目的:肝移植前(LT)功能状态是LT后预后的重要决定因素。根据肝脏疾病的特定病因,关于功能状态如何影响移植受者的结局的数据不足。我们根据肝病的病因对LT受体进行分层,以评估每个亚组的功能状态对LT后预后的影响。
方法:2005-2019联合器官共享网络(UNOS)标准移植分析和研究(STAR)用于选择肝移植患者。总共14,290名患者被纳入分析。这些患者根据Karnofsky表现量表(KPS)评分按功能状态进行分层:无帮助,一些援助,或全面援助。然后将它们进一步分为六个诊断类别:代谢功能障碍相关的脂肪变性肝病(MASLD),遗传性疾病,丙型肝炎,乙型肝炎,自身免疫性疾病(AID),和酒精性肝病(ALD)。主要终点包括全因死亡率和移植物衰竭,而次要终点包括器官特异性死亡原因。18岁以下的患者和非全肝或先前肝移植的患者被排除在外。
结果:需要一些帮助的MASLD患者(aHR:1.57,95%CI1.03-2.39,p=0.04)和需要全部帮助的患者(aHR:2.32,95%CI1.48-3.64,p<0.001)与不需要帮助的患者相比,移植失败的发生率更高。需要全面援助的MASLD患者的全因死亡率高于不需要援助的患者(aHR:1.62,95%CI1.38-1.89,p<0.001)。与不需要帮助的患者相比,患有遗传性肝病的患者在需要一些帮助的接受者中显示出全因死亡率的发生率较低(aHR:0.52,95%CI0.34-0.80,p=0.003)。患有丙型肝炎的LT接受者,AID,与无援助队列相比,ALD和ALD均显示,在总援助队列中,全因死亡率发生率较高.对于特定死亡原因的次要终点,MASLD需要全面援助的移植受者由于一般心脏原因导致的死亡率更高,移植排斥,一般传染原因,脓毒症,一般肾脏原因,和一般的呼吸原因。
结论:MASLD肝硬化患者表现出最差的总体结局,这表明这个人群可能特别脆弱。乙型肝炎或遗传性疾病的终末期肝病患者的功能状态不佳与不良结局的发生率显着增加无关。提示KPS评分可能并不广泛适用于所有等待LT的患者.
OBJECTIVE: Pre-liver transplant (LT) functional status is an important determinant of prognosis post LT. There is insufficient data on how functional status affects outcomes of transplant recipients based on the specific etiology of liver disease. We stratified LT recipients by etiology of liver disease to evaluate the effects of functional status on post-LT prognosis in each subgroup.
METHODS: 2005-2019 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) was used to select patients with liver transplant. A total of 14,290 patients were included in the analysis. These patients were stratified by functional status according to Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score: no assistance, some assistance, or total assistance. They were then further divided into six diagnosis categories: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hereditary disorders, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, autoimmune disease (AID), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and graft failure, while secondary endpoints included organ-specific causes of death. Those under the age of 18 and those with non-whole liver or prior liver transplantation were excluded.
RESULTS: Patients with MASLD requiring some assistance (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.39, p = 0.04) and those requiring total assistance (aHR: 2.32, 95% CI 1.48-3.64, p < 0.001) had higher incidences of graft failure compared to those requiring no assistance. Those with MASLD requiring total assistance had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those needing no assistance (aHR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.38-1.89, p < 0.001). Patients with hereditary causes of liver disease showed a lower incidence of all-cause mortality in recipients needing some assistance compared with those needing no assistance (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.80, p = 0.003). LT recipients with hepatitis C, AID, and ALD all showed higher incidences of all-cause mortality in the total assistance cohort when compared to the no assistance cohort. For the secondary endpoints of specific cause of death, transplant recipients with MASLD needing total assistance had higher rates of death due to general cardiac causes, graft rejection, general infectious causes, sepsis, general renal causes, and general respiratory causes.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MASLD cirrhosis demonstrated the worst overall outcomes, suggesting that this population may be particularly vulnerable. Poor functional status in patients with end-stage liver disease from hepatitis B or hereditary disease was not associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse outcomes, suggesting that the KPS score may not be broadly applicable to all patients awaiting LT.