The impact of serum potassium concentration on mortality after liver transplantation: a cohort multicenter study

Background: Potassium plays a key role in human metabolism in both health and disease. The impact of recipient serum potassium concentration [K] on mortality after liver transplantation has not been described previously. Methods: We assessed the effect of recipient [K] on the survival of adult first single-organ liver transplant recipients in the United Kingdom and Ireland between March 1, 1994, and February 28, 2007 (n=5942), adjusting for recipient, donor, and graft characteristics. Results: The overall risk-adjusted mortality significantly varied by [K], being higher among hyperkalemic ([K]>5.0 mmol/L) recipients (n=424, hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.88) and those with [K] of 4.5-5.0 mmol/L (n=1154, HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.91), compared with hypokalemic ([K]<3.5 mmol/L) recipients (n=360). However, the excess mortality was confined to the first posttransplant year among hyperkalemic recipients (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.10-2.35) with no significant difference thereafter (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62-1.73). This was also true for recipients with [K] of 4.5 to 5.0 mmol/L (≤1 year: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.22-2.38; >1 year: HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71-1.66). In contrast, those with [K] of 3.5 to 3.9 mmol/L (n=1518) and [K] of 4.0-4.4 mmol/L (n=2091) had similar risk-adjusted mortality at the above time points. When [K] was used as a continuous variable in the multivariable analysis, a mmol increase in [K] was associated with an increased adjusted risk of mortality of 27% (95% CI 12%-44%) at 1 year and 19% (95% CI 7%-31%) at 5 years. Conclusion: Recipient [K] is an independent predictor of death after liver transplantation. This finding could be of clinical utility in the management, risk stratification, selection, and prioritization of appropriate candidates for transplantation among patients with end-stage liver disease

Outcomes of transplantation of livers from donation after circulatory death donors in the UK: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Outcomes of liver transplantations from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors may be inferior to those achieved with donation after brain death (DBD) donors. The impact of using DCD donors is likely to depend on specific national practices. We compared risk-adjusted graft loss and recipient mortality after transplantation of DCD and DBD livers in the UK. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score matching were used to estimate risk-adjusted HR. SETTING: 7 liver transplant centres in the National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who received a first elective liver transplant between January 2005 and December 2010 who were identified in the UK Liver Transplant Audit. INTERVENTIONS: Transplantation of DCD and DBD livers. OUTCOMES: Graft loss and recipient mortality. RESULTS: In total, 2572 liver transplants were identified with 352 (14%) from DCD donors. 3-year graft loss (95% CI) was higher with DCD livers (27.3%, 21.8% to 33.9%) than with DBD livers (18.2%, 16.4% to 20.2%). After adjustment with regression, HR for graft loss was 2.3 (1.7 to 3.0). Similarly, 3-year mortality was higher with DCD livers (19.4%, 14.5% to 25.6%) than with DBD livers (14.1%, 12.5% to 16.0%) with an adjusted HR of 2.0 (1.4 to 2.8). Propensity score matching gave similar results. Centre-specific adjusted HRs for graft loss and recipient mortality seemed to differ among transplant centres, although statistical evidence is weak (p value for interaction 0.08 and 0.24, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Graft loss and recipient mortality were about twice as high with DCD livers as with DBD livers in the UK. Outcomes after DCD liver transplantation may vary between centres. These results should inform policies for the use of DCD livers

Functional status of patients before liver transplantation as a predictor of posttransplant mortality.

BACKGROUND: Risk models for mortality after liver transplantation have poor predictive ability. We examined whether the performance of these risk models can be improved by including information about patients' functional status (i.e., their ability to carry out activities of daily living) in addition to conventional clinical risk factors. METHODS: The UK and Ireland Liver Transplant Audit has data on all liver transplantations carried out in both countries since 1994. We examined the association of functional status measures taken immediately before transplantation on a 5-point scale (modified version of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) and mortality 90 days after transplantation. Logistic regression was used to adjust for other risk factors. RESULTS: Posttransplant mortality increased from 5.3% in patients able to carry out normal activity without restriction (functional status 1) to 24.8% in patients completely reliant on nursing and medical care (functional status 5; P for trend 0.003). This association remained after adjustment for conventional risk factors (adjusted P for trend 0.003). Adjusted odds ratios with functional status 3 (the most frequent functional status) as baseline category were 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.29-1.25) for functional status 1, 0.70 (0.50-0.97) for functional status 2, 1.00 (0.71-1.41) for functional status 4, and 1.85 (1.07-3.19) for functional status 5. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a patient's functional status or more general measures of a patient's health status before transplantation in addition to conventional clinical factors may help to improve our ability to predict posttransplant survival