Comparing Quality of Life following Liver Transplantation for Cadaveric versus Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Study

Kim, Gum Hi; Yoon, Seok-Jun; Ahn, Hyeong-Sik; Lee, Jun-Young; Park, Hyeung-Keun; Suh, Kyung-Suk

Journal of Korean Society Quality Assurance Health Care 2004;11(1): 32.
Published online June 30, 2004.

사체간이식 환자와 생체간이식 환자들의 삶의 질 비교 연구

김금희¹, 윤석준², 안형식², 이준영², 박형근³, 서경석⁴

¹고려대학교 대학원 보건학협동과정
²고려대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실
³건강보험심사평가원
⁴서울대학교 의과대학 외과학교실

Comparing Quality of Life following Liver Transplantation for Cadaveric versus Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Study

Gum Hi Kim¹, Seok-Jun Yoon², Hyeong-Sik Ahn², Jun-Young Lee², Hyeung-Keun Park³, Kyung-Suk Suh⁴

¹Postgraduate Studies of Public Health, Korea University
²Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine
³Health Insurance Review Agency
⁴Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine

Abstract

Objective : The aim of this study were to measure quality of life(QOL) in liver transplant recipients, to compare QOL between living donor liver transplant recipients and cadaveric liver transplant recipients and to investigate whether SF-36 may be used as a disease-specific instrument in liver transplant recipients.
Methods
We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study of 133 LT recipients ages 13 to 65 years, all of whom had had Liver Transplantation(LT) at least 1 months previously. QOL was assessed using a self-completion questionnaire consisting of the Bang Whal Ran(1991) instruments and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey(SF-36) health status profile measure. We investigated whether the SF-36 instrument may be used as a disease-specific instrument in LT recipients. Individual scale scores range from 0 to 100, with higher score reflecting better health. Data on demographics, clinical status at pre transplantation 1 day, post transplantation clinical status, and graft function were collected to identify predictors of post transplantation QOL.
Results
Standard measures for test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant and concurrent validity were examined. The reliability of the SF-36, as measured by test-retest correlation(Pearson coefficients: 0.729, p=0.002) and by internal consistency(Cronbach's alpha: 0.9431) exceeded conventional acceptability criteria. The correlation between domain scores of SF-36 and the Bang Whal Ran(l991) was clear and logical in that the clinical characteristics of SF-36 strongly correlated with the clinical component summary score of the Bang Whal Ran(l991)(r = 0.8155, P<.01). SF-36 scale scores were compared between Cadaveric Liver Transplant recipients and Living Donor Liver Transplant recipients. Donor types of post LT did not influence HRQOL(p>0.05). 87% of the liver transplant recipients were satisfied to get LT. Satisfaction of post LT showed significantly greater HRQOL(p<0.001).
Conclusion
SF-36 is found reliable and valid. This study indicates thet Donor Type did not influence HRQOL after LT. The information gained from this study will help us to better define expectations and the clinical course after liver transplantation to patients and their families.

Key words Liver transplantation;Quality of Life;LDLT;Cadaveric LT;