living donor significantly improves survival in end-stage liver disease patients, even with MELD-Na scores as low as 11. This emphasizes the need to promote awareness and adoption of LDLT in liver transplant programs worldwide.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.