ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence for use of graft from older donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been conflicting. This study aims to clarify the impact of donor age on recipient morbidity and mortality after adult LDLT. METHODS: A total of 90 live liver donors and recipients who underwent primary adult-to-adult LDLT were divided into three groups according to donor age: donors in 20s (D-20s) group, donors in 30s and 40s (D-30s and 40s) group and donors in 50s & 60s (D-50s and 60s) group. Multivariate analyses were conducted to look for independent risk/prognostic factors. Donor age was analysed as a continuous variable to determine an optimal cut off. RESULTS: Overall donor morbidity was 4/90 (4.44%), major donor morbidity was 1/90 (1.11%) and there was no donor mortality. Recipients in the D-20s group had better 1-, 3- and 5-year recipient survival than recipients in the D-50s and 60s group (96%, 91%, 91% versus 73%, 58%, 58%, respectively) (P = 0.020). Donor age was identified to be an independently significant risk factor for increased major complications (P = 0.007) and prognostic factor for reduced overall survival (P = 0.014). The optimal donor age cut off was determined to be 46.5 years old. CONCLUSION: Older donors are associated with poorer recipient outcomes after adult-to-adult LDLT. Usage of liver grafts from older donors should be carefully considered when choosing liver grafts for patients undergoing LDLT.
Subject(s)
Liver Transplantation , Living Donors , Adult , Age Factors , Graft Survival , Humans , Middle Aged , Morbidity , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Endoscopy generates aerosol droplets and fomites, thereby increasing the risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission to healthcare workers and uninfected patients within endoscopy departments. Despite the sharp rise in the incidence of COVID-19, authoritative recommendations to limit the spread of SARS-CoV2 within gastrointestinal endoscopy units are lacking. Therefore, with the primary aim of identifying best practice and scrutinizing its supporting evidence, we conducted a systematic review of literature for articles published between 1 January 2002 and 15 March 2020 in five databases relating to both the current SARS-CoV2 and the previous SARS-CoV outbreaks. Official websites for gastroenterology and endoscopy societies in the 15 most affected countries were also searched. Unfortunately, a paucity of high quality data and heterogeneity of recommendations between countries was observed. Interestingly, not all countries advocated the postponement of non-urgent or elective procedures. Recommendations for patient screening and personal protective equipment were commonly featured in all recommendations but specifics varied. Only 32% (9/28) of all gastroenterology and endoscopy societies issued guidance on endoscopy in the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, stronger evidence to inform current practice and robust guidelines are urgently needed to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV2 in gastrointestinal endoscopy departments worldwide.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION@#Despite the widespread use of transient elastography for non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis, the optimal cut-off liver stiffness measurement (LSM) values remain unclear. This study aimed to validate the optimal cut-off LSM values for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD).@*METHODS@#Prospective multicentre data of CLD patients who underwent paired liver biopsy and LSM was analysed to determine the optimal cut-off LSM values for predicting significant fibrosis (METAVIR F ≥ 2) and cirrhosis (METAVIR F4). A high-quality cohort was selected by excluding those with failed LSM and invalid LSM readings.@*RESULTS@#Of the 481 patients recruited, 322 fulfilled the pre-defined quality criteria. CLD aetiology was chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in 49%, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in 16% and chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in 12%. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for LSM was 0.775 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.724-0.826) for significant fibrosis and 0.810 (95% CI 0.738-0.882) for cirrhosis. Optimal cut-off LSM values were 9 kPa for significant fibrosis and 13 kPa for cirrhosis in the general cohort. Optimal cut-off LSM values were 9 kPa for significant fibrosis and 12 kPa for cirrhosis for both CHB and CHC, while the corresponding values for NASH were 11 kPa and 15 kPa.@*CONCLUSION@#Optimal cut-off LSM values should be selected based on disease aetiology. In Singapore, the optimal cut-off LSM values for CHB and CHC are 9 kPa for significant fibrosis and 12 kPa for cirrhosis. Optimal cut-off values for NASH require further validation.
ABSTRACT
The prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in Asia is 0.5% to 4.7%, with three different genotypes predominating, depending on the geographic region: genotype 1b in East Asia, genotype 3 in South and Southeast Asia, and genotype 6 in Indochina. Official approval for direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) in Asia lags significantly behind that in the West, such that in most countries the mainstay of therapy is still pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PR). Because the interleukin-28B genetic variant, associated with a high sustained virologic response (SVR), is common in Asians, this treatment is still acceptable in Asian patients with HCV infections. A roadmap for HCV therapy that starts with PR and takes into account those DAAs already approved in some Asian countries can provide guidance as to the best strategies for management, particularly of genotype 1 and 3 infections, based on SVR rates. Sofosbuvir and PR are likely to be the initial therapies for genotype 1 and 3 disease, although in the former these drugs may be suboptimal in patients with cirrhosis (62% SVR) and the extension of treatment to 24 weeks may be required. For difficult to treat genotype 3 infections in treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis, a combination of sofosbuvir and PR result in an 83% SVR and is, therefore, currently the optimal treatment regimen. Treatment failure is best avoided since data on rescue therapies for DAA failure are still incomplete.
