Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Germany (1)
- aftercare structures (1)
- allocation (1)
- child (1)
- fourth (1)
- graft (1)
- kidney (1)
- liver transplantation (1)
- liver transplantation center (1)
- long-term outcome (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Improving long-term patient and graft survival after liver transplantation (LT) remains a major challenge. Compared to the early phase after LT, long-term morbidity and mortality of the recipients not only depends on complications immediately related to the graft function, infections, or rejection, but also on medical factors such as de novo malignancies, metabolic disorders (e.g., new-onset diabetes, osteoporosis), psychiatric conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression), renal failure, and cardiovascular diseases. While a comprehensive post-transplant care at the LT center and the connected regional networks may improve outcome, there is currently no generally accepted standard to the post-transplant management of LT recipients in Germany. We therefore described the structure and standards of post-LT care by conducting a survey at 12 German LT centers including transplant hepatologists and surgeons. Aftercare structures and form of cost reimbursement considerably varied between LT centers across Germany. Further discussions and studies are required to define optimal structure and content of post-LT care systems, aiming at improving the long-term outcomes of LT recipients.
In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re‐transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15‐year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re‐DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re‐DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re‐DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.