MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323351170 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.237

A237 STATIN USE IN LIVER TRANSPLANT: INDICATION, USE, AND IMPACT OF STATIN THERAPY ON PATIENT OUTCOMES

2023· article· en· W4323351170 on OpenAlexaffabout
M K Smith, Cora Laidlaw, Juan G. Abraldeṣ, Rahima A. Bhanji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContraindicationInternal medicineStatinLiver diseaseDyslipidemiaLiver transplantationPopulationRetrospective cohort studyClinical endpointHepatocellular carcinomaAdverse effectChronic liver diseaseCirrhosisTransplantationDiseaseClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cardiovascular and metabolic diseases are prevalent among patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and contribute to adverse outcomes and mortality. Prior studies have hypothesized statin therapy improves liver transplant (LT) survival due to anti-inflammatory properties and reduced cardiac risk. Evidence for use of statins in this population is limited as acute liver failure or decompensated cirrhosis is considered a contraindication. Despite evidence supporting statin therapy in CLD their use remains inconsistent. Purpose Our study aimed to evaluate the indication and rate of statin use in patients both pre- and post-LT, as well as the impact on post-LT patient survival, graft failure, and post-LT cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Method This was a retrospective cohort study of adult LT recipients at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada between 2005 and 2020. Exclusion criteria included pre-transplant acute liver failure, multi-visceral transplant, and re-transplant. Demographic, pharmaceutical and clinical data was collected through review of electronic medical records. Primary endpoints included rate of statin use, post-LT patient survival, and graft failure; secondary endpoints included development of cardiac disease, dyslipidemia, and metabolic syndrome post-LT. Result(s) We identified 868 patients meeting inclusion criteria; 596 (68.7%) were male, 713 (82.3%) were Caucasian, and median age at transplant was 55. The most common indication for LT was hepatocellular carcinoma in 291 patients (33.5%), followed by Hepatitis C Virus (24.0%), and alcohol liver disease (16.9%). There were no significant demographic differences between those who were and were not on statin therapy. In the pre-LT period only 3% of patients were on statins, despite 7% of patients having dyslipidemia and 24% having diabetes. A total of 261 patients (29.9%) were placed on statins post-LT. The use of statins post-LT was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.433, 95% CI [0.302-0.622], p<0.001) and decreased graft failure (OR 0.398, 95% CI [0.276-0.574], p<0.001), however it was also associated with increased graft rejection (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.02-1.93], p=0.039). There were no significant differences in the development of dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome or cardiac events in post-LT patients regardless of statin use. Conclusion(s) In our study we identified an association between statin use in the post-LT setting and improved mortality and graft survival. We did not find an association with improved cardiac or metabolic outcomes. The negative association between statin use and post-LT rejection may reflect detection bias as patients with rejection are closely monitored. We also identified a discrepancy between the number of patients with indication for statin use and those who were on statins both pre and post LT, reflecting underutilization consistent with prior literature. Additional studies are required to elucidate the role of statin medications in the transplant hepatologists armamentarium. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→