Mental health and quality of life in alcoholic liver disease patients after liver transplantation: a prospective controlled study

Measuring Coping Behavior in Liver Transplant Candidates: A Psychometric Analysis of the Brief COPE

Liver transplant candidates must cope with significant physiological and psychological challenges. The Brief COPE is a frequently used measure of coping behavior; however, knowledge of the scale's factor structure and construct validity is limited with regard to liver transplant candidates. This study assessed the validity of the Brief COPE in 120 liver transplant candidates using exploratory factor analysis. Results revealed a 6-factor solution, only 2 of which were consistent with the original scale assignments. Construct validity of the 6 Brief COPE scales yielded in this study was demonstrated. The results indicate that the Brief COPE is valid, reliable, and can be meaningfully interpreted in liver transplant patients. Future research should confirm this factor structure and examine its predictive validity prior to widespread use among liver transplant patients. Suggestions are presented for enhancing the care of transplant candidates by promoting the use of adaptive coping mechanisms to manage distress.

Quality of life after liver transplantation: State of the art

Quality of life (QoL) after deceased donor liver transplantation is increasingly recognized as a major outcome parameter. We reviewed recent publications in this rapidly evolving field in order to summarize recent achievements in the field and to define opportunities and perspectives for research and improvement of patient care. QoL does improve after liver transplantation according to a typical pattern. During the first year, there is a significant improvement in QoL. After one year, the improvement does stabilise and tends to decline slightly. In addition to the physical condition, different psychological parameters (such as depression, anxiety, sexual function) and sociodemographic elements (professional state, sex, marital state) seem to impact QoL. Opportunities for further research are the use of dedicated questionnaires and identification of influencing factors for QoL.

Quality of life and mental health comparisons among liver transplant recipients and cirrhotic patients with different self-perceptions of health

Our aim was to analyze the differences in quality of life and mental health among liver transplant recipients with better (G(1)) and worse (G(2)) perceived health and decompensated cirrhotic patients (G(3)). We selected two groups of patients: 168 liver transplant recipients and 75 cirrhotic patients. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and SF-36 Health Survey were used. Statistically significant differences showed that cirrhotic patients (G(3)) suffered the highest impairment, and liver transplant recipients with better self-perceived health (G(1)) had the lowest impairment, whereas patients with worse self-perceived health (G(2)) were in an intermediate position between both groups. Moreover, very striking differences, based on large effect sizes, were found among groups on some quality of life dimensions: physical-role, general health, vitality, and physical functioning. In conclusion, the biopsychosocial well-being of liver transplant recipients is better than that of cirrhotic patients, even if the former do not perceive their health positively.

Comparison of quality of life between two clinical conditions with immunosuppressive therapy: liver transplantation and multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare quality of life in two clinical conditions treated with immunosuppressants: cadaveric liver transplant recipients and multiple sclerosis patients. We also assessed the clinical significance of these results regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, the SF-36 Health Survey was used to evaluate 62 patients with these chronic conditions (31 in each group) who were matched for gender. An analysis of covariance was performed to control for the influence of time from multiple sclerosis diagnosis and liver transplantation surgery until assessment. Student t test of covariate-adjusted mean values was used as the statistical test and Cohen's d effect size index, to assess the magnitude of intergroup differences and assess clinical significance.

RESULTS

Significantly worse scores were observed among the neurological patients compared with transplant recipients regarding role-physical (P = .038), general health (P = .003), vitality (P = .034), and physical functioning (P = .049), with medium effect sizes (Cohen's ds from -0.511 to -0.785). Against normative values, liver transplant recipients displayed relevant differences in all SF-36 subscales (Cohen's ds from -0.569 to -0.974) except for mental health (small effect size). Likewise, multiple sclerosis patients showed much greater differences versus the general population (Cohen's ds from -0.846 to -1.760).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver transplant recipients showed better quality of life than multiple sclerosis patients (medium effect sizes) in physical quality-of-life dimensions. Interestingly, despite having controlled for time from diagnosis/transplantation, both medical conditions showed clinically significant impairments (large and medium effect sizes) in physical and psychosocial quality-of-life domains. We concluded that transplant recipients belong to a population that still requires special health care because, even after having undergone their treatment of choice, they do not achieve normal levels of biopsychosocial functioning.

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.