File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006866
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-105018586492
- PMID: 40747906
- Find via

Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Living Donor Liver Transplantation Reduced Waitlist Mortality in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure
| Title | Living Donor Liver Transplantation Reduced Waitlist Mortality in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Keywords | acute-on-chronic liver failure deceased donor liver transplant liver transplant living donor liver transplant outcomes |
| Issue Date | 1-Nov-2025 |
| Publisher | Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins |
| Citation | Annals of Surgery, 2025, v. 282, n. 5, p. 868-875 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | OBJECTIVE: To compare intention-to-treat (ITT) and post-transplant outcomes of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). BACKGROUND: Limited data exist comparing LDLT and DDLT outcomes in ACLF, particularly addressing waitlist mortality. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all ACLF patients listed for transplant (2008-2023). Patients with living donors were categorized as ITT-LDLT group and others as ITT-DDLT group. Primary outcome was to compare ITT-overall survival (ITT-OS), defined as survival from listing to death. Secondary outcomes included waitlist outcomes, post-transplant complications, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were accepted for transplant (ITT-LDLT n=127, ITT-DDLT n=143) with similar clinical characteristics at listing. ITT-LDLT achieved superior ITT-OS, with 92.9% survival at 3 months versus 67.1% for ITT-DDLT ( P <0.001), driven by higher transplant rates (94.5% vs 53.8%, P <0.001) and shorter waiting times. ACLF grade 2 and 3 patients had the greatest survival benefit in ITT analysis. Futile waitlist outcomes, defined as death or delisting were more common in ITT-DDLT (4.7% vs 35.7%, P <0.001). Post-transplant outcomes were comparable; 30-day mortality (2.0% vs 1.0%, P =0.62), severe complication (28.6% vs 33.3%, P =0.47), and 5-year survival (74.5% vs 74.7%, P =0.46). Even for ACLF grades 2 and 3, LDLT achieved a 5-year survival at 87.2% and 68.0%, respectively. Older age, higher ACLF grade and ITT-DDLT predicted waitlist futility. Neither ACLF grades nor transplant type predicted graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: ITT-LDLT improved ITT-OS, especially in ACLF grade 2/3 cohort, and provided similar perioperative and long-term outcomes to DDLT. |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/366748 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 7.5 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.729 |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Wong, Tiffany Cho Lam | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Keith Kin-Pan, Au | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Chan, Milles Miu Yee | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Cui, Tracy Yushi | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lam, Kin Hang | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Choy, Chloe Huen Wai | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Tam, Hoi Yan | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Dai, Jeff Wing Chiu | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Fung, James Yan Yue | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Chan, Albert Chi Yan | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Law, Simon Ying Kit | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-11-25T04:21:37Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-11-25T04:21:37Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-11-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Annals of Surgery, 2025, v. 282, n. 5, p. 868-875 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0003-4932 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/366748 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | OBJECTIVE: To compare intention-to-treat (ITT) and post-transplant outcomes of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). BACKGROUND: Limited data exist comparing LDLT and DDLT outcomes in ACLF, particularly addressing waitlist mortality. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all ACLF patients listed for transplant (2008-2023). Patients with living donors were categorized as ITT-LDLT group and others as ITT-DDLT group. Primary outcome was to compare ITT-overall survival (ITT-OS), defined as survival from listing to death. Secondary outcomes included waitlist outcomes, post-transplant complications, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were accepted for transplant (ITT-LDLT n=127, ITT-DDLT n=143) with similar clinical characteristics at listing. ITT-LDLT achieved superior ITT-OS, with 92.9% survival at 3 months versus 67.1% for ITT-DDLT ( P <0.001), driven by higher transplant rates (94.5% vs 53.8%, P <0.001) and shorter waiting times. ACLF grade 2 and 3 patients had the greatest survival benefit in ITT analysis. Futile waitlist outcomes, defined as death or delisting were more common in ITT-DDLT (4.7% vs 35.7%, P <0.001). Post-transplant outcomes were comparable; 30-day mortality (2.0% vs 1.0%, P =0.62), severe complication (28.6% vs 33.3%, P =0.47), and 5-year survival (74.5% vs 74.7%, P =0.46). Even for ACLF grades 2 and 3, LDLT achieved a 5-year survival at 87.2% and 68.0%, respectively. Older age, higher ACLF grade and ITT-DDLT predicted waitlist futility. Neither ACLF grades nor transplant type predicted graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: ITT-LDLT improved ITT-OS, especially in ACLF grade 2/3 cohort, and provided similar perioperative and long-term outcomes to DDLT. | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Annals of Surgery | - |
| dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
| dc.subject | acute-on-chronic liver failure | - |
| dc.subject | deceased donor liver transplant | - |
| dc.subject | liver transplant | - |
| dc.subject | living donor liver transplant | - |
| dc.subject | outcomes | - |
| dc.title | Living Donor Liver Transplantation Reduced Waitlist Mortality in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006866 | - |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 40747906 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-105018586492 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 282 | - |
| dc.identifier.issue | 5 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 868 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 875 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1528-1140 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 0003-4932 | - |
