Donor-recipient matching: Myths and realities

被引:46
作者
Briceno, Javier [1 ]
Ciria, Ruben [1 ]
de la Mata, Manuel [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Reina Sofia, Unit Hepatobiliary Surg & Liver Transplantat, CIBERehd, IMIBIC, Cordoba 14004, Spain
[2] Univ Hosp Reina Sofia, Unit Hepatol & Liver Transplantat, Liver Res Unit, CIBERehd,IMIBIC, Cordoba 14004, Spain
关键词
Liver; Transplantation; Donor-recipient; Matching; Outcomes; Allocation; STAGE LIVER-DISEASE; RECURRENT HEPATITIS-C; EXTENDED CRITERIA DONOR; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; ORGAN ALLOCATION; GRAFT-SURVIVAL; TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS; PATIENT SURVIVAL; NATURAL-HISTORY; LIST MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.020
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Liver transplant outcomes keep improving, with refinements of surgical technique, immunosuppression and post-transplant care. However, these excellent results and the limited number of organs available have led to an increasing number of potential recipients with end-stage liver disease worldwide. Deaths on waiting lists have led liver transplant teams maximize every organ offered and used in terms of pre and post-transplant benefit. Donor-recipient (D-R) matching could be defined as the technique to check D-R pairs adequately associated by the presence of the constituents of some patterns from donor and patient variables. D-R matching has been strongly analysed and policies in donor allocation have tried to maximize organ utilization whilst still protecting individual interests. However, D-R matching has been written through trial and error and the development of each new score has been followed by strong discrepancies and controversies. Current allocation systems are based on isolated or combined donor or recipient characteristics. This review. intends to analyze current knowledge about D-R matching methods, focusing on three main categories: patient-based policies, donor-based policies and combined donor recipient systems. All of them lay on three mainstays that support three different concepts of D-R matching: prioritarianism (favouring the worst-off), utilitarianism (maximising total benefit) and social benefit (cost-effectiveness). All of them, with their pros and cons, offer an exciting controversial topic to be discussed. All of them together define D-R matching today, turning into myth what we considered a reality in the past. (C) 2012 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:811 / 820
页数:10
相关论文
共 106 条
[81]   Donor age and cold ischemia interact to produce inferior 90-day liver allograft survival [J].
Reese, Peter P. ;
Sonawane, Samsher B. ;
Thomasson, Arwin ;
Yeh, Heidi ;
Markmann, James F. .
TRANSPLANTATION, 2008, 85 (12) :1737-1744
[82]   A Critical Analysis of Liver Allograft Utilization from the US Deceased Donor Pool [J].
Renz, John F. .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2010, 16 (05) :543-547
[83]   Allocation policy for hepatocellular carcinoma in the MELD era: Room for improvement [J].
Roayaie, Kayvan ;
Feng, Sandy .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 13 (11) :S36-S43
[84]   Survival after liver transplantation in the United States: A disease-specific analysis of the UNOS database [J].
Roberts, MS ;
Angus, DC ;
Bryce, CL ;
Valenta, Z ;
Weissfeld, L .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 10 (07) :886-897
[85]   Split-liver transplantation: An underused resource in liver transplantation [J].
Rogiers, Xavier ;
Sieders, Egbert .
TRANSPLANTATION, 2008, 86 (04) :493-499
[86]  
Russell L.B., 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H, P3
[87]   The Interaction Among Donor Characteristics, Severity of Liver Disease, and the Cost of Liver Transplantation [J].
Salvalaggio, Paolo R. ;
Dzebisashvili, Nino ;
MacLeod, Kara E. ;
Lentine, Krista L. ;
Gheorghian, Adrian ;
Schnitzler, Mark A. ;
Hohmann, Samuel ;
Segev, Dorry L. ;
Gentry, Sommer E. ;
Axelrod, David A. .
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 17 (03) :233-242
[88]   Survival Benefit-Based Deceased-Donor Liver Allocation [J].
Schaubel, D. E. ;
Guidinger, M. K. ;
Biggins, S. W. ;
Kalbfleisch, J. D. ;
Pomfret, E. A. ;
Sharma, P. ;
Merion, R. M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2009, 9 (04) :970-981
[89]   Re-weighting the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Components [J].
Sharma, Pratima ;
Schaubel, Douglas E. ;
Sima, Camelia S. ;
Merion, Robert M. ;
Lok, Anna S. F. .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2008, 135 (05) :1575-1581
[90]   End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates [J].
Sharma, Pratima ;
Schaubel, Douglas E. ;
Gong, Qi ;
Guidinger, Mary ;
Merion, Robert M. .
HEPATOLOGY, 2012, 55 (01) :192-198