Published online Jan 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i1.143
Peer-review started: October 29, 2023
First decision: December 6, 2023
Revised: December 17, 2023
Accepted: January 8, 2024
Article in press: January 8, 2024
Published online: January 27, 2024
Processing time: 87 Days and 24 Hours
The nutritional status is closely related to the prognosis of liver transplant re
To compare the predictive value of various preoperative objective nutritional indicators for determining 30-d mortality and complications following liver transplantation (LT).
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 162 recipients who underwent LT at our institution from December 2019 to June 2022.
This study identified several independent risk factors associated with 30-d mor
The NRI has good predictive value for 30-d mortality and severe complications following LT. The NRI could be an effective tool for transplant surgeons to evaluate perioperative nutritional risk and develop relevant nutritional therapy.
Core Tip: The preoperative nutritional status of liver transplant patients is closely related to prognosis. In this study, we analyzed clinical data from 162 patients to compare the value of different objective nutritional indices in predicting 30-d mortality and complications following liver transplantation. This provides insights for the preoperative assessment of liver transplant prognosis.
- Citation: Li C, Chen HX, Lai YH. Comparison of different preoperative objective nutritional indices for evaluating 30-d mortality and complications after liver transplantation. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16(1): 143-154
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v16/i1/143.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i1.143
Liver transplantation (LT) is considered to be the most effective and definitive treatment option for patients suffering from end-stage liver disease. These conditions provide these patients with the opportunity not only to survive but also to extend their lifespan significantly. However, the occurrence of posttransplant complications remains prevalent and can greatly influence postoperative prognosis. This can largely be attributed to the compromised preoperative state of liver transplant recipients and the intricate nature of the surgical procedure. Recently, there has been increasing recognition of the critical roles played by preoperative nutrition and immune status in modulating surgical outcomes.
The serum prealbumin concentration, which can objectively reflect nutritional status and is almost unaffected by external supplementation, is an accurate biomarker for assessing the severity of liver disease. It can also be used for preoperative nutritional assessment and risk stratification[1-4]. The controlling nutritional status (CONUT), prognostic nutritional status index (PNI), and nutritional risk index (NRI) are widely used objective indicators for evaluating nu
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) First-time liver transplant recipients aged 18-65 years; (2) Organ donation from deceased citizens; and (3) Complete clinical data. The exclusion criteria were: (1) Multiple organ transplants; (2) Severe pneumonia or severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases before surgery; (3) Receiving marginal livers[11]; or (4) Incomplete follow-up data. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (KY-ZC-2023-056). All patients provided written informed consent for data analysis before transplantation.
Before performing a LT, patient demographic information, which include age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relevant medical history, such as hypertension, diabetes, and hepatitis B, were collected. Additionally, donor age, graft weight, and various laboratory values, such as prealbumin, albumin (ALB), lymphocyte count, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, and creatinine, were collected. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, total cholesterol level, type of donor liver, prothrombin time (PT), and platelet count are also important factors to consider. During LT, data such as operating time, anhepatic phase time, total ischemic time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative urine output were collected. After LT, the incidences of pneumonia, abdominal infection, abdominal bleeding, graft rejection, primary graft nonfunction, early graft dysfunction, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3), bile leakage, biliary stricture and mortality within 30 d were recorded.
Complications above Grade III include various conditions such as portal vein stenosis, portal vein thrombosis, hepatic artery stenosis, hepatic artery thrombosis, bile leakage, bile duct stenosis, retransplantation, pleural effusion requiring thoracentesis, peritoneal effusion requiring peritoneal puncture, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, respiratory failure ne
The CONUT score consists of three components: The serum ALB concentration, total cholesterol concentration, and lymphocyte count[12]. The PNI can be calculated using the formula: ALB (g/L) + 5 × lymphocyte count (× 109/mL). The following equation was used to determine the NRI: (1.519 × ALB, g/L) + (41.7 × actual body weight/ideal body weight)[13]. The ideal weight for males and females can be calculated as follows: For males, 2.3 kg per foot is added to a base weight of 50 kg (if height > 5 feet, with 1 foot equal to 30.48 cm); for females, 1.65 kg per foot is added to a base weight of 48.67 kg (if height > 5 feet, with 1 foot equal to 30.48 cm)[14]. If the actual weight exceeds the ideal weight, set the ratio to one[15].
This study aimed to analyze the risk factors associated with severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) and 30-d mortality following LT. Moreover, the researchers compared the effectiveness of the CONUT score, NRI, PNI, and prealbumin concentration as predictors of postoperative complications and mortality after LT using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Based on the area under the curve (AUC), the most accurate predictive index was identified and utilized to stratify patients into low-risk and high-risk groups using an appropriate cutoff value. Fur
After transplantation surgery and before discharge, the functionality of the transplant was assessed through routine laboratory tests. Surgical complications are typically diagnosed by evaluating clinical symptoms and conducting diag
The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0 software. Continuous variables are represented using the median, 25th percentile, and 75th percentile, while categorical variables are represented using the frequency. A binary logistic regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of the entire sample. In the univariate analysis, indicators with a significance level of P < 0.05 were included in the multivariate analysis. However, given the existence of multicollinearity between the serum ALB concentration and the NRI, PNI, and CONUT score, the total serum ALB con
A total of 162 patients were included in the study, including 133 males and 29 females. Fourteen patients (8.6%) died within a 30-d period following LT. The median age of the patients was 53.0 (45.0-57.0) years. The preoperative BMI was recorded as 23.0 (21.1-25.1). Preoperative hypertension was observed in 18 patients, diabetes was present in 22 patients, and 118 patients tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (Table 1).
Characteristics | Total (n = 162) |
Age, yr | 53.0 (45.0-57.0) |
Male/female | 133/29 |
BMI | 23.0 (21.1-25.1) |
Hypertension, yes/no | 18/144 |
Diabetes, yes/no | 22/140 |
HBsAg-positive, yes/no | 118/44 |
Operation time (min) | 535.0 (440.0-600.0) |
Anhepatic phase (min) | 58.0 (47.3-66.0) |
Donor age, yr | 45.0 (36.0-55.0) |
Total ischemia time (min) | 305.0 (250.5-372.6) |
Graft weight (kg) | 1.4 (1.3-1.7) |
Split LT/whole LT | 20/142 |
Blood loss (mL) | 1750.0 (975.0-3925.0) |
Intraoperative urine volume (mL) | 2650.0 (1600.0-4000.0) |
Prealbumin (mg/L) | 95.0 (89.7-101.8) |
NRI | 95.1 (89.7-101.8) |
CONUT | 6.0 (4.0-6.0) |
PNI | 42.6 (38.7-46.4) |
ALB (g/L) | 37.2 (33.6-40.7) |
Lymphocyte count (× 109 /mL) | 0.9 (0.6-1.5) |
Alanine aminotransferase (U/L) | 31.0 (19.0-53.3) |
Aspartate aminotransferase (U/L) | 46.5 (31.0-90.1) |
Total bilirubin (μmol/L) | 30.8 (15.2-107.2) |
Creatinine (umol/L) | 71.0 (58.8-85.3) |
Preoperative MELD score | 12.0 (8.0-22.0) |
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 3.4 (2.2-4.6) |
Prothrombin time (s) | 16.4 (14.1-20.8) |
Platelet (× 109/mL) | 67.0 (44.0-150.3) |
Death, yes/no | 14/148 |
The factors correlated with the 30-d mortality rate are outlined in Table 2. Univariate analysis revealed that the following factors were significantly correlated with 30-d mortality: BMI, operation time, blood loss, intraoperative urine volume, prealbumin concentration, NRI, CONUT, PNI, ALT, total bilirubin, preoperative MELD score, and PT. The multivariate analysis confirmed that blood loss [odds ratio (OR) = 1.001, 95%CI: 1.000-1.002, P = 0.034], the NRI (OR = 0.665, 95%CI: 0.446-0.991, P = 0.045), the CONUT (OR = 2.088, 95%CI: 1.016-4.291, P = 0.045), and the PNI (OR = 0.920, 95%CI: 0.848-0.997, P = 0.042) were risk factors for the 30-d mortality rate (Table 2).
Variables | Univariable OR (95%CI) | P value | Multivariable OR (95%CI) | P value |
Age | 1.054 (0.996-1.114) | 0.066 | ||
Male | 0.781 (0.204-2.999) | 0.719 | ||
BMI | 0.772 (0.616-0.967) | 0.024 | 0.720 (0.336-1.542) | 0.397 |
Hypertension | 2.418 (0.606-9.648) | 0.211 | ||
Diabetes | 1.067 (0.222-5.124) | 0.936 | ||
HBsAg-positive | 0.644 (0.203-2.040) | 0.454 | ||
Operation time | 1.005 (1.002-1.009) | 0.008 | 1.004 (0.996-1.011) | 0.367 |
Anhepatic phase | 1.039 (1.010-1.069) | 0.091 | ||
Donor age | 1.004 (0.995-1.020) | 0.475 | ||
Total ischemia time | 1.000 (0.996-1.005) | 0.984 | ||
Graft weight | 1.002 (0.999-1.004) | 0.253 | ||
Split LT | 0.938 (0.195-4.503) | 0.936 | ||
Blood loss | 1.003 (1.001-1.004) | < 0.001 | 1.001 (1.000-1.002) | 0.034 |
Intraoperative urine volume | 0.999 (0.999-1.000) | 0.004 | 0.999 (0.998-1.000) | 0.295 |
Prealbumin | 0.988 (0.977-0.999) | 0.040 | 0.975 (0.929-1.023) | 0.310 |
NRI | 0.258 (0.082-0.811) | 0.020 | 0.665 (0.446-0.991) | 0.045 |
CONUT | 5.756 (1.695-19.540) | 0.005 | 2.088 (1.016-4.291) | 0.045 |
PNI | 0.160 (0.051-0.500) | 0.002 | 0.920 (0.848-0.997) | 0.042 |
ALB | 0.798 (0.706-0.903) | < 0.001 | ||
Lymphocyte count | 0.723 (0.301-1.736) | 0.468 | ||
Alanine aminotransferase | 1.002 (1.000-1.004) | 0.045 | 1.002 (0.993-1.011) | 0.639 |
Aspartate aminotransferase | 1.001 (1.000-1.002) | 0.231 | ||
Total bilirubin | 1.007 (1.003-1.012) | 0.001 | 1.004 (0.988-1.021) | 0.606 |
Creatinine | 1.003 (0.999-1.007) | 0.173 | ||
Preoperative MELD score | 1.099 (1.042-1.158) | < 0.001 | 1.003 (0.517-1.946) | 0.994 |
Total cholesterol | 0.694 (0.452-1.065) | 0.095 | ||
Prothrombin time | 1.114 (1.042-1.191) | 0.001 | 0.773 (0.309-1.931) | 0.773 |
Platelet | 1.002 (0.997-1.007) | 0.432 |
Factors associated with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) included operation time, blood loss, intraoperative urine volume, NRI, PNI, ALB, total bilirubin, preoperative MELD score, and PT. However, the results of the multivariate analysis showed that blood loss (OR = 1.003, 95%CI: 1.001-1.005, P = 0.004), the NRI (OR = 0.942, 95%CI: 0.901-0.986, P = 0.011), and the PNI (OR = 0.994, 95%CI: 0.989-0.999, P = 0.013) were risk factors associated with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3; Table 3).
Variables | Univariable OR (95%CI) | P value | Multivariable OR (95%CI) | P value |
Age | 0.997 (0.968-1.028) | 0.852 | ||
Male | 0.518 (0.222-1.212) | 0.129 | ||
BMI | 0.918 (0.819-1.028) | 0.138 | ||
Hypertension | 1.073 (0.359-3.210) | 0.900 | ||
Diabetes | 1.044 (0.380-2.868) | 0.934 | ||
HBsAg-positive | 0.813 (0.377-1.754) | 0.598 | ||
Operation time | 1.004 (1.001-1.006) | 0.004 | 1.003 (1.000-1.006) | 0.078 |
Anhepatic phase | 1.019 (0.999-1.041) | 0.069 | ||
Donor age | 1.010 (0.998-1.022) | 0.113 | ||
Total ischemia time | 1.001 (0.999-1.003) | 0.350 | ||
Graft Weight | 1.065 (0.978-1.158) | 0.146 | ||
Split LT | 1.515 (0.477-4.812) | 0.582 | ||
Blood loss | 1.004 (1.002-1.005) | < 0.001 | 1.003 (1.001-1.005) | 0.004 |
Intraoperative urine volume | 0.998 (0.996-1.000) | 0.042 | 0.999 (0.995-1.002) | 0.382 |
Prealbumin | 0.995 (0.990-1.001) | 0.089 | ||
NRI | 0.945 (0.904-0.988) | 0.013 | 0.942 (0.901-0.986) | 0.011 |
CONUT | 1.037 (0.984-1.094) | 0.169 | ||
PNI | 0.856 (0.738-0.994) | 0.041 | 0.994 (0.989-0.999) | 0.013 |
ALB | 0.910 (0.848-0.977) | 0.009 | ||
Lymphocyte count | 1.113 (0.814-1.522) | 0.502 | ||
Alanine aminotransferase | 1.002 (0.999-1.004) | 0.138 | ||
Aspartate aminotransferase | 1.000 (1.000-1.001) | 0.314 | ||
Total bilirubin | 1.004 (1.002-1.006) | < 0.001 | 1.005 (0.999-1.010) | 0.079 |
Creatinine | 1.001 (0.997-1.004) | 0.685 | ||
Preoperative MELD score | 1.057 (1.020-1.097) | 0.003 | 0.894 (0.763-1.047) | 0.165 |
Total cholesterol | 0.886 (0.721-1.088) | 0.886 | ||
Prothrombin time | 1.075 (1.019-1.134) | 0.009 | 1.075 (0.923-1.252) | 0.354 |
Platelet | 1.001 (0.998-1.005) | 0.422 |
ROC curve analysis revealed that the NRI, CONUT score, PNI, and prealbumin concentration were significantly asso
AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | 95%CI | Optimal threshold value | P value | |
CONUT | 0.724 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.646-0.794 | 6 | 0.015 |
NRI | 0.861 | 0.70 | 0.83 | 0.765-0.958 | 88 | < 0.001 |
PNI | 0.781 | 0.64 | 0.80 | 0.682-0.829 | 38 | 0.001 |
Prealbumin | 0.666 | 0.76 | 0.60 | 0.589-0.754 | 79 | 0.003 |
ROC | Severe complications | 30-d mortality | ||
Z value | P value | Z value | P value | |
CONUT vs NRI | 1.851 | 0.064 | 1.550 | 0.121 |
CONUT vs PNI | 1.945 | 0.051 | 0.832 | 0.405 |
CONUT vs Prealbumin | 0.818 | 0.413 | 0.490 | 0.623 |
NRI vs PNI | 0.749 | 0.454 | 1.061 | 0.288 |
NRI vs Prealbumin | 0.582 | 0.560 | 2.337 | 0.019 |
PNI vs Prealbumin | 0.176 | 0.860 | 1.062 | 0.288 |
AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | 95%CI | Optimal threshold value | P value | |
CONUT | 0.547 | 0.17 | 0.96 | 0.463-0.627 | 8 | 0.410 |
NRI | 0.643 | 0.50 | 0.72 | 0.555-0.712 | 91 | 0.011 |
PNI | 0.615 | 0.23 | 0.94 | 0.522-0.678 | 34 | 0.047 |
Prealbumin | 0.603 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.533-0.695 | 82 | 0.027 |
In terms of clinical characteristics, the high NRI group exhibited a greater BMI, improved liver function, and a lower preoperative MELD score than did the low NRI group. In terms of prognosis, the high NRI group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding, primary graft dysfunction, and 30-d mortality than did the low NRI group (P < 0.05). These findings are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
Characteristics | Low NRI (n = 30) | High NRI (n = 132) | P value |
Age, yr | 53.0 (44.0-56.0) | 52.5 (46.0-58.0) | 0.587 |
Male/female | 26/4 | 107/25 | 0.602 |
BMI | 21.5 (19.0-23.4) | 23.3 (21.4-25.4) | 0.012 |
Hypertension, yes/no | 4/26 | 14/118 | 0.747 |
Diabetes, yes/no | 5/25 | 17/115 | 0.563 |
HBsAg-positive, yes/no | 21/9 | 97/35 | 0.820 |
Operation time (min) | 540.0 (452.5-650.3) | 520.0 (440.0-600.0) | 0.344 |
Anhepatic phase (min) | 58.0 (48.5-65.0) | 57.0 (47.0-66.0) | 0.719 |
Donor age, yr | 46.5 (39.0-59.6) | 43.0 (35.1-53.0) | 0.651 |
Total ischemia time (min) | 329.5 (271.4-395.0) | 286.5(234.7-356.2) | 0.323 |
Graft weight (kg) | 1.3 (1.2-1.6) | 1.5 (1.4-1.8) | 0.409 |
Split LT/whole LT | 2/28 | 18/114 | 0.373 |
Blood loss (mL) | 2000.0 (850.0-5000.0) | 1650.0 (925.0-3500.0) | 0.305 |
Intraoperative urine volume (mL) | 2600.0 (1650.0-3225.0) | 2800.0 (1600.0-4000.0) | 0.636 |
Prealbumin (mg/L) | 56.0 (33.0-82.0) | 109.5 (54.5-172.0) | < 0.001 |
NRI | 83.8 (81.2-85.5) | 98.8 (93.1-103.5) | < 0.001 |
CONUT | 8.0 (7.0-9.8) | 5.0 (4.0-6.0) | < 0.001 |
PNI | 34.9 (31.7-38.9) | 43.7 (40.3-47.6) | < 0.001 |
ALB (g/L) | 29.8 (27.4-31.2) | 39.0 (35.6-41.4) | < 0.001 |
Lymphocyte count (× 109/mL) | 0.9 (0.5-1.6) | 0.9 (0.6-1.4) | 0.978 |
Alanine aminotransferase (U/L) | 41.5 (19.8-62.5) | 29.5 (19.0-45.8) | 0.154 |
Aspartate aminotransferase (U/L) | 64.5 (38.8-126.3) | 42.0 (29.3-77.5) | 0.008 |
Total bilirubin (μmol/L) | 53.0 (20.4-250.4) | 28.4 (14.8-87.8) | 0.047 |
Creatinine (umol/L) | 73.0 (57.0-86.3) | 70.0 (59.3-85.0) | 0.848 |
Preoperative MELD score | 15.0 (11.8-24.8) | 11.0 (7.3-20.8) | 0.028 |
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.7 (2.0-4.4) | 3.6 (2.3-4.6) | 0.050 |
Prothrombin time (s) | 17.8 (16.2-23.4) | 15.9 (14.1-20.0) | 0.037 |
Platelet (× 109/mL) | 63.5 (32.5-143.0) | 67.5 (47.0-152.8) | 0.386 |
Total (n = 162) | Low NRI (n = 30) | High NRI (n = 132) | P value | |
Pneumonia | 37 (22.8) | 8 (26.7) | 29 (22.0) | 0.631 |
Intra-abdominal infection | 20 (12.3) | 4 (13.3) | 16 (12.1) | 0.767 |
Intra-abdominal bleeding | 14 (8.6) | 6 (20.0) | 8 (6.1) | 0.025 |
Graft rejection | 6 (3.7) | 2 (6.7) | 4 (3.0) | 0.308 |
Primary graft nonfunction | 5 (3.1) | 3 (10.0) | 2 (1.5) | 0.044 |
Early graft dysfunction | 4 (2.5) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.0) | 1.000 |
Mortality | 14 (8.6) | 6 (20.0) | 8 (6.1) | 0.025 |
Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 | 43 (26.5) | 12 (40) | 31 (23.5) | 0.071 |
Biliary leakage | 3 (1.9) | 1 (3.3) | 2 (1.5) | 0.461 |
Biliary stricture | 4 (2.5) | 2 (6.7) | 2 (1.5) | 0.156 |
Early posttransplant mortality is the main factor affecting the overall effectiveness of LT, with most recipients dying within 1 mo after LT. In the current situation of severe shortage of donor livers and an increasing number of patients awaiting for LT, there is an urgent need for ideal risk prediction models to evaluate posttransplantation effectiveness and further determine the patients who are most likely to benefit from LT.
The MELD score is extensively applied in clinical practice and successfully predicts the likelihood of mortality in patients awaiting LT, as well as the risk of mortality after the transplant procedure[16,17]. However, the MELD score itself has limitations, as research has shown that it does not predict perioperative outcomes well in liver cancer patients without cirrhosis[18,19]. In recent years, scholars have shown greater interest in the relationship between nutritional status and post-LT complications. The serum prealbumin concentration serves as a reliable marker of liver synthesis ca
This retrospective analysis revealed that the NRI, PNI, and prealbumin have certain value for predicting 30-d mortality and severe complications in liver transplant recipients, with the NRI having the highest AUC value. The CONUT score can predict 30-d mortality in liver transplant recipients but cannot predict severe postoperative complications. In the multifactorial logistic regression analysis, blood loss, NRI, PNI, and CONUT were independent predictors of 30-d mortality, while blood loss, NRI, and PNI were independent predictors of severe postoperative complications. Based on the optimal cutoff value of the NRI, patients with an NRI > 88 had better preoperative liver function; lower rates of intra-abdominal bleeding (6.1% vs 20.0%, P = 0.025) and primary graft nonfunction (1.5% vs 10.0%, P = 0.044); and lower mor
The serum prealbumin concentration has good predictive ability for 30-d mortality and severe complications after LT, consistent with previous findings[1]. The variation in AUC values may be attributed to varying definitions of severe com
We found that the AUC for predicting 30-d mortality was the highest for the NRI, followed by the PNI, CONUT, and prealbumin concentration. Similarly, the AUC for predicting severe complications was the highest for the NRI, followed by the PNI and prealbumin concentration. Although both the NRI and the PNI incorporate the measurement of ALB, the NRI also reflects the degree of weight loss in patients. Malnutrition is prevalent among patients with end-stage liver disease, and the incidence of malnutrition in individuals with decompensated cirrhosis and liver failure ranges from 50% to 90%[30]. Surgical intervention exacerbates liver injury, reduces ALB synthesis, impairs immune function and body repair capacity, increases the likelihood of postoperative complications, and adversely affects survival prognosis in malnourished patients. Recent studies have elucidated the association between sarcopenia and the prognosis of liver transplant recipients[22,31]. These findings indicate that diminished muscle mass is linked to unfavorable outcomes following LT and is a predictive factor for short-term survival. Furthermore, low muscle mass has an equally significant impact on the prognosis of patients with malignancies. In patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer, the overall mortality rate is significantly greater in individuals with sarcopenia (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95%CI, 1.18-1.69)[32]. Similarly, among patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those exhibiting sarcopenia have a notably elevated overall mortality rate (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95%CI, 1.09-1.48) compared to that of their counterparts without sarcopenia[33]. This finding sug
This study aimed to compare the role of multiple objective nutritional indicators in predicting the prognosis of LT patients, thereby facilitating a comprehensive preoperative nutritional assessment, early identification of malnutrition, timely and appropriate nutritional support for enhancing surgical safety, and reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. This study has several limitations, including the following: (1) The sample size was not large enough; (2) This was a retrospective analysis, and further prospective analysis is needed to clarify the predictive value of different scoring systems for post-LT outcomes; and (3) We analyzed only a portion of the nutritional indicators and did not include all nutritional indicators in our analysis. Despite these limitations, our results still demonstrate the superiority of the NRI as a nutritional indicator for predicting post-LT 30-d mortality and severe complications.
This study identified several independent risk factors associated with 30-d mortality, including blood loss, the PNI, the NRI, and the CONUT. The 30-d mortality rate was 8.6%. Blood loss, the NRI, and the PNI were found to be independent risk factors for the occurrence of severe postoperative complications. The NRI achieved the highest predictive values for 30-d mortality (AUC = 0.861, P < 0.001) and severe complications (AUC = 0.643, P = 0.011). Compared to those in the high NRI group, the patients in the low NRI group had lower preoperative BMIs; prealbumin, and ALT levels; and higher ALT, total bilirubin, MELD score, and PT (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the low NRI group exhibited significantly greater incidences of intraabdominal bleeding, primary graft nonfunction, and mortality. In conclusion, the NRI can serve as an effective tool for transplant surgeons to assess perioperative nutritional risk in patients and formulate relevant nutritional interventions.
Nutritional status is closely associated with the prognosis of liver transplantation (LT) patients.
However, few studies have thoroughly investigated the relationship between the preoperative nutritional status of liver transplant recipients and postoperative prognosis. In clinical practice, there is a lack of a simple and effective tool for assessing the nutritional risk of patients during the perioperative period and for predicting the outcomes of LT.
The objective of this study was to compare the value of different preoperative objective nutritional indicators for predicting the 30-d mortality and the incidence of complications following LT.
This study conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from 162 patients who underwent LT. The present study compared the ability of the serum prealbumin concentration, the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, the pro
This study identified several independent risk factors associated with 30-d mortality, including blood loss, the PNI, the NRI, and the CONUT. The 30-d mortality rate was 8.6%. Blood loss, the NRI, and the PNI were found to be independent risk factors for the occurrence of severe postoperative complications. The NRI achieved the highest prediction values for 30-d mortality [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.861, P < 0.001] and severe complications (AUC = 0.643, P = 0.011). Compared to those in the high NRI group, the patients in the low NRI group had lower preoperative body mass index and prealbumin and albumin levels, as well as higher alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin levels, Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores and prothrombin time (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the group with a low NRI exhibited significantly greater incidences of intraabdominal bleeding, primary graft nonfunction, and mortality.
The NRI has good predictive value for 30-d mortality and severe complications following LT. The NRI could be an effective tool for transplant surgeons to evaluate the perioperative nutritional risk and provide relevant nutritional therapy.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive value of different objective nutritional indicators before surgery for the outcome of LT.
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology
Country/Territory of origin: China
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): 0
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Sahin TT, Turkey S-Editor: Li L L-Editor: A P-Editor: Li L
1. | Li Y, Liu X, Jiang Y, Wan K, Liu W, Ou Y, Bai J, You Y, Hu F, Xu Z, Bie P, Zhang C, Zhang L. Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the prevalence of complications following liver transplantation. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21:233. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Beck FK, Rosenthal TC. Prealbumin: a marker for nutritional evaluation. Am Fam Physician. 2002;65:1575-1578. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
3. | Loftus TJ, Brown MP, Slish JH, Rosenthal MD. Serum Levels of Prealbumin and Albumin for Preoperative Risk Stratification. Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;34:340-348. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 35] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 40] [Article Influence: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
4. | Dellière S, Cynober L. Is transthyretin a good marker of nutritional status? Clin Nutr. 2017;36:364-370. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 75] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 76] [Article Influence: 10.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | Faramarzi E, Mahdavi R, Mohammad-Zadeh M, Nasirimotlagh B. Validation of nutritional risk index method against patient-generated subjective global assessment in screening malnutrition in colorectal cancer patients. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013;25:544-548. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
6. | Schwegler I, von Holzen A, Gutzwiller JP, Schlumpf R, Mühlebach S, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk is a clinical predictor of postoperative mortality and morbidity in surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:92-97. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 212] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 254] [Article Influence: 16.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Migita K, Takayama T, Saeki K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Enomoto K, Tanaka T, Ito M, Kurumatani N, Nakajima Y. The prognostic nutritional index predicts long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients independent of tumor stage. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2647-2654. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 198] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 236] [Article Influence: 21.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Mohri Y, Inoue Y, Tanaka K, Hiro J, Uchida K, Kusunoki M. Prognostic nutritional index predicts postoperative outcome in colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 2013;37:2688-2692. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 166] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 161] [Article Influence: 16.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Kanda M, Fujii T, Kodera Y, Nagai S, Takeda S, Nakao A. Nutritional predictors of postoperative outcome in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98:268-274. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 367] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 443] [Article Influence: 34.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Yoshida N, Baba Y, Shigaki H, Harada K, Iwatsuki M, Kurashige J, Sakamoto Y, Miyamoto Y, Ishimoto T, Kosumi K, Tokunaga R, Imamura Y, Ida S, Hiyoshi Y, Watanabe M, Baba H. Preoperative Nutritional Assessment by Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) is Useful to estimate Postoperative Morbidity After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer. World J Surg. 2016;40:1910-1917. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 76] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 90] [Article Influence: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
11. | Vodkin I, Kuo A. Extended Criteria Donors in Liver Transplantation. Clin Liver Dis. 2017;21:289-301. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 87] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 105] [Article Influence: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (35)] |
12. | Ignacio de Ulíbarri J, González-Madroño A, de Villar NG, González P, González B, Mancha A, Rodríguez F, Fernández G. CONUT: a tool for controlling nutritional status. First validation in a hospital population. Nutr Hosp. 2005;20:38-45. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
13. | Nozoe T, Ninomiya M, Maeda T, Matsukuma A, Nakashima H, Ezaki T. Prognostic nutritional index: a tool to predict the biological aggressiveness of gastric carcinoma. Surg Today. 2010;40:440-443. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 146] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 178] [Article Influence: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Pai MP, Paloucek FP. The origin of the "ideal" body weight equations. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:1066-1069. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 222] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 224] [Article Influence: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Lai CC, You JF, Yeh CY, Chen JS, Tang R, Wang JY, Chin CC. Low preoperative serum albumin in colon cancer: a risk factor for poor outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:473-481. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 133] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 156] [Article Influence: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Pommergaard HC, Daugaard TR, Rostved AA, Schultz NA, Hillingsø J, Krohn PS, Rasmussen A. Model for end-stage liver disease score predicts complications after liver transplantation. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406:55-65. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Fung J, Mak LY, Chan AC, Chok KS, Wong TC, Cheung TT, Dai WC, Sin SL, She WH, Ma KW, Seto WK, Lai CL, Lo CM, Yuen MF. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease With Additional Criteria to Predict Short-Term Mortality in Severe Flares of Chronic Hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2020;72:818-828. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Wagener G. Assessment of hepatic function, operative candidacy, and medical management after liver resection in the patient with underlying liver disease. Semin Liver Dis. 2013;33:204-212. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
19. | Teh SH, Sheppard BC, Schwartz J, Orloff SL. Model for End-stage Liver Disease score fails to predict perioperative outcome after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients without cirrhosis. Am J Surg. 2008;195:697-701. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 39] [Article Influence: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
20. | Jia RR, Zhong JH, Huo RR, Su QB, Xiang X, Zhao FL, Qin ZB, Chen JH, Liao YY, Ma L, Xiang BD, Zhang CY, Li LQ. Correlation between serum prealbumin and prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119:794-800. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Liang RF, Li JH, Li M, Yang Y, Liu YH. The prognostic role of controlling nutritional status scores in patients with solid tumors. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;474:155-158. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
22. | Dai X, Gao B, Zhang XX, Li J, Jiang WT. Value of the controlling nutritional status score and psoas muscle thickness per height in predicting prognosis in liver transplantation. World J Clin Cases. 2021;9:10871-10883. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in CrossRef: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
23. | Kornberg A, Kaschny L, Kornberg J, Friess H. Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index May Be a Strong Predictor of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Following Liver Transplantation. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2022;9:649-660. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
24. | Min JY, Woo A, Chae MS, Hong SH, Park CS, Choi JH, Chung HS. Predictive Impact of Modified-Prognostic Nutritional Index for Acute Kidney Injury within 1-week after Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Int J Med Sci. 2020;17:82-88. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
25. | Bouillanne O, Morineau G, Dupont C, Coulombel I, Vincent JP, Nicolis I, Benazeth S, Cynober L, Aussel C. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index: a new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:777-783. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1034] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1293] [Article Influence: 68.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
26. | Hanada M, Yamauchi K, Miyazaki S, Hirasawa J, Oyama Y, Yanagita Y, Takahata H, Kozu R. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, a predictive assessment tool, for postoperative complications after abdominal surgery: A prospective multicenter cohort study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19:924-929. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
27. | Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7-30. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11573] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12776] [Article Influence: 2129.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (3)] |
28. | Saito M, Seo Y, Yano Y, Miki A, Yoshida M, Azuma T. Short-term reductions in non-protein respiratory quotient and prealbumin can be associated with the long-term deterioration of liver function after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:704-714. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
29. | Liu F, Cai LY, Zhong L, Chen C, Xu F, Zhao ZX, Chen XM. Model for end-stage liver disease combined with serum prealbumin to predict the prognosis of patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. J Dig Dis. 2010;11:352-357. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
30. | Cheung K, Lee SS, Raman M. Prevalence and mechanisms of malnutrition in patients with advanced liver disease, and nutrition management strategies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:117-125. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 207] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 228] [Article Influence: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
31. | Kalafateli M, Mantzoukis K, Choi Yau Y, Mohammad AO, Arora S, Rodrigues S, de Vos M, Papadimitriou K, Thorburn D, O'Beirne J, Patch D, Pinzani M, Morgan MY, Agarwal B, Yu D, Burroughs AK, Tsochatzis EA. Malnutrition and sarcopenia predict post-liver transplantation outcomes independently of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017;8:113-121. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 188] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 220] [Article Influence: 31.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
32. | Caan BJ, Cespedes Feliciano EM, Prado CM, Alexeeff S, Kroenke CH, Bradshaw P, Quesenberry CP, Weltzien EK, Castillo AL, Olobatuyi TA, Chen WY. Association of Muscle and Adiposity Measured by Computed Tomography With Survival in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:798-804. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 227] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 332] [Article Influence: 66.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
33. | Caan BJ, Meyerhardt JA, Kroenke CH, Alexeeff S, Xiao J, Weltzien E, Feliciano EC, Castillo AL, Quesenberry CP, Kwan ML, Prado CM. Explaining the Obesity Paradox: The Association between Body Composition and Colorectal Cancer Survival (C-SCANS Study). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26:1008-1015. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 177] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 255] [Article Influence: 36.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
34. | Ishida H, Furusawa M, Ishizuka T, Tojimbara T, Nakajima I, Fuchinoue S, Agishi T, Toma H. Short-term changes in cholesterol metabolism in 40 patients with liver transplants from living related donors. Transpl Int. 2002;15:142-144. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |