摘要
AIM To establish the impact of portal hypertension(PH) on wait-list/post-transplant outcomes in patients with polycystic liver disease(PCLD) listed for liver transplantation. METHODS A retrospective single-centre case controlled study of consecutive patients listed for liver transplantation over 12 years was performed from our centre. PH in the PCLD cohort was defined by the one or more of following parameters:(1) presence of radiological or endoscopic documented varices from our own centre or the referral centre;(2) splenomegaly(> 11 cm) on radiology inabsence of splenic cysts accounting for increased imaging size;(3) thrombocytopenia(platelets < 150 × 109/L); or(4) ascites without radiological evidence of hepatic venous outflow obstruction from a single cyst. RESULTS Forty-seven PCLD patients(F: M = 42: 5) were listed for liver transplantation(LT)(single organ, n = 35; combined liver-kidney transplantation, n = 12) with 19 patients(40.4%) having PH. When comparing the PH group with non-PH group, the mean listing age(PH group, 50.6(6.4); non-PH group, 47.1(7.4) years; P = 0.101), median listing MELD(PH group, 12; non-PH group, 11; P = 0.422) median listing UKELD score(PH group, 48; non-PH group, 46; P = 0.344) and need for renal replacement therapy(P = 0.317) were similar. In the patients who underwent LT alone, there was no difference in the duration of ICU stay(PH, 3 d; non-PH, 2 d; P = 0.188), hospital stay length(PH, 9 d; non-PH, 10 d; P = 0.973), or frequency of renal replacement therapy(PH, 2/8; non-PH, 1/14; P = 0.121) in the immediate post-transplantation period. CONCLUSION Clinically apparent portal hypertension in patients with PCLD listed for liver transplantation does not appear to have a major impact on wait-list or peri-transplant morbidity.
AIM To establish the impact of portal hypertension(PH) on wait-list/post-transplant outcomes in patients with polycystic liver disease(PCLD) listed for liver transplantation. METHODS A retrospective single-centre case controlled study of consecutive patients listed for liver transplantation over 12 years was performed from our centre. PH in the PCLD cohort was defined by the one or more of following parameters:(1) presence of radiological or endoscopic documented varices from our own centre or the referral centre;(2) splenomegaly(> 11 cm) on radiology inabsence of splenic cysts accounting for increased imaging size;(3) thrombocytopenia(platelets < 150 × 109/L); or(4) ascites without radiological evidence of hepatic venous outflow obstruction from a single cyst. RESULTS Forty-seven PCLD patients(F: M = 42: 5) were listed for liver transplantation(LT)(single organ, n = 35; combined liver-kidney transplantation, n = 12) with 19 patients(40.4%) having PH. When comparing the PH group with non-PH group, the mean listing age(PH group, 50.6(6.4); non-PH group, 47.1(7.4) years; P = 0.101), median listing MELD(PH group, 12; non-PH group, 11; P = 0.422) median listing UKELD score(PH group, 48; non-PH group, 46; P = 0.344) and need for renal replacement therapy(P = 0.317) were similar. In the patients who underwent LT alone, there was no difference in the duration of ICU stay(PH, 3 d; non-PH, 2 d; P = 0.188), hospital stay length(PH, 9 d; non-PH, 10 d; P = 0.973), or frequency of renal replacement therapy(PH, 2/8; non-PH, 1/14; P = 0.121) in the immediate post-transplantation period. CONCLUSION Clinically apparent portal hypertension in patients with PCLD listed for liver transplantation does not appear to have a major impact on wait-list or peri-transplant morbidity.
