A305 ANONYMOUS LIVING LIVER DONATION IMPROVES ACCESS FOR MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED CHILDREN IN NEED OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Since our first pediatric anonymous non-directed live donor liver transplant (A-LDLT) performed in April 2005, 62 children have undergone live donor liver transplant (LDLT) with an anonymous non-directed graft. Anon-LDLT organs being allocated as per our deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) wait list. Aims To evaluate clinical outcomes, recipient characteristics and social determinants of health of pediatric recipients of A-LDLT in comparison to those who received a directed LDLT (Dir-LDLT) and DDLT. Methods Retrospective analysis of all recipients of LDLT performed between January 2005 and March 2023. Demographic and clinical data included age, sex, race, ethnicity, single-parent households, primary diagnosis, recipient blood type, time on waiting list, post-LT intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), time to extubation, and post-transplant comorbidities were assessed as covariates. A comparative analysis was conducted between children receiving A-LDLT, Dir-LDLT versus DDLT. Results A total of 422 (50% male, 57% white, 23% Asian, 7% Black, 5% indigenous) childrenunderwent LT during the study period. Biliary atresia (40%) and metabolic diseases (19%) were the commonest primary indications. A-LDLT was done in 62 children (15%) with no directed donor options. Dir-LDLT was in 174 children (41%). Of 186 DDLTs (44%), 25% were split grafts, 26% reduced, and 49% whole liver grafts. In A-LDLT recipients, the primary diseases were more frequently characterized by metabolic disorders (31%), while the incidence of acute liver failure was notably lower (0%). Recipients of Anon-LDLT were more often Indigenous recipients in comparison to Dir-LDLT or DDLT recipients (p=0.044). Anon-LDLT recipients were more frequently living in single parent households (18% vs 3% vs 10%, pampersand:003C0.001) and to require interpreter assistance (11% vs 3% vs 0.5%, pampersand:003C0.001) (Table), compared to children who received Dir-LDLT or DDLT. Median time on the wait list was longer for Anon-LDLT (92 days) compared to Dir-LDLT (62 days) and DDLT (72 days) recipients (p=0.004). Post-LT ICU LOS, time to extubation, other post-LT complications or patient prognosis were better in the A-LDLT and Dir-LDLT recipients than DDLT recipients. Conclusions This retrospective analysis of 422 children undergoing LT at a single institution confirms excellent patient and graft survival for A-LDLT recipients. Patients from Indigenous communities, single parent and households where English is a second language, are more frequently the beneficiaries of Anon-LDLT grafts. Anon-LDLT, as utilized in this single center analysis, benefits medically underserved pediatric patients who otherwise have limited access to the advantages of LT. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».