Risk factors of biliary intervention by imaging after living donor liver transplantation

Table 4 Cox regression model for factors predicting biliary intervention

Variable	Univariate		Multivariate
	Exp (B)	95%CI	Exp (B)	95%CI
Recipient age	1.01	0.99-1.04
Older age (> 65 yr)	2.10	0.85-5.20
Recipient sex	1.11	0.69-1.70
Donor age	1.00	0.98-1.02
Older donor age (> 60 yr)	0.92	0.13-6.51
Donor sex	0.84	0.55-1.28
Age difference1	1.01	0.99-1.02
MELD score2	1.00	0.99-1.02
High MELD score (> 35)2	0.97	0.42-2.22
Anastomosis method3
Type 2 vs 1	1.14	0.72-1.80
T-tube	0.98	0.43-2.24
MRI findings
Anastomosis site angle4
Group 2 vs group 14	0.42	0.27-0.65	0.48	0.30-0.75
Filling defect5	2.44	1.58-3.75	2.18	1.41-3.38
Length of filling defect5	1.04	1.01-1.06
Diffuse bile duct dilatation	1.59	0.93-2.70
Biliary stricture	1.03	0.68-1.56
Biliary leakage	2.49	1.01-6.14	2.52	1.02-6.20
Biloma	1.54	0.74-3.19
Hematoma	1.80	0.78-4.10
Thrombus, infarct	0.64	0.09-4.59

¹Recipient age-donor age;

²MELD, model for end-stage liver disease;

³Type 1, single duct-to-duct anastomosis; type 2, double duct-to-duct anastomosis;

⁴Checked on the three-dimensional image; the groups were categorized according to the anastomosis site angle (median angle = 113.3°); group 1, angle > 113.3°; group 2, angle ≤ 113.3°;

⁵Checked on the maximum intensity projection image. MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.