再次肝移植80例临床报告

目的总结再次肝移植的临床经验。方法回顾性分析我中心自1999年1月至2005年7月实施的80例再次肝脏移植的原因、与首次肝移植的时间间隔、选择的术式、1年存活率、围手术期死亡率及死亡的主要病因。结果再次肝移植的主要原因是胆道并发症,占45．0％;距首次移植术后超过1个月再次移植围手术期死亡率（19．6％）明显低于首次移植术后8～30d行再次移植患者（70．0％）;围手术期死亡的主要原因是感染（54．5％）和多脏衰（18．2％）。结论选择合适的手术适应证及手术时间,根据术中情况决定具体术式,制定合理的免疫抑制方案及有效的抗感染治疗是提高再次移植生存率的关键。     

再次肝移植治疗移植肝失功能22例报告

目的 总结再次肝移植治疗移植肝失功能的临床经验。方法 回顾分析2004年1月至2006年6月期间中山大学附属第三医院施行22例再次肝移植受者的临床资料，结合文献加以讨论。再次肝移植的原因分别为移植术后胆道并发症（12例）、移植术后肝癌复发（4例）、肝动脉栓塞（2例）、肝动脉狭窄（2例）以及乙肝复发（2例）。再次移植率为3．62％，供肝植入均采用改良背驮式肝移植技术。结果 全组无手术死亡，8例随访至今分别存活21、14、8、3个月各1例，12、1个月各2例；14例存活2周到28个月不等。首次肝移植术后8～30d行再次肝移植病人围手术期病死率最高，为66．7％；1年内死亡10例，主要死亡原因为感染（60％）。结论 再次肝移植是移植肝失功能的惟一有效的治疗方法，正确掌握手术时机及适应证，钻研手术技巧，合理的个体化免疫抑制方案以及围手术期有效的抗感染治疗是提高再次肝移植病人存活率的关键。     

儿童活体肝部分移植术进展

目的：介绍近年来儿童活体肝移植术的进展。方法：以全球活体肝部分移植中心京都大学的资料为重点，综述近年来全球儿童活体肝移值术的现状。结果：活体肝移植仍然是儿童患者的首选术式，其主要适应证是胆汁淤积性肝病（80％），全球最大一组资料（462例）表明，其1、3、5年累计生存率分别为79．8％、77．0％和77．0％，优于同期接受全肝移植的患者（129例，1、3、5年累计生存率分别为76．0％、70．0％和65．0％），且择期手术患者的生存率（85．0％）优于急诊手术者（67．0％）；死亡原因主要是排斥反应和感染。此外，对于儿童患者，还开展了原位辅助性活体肝部分移植和再次活体肝移植术。结论：严格选择手术适应证及手术时机和做好术后1年内的管理是提高远期疗效的关键，儿童活体肝部分移植术疗效明显优于成人，也优于全肝移植术。     

再次肝移植62例临床分析

目的总结再次肝移植的临床经验,以提高治疗效果。方法回顾性分析笔者所在医院2003年1月至2012年6月期间行再次肝移植的62例患者的临床资料,计算不同移植间隔时间患者的生存率,并比较围手术期死亡组和围手术期存活组患者的术前检查结果。结果 62例再次肝移植患者的1、2和5年累积生存率分别为67.7%、59.7%及56.4%,其中早期再次肝移植患者为38.5%、38.5%及30.8%,远期再次肝移植患者为75.5%、65.3%及63.3%。术后死亡28例,其中围手术期死亡20例（71.4%）,感染是患者围手术期死亡的主要原因,占65.0%（13/20）;余因多脏器衰竭死亡4例（20.0%）;因肝动脉并发症死亡2例（10.0%）;因门静脉并发症死亡1例（5.0%）。围手术期后死亡8例（28.6%）,均因肿瘤复发而死亡。围手术期死亡组患者的终末期肝病模型（MELD）评分〔（26.95±9.28）分比（14.23±9.06）分〕、血肌酐（Cr）〔（157.3±88.0）μmol/L比（69.8±35.9）μmol/L〕、国际标准化比率（INR）〔1.676±0.744比1.124±0.286〕及总胆红素（TBiL）〔431.8μmol/L比248.2μmol/L〕均高于围手术期存活组（P〈0.05）;前者有12例（60.0%,12/20）患者的Cr值增高,后者有3例（7.1%,3/42）。生存的34例患者均获随访,随访时间3～104个月,平均49个月。随访期间,其生存状况均良好,肝功能正常,无肿瘤复发。结论再次肝移植是治疗移植肝功能衰竭的有效方法,选择合适的手术时机,制定合理的免疫抑制方案以降低围手术期感染率,均有利于提高再次肝移植患者的生存率。     

再次肝移植--挽救肝移植失败受体生命唯一的手段(附774例报告)

目的 评估肝移植，尤其是再次肝移植的长期随访结果及影响结果的因素。方法 对1981年2月至1998年4月期间进行的、存活时间大于2年的4000例肝移植进行随访，其中再次肝移植774例。根据首次肝移植的时间，分为A、B、C三期。结果 774例（19．4％）接受第2次肝移植，148例（3．7％）接受第3次肝移植，20例（0．5％）接受第4次肝移植，5例（0．13％）接受第5次及5次以上肝移植。第1次再移植原因主要为移植肝原发性无功能、肝动脉栓塞和排斥反应。C期再次肝移植率（13．4％）明显低于A期（33．4％）和B期（23．7％），P＝0．001。结论 掌握适当的再移植指征、再次手术时机、受体的选择和手术技巧，再次肝移植的长期生存率明显改善。     

肝癌肝移植围手术期死亡10例分析

目的 分析肝癌肝移植围手术期死亡的原因,总结肝癌切除术后行肝移植的临床经验。方法 回顾性分析2003年10月至2008年10月中山大学附属第三医院肝移植中心81例肝癌肝移植的临床资料,对其中10例围手术期（≤30d）死亡原因进行分析。 结果 肝癌切除术后病人肝移植总病死率为12.3%（10/81）。首次肝切除术后肝移植病死率为12.7%（9/71）;再次肝癌肝移植病死率为10%（1/10）。补救性肝移植病死率为10%（4/40）,超越补救性肝移植病死率16.1%（5/31）。肺部感染（6例）和术中腹腔大出血（5例）是围手术期的主要死亡原因。手术相关死亡5/10,5例术中腹腔出血量均＞10 000 mL。 结论 肝癌肝移植围手术期病死率仍较高;肺部感染和术中腹腔大出血是围手术期的主要死亡原因。     

重型肝炎肝移植疗效初步分析

目的 探讨重型肝炎患者肝移植术后的疗效。方法 总结我院2002年9月至2004年10月期间37例重型肝炎行肝移植术患者的临床资料，回顾性分析重型肝炎患者肝移植术后疗效和并发症。结果 全组37例重型肝炎患者术后1年生存率为83．8％，围手术期死亡6例，死亡率为16．2％，死亡原因为多脏器功能衰竭（4例），原发性移植肝功能不良＋急性肾功能衰竭（1例），术后4个月因脑梗塞合并严重肺部感染（1例）。术后并发症：急性肾功能不全12例（32．4％），其中2例行血液滤过治疗，12例患者经有效治疗后肾功能均恢复；肺部感染14例（37．8％），其中细菌感染9例，细菌合并真菌感染5例，气管切开2例，14例患者经治疗后痊愈；术后胆道并发症2例（5．4％），经ERCP介入治疗病情缓解；急性排斥反应2例（5．4％），予激素冲击治疗后排斥反应得到控制。结论 肝移植是治疗重型肝炎的有效方法，应加强围手术期管理，提高重型肝炎患者移植术后的生存率。     

30例肝移植病例MELD分析

目的探讨终末期肝病模型（MELD）评分评估终末期肝病患者行肝移植术后,受者短期预后、肝移植的手术时机以及MELD与肝脏病理的关系。方法对30例肝移植病例进行回顾性分析,比较术后随访30天后存活组（12例）与死亡组（18例）的术前MELD评分,以MELD分值25和30为界线将病例分组,比较存活率以及肝脏病理,分析大块、亚大块肝细胞坏死与非大块、亚大块肝细胞坏死病例的MELD分值。结果所有患者术前MELD评分平均值为28．92±13．45,术后随访3个月总生存率为40％,其中存活组与死亡组术前MELD评分分别为21．56±11．83和33．82±12．43（P〈0．05）;以MELD评分25为界将患者分为两组,术后3个月存活率为63．6％和26．3％（P〈0．05）;以MELD评分30为界将患者分为两组,术后3个月存活率为53．3％和26．7％（P〉0．05）：大块、亚大块肝细胞坏死组与非大块、亚大块肝细胞坏死组患者术前MELD值相比有显著差异,分别为22．38±12．69和33．28±12．41（P〈0．05）。结论MELD评分可评估肝移植受术者的短期预后,肝移植受者MELD评分值在25分时比30分时行肝移植术更有意义,MELD评分与肝细胞坏死面积有关。     

早期和晚期再次肝移植的临床分析

目的 比较首次肝移植术后因移植肝失功实施早期和晚期再次肝移植的疗效并总结临床经验.方法 回顾性分析2004年1月至2009年7月间接受再次肝移植手术的36例患者的临床资料,包括早期再次肝移植17例和晚期再次肝移植19例.早期和晚期再次肝移植患者的年龄分别为(45±13)岁和(48±10)岁,与首次肝移植的时间间隔分别为(49±54)d和(514±342)d.结果 胆道并发症是早期再次肝移植和晚期再次肝移植的主要适应证.其他常见的适应证包括早期再次肝移植的血管并发症和晚期再次肝移植的原发病复发.除了MELD评分外,两组再次肝移植术中出血量、冷缺血时间、手术时间和围手术期病死率的差异均无统计学意义.早期再次肝移植中有8例患者死亡,其中3例死于脓毒症相关性疾病,3例死于多器官功能衰竭;晚期再次肝移植中有10例患者死亡,其中4例死于脓毒症相关性疾病,3例死于肝癌的复发.早期和晚期再次肝移植的l、2年的生存率分别为52.9％、41.2％和63.2％、52.6％,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 早期再次肝移植和晚期再次肝移植治疗移植肝失功的疗效相当.手术适应证及时机的正确把握、娴熟的手术技巧以及围手术期有效的抗感染治疗是提高再次肝移植患者总体存活率的关键.     

�ٴθ���ֲ����Χ�������ص㼰����

目的总结再次肝移植病人围手术期临床特点和管理经验。方法回顾分析中山大学附属第三医院肝移植中心2004年1月至2006年12月期间施行的34例再次肝移植受者临床资料。结果再次肝移植的原因分别为移植术后胆道并发症(18例)、移植术后肝癌复发(6例)、肝炎复发(6例)以及肝动脉并发症(4例)。34例均采用附加腔静脉整形的改良背驮式肝移植技术。全组无手术死亡。院内死亡9例(26.5%),明显高于首次肝移植的病死率(6.9%,46/671)(P<0.05)。死亡原因中感染占55.6%(5/9)。再次肝移植组术前感染率为32.4%(11/34),首次肝移植组为10.7%(72/671),两组间差异有显著性意义(P<0.05)。再次肝移植组术后感染率为61.8%(21/34),首次肝移植组为46.3%(311/671),两组相比差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论感染是再移植的主要死亡原因,围手术期有效的抗感染治疗和针对再次肝移植特点的个体化免疫抑制方案可以提高再次肝移植的成功率。     

再次肝移植32例次的手术技巧

目的 探讨再次肝移植的手术技巧及其临床效果.方法 回顾性分析31例患者接受32次再次肝移植手术的临床资料,手术方式均采用附加腔静脉整形的改良背驮式原位肝移植,其中11例采用了股静脉-颈内静脉转流术.肝动脉的重建采用供肝动脉通过供者髂动脉间置搭桥与受者腹主动脉行端侧吻合24例次,采用供肝动脉与受者肝固有动脉行端端吻合8例次.胆道的重建采用胆管-空肠Roux-en-Y吻合28例次,采用胆道端端吻合4例次.术后常规使用抗排斥反应和抗感染治疗,并对患者进行了长期随访.结果 术后死亡17例,死亡时间为术后2周～28个月,死亡原因为术后严重感染8例、多器官功能衰竭和肝癌复发各3例、血管并发症和心肌梗塞以及颅内出血各1例,其中首次肝移植术后8～30 d行再次肝移植者围手术期死亡率最高,为66.7%.其余14例均痊愈出院,随访至今已存活1～29个月,肝功能及生活质量良好.再次肝移植与首次肝移植的手术时间及术中出血量比较,差异无统计学意义.结论 附加腔静脉整形的改良背驮式肝移植是再次肝移植的最佳术式,正确掌握手术时机,并针对患者进行个体化的处理是手术成功的关键.与首次肝移植相比,再次肝移植面临着较高的并发症发牛率和死亡率.     

Comparative effectiveness of donation after cardiac death versus donation after brain death liver transplantation: Recognizing who can benefit

Due to organ scarcity and wait-list mortality, transplantation of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers has increased. However, the group of patients benefiting from DCD liver transplantation is unknown. We studied the comparative effectiveness of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. A Markov model was constructed to compare undergoing DCD transplantation with remaining on the wait-list until death or DBD liver transplantation. Differences in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs according to candidate Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were considered. A separate model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without MELD exception points was constructed. For patients with a MELD score <15, DCD transplantation resulted in greater costs and reduced effectiveness. Patients with a MELD score of 15 to 20 experienced an improvement in effectiveness (0.07 QALYs) with DCD liver transplantation, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was >$2,000,000/QALY. Patients with MELD scores of 21 to 30 (0.25 QALYs) and >30 (0.83 QALYs) also benefited from DCD transplantation with ICERs of $478,222/QALY and $120,144/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stable results for MELD scores <15 and >20, but the preferred strategy for the MELD 15 to 20 category was uncertain. DCD transplantation was associated with increased costs and reduced survival for HCC patients with exception points but led to improved survival (0.26 QALYs) at a cost of $392,067/QALY for patients without exception points. In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation results in inferior survival for patients with a MELD score <15 and HCC patients receiving MELD exception points, but provides a survival benefit to patients with a MELD score >20 and to HCC patients without MELD exception points.     

Prognostic impact of model for end-stage liver disease score in patients undergoing liver transplantation with suboptimal livers

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze the prognostic impact of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in patients undergoing liver transplantation (OLT) with suboptimal livers. METHODS: Between January 2002 and January 2006, 160 adult patients with liver cirrhosis received a whole liver for primary OLT at our institution including 81 with a suboptimal liver (SOL group) versus 79 with an optimal liver (group OL). The definition of suboptimal liver was: one major criterion (age >60 years, steatosis >20%) or at least two minor criteria: sodium >155 mEq/L, Intensive Care Unit stay >7 days, dopamine >10 microg/kg/min, abnormal liver tests, and relevant hemodynamic instability. RESULTS: Baseline recipients characteristics were comparable in the two study groups. The SOL group had a significantly greater number of early graft deaths (<30 days) than the OL group, while the 3-year Kaplan-Meier patient survivals were similar. Using logistic regression, MELD score was significantly related to patient death only in the SOL group (P = .01), and the receiver operator characteristics curve method identified 17 as the best MELD cutoff with the 3-year survival of 93% versus 85% for MELD < or =7 versus >17, respectively (P > 05). In comparison, it was 94% and 72% in the SOL group (P < .05). Similarly, MELD >17 was significantly associated with early graft death rates only in the SOL group. CONCLUSION: This study advised surgeons to not use suboptimal livers for patients with advanced MELD scores, thus supporting a donor-recipient matching policy.     

Effects of artificial liver support system on patients with acute or chronic liver failure

AIMS: Acute on chronic liver failure (AoCLF) is associated with a high mortality rate. Artificial liver support system (ALSS) is useful to bridge patients with liver failure to liver transplantation or to regenerate their own livers. The aims of this prospective study were to investigate the effects of ALSS on clinical manifestations, liver function, and 30-day survival to probe the factors related to mortality in patients with AoCLF. METHODS: In this study, 338 enrolled patients with AoCLF who received ALSS treatment for 1 to 8 sessions, were compared with 312 patients treated with conventional medications. RESULTS: Clinical manifestations and liver functions were significantly improved, namely, decreased levels of serum transaminases, total bilirubin, and bile acid, as well as increased levels of serum albumin following ALSS treatment. The 30-day survival rates of the patients who received ALSS versus controls were 47.9% versus 34.6%, respectively (P = .01). The MELD score and the stage of hepatic encephalopathy were highly associated with mortality (P < .001), but the sessions of ALSS showed a positive relation to the 30-day survival (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: ALSS appears to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of patients with AoCLF. Both model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and hepatic encephalopathy are useful to predict the mortality of patients.     

再次肝移植术后早期与死亡率相关的危险因素分析

目的 探讨再次肝移植术后早期与死亡率相关的独立危险因素.方法 回顾性分析2004年1月至2007年12月间的36例再次肝移植的资料.根据再次肝移植术后早期(术后3个月内)的转归,将患者分为死亡组和存活组.收集两组患者术前及术中常用的15项临床或实验室指标作为可能影响死亡率的危险因素进行单因素分析,将有统计学意义的危险因素再进行Logistic回归分析,筛选出与术后早期死亡率相关的独立危险因素.结果 再次肝移植术后早期死亡率为25%(9/36),死亡原因为:严重感染5例(55.6%),急性肾功能衰竭2例(22.2%),心肌梗死和脑出血各1例(各11.1%).经单因素分析显示,死亡组和存活组间术前肌酐水平、终末期肝病模型评分、感染、重症监护室(ICU)监护时间、机械通气时间以及再次肝移植的手术时间和术中出血量的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),Logistic多元回归分析显示,术前ICU监护时间和术中出血量是术后早期与死亡率相关的独立危险因素.结论 再次肝移植术前ICU监护时间和术中出血量与术后早期死亡率密切相关.     

Analysis of liver transplantation outcome in patients with MELD Score > or = 30

Since July 2006, the liver graft allocation has been changed from the waiting time to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), prioritizing the sickest patients, who have a higher risk of dying on the waiting list, and sometimes in such poor clinical condition that it compromises transplantation outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of a MELD score > or = 30 on 30-day survival after liver transplantation (OLT). We prospectively collected the data on 178 liver transplants on 163 patients performed from March 2003 to August 2007. The subjects were divided in two groups according to their MELD scores: group 1, MELD > or = 30 (n = 15) and group 2, MELD < 30 (n = 96). The groups were compared with regard to hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, intraoperative blood products transfusion, early survival (30 days), and need for retransplantation. We excluded, patients with prioritization criteria, those receiving extra points for any special situation, and six other patients without significant data for MELD calculation (of whom only one has died after transplantation). Patients under a "special situation" were those with hepatocelular carcinoma, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and metabolic diseases, who initially received a MELD/PELD score 20, and 24, and 29. The mean MELD score at group I was 34 (range, 30 to 42), and for group II it was 16 (range, 6 to 29). Group I displayed a mean hospital length of stay of 24 days (4 to 155), with 12.60 days (ranges, 1 to 103) in the ICU versus 15.55 (range, 1 to 48) and 5.13 (range, 1 to 45) days, respectively, for group II. The need for blood component transfusions were greater in group I; 25.28% of patients in group II did not receive any transfusion during the entire inpatient period. There were nine retransplants in group II, and none in group I. The 30-day survivals were 93.3% for group I and 84.37% for group II. Besides the increased complexity of these sickest patients, there was no negative impact on early survival rates.     

终末期肝病模型评分和血清钠浓度及腹水情况评估良性终末期肝病肝移植的预后

目的 探讨终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分和血清钠浓度及腹水情况对良性终末期肝病患者肝移植术后生存情况的评估作用.方法 回顾性分析1999年1月至2007年2月福州总医院临床医学院98例行肝移植的良性终末期肝病患者的临床资料.分析患者术前在相同MELD评分下血清钠浓度、腹水情况与手术预后的关系.采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线、X2检验比较分组后患者的1年生存率、Fisher精确概率法比较相同MELD评分下患者术后3个月病死率.结果 在MELD评分为15～25分和＞25分的情况下,血清钠浓度≥130 mmol/L的患者术后3个月病死率分别为5%和15%,低于血清钠浓度＜130 mmol/L患者的33%和55%,其1年生存率比较差异有统计学意义(x2=12.88,P＜0.05).MELD评分在15～25分和＞25分的情况下,无腹水的患者术后3个月病死率分别为5%和8%,低于有腹水患者的35%和57%,其1年生存率比较差异有统计学意义(x2=15.26,P＜0.05).结论 将血清钠浓度、腹水情况与MELD评分结合,能更准确的评估良性终末期肝病患者肝移植术后短期生存情况.     

Influence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrier status in liver transplant recipients

The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (MRSA) has increased worldwide and MRSA has emerged as an important cause of sepsis in cirrhotic patients and liver transplant recipients. In this retrospective study, the prevalence of MRSA colonization and its influence on infections following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) was investigated. From August, 2002 until November, 2004, 66 primary cadaver OLT were performed for adult recipients. Antibody induction used Daclizumab (n = 49) or ATG (n = 14). Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus and steroids, with 30 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 4, rapamune. For perioperative anti-infectious prophylaxis cefotaxime, metronidazole, and tobramycin were administered for 48 hours. The preoperatively performed routine swabs revealed MRSA colonization in 12 of 66 (18.2%) patients. The stage of cirrhosis was equivalent for MRSA(-) patients according to Child score. The mean MELD score was significantly higher for MRSA(+) patients (24.3 versus 18.7, P = .036). More MRSA(+) patients were hospitalized at the time of transplantation (14/54 versus 8/12, P = .018). The incidence of posttransplant infections was not significantly different among the two groups. Within the first year 7 of 66 (10.6%) patients died: 3 of 12 (25%) MRSA(+) and 4 of 54 (7.4%) MRSA(-). The 1-year survival was lower in the MRSA(+) group (74.1% versus 94.1%). In conclusion, this study did not show that an MRSA-positive carrier status implies an increased risk for septic complications following OLT. Mortality was increased for MRSA(+), but failed to show a significant difference. A significantly higher MELD score and pretransplant hospitalization for MRSA(+) patients may contribute to the higher mortality and reflect sicker patients.