BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2019 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 4572130 | 10 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4572130

Intraoperative Hepatic Blood Inflow Can Predict Early Acute Kidney Injury following DCD Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Observational Study

Academic Editor: Haruki Komatsu
Received14 Mar 2019
Revised16 Jun 2019
Accepted10 Jul 2019
Published06 Aug 2019

Abstract

Purpose. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major and severe complication following donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) and is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, the risk factors and the prognosis factors of AKI still need to be further explored, and the relativity of intraoperative hepatic blood inflow (HBI) and AKI following LT has not been discussed yet. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between HBI and AKI and to construct a prediction model of early acute kidney injury (EAKI) following DCD LT with the combination of HBI and other clinical parameters. Methods. Clinical data of 132 patients who underwent DCD liver transplantation at the first hospital of China Medical University from April 2005 to March 2017 were analyzed. Data of 105 patients (the first ten years of patients) were used to develop the prediction model. Then we assessed the clinical usefulness of the prediction models in the validation cohort (27 patients). EAKI according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria based on serum creatinine increase during 7-day of postoperative follow-up. Results. After Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and simplification, a simplified prediction model consisting of the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score (p=0.033), anhepatic phase (p=0.014), packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion (p=0.027), and the HBI indexed by height (HBI/h) (p=0.002) was established. The C-indexes of the model in the development and validation cohort were 0.823 [95% CI, 0.738-0.908] and 0.921 [95% CI, 0.816-1.000], respectively. Conclusions. In this study, we demonstrated the utility of HBI/h as a predictor for EAKI following DCD LT, as well as the clinical usefulness of the prediction model through the combination of the CTP score, anhepatic phase, pRBC transfusion and HBI/h.

1. Introduction

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major and severe complication following orthotopic liver transplantation and is associated with poor graft survival and increased mortality [1, 2]. The incidence of AKI after liver transplantation (LT) is high and ranges from 20 to 64% [1, 38].

Currently, there is no effective therapy or preventive strategy available for AKI after LT [9], although several promising strategies have been investigated [1012]. Therefore, to predict the occurrence of AKI after LT and treat AKI as early as possible will significantly improve the outcome of liver transplantation.

Although a number of studies have evaluated AKI after LT, the clinical risk factors, especially intraoperative risk factors, still need to be further explored. Most of the studies reported risk factors of AKI after LT including longer anhepatic phase [13], larger red blood cell (RBC) transfusion amount [5, 14], and higher Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score [15]. In addition, some hemodynamic factors such as intraoperative mean arterial blood pressure [16], the use of intraoperative venovenous bypass technology [17], central venous pressure, right ventricular end-diastolic volume, and mixed venous oxygen saturation [6] have been reported to significantly influence the occurrence of postoperative AKI.

Twenty-five percent of the cardiac output flows through the liver, and hepatic blood inflow (HBI) changes will influence systemic hemodynamics [18]. However, whether intraoperative HBI including hepatic artery flow (HAF) and portal vein flow (PVF) following reconstruction has a correlation with AKI following LT is unknown.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between HBI and early acute kidney injury (EAKI) after DCD LT as well as develop and validate a prediction model for EAKI after DCD LT using preoperative and intraoperative factors including HBI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Patients

This retrospective observational study was approved by the institutional review board of our institution (the First Hospital of China Medical University). We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 156 consecutive adult patients who underwent DCD LT at our institution between April 2005 and March 2017. The need for informed consent was waived given the study’s retrospective design. Patients without complete intraoperative hepatic blood flow data or postoperative serum creatinine monitoring data were excluded (n = 15). Patients with renal replacement therapy (RRT) were excluded (n = 1). Patients who underwent combined liver-kidney transplantation (n = 2) or died within 48 hours postoperatively (n = 5) were excluded. Patients with perirenal hematoma after LT (n=1) were excluded. The remaining 132 patients were analyzed. Then, 105 patients were selected from April 2005 to March 2015 to form the development cohort of this study. The remaining 27 patients from April 2015 to March 2017 were evaluated to form a validation cohort.

2.2. Definition of EAKI

AKI was defined according to the KDIGO criteria [19]: an increase in serum creatinine by 0.3 mg/dL ( ≥26.5 μmol/L) within 48 hours or an increase in creatinine to ≥ 1.5 times baseline within the first 7 postoperative days, which have been validated in patients undergoing LT [6, 7, 20]. We determined postoperative early acute kidney injury (EAKI) according to the KDIGO criteria mentioned above during 7 days of postoperative follow-up. A urine output criterion was not used. All patients who met the KDIGO criteria within 7 days after LT were classified as having EAKI.

2.3. Intraoperative Hepatic Blood Flow Monitoring

Our center used Transonic HT313 Flowmeter (Ithaca, New York, USA) to measure the reconstructed HAF and PVF before abdominal closure. The HAF is the sum of the mean blood flow of reconstructed hepatic arteries. The PVF represents intraoperative mean portal vein flow. The HBI is the sum of HAF and PVF.

2.4. Statistical Analysis
2.4.1. Patient Characteristics

The Shapiro test was used to determine the normality of the data. Either Fisher’s exact test or χ2 test was used to compare the categorical variables between EAKI and non-EAKI patients. Comparisons of continuous variables between EAKI and non-EAKI patients were performed with Student’s T tests or Mann-Whitney U tests.

2.4.2. Prediction Model Building

The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression [21] was used to select predictors and eliminate multicollinearity. Logistic regression was used to identify univariate and multivariate predictors for EAKI. Model A was developed in the development cohort by multivariable logistic regression whose variables were selected by LASSO regression based on the one standard error criteria [22]. Model B is a simplified model of model A.

2.4.3. Models Evaluation

Calibration of the models was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics. To evaluate the prediction performance of the models, the Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was measured in both the development and validation cohort. A calibration curve was plotted to compare the agreement between observed outcomes (Y-axis) and the predictions of the model (X-axis). Finally, to facilitate calculation of individualized risk in clinical practice, model B was converted to an easy-to-use nomogram.

2.4.4. Software

R software (Version 3.5.1, http://www.r-project.org) was used for the statistical analysis and plot generation, with rms, foreign, pROC, psych, glmnet, and ResourceSelection packages. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Patient demographics and perioperative variables according to the diagnosis of EAKI are presented in Table 1. EAKI occurred in 31 patients (29.5%) in the development cohort. There were significant differences in liver tumor (p=0.027), preoperative total bilirubin level (p=0.003), preoperative MELD score (p=0.015), preoperative CTP score (p=0.003), cold ischemic time (CIT) (p=0.028), operation time (OT) (p=0.015), anhepatic phase (AP) (p=0.002), packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion (p=0.005), cryoprecipitate transfusion (p=0.035), PVF (p=0.015), and HBI (p=0.015) between EAKI and non-EAKI patients in the development cohort. However, for HAF, there was no significant difference (p=0.905) between EAKI and non-EAKI patients.


CharacteristicsDevelopment cohort (n=105)Validation cohort (n=27)
non-EAKI (n=74)EAKI (n=31)P valuenon-EAKI (n=21)EAKI (n=6)P value

Demographic data
 Age, years50 43-5753 48-580.06648 42-5352 45-600.458
 Female, n17 (23.0)7 (22.6)0.9656 (28.6)2 (33.3)1.000
 Height, cm170 165-175170 165-1750.816172 170-176173 163-1770.716
 Weight, kg65 58-7765 60-750.73768 62-7466 63-690.533
 BMI, kg/m222.9 20.4-26.122.2 21.7-24.40.64522.3 21.5-23.823.3 22.0-24.30.971
 BSA, m21.76 1.63-1.911.77 1.65-1.910.7781.81 1.72-1.921.81 1.69-1.840.619
Background medical status
 Hypertension, n4 (5.4)2 (6.5)0.8020 (0.0)1 (16.7)0.222
 Diabetes mellitus, n9 (12.2)6 (19.4)0.5124 (19.0)2 (33.3)0.588
 Smoking, n16 (21.6)9 (29.0)0.4166 (28.6)2 (33.3)1.000
 Alcoholic liver cirrhosis, n5 (6.8)1 (3.2)0.8021 (4.8)1 (16.7)0.402
 HBV hepatitis, n52 (70.3)22 (71.0)0.94312 (57.1)4 (66.6)1.000
 HCV hepatitis, n7 (9.5)2 (6.5)0.9042 (9.5)1 (16.7)0.545
 Liver tumor, n31 (41.9)6 (19.4)0.0276 (28.6)0 (0.0)0.284
 Cholestatic disease, n6 (8.1)5 (16.1)0.3822 (9.5)0 (0.0)1.000
 Hepatic encephalopathy, n12 (16.2)10 (32.3)0.0652 (9.5)1 (16.7)0.545
 Serum albumin level, g/L31.5 27.5-36.030.0 25.5-32.40.12236.1 31.5-38.132.7 27.8-37.80.585
 Total bilirubin, μmol/L33.7 20.1-75.578.1 39.3-273.90.00339.7 21.9-99.7136.3 103.5-191.40.031
 Prothrombin time, s18.6 15.7-25.121.4 18.3-25.70.15217.0 15.3-19.425.1 22.3-28.30.010
 MELD score12.6 9.1-20.917.8 12.6-21.80.01513.2 9.4-18.621.5 20.4-24.90.031
 CTP score9 7-1110 10-110.0038 6-910 10-110.012
 Child class, n (A/ B/ C)16/24/341/8/220.0207/9/50/0/60.003
Baseline renal function
 Preoperative serum creatinin, μmol/L62.0 52.3-74.865.0 54.0-78.50.42161.0 53.0-95.056.0 51.3-57.80.122
 Preoperative estimated129.6118.50.369108.8154.60.092
 GFR, ml/min/1.73 m2105.0-161.798.9-147.778.4-152.6139.7-172.7
 Preoperative blood urea5.204.800.4645.943.750.216
 nitrogen, mmol/L4.00-7.174.10-6.294.83-6.503.01-5.66
Donor liver factors
 Warm ischemic time, s180 150-180180 150-1950.623270 180-300300 210-3000.630
 Cold ischemic time, min493 413-554540 445-6470.028440 385-510418 385-5400.883
Operation and anesthesia details
 Operation time, min533 480-600590 530-6780.015540 480-600570 518-6900.357
 Anhepatic phase, min103 90-116112 107-1360.00280 75-9295 92-1030.152
 Norepinephrine use, n6 (8.1)4 (12.9)0.6901 (4.8)0 (0.0)1.000
 pRBC transfusion, mL2800 1275-44004800 2200-64500.0053200 2000-48004800 2650-74000.255
 FFP transfusion, mL1000 600-19501400 900-27000.0661200 550-20002650 1150-40000.129
 Platelet transfusion, units0 0-00 0-00.3570 0-10 0-20.857
 Cryoprecipitate transfusion, units0 0-1010 0-100.0350 0-2015 3-200.378
 PVF, mL/min1730 1385-22371444 1068-18980.0151670 1200-24001122 1023-11830.036
 PVF/height, mL/min/cm10.12 8.35-13.228.11 6.33-10.760.0129.82 7.26-13.346.575 6.06-7.040.026
 PVF/weight, mL/min/kg27.59 20.26-34.9220.23 17.45-28.500.01326.94 20.40-33.7516.86 15.48-18.160.026
 PVF/BMI, m2·mL/min/kg76.72 58.29-104.1161.94 48.33-77.440.01877.86 58.54-103.3647.66 42.70-53.520.036
 PVF/BSA, mL/min/m21000.0 779.2-1243.4788.0 643.1-1029.20.009970.9 734.3-1279.9627.7 588.4-681.20.015
 HAF, mL/min149.0 106.8-214.5165.0 106.2-215.50.905226.0 142.0-280.0167.0 113.4-214.60.431
 HAF/height, mL/min/cm0.86 0.62-1.240.98 0.61-1.230.9051.28 0.81-1.600.94 0.70-1.200.254
 HAF/weight, mL/min/kg2.20 1.63-3.222.49 1.47-3.120.8863.21 2.26-4.312.47 1.76-3.090.408
 HAF/BMI, m2·mL/min/kg6.38 4.50-8.887.00 4.07-9.620.8559.39 5.96-12.747.57 4.67-10.130.196
 HAF/BSA, mL/min/m283.38 58.27-122.6396.13 54.88-116.290.902134.64 74.47-153.3791.16 66.86-114.270.260
 HBI, mL/min1899 1570-24571656 1215-20820.0152170 1480-25751260 1224-13180.042
 HBI/height, mL/min/cm11.32 9.43-14.329.30 7.23-11.990.01012.76 9.22-14.977.62 7.39-7.800.036
 HBI/weight, mL/min/kg30.05 22.00-38.9124.01 19.33-31.790.01429.63 23.77-36.6819.61 18.71-20.200.049
 HBI/BMI, m2·mL/min/kg86.84 63.64-111.8968.71 51.98-88.650.01494.36 68.69-111.3154.67 49.78-58.680.044
 HBI/BSA, mL/min/m21098.6 895.2-1377.7850.0 702.8-1158.10.0061207.3 858.9-1418.1731.1 705.9-762.80.036
 Urine volume, mL1300 800-20001300 725-17250.6211300 750-20001000 650-11800.515
Postoperative factors
 Tacrolimus use, n71 (95.9)31 (100.0)0.55320 (95.2)6 (100.0)1.000
 Cyclosporine use, n3 (4.1)0 (0.0)0.5531 (4.8)0 (0.0)1.000

BMI = body-mass index; BSA = body surface area; MELD = model for end-stage liver disease; CTP = Child-Turcotte-Pugh; GFR = glomerular filtration rate; pRBC = packed red blood cells; FFP = fresh frozen plasma; PVF = intraoperative mean portal vein flow; HAF = intraoperative mean hepatic artery flow; HBI = intraoperative mean hepatic blood inflow; Warm ischemic time: from no heartbeat to cold perfusion; Cold ischemic time: from cold perfusion to liver blood supply restored.
3.2. Prediction Model Building

As shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b), all continuous and categorical variables in the development cohort were performed by LASSO regression analysis using 10-fold cross-validation and the one standard error criterion. When parameter λ corresponds to the minimum-deviance within one standard error, 6 variables including CTP score, CIT, AP, HBI/h, OT, and pRBC transfusion were obtained. Then, the 6 variables were selected to build model A using multivariable logistic regression. Model B, a simplified model of model A, was built via eliminating CIT (p=0.211) and OT (p=0.212) from model A (Table 2). After the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, model A and model B were a good fit for the data (Table 3). The two prediction models can be shown in the following equations.


Variables from LASSO
regression (lambda.1se)
Model A
(LASSO variables)
Model B
(Simplified)

VariableCoef95%CIp-valueCoef95%Clp-valueCoef95%Clp-value
 CTP score0.32(0.12, 0.55)0.0030.290.05, 0.560.0220.26(0.03, 0.52)0.033
 CIT / 1000.45(0.10, 0.83)0.0150.30-0.16, 0.780.211
 AP /100.30(0.12, 0.50)0.0020.16-0.07, 0.410.1850.27(0.07, 0.50)0.014
 HBI / h-0.17(-0.30, -0.05)0.008-0.28-0.47,-0.130.001-0.26(-0.45, -0.11)0.002
 OT / 1000.58(0.19, 1.01)0.0050.37-0.18, 0.990.212
 pRBC /10000.20(0.07, 0.35)0.0050.190.01, 0.390.0510.21(0.03, 0.40)0.027
AIC101.54101.84


ModelHosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit (GOF) test
X-squareddfp-value

Model A8.06880.427
Model B5.47380.706

Model A

Model B: probability of postoperative EAKI occurrence.

3.3. Prediction Model Performance Assessment

The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of model A and model B in the development and validation cohort were shown in Figure 2. In the development cohort, the C-indexes of model A and B were 0.847 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.765-0.928] and 0.823 [95% CI, 0.738-0.908], respectively, and there was no significant difference (p = 0.167, DeLong’s test) in the C-indexes between the two models. In the validation cohort, the C-indexes of model A and B were 0.921 [95% CI, 0.809-1.000] and 0.921 [95% CI, 0.816-1.000], respectively, and there was no significant difference (p = 1.000, DeLong’s test) in the C-indexes between the two models (Table 4). The calibration curves of models were shown in Figure 3, and slopes of mode A in the development cohort and validation cohort were 1.000 and 1.830, respectively. Slopes of mode B in the development cohort and validation cohort were 1.000 and 2.056. Finally, the nomograms of model B were shown in Figure 4.


ModelDevelopment cohortValidation cohort
C-index (95%CI)C-index (95%CI)

Model A0.847 (0.765-0.928)0.921 (0.809-1.000)
Model B0.823 (0.738-0.908)0.921 (0.816-1.000)
Comparison of AUC
(p-value)
0.1671.000

4. Discussion

In this retrospective observational study, we made two important clinical findings. First, the HBI/h was a key risk factor in EAKI occurrence after DCD LT. Second, the prediction models combining with the HBI/h and other clinical parameters could accurately predict EAKI occurrence after DCD LT and had clinical value.

A previous study has reported that predictors for postoperative late acute renal failure (ARF) differ from early ARF and correspond to postoperative parameters [23]. Therefore, we built prediction models using preoperative and intraoperative parameters to predict postoperative early AKI.

AKI after LT is multifactorial in origin. Higher CTP score [15], longer cold ischemic time[24], longer anhepatic phase [13], longer operation time [1], and larger pRBC transfusion amount [5, 14] have been reported as high-risk factors or predictors of AKI after living-donor or cadaveric LT.

Higher MELD scores or CTP scores suggest worse pretransplant liver reservation function. And a higher MELD score may suggest worse pretransplant kidney function, either. Many studies have shown an association between preoperative MELD score and postoperative AKI [1, 4, 13]. In our study, MELD score was eliminated and CTP score was selected by LASSO regression; this might because there was no significant difference in baseline renal function between EAKI and non-EAKI patients.

Hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury (HIRI) plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of AKI after LT [25]. HIRI is associated with a systemic inflammatory response, which may cause AKI through hemodynamic mechanisms and direct tubular cell death [26]. Thus, long warm ischemic time (WIT) and CIT will increase the probability of postoperative AKI theoretically. WIT had been considered as a key predictor of AKI following LT [7, 8]. But there was no significant difference (p=0.623) in WIT between EAKI and non-EAKI patients because WIT was strictly controlled in our center. CIT as a risk factor of AKI after LT remains controversial [7, 24]; this may be because different donor criteria or different cold storage conditions were used in different centers. In our study, there was no significant difference (p=0.883) in CIT between EAKI and non-EAKI patients in the validation cohort. So CIT as a predictor of EAKI needs to be reevaluated using a larger sample size in the future.

Systemic hemodynamic changes after LT are the cause of postoperative AKI [27]. Longer anhepatic phase, longer operation time, and larger pRBC transfusion all influence systemic hemodynamics and then influence renal blood perfusion. HBI accounts for about 25% of cardiac output [18] and HBI will change more or less after blood vessel reconstruction in LT. Our study suggested EAKI was relevant to HBI and PVF. Interestingly, after eliminating multicollinearity in LASSO regression, HBI/h was selected into prediction models, but how HBI influence renal blood flow needs to be investigated in future research.

Studies have shown that the incidence of ARF after classic orthotopic LT is significantly higher than that of ameliorative piggyback liver transplantation (APBLT) [27]. In this study, APBLT was performed in DCD LT.

This study has limitations. First, although our prediction model satisfies the minimum sample size requirement [28], the larger sample size is needed to verify the accuracy of the prediction model. Second, the models should be validated prospectively at other centers to demonstrate its applicability, however, there is no HBI data from other centers could be available in present. Third, during LT, we did not directly monitor cardiac output and kidney flow which would reflect perfusion of kidney and predict postoperative EAKI better. In addition, severe stages of EAKI were not analyzed because of the small sample size.

5. Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated that HBI can be a reliable predictor of EAKI after DCD LT for the first time. In addition, we developed an easy and accurate prediction model including CTP score, AP, HBI/h and pRBC transfusion for EAKI after DCD LT.

Data Availability

The patients’ data used to support the findings of this study are included within the supplementary information file.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest exist.

Authors’ Contributions

Qingpeng Liu, Feng Li, Rui Guo, Bowen Wang, and Xianliang Lu are responsible for data collection and collation. Qingpeng Liu and Ao Jiao are responsible for investigation. Ao Jiao contributed to methodology. Jialin Zhang and Xiaohang Li contributed to project administration. Jialin Zhang is responsible for resources. Jialin Zhang and Xiaohang Li contributed to supervision. Ao Jiao contributed to visualization. Ao Jiao contributed to writing of the paper. Chengshuo Zhang and Ning Sun contributed to proofreading.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Liaoning Province Key R&D Steering Program (no. 2017225031).

Supplementary Materials

The csv file is the anonymous data set of patients. (Supplementary Materials)

References

  1. M. H. Park, H. S. Shim, W. H. Kim et al., “Clinical risk scoring models for prediction of acute kidney injury after living donor liver transplantation: a retrospective observational study,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 8, Article ID e0136230, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. J. Levitsky, J. G. O'Leary, S. Asrani et al., “Protecting the kidney in liver transplant recipients: practice-based recommendations from the american society of transplantation liver and intestine community of practice,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2532–2544, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. I. Umbro, F. Tinti, M. Mordenti et al., “Model for end-stage liver disease score versus simplified acute physiology score criteria in acute renal failure after liver transplantation,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1139–1141, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. O'Riordan, V. Wong, R. McQuillan, P. A. McCormick, J. E. Hegarty, and A. J. Watson, “Acute renal disease, as defined by the rifle criteria, post-liver transplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 168–176, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Chen, T. Singhapricha, K. Hu et al., “Postliver transplant acute renal injury and failure by the rifle criteria in patients with normal pretransplant serum creatinine concentrations: a matched study,” Transplantation, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 348–353, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. W. H. Kim, H. Oh, S. Yang et al., “Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters and acute kidney injury after living donor liver transplantation,” Transplantation, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. Kalisvaart, A. Schlegel, I. Umbro et al., “The impact of combined warm ischemia time on development of acute kidney injury in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation,” Transplantation, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 783–793, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. Kalisvaart, A. Schlegel, I. Umbro et al., “The AKI Prediction Score: a new prediction model for acute kidney injury after liver transplantation,” HPB, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. F. Durand, C. Francoz, S. K. Asrani et al., “Acute kidney injury after liver transplantation,” Transplantation, vol. 102, no. 10, pp. 1636–1649, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. E. Burns, M. W. Chu, R. J. Novick et al., “Perioperative N-acetylcysteine to prevent renal dysfunction in high-risk patients undergoing cabg surgery,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 294, no. 3, pp. 342–350, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. W. H. Kim, J.-H. Lee, J. S. Ko et al., “Effect of remote ischemic postconditioning on patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation,” Liver Transplantation, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1383–1392, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. N. Gassanov, A. M. Nia, E. Caglayan, and F. Er, “Remote ischemic preconditioning and renoprotection: from myth to a novel therapeutic option?” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 216–224, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Kundakci, A. Pirat, O. Komurcu et al., “Rifle criteria for acute kidney dysfunction following liver transplantation: incidence and risk factors,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 4171–4174, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. L. Gallardo, M. E. Herrera Gutierrez, G. S. Pérez, E. C. Balsera, J. F. Fernández Ortega, and G. Q. García, “Risk factors for renal dysfunction in the postoperative course of liver transplant,” Liver Transplantation, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1379–1385, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. I. Hilmi, D. Damian, A. Al-Khafaji et al., “Acute kidney injury following orthotopic liver transplantation: incidence, risk factors, and effects on patient and graft outcomes,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 919–926, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. Rueggeberg, S. Boehm, F. Napieralski et al., “Development of a risk stratification model for predicting acute renal failure in orthotopic liver transplantation recipients,” Anaesthesia, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1174–1180, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. K. Sun, F. Hong, Y. Wang et al., “Venovenous bypass is associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury after liver transplantation in patients with compromised pretransplant renal function,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 125, no. 5, pp. 1463–1470, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. W. W. Lautt, Ed., Hepatic Circulation: Physiology And Pathophysiology, Colloquium Series on Integrated Systems Physiology: From Molecule to Function to Disease, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2009.
  19. J. A. Kellum, N. Lameire, P. Aspelin et al., “Kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO) acute kidney injury work group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury,” Kidney International Supplements, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–138, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. A. Leithead, M. J. Armstrong, C. Corbett et al., “Split liver transplant recipients do not have an increased frequency of acute kidney injury,” Transplant International, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 1125–1134, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  22. R. Tibshirani, G. Walther, and T. Hastie, “Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 411–423, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  23. J. B. Cabezuelo, P. Ramírez, A. Ríos et al., “Risk factors of acute renal failure after liver transplantation,” Kidney International, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1073–1080, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. B. Khosravi, S. Milani, and F. Kakaei, “Serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin versus serum creatinine for the prediction of acute kidney injury after liver transplantation,” International Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 102–109, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  25. J. A. Leithead, L. Tariciotti, B. Gunson et al., “Donation after cardiac death liver transplant recipients have an increased frequency of acute kidney injury,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 965–975, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. J. A. Leithead, M. J. Armstrong, C. Corbett et al., “Hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury is associated with acute kidney injury following donation after brain death liver transplantation,” Transplant International, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1116–1125, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. D. Brescia, P. C. Massarollo, E. S. Imakuma, S. Mies, and J. I. Herrero, “Prospective randomized trial comparing hepatic venous outflow and renal function after conventional versus piggyback liver transplantation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 6, Article ID e0129923, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 201–210, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Ao Jiao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

544 Views | 205 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.