亚洲免费av电影一区二区三区,日韩爱爱视频,51精品视频一区二区三区,91视频爱爱,日韩欧美在线播放视频,中文字幕少妇AV,亚洲电影中文字幕,久久久久亚洲av成人网址,久久综合视频网站,国产在线不卡免费播放

        ?

        Comment on pediatric living donor liver transplantation decade progress in Shanghai: Characteristics and risks factors of mortality

        2020-12-30 11:30:21SamiAkbulutTevfikTolgaSahinSezaiYilmaz
        World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年30期

        Sami Akbulut, Tevfik Tolga Sahin, Sezai Yilmaz

        Abstract Since the first successful liver transplantation was performed five decades ago, pediatric liver transplantation has become the gold standard treatment choice for pediatric liver disease, including metabolic diseases, liver tumors, and some acute liver failure. With improvements in immunosuppression, surgical techniques, and postoperative medical care, long-term outcomes of patients after liver transplantation have markedly improved, especially in pediatric patients.

        Key words: Pediatric end stage liver disease; Living donor pediatric liver transplantation; Survival analysis; Risk factors; Living donor liver transplantation; Outcomes

        TO THE EDITOR

        We read with great interest the recent article “Pediatric living donor liver transplantation decade progress in Shanghai: Characteristics and risks factors of mortality” published by Panet al[1]. In this retrospective observational study, the authors stated that they aimed to review the status of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and investigate the factors related to anesthetic management and survival rate in pediatric LDLT. We would like to share our opinion and criticisms about this valuable work.

        The authors excluded 15 patients who were older than 12 years. The World Health Organization has stated that any individual younger than 19 years old should be considered in the pediatric age group. Therefore, the authors should have included all patients under the age of 18 years in the pediatric age group.

        The authors analyzed four discrete time intervals in terms of survival analysis. The criteria for the choice of time interval are not clear from the author’s data. In our opinion, an ROC curve analysis would have determined the optimal time interval (years) in accordance with the survival of the patients[2]. If the time intervals were chosen arbitrarily, a probability of bias during the analysis could exist. Therefore, it is no longer important to calculate clinical cutoff points today because clinical experience is the least important data in evidence-based research[3].

        Interquartile range (IQR) is the difference between the third quartile (Q3: 75%) and the first quartile (Q1: 25%) of a given variable, and therefore, IQR is supposed to be a single number. The authors have given the variable range (Q1-Q3) under IQR, which is not the IQR itself[4,5]. This is an important error from a statistical point of view.

        The authors have stated that they have performed a multivariate analysis on the parameters that had aPvalue < 0.05 in univariate analysis. In our opinion, this results in the loss of certain parameters that could have been potential risk factors during the process. Other studies have shown that certain factors that were not significant in the univariate analysis could become significant risk factors in a multivariate analysis, which is the most typical example of the interaction between variables. Therefore, we suggest that any parameter with aPvalue between 0.1 and 0.2 should be included in the logistic regression model, which will provide a more valuable result[6-9].

        The authors stated that “to identify independent predictive factors of in-hospital survival, the Chi square test with the Yates correction or the Fisher’s exact test were used”; this is statistically incorrect. Independent risk factors for any given categoric condition should always be performed using multivariate analysis methods. Any given parameter that is significant in the univariate analysis may not be an independent risk factor in the multivariate analysis.

        The authors determined a cutoff value for 14 variables including age, weight, PELD score, hemoglobin level, duration of operation, and anesthesia and evaluated the relationship between these cutoff values and in-hospital mortality. The authors may have caused bias in this analysis. They should have performed an ROC curve analysis to determine optimal cutoff values with the highest sensitivity and specificity, which would result in higher reliability[2].

        We believe that there are errors in the results of the statistical analyses stated. When we analyzed the results using SPSS version 25, we found the following results, which we believe should be corrected by the authors using Yates' correction for continuity[9,10]: Anesthesia duration [P= 0.046; OR = 0.46 (0.29-0.93)], PELD score [P= 0.032; OR = 3.8 (1.15-12.5)], operation time [P= 0.006; OR = 0.38 (0.19-0.74)], ICU stay [P< 0.001; OR = 0.24 (0.11-0.52)], and intraoperative blood loss (P= 0.069).

        The authors analyzed the risk factors that had an impact on 1-year and 3-year survival of the patients using univariate analysis methods. Subsequently, they selected the parameters with aPvalue < 0.05 and performed a Cox regression model. They did not perform a multivariate analysis for in-hospital mortality, which means they did not analyze the independent risk factors of mortality in the first postoperative 30-d period. In either case, they did not perform a multivariate analysis to determine the independent risk factors of mortality or factors that have an impact on survival at any time point.

        The authors stated that PELD score, anesthesia duration, operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, and ICU length of stay were independent predictive factors of in-hospital patient survival. They also stated that PELD score, operation duration, and ICU length of stay were independent predictive factors of 1-year and 3-year patient survival. However, the authors did not perform any multivariate analysis to determine independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. In addition, they did not calculate the odds ratio for the univariate analysis to determine the factors that affect in-hospital mortality. The authors stated that the risk factors related to postoperative 1-year and 3-year mortality were PELD score, operation duration, and ICU length of stay. However, they did not include certain known factors such as biliary complications, infections, type and levels of immunosuppressive drugs, and episodes of acute rejection. We believe there are some major issues regarding this topic. The factors stated by the authors may have an effect on in-hospital mortality, but they do not have an impact on the long-term mortality of the patients.

        Although the authors stated that they performed a propensity score analysis and found that ICU-stay predicted the 3-year survival, they did not discuss the rationale behind this finding. In other words, they did not theorize why a perioperative parameter would have an impact on a late outcome such as 3-year survival.

        In summary, they provided the 30-d, 90-d, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates. In addition, they analyzed factors that had an impact on 3-year survival. If the factors that had an impact on the survival of the patients three years postoperatively, then the authors should have given the 3-year survival rate of the patients.

        淫欲一区二区中文字幕| 国产99视频精品免视看9| 色婷婷七月| 亚洲日本人妻中文字幕| 国产成人一区二区三区视频免费蜜| 精品视频一区二区在线观看| 久久精品国产色蜜蜜麻豆国语版 | 偷偷色噜狠狠狠狠的777米奇| 无遮挡亲胸捏胸免费视频| 亚洲精品天堂在线观看| 日本第一影院一区二区| 天堂中文最新版在线中文| 日韩欧美一区二区三区中文精品| 激情内射亚洲一区二区| 国产av一区二区亚洲精品| 欧美一区二区三区久久综| 亚洲男人天堂2017| 中文字幕国产精品专区| 大桥未久av一区二区三区| 国产真实夫妇交换视频| 国产自产c区| 清纯唯美亚洲经典中文字幕| 久久精品国产亚洲av果冻传媒| 永久免费的av在线电影网无码| 99热在线播放精品6| 亚洲av第一区国产精品| 国模无码一区二区三区不卡| 提供最新的在線欧美综合一区| 国产女主播在线免费观看| 亚洲一区二区在线观看网址| 国产精品制服| 99精品国产兔费观看久久| 亚洲一区二区三区精品久久av| 欧美丰满老熟妇aaaa片| 巨熟乳波霸若妻在线播放| 日韩最新av一区二区| 日本一区二区三区视频国产| 精品无码久久久久成人漫画 | 日本超级老熟女影音播放| 亚洲日韩一区二区一无码| 国产精品区一区二区三在线播放 |