Novel benchmark values for redo liver transplantation – does the outcome justify the effort?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective In the era of organ shortage, redo liver transplantation (reLT) is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome, high cost and therefore wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably assess outcomes after reLT. The aim of this study was to define the ideal reLT case, and to establish clinically relevant benchmark values for best achievable outcome in reLT. Methods We collected data on reLT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high volume transplant centers on three continents. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score <=25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation before surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. In addition, early reLT including those for primary non-function (PNF) were excluded. Clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course were selected and complications were graded by severity using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). The benchmark cutoff for each outcome was derived from the 75th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers, indicating the “best achievable” result. To assess the utility of the newly established benchmark values, we analyzed patients who received reLT for PNF (non-benchmark patients). Results Out of 1110 reLT 413 (37.2%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark values included: Length of intensive care unit and hospital stay: <=6 and <=24 days, respectively; Clavien-Dindo grade >=3a complications and the CCI at 1 year: <=76% and <=72.2, respectively; in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates: <=14.0% and <=14.3%, respectively. The cutoffs for transplant-specific complications such as biliary complications at 1 year, outflow problems at 1 year and hepatic artery thrombosis at discharge were <=27.3%, <=2.5% and <=4.8%, respectively. Patients receiving a reLT for PNF showed mean outcome values all outside the reLT benchmark values. In-hospital mortality rate was 34.4% and the mean CCI at discharge 68.8. Conclusion ReLT remains associated with high morbidity and mortality. The availability of benchmark values for outcome parameters of reLT may serve for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, patient groups, or centers, but also in the evaluation of new therapeutic strategies and principles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".