TY - JOUR
T1 - Which is better to use “body weight” or “standard liver weight”, for predicting small-for-size graft syndrome after living donor liver transplantation?
AU - Toshima, Takeo
AU - Yoshizumi, Tomoharu
AU - Shimagaki, Tomonari
AU - Wang, Huanlin
AU - Kurihara, Takeshi
AU - Nagao, Yoshihiro
AU - Itoh, Shinji
AU - Harada, Noboru
AU - Mori, Masaki
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This study was supported by the following 5 grants; the Program for Basic and Clinical Research on Hepatitis, from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED (Numbers 20fk0210035s0503, 20fk0310106h0204, and 19fm0208009h0003); JSPS KAKENHI, a Grant‐in‐Aid from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan (Numbers JP‐18K08542); and Taiju Life Social Welfare Foundation 2020. The funding sources had no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Aim: Little evidence about whether to apply graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) or graft weight to standard liver weight (GW/SLW) for graft selection has been published. The aim of the present study was to clarify the importance of the correct use of GRWR and GW/SLW for selecting graft according to the recipients’ physique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: Data were collected for 694 recipients who underwent LDLT between 1997 and 2020. Results: One of the marginal grafts meeting GW/SLW ≥ 35% but GRWR < 0.7% has been used in more recipients with men and higher body mass index (BMI), and the other meeting GRWR ≥ 0.7% but GW/SLW < 35% has been used in more recipients with women with lower BMI. In the cohort of BMI > 30 kg/m2, the recipients with GRWR < 0.7% had a significantly higher incidence of small-for-size graft syndrome (SFSS) compared to those with GRWR ≥ 0.7% (P = 0.008, 46.2% vs 5.9%), and using the cutoff of GW/SLW < 35% could not differentiate. In contrast, in the cohort of BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2, the recipients with GW/SLW < 35% also had a significantly higher incidence of SFSS (P = 0.013, 16.9% vs 9.4%). Multivariate analysis showed that GRWR < 0.7% [odds ratio (OR) 14.145, P = 0.048] was the independent risk factor for SFSS in obese recipients, and GW/SLW < 35% [OR 2.685, P = 0.002] was the independent risk factor in non-obese recipients. Conclusion: Proper use of the formulas for calculating GRWR and GW/SLW in choosing graft according to recipient BMI is important, not only to meet metabolic demand for avoiding SFSS but also to ameliorate donor shortages.
AB - Aim: Little evidence about whether to apply graft-to-recipient body weight ratio (GRWR) or graft weight to standard liver weight (GW/SLW) for graft selection has been published. The aim of the present study was to clarify the importance of the correct use of GRWR and GW/SLW for selecting graft according to the recipients’ physique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: Data were collected for 694 recipients who underwent LDLT between 1997 and 2020. Results: One of the marginal grafts meeting GW/SLW ≥ 35% but GRWR < 0.7% has been used in more recipients with men and higher body mass index (BMI), and the other meeting GRWR ≥ 0.7% but GW/SLW < 35% has been used in more recipients with women with lower BMI. In the cohort of BMI > 30 kg/m2, the recipients with GRWR < 0.7% had a significantly higher incidence of small-for-size graft syndrome (SFSS) compared to those with GRWR ≥ 0.7% (P = 0.008, 46.2% vs 5.9%), and using the cutoff of GW/SLW < 35% could not differentiate. In contrast, in the cohort of BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2, the recipients with GW/SLW < 35% also had a significantly higher incidence of SFSS (P = 0.013, 16.9% vs 9.4%). Multivariate analysis showed that GRWR < 0.7% [odds ratio (OR) 14.145, P = 0.048] was the independent risk factor for SFSS in obese recipients, and GW/SLW < 35% [OR 2.685, P = 0.002] was the independent risk factor in non-obese recipients. Conclusion: Proper use of the formulas for calculating GRWR and GW/SLW in choosing graft according to recipient BMI is important, not only to meet metabolic demand for avoiding SFSS but also to ameliorate donor shortages.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097386454&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85097386454&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ags3.12412
DO - 10.1002/ags3.12412
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85097386454
JO - Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
JF - Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
SN - 2475-0328
ER -