This is an amazing study — “50-year period (1968–2017), clinical and laboratory data were collected from 133 transplant centers and analyzed retrospectively (16,641 liver transplants in 14,515 children).”
Overall, the 5-year graft survival rate has improved from 65% in group A (before 2000) to 75% in group B (2000-2009) (p < 0.0001) and to 79% in group C (since 2010) (B versus C, p < 0.0001).
Graft half-life was 31 years, overall; it was 41 years for children who survived the first year after transplant.
The use of living donors steadily increased from A to C (A, n = 296 [7%]; B, n = 1131 [23%]; and C, n = 1985 [39%]; p = 0.0001)
My take: Liver transplantation provides a durable cure for most infants and children with severe liver disease.
A total of 24 studies with 3677 patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and 9098 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were included for analysis. Key findings:
Overall, this meta-analysis shows improved patient and graft survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years with LDLT compared to DDLT:
Patient survival: LDLT vs DDLT: 1-year (odds ratio [OR], 0.68), 3-year (OR, 0.73), 5-year (OR, 0.71), and 10-year (OR, 0.42)
Graft survival — LDLT vs DDLT: 1-year (OR, 0.50), 3-year (OR, 0.55), 5-year (OR, 0.5; 95), and 10-year (OR, 0.26)
While LDLT is often technically more challenging, it provides timely access (reducing wait-time deaths/deterioration) to a high-quality organ with minimal preservation time. In this cohort, LDLT patients had higher MELD and PELD scores at transplantation compared to the DDLT.
My take: Increasing use of LDLT, at centers with appropriate expertise, will lead to better outcomes in children with severe liver disease.
A recent systematic review (IH Jones, NJ Hall. J Pediatr 2020; 220: 86-92) provides contemporary outcomes for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The authors analyzed from 38 articles (from 1375 abstracts); the authors excluded data from developing countries. This review included 21,349 infants with any stage of NEC and 7540 with Bell stage 2a+.
Overall mortality was 23.5% in all neonates with confirmed NEC (Bell stage 2a+), 34.5% for infants who underwent surgery
Mortality rates were higher for extremely low birthweight infants (<1000 g) at 40.5%; the rate was 50.9% for surgical NEC in this cohort
Neurodevelopmental disability was reported in only 4 studies and ranged between 24.8% and 61.1% (n=1209)
Intestinal failure was reported with an incidence of 15.2% to 35.0% (n=1370)
A limitation with this study is the lack of agreement on definitions/diagnosis for necrotizing enterocolitis and intestinal failure.
My take: This study shows that NEC still carries a high mortality.
One of the more surprising — and genuinely scary — research papers published recently appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine. It examined 10 years of data involving tens of thousands of hospital admissions. It found that patients with acute, life-threatening cardiac conditions didbetter when the senior cardiologists were out of town. And this was at the best hospitals in the United States, our academic teaching hospitals. As the article concludes, high-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest, hospitalized in teaching hospitals, had lower 30-day mortality when cardiologists were away from the hospital attending national cardiology meetings. And the differences were not trivial — mortality decreased by about a third for some patients when those top doctors were away…
One possible explanation is that while senior cardiologists are great researchers, the junior physicians — recently out of training — may actually be more adept clinically. Another potential explanation suggested by the data is that senior cardiologists try more interventions…
One thing patients can do is ask four simple questions when doctors are proposing an intervention, whether an X-ray, genetic test or surgery. First, what difference will it make? Will the test results change our approach to treatment? Second, how much improvement in terms of prolongation of life, reduction in risk of a heart attack or other problem is the treatment actually going to make? Third, how likely and severe are the side effects? And fourth, is the hospital a teaching hospital?
My take: Perhaps some of the differences in outcome are related to severity of illness that more experienced physicians may manage. Nevertheless, it is clear that the reputation of the physician does not correlate well with clinical outcomes.