Longitudinal quality of life in liver transplant recipients

Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM): A Novel Visual Instrument to Quantify Suffering in Liver Cirrhosis Patients and Liver Transplant Recipients

Background

The level of suffering of chronically ill patients does not necessarily correlate with illness severity. In this study, we evaluated the burden of suffering and its impact on health-related quality of life in liver transplant recipients and liver cirrhosis patients.

Material/Methods

The Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) was used to explore levels of suffering in outpatients of Münster University Hospital, Germany. Self-illness separation scores were analyzed as a measure of disease-specific burden of suffering. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36).

Results

Data from 201 subjects were statistically analyzed. Median Self-illness separation scores for liver transplant recipients and patients with liver cirrhosis were 13.5 (minimum/maximum: 0.2/25.6) cm and 6.3 (0.1/25.6) cm (p<0.001), respectively. The median SF-36 Mental Component Summary and Physical Component Summary scores were 46.4 (12.5/66.2) and 40.1 (12.3/61.1), respectively. Higher health-related quality of life was associated with greater self–illness separation. Liver transplant recipients showed normal Mental Component Summary scores compared with the general German population; patients with liver cirrhosis had significantly lower Mental Component Summary scores. Physical Component Summary scores were significantly higher in liver transplant recipients than in patients with liver cirrhosis, but still lower than in the general population.

Conclusions

PRISM is a novel, simple tool for measuring the illness burden in liver transplant recipients and patients with liver cirrhosis. This measure may help to identify patients at a higher risk of psychological disorders.

Beyond survival: how well do transplanted livers work? A preliminary comparison of standard-risk, high-risk, and living donor recipients

To help decrease mortality on the liver transplant waitlist, transplant centers are using living donors (LD) and high-risk donors (HRD) in addition to standard-risk donors (SRD). HRD is defined as having a donor risk index score higher than 1.6, which suggests a great risk of graft failure. Recent studies have examined survival rates between HRD and SRD recipients; however, little is known about outcomes other than survival, specifically psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this preliminary, prospective study was to compare post-transplant psychosocial and recovery outcomes between SRD and LD and HRD liver recipients. These outcomes include cognitive functioning, psychological distress, quality of life, and self-reported and objective measures of recovery. Eighty-four patients provided baseline and six-month post-transplant data. There were generally no statistically significant differences at baseline or the six-month follow-up, suggesting that patients receiving HRD livers have similar outcomes to those who receive SRD livers. However, some effect sizes suggest potential advantages for LD recipients compared to SRD recipients. Transplant centers may be more willing to encourage patients to accept HRD or LD livers knowing that they may have comparable outcomes to SRD recipients, which also has implications for the transplant waitlist.

Health-related quality of life of 256 recipients after liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological outcomes in 256 adults who had undergone liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS: A stratified random sampling method was used in this follow-up multicenter study to select a representative sample of recipients undergoing either living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). HRQoL was measured by using the Chinese version of Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and psychological outcomes by using the beck anxiety inventory (BAI) and the self-rating depression scale (SDS). Clinical and demographic data were collected from the records of the Chinese Liver Transplant Registry and via questionnaires.

RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were sampled, including 66 (25.8%) receiving LDLT and 190 (74.2%) undergoing DDLT; 15 (5.9%) recipients had anxiety and four (1.6%) developed severe depression after the operation. Compared with LDLT recipients, DDLT patients had higher scores in general health (60.33 ± 16.97 vs 66.86 ± 18.42, P = 0.012), role-physical (63.64 ± 42.55 vs 74.47 ± 36.46, P = 0.048), role-emotional (61.11 ± 44.37 vs 78.95 ± 34.31, P = 0.001), social functioning (78.60 ± 22.76 vs 88.16 ± 21.85, P = 0.003), vitality (70.30 ± 15.76 vs 75.95 ± 16.40, P = 0.016), mental health (65.88 ± 12.94 vs 71.85 ± 15.45, P = 0.005), physical component summary scale (PCS, 60.07 ± 7.36 vs 62.58 ± 6.88, P = 0.013) and mental component summary scale (MCS, 52.65 ± 7.66 vs 55.95 ± 10.14, P = 0.016). Recipients > 45 years old at the time of transplant scored higher in vitality (77.33 ± 15.64 vs 72.52 ± 16.66, P = 0.020), mental health (73.64 ± 15.06 vs 68.00 ± 14.65, P = 0.003) and MCS (56.61 ± 10.00 vs 54.05 ± 9.30, P = 0.037) than those aged ≤ 45 years. MCS was poorer in recipients with than in those without complications (52.92 ± 12.21 vs 56.06 ± 8.16, P = 0.017). Regarding MCS (55.10 ± 9.66 vs 50.0 ± 10.0, P < 0.05) and PCS (61.93 ± 7.08 vs 50.0 ± 10.0, P < 0.05), recipients scored better than the Sichuan general and had improved overall QoL compared to patients with chronic diseases. MCS and PCS significantly correlated with scores of the BAI (P < 0.001) and the SDS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Age > 45 years at time of transplant, DDLT, full-time working, no complications, anxiety and depression were possible factors influencing postoperative HRQoL in liver recipients.

Patients' expectations and success criteria for liver transplantation

Patient-reported outcomes are important to consider when the relative success of liver transplantation (LT) is being evaluated. Our primary objective was to examine the expectations for LT and the criteria for its success across 4 domains of functioning (pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with daily activities) from the perspective of patients who were wait-listed for LT. One hundred four adult patients with a mean wait-list time of 16.5 ± 13 months completed a semistructured interview with a modified version of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ). The patients reported moderate usual levels of pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with daily activities (mean rating range = 3.8-6.2), and they attached great importance to improvements in these domains after LT (mean rating range = 7.3-8.0). Patients considered a mean reduction in pain of 33% to be a successful LT outcome. A reduction in fatigue of 56%, a reduction in emotional distress of 44%, and a reduction in interference with daily activities of 54% represented successful LT across these domains. Patients with more severe illness had higher expectations for fatigue (r = -0.30, P = 0.002) and interference with daily activities (r = -0.24, P = 0.015). Cluster and correlational analyses provided support for the validity of the PCOQ with LT patients. Our findings underscore the importance and value of using patient-centered assessments to better understand the ways in which patients prioritize LT outcomes and define transplantation success. Patient-centered assessments have the potential to facilitate provider-patient communication by helping patients to prioritize their goals for LT and make informed choices on the basis of those priorities.