L-GrAFT 7 has High Accuracy in Predicting Early Allograft Failure after Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Cohort Study in China

Increasing utilization of extended criteria donor leads to an increasing rate of early allograft failure after liver transplantation. However, consensus of definition of early allograft failure is lacking. A retrospective, multicenter study was performed to validate the Liver Graft Assessment Follow...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical and translational hepatology 2024-01, Vol.12 (1), p.62-69
Main Authors: Li, Songming, Luo, Qijie, Chen, Shirui, Jia, Zehua, Wang, Tielong, Yu, Xinyu, Wang, Wenjing, YuyiZhang, Zhu, Jiaxing, Deng, Feiwen, Sun, Qiang, Guo, Zhiyong, He, Xiaoshun
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Increasing utilization of extended criteria donor leads to an increasing rate of early allograft failure after liver transplantation. However, consensus of definition of early allograft failure is lacking. A retrospective, multicenter study was performed to validate the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk model in a Chinese cohort of 942 adult patients undergoing primary liver transplantation at three Chinese centers. L-GrAFT (L-GrAFT and L-GrAFT ) was compared with existing models: the Early Allograft Failure Simplified Estimation (EASE) score, the model of early allograft function (MEAF), and the Early Allograft Dysfunction (EAD) model. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to find risk factors of L-GrAFT high-risk group. L-GrAFT had an area under the curve of 0.85 in predicting 90-day graft survival, significantly superior to MEAF [area under the curve (AUC=0.78, =0.044)] and EAD (AUC=0.78, =0.006), while there was no statistical significance between the predicting abilities of L-GrAFT and EASE (AUC=0.84, >0.05). Furthermore, L-GrAFT maintains good predicting ability in the subgroup of high-donor risk index (DRI) cases (AUC=0.83 vs. MEAF, =0.007 vs. EAD, =0.014) and recipients of donors after cardiac death (AUC=0.92 vs. EAD,
ISSN:2225-0719
2310-8819
DOI:10.14218/JCTH.2023.00178