A260 OUTCOMES OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION FOR ACUTE LIVER FAILURE AMONG RECIPIENTS WITH ABO-IDENTICAL VS. ABO-COMPATIBLE VS ABO-INCOMPATIBLE GRAFTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute liver failure is associated with a high mortality rate due to multi-organ failure, sepsis and cerebral edema. Liver transplantation remains the only life saving treatment available for these critically ill patients. Urgent liver transplantation within 48 to 72 hours has shown to be crucial for reducing the waiting list mortality of these patients. However, liver grafts are a scarce resource, leading to a significant rate of mortality for patients in need of urgent liver transplant. ABO-incompatible (ABO-in) liver transplantation is occasionally used as a rescue alternative when an ABO-identical (ABO-id) or compatible (ABO-c) graft is not available. The outcomes of ABO-in liver transplantation using deceased donors have been variable but mostly reported to be associated with poor graft function, early graft loss and an increased rate of complications. There are however limited studies examining long term outcomes of liver transplantation with ABO-in grafts. The aim of the study was to compare long term mortality and graft survival of patients undergoing liver transplantation with ABO-id vs. ABO-c and ABO-in donor grafts. A secondary objective was to determine other predictors of poor outcome in patients requiring urgent liver transplantation for acute liver failure. A retrospective cohort study was done to examine adult patients who underwent urgent liver transplantation between 1985 and 2016 in London, Ontario. Patients were divided into three cohorts depending on their grafts’ ABO compatibility: ABO-id, ABO-c and ABO-in. Transplant outcomes in the peri and post transplant period were collected for all three cohorts. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess ABO-compatibility as a predictor of graft failure and patients’ death. 73 patients with emergency liver transplantation were studied. Of those, 9.6% received an ABO-in graft. Rate of retransplantation in ABO-id, ABO-c and ABO-in groups was 2.5%, 11.5% and 57%, respectively. The OR of graft failure in the ABO-in group was 13 times greater when compared to ABO-id (OR 13.3, p 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in graft survival between ABO-c and ABO-id groups (OR 3.5, p 0.12). OR of death was not significantly different between the three groups. Age (OR 1.06, p0.04), need for inotropic support (OR 6.2, p0.02) and stroke (OR 15.2, p0.03) were more important predictors of death than ABO compatibility itself. ABO-in liver transplantation was associated with higher rates of graft failure and retransplantation however there was no significant difference in long term mortality in these patients. In select adult patients with acute liver failure in need of an emergency liver transplantation, ABO-in transplants should be viewed as an important lifesaving therapeutic option with comparable results in long term survival. None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".