Skip to main content

Table 3 Overview of the studies reporting on the correlation between a preoperative nuclear imaging examination and the postoperative outcome liver failure

From: Nuclear imaging methods for the prediction of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing localized, liver-directed treatments: a systematic review

Author Liver failure defined LF event rate Preset cut-off value studied Post hoc cut-off value established Only descriptive analysis Liver failure vs. no liver failure comparison Key diagnostic characteristics reported Cut-off value predictive in univariate regression analysis Cut-off value predictive in multivariate regression analysis
Cieslak et al. [16] Yes 2% Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Cieslak et al. ≠ [17] No 11%1 Yes No2 Yes NR NR NR NR
Chapelle et al. [19] Yes 14% No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chapelle et al. [20] Yes 1%3 Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Chapelle et al. [21] Yes 15% Yes No No Yes Yes NR Yes
Chiba et al. [18] Yes 6%4 Yes No No NR NR Yes Yes
Cho et al. [22] Yes 5% No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
de Graaf et al. [10] Yes 16% No Yes No Yes Yes NR NR
Dinant et al. [24] Yes 13% No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Franken et al. [25] Yes 15%5 Yes No Yes6 NR NR NR NR
Guiu et al. [27] Yes 0% Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Hayashi et al. [28] Yes 8% Yes No No NR NR Yes NR
Hino et al. ≠ [29]7 Yes 4% No Yes Yes NR NR NR NR
Hirai et al. [30] Yes 23% No Yes No Yes Yes NR NR
Hwang et al. ≠ [31] No 9% No No No Yes NR NR NR
Kaibori et al. [34] Yes 8% No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kamohara et al. ≠ [35] Yes NR (30% overall) Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Kato et al. ≠ [36] Yes 33%8 No Yes No Yes Yes NR Yes
Katsuramaki et al. ≠ [37]7 Yes 3% No Yes Yes NR NR NR NR
Kawamura et al. [38] No 0% No No Yes NR NR NR NR
Kim et al. ≠ [39] No 10% No Yes No Yes NR NR Yes
Kokudo et al. [40] Yes9 13% No Yes No Yes NR NR Yes
Kwon et al. [45] Yes 5% No Yes Yes NR NR NR NR
Mao et al. [48] Yes10 13% Yes Yes No NR Yes NR NR
Mitsumori et al. [49] No11 10% Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Nakamura et al. [50] Yes 17% No Yes No Yes NR NR Yes
Nakano et al. ≠ [51] Yes 6% Yes No No Yes NR NR No
Nanashima et al. ≠ [54]7 Yes 6% No Yes No Yes NR NR NR
Nanashima et al. ≠ [55] Yes 6% No Yes No Yes NR NR No
Nanashima et al. ≠ [56] Yes 8% Yes (later group) Yes (earlier group) No Yes NR Yes No
Nanashima et al. ≠ [57] Yes 5% No Yes No Yes NR NR Yes (LF only)
Nanashima et al. [58] No 4% Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Nanashima et al. [59] Yes 1% No No No Yes NR NR NR
Nitta et al. [62] Yes 18% Yes Yes No Yes Yes NR Yes
Okabayashi et al. [63] Yes 10%12 Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Okabe et al. [64] Yes PLD 7%
LF 2%
No Yes (PLD) No Yes (PLD) Yes (PLD) NR Yes (PLD)
Olthof et al. [65] Yes 23% Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rassam et al. ≠[67]7 Yes 10% (LF only) Yes No No Yes NR NR NR
Satoh et al. ≠ [68]7 Yes 9% No Yes No NR Yes NR NR
Serenari et al. [69] Yes 25%13 No Yes No Yes Yes NR NR
Serenari et al. [70] Yes 33% No No No Yes NR NR NR
Sugai et al. ≠ [73] No 18% No No No Yes NR NR NR
Sumiyoshi et al. [74] Yes 7%14 Yes No No Yes NR NR NR
Sumiyoshi et al. [75] Yes 0% Yes No Yes NR NR NR NR
Tanaka et al. [79] Yes 41%15 Yes No No NR NR Yes NR
Tanoue et al. [81] Yes 15% No No16 No Yes NR NR NR
Truant et al. [82] Yes 80%17 No No Yes NR NR NR NR
Truant et al. [83] Yes 86%18 No No Yes NR NR NR NR
Yano et al. [88] Yes 21% No No16 No Yes NR NR NR
Yoshida et al. [90] Yes 6% No Yes No Yes Yes NR Yes
Yumoto et al. [92] No 19% No Yes Yes NR NR NR NR
Yumoto et al. [93] Yes9 17% No Yes No Yes Yes NR NR
  1. Papers with liver failure as part of a composite endpoint are marked with a “≠”; in those cases, the data are reported for overall complications in which liver failure is included unless otherwise stated
  2. LF liver failure, PLD postoperative liver dysfunction
  3. 1Including three patients who died due to LF, but they only looked at the NMT in regard to developing LF postoperatively
  4. 2Not for the prediction of LF, but they establish a cut-off for the prediction of reaching a sufficient function of the FLR after PVE
  5. 31% of patients in the interventional group developed LF postoperatively, but in the 88 patients in the prior study by Chapelle et al., the liver failure rate was 14%, also reported in the table above
  6. 4Including two patients who died due to LF. Their primary endpoint was LF, but they also provided uptake values for the patients who died due to LF, also reported in mortality table
  7. 5In the overall population including the cohort from 2000 to 2015 and the cohort from 2016 to 2019
  8. 6Comparison of outcomes in the cohort from 2000 to 2015 to those in the cohort from 2016 to 2019 applying different cut-off values for the function of the FLR
  9. 7Cut-off value, diagnostic characteristics, predictive value, or LF vs. no LF for overall complications or poor outcome, but separate uptake values for patients who developed LF postoperatively
  10. 8Including 3 patients who died due to postoperative LF
  11. 9Signs of postoperative LF
  12. 10A Child Score > 9 is considered a high risk for developing LF
  13. 11Specifically described as hepatic insufficiency not LF
  14. 12Meeting the criteria for LF based on at least one of three definitions
  15. 13Including one patient who developed LF after stage 1 of the ALPPS procedure, and the other four patients developed LF after stage 2 of the ALPPS procedure
  16. 14LF-related Clavien-Dindo grade III complication
  17. 15Only in 98 patients who underwent hemi-hepatectomy did the authors evaluate mortality and LF. Therefore, the liver failure event rate was 40/98 (41%)
  18. 16Not for the prediction of LF, but they establish a cut-off for the prediction of postoperative long-term ascites
  19. 17Including one patient who developed LF and died postoperatively
  20. 18Postoperative clinical outcomes were only reported in the seven patients who underwent ALPPS. Six of the seven patients developed LF, five after stage 2 of the ALPPS procedure and one postoperatively who also died. The other five recovered postoperatively