Long‐term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged in the 1980s as a viable alternative to scarce cadaveric organs for pediatric patients. However, pediatric waitlist mortality remains high. Long-term outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are inconsistently described in the literature. Our aim was to systematically review the safety and efficacy of LDLT after 1 year of transplantation among pediatric patients with all causes of liver failure. We searched the MEDLINE, Medline-in-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase + Embase Classic (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) from February 1, 1947 to February 26, 2020, without language restrictions. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival beyond 1 year following transplantation. A meta-analysis of unadjusted and adjusted odds and hazard ratios was performed using a random-effects model. A total of 24 studies with 3677 patients who underwent LDLT and 9098 patients who underwent DDLT were included for analysis. In patients with chronic or combined chronic liver failure and acute liver failure (ALF), 1-year (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.88), 3-year (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.89), 5-year (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89), and 10-year (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-1.00) patient and 1-year (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70), 3-year (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83), 5-year (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.76), and 10-year (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.49) graft survival were consistently better in LDLT recipients compared with those in DDLT recipients. In patients with ALF, no difference was seen between the 2 groups except for 5-year patient survival (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95), which favored LDLT. Sensitivity analysis by era showed improved survival in the most recent cohort of patients, consistent with the well-described learning curve for the LDLT technique. LDLT provides superior patient and graft survival outcomes relative to DDLT in pediatric patients with chronic liver failure and ALF. More resources may be needed to develop infrastructures and health care systems to support living liver donation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".