Living-donor kidney transplant in T-cell and B-cell flow cytometry crossmatch-positive patients.

OBJECTIVES: Complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatch is an important indicator for kidney transplant. However, there is controversy about treatment for flow cytometry crossmatch-positive cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 127 living-donor kidney transplant recipients from May 2007 to July 2011. We divided patients into 115 flow cytometry crossmatch T-cell and B-cell-negative cases, and 12 T-cell and B-cell-positive cases. Both groups were given 20 mg basiliximab the day of surgery and 4 days after surgery. Common oral immunosuppressive agents used were tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and methylprednisolone. Flow cytometry crossmatch T-cell and B-cell-negative recipients started immunosuppression 7 days before surgery, T-cell and B-cell-positive recipients started immunosuppression 14 days before surgery. T-cell and B-cell-positive patients also received 200 mg rituximab 1 week before surgery, had 3 plasma exchange sessions before transplant, and received intravenous immunoglobulin 20 g/day during surgery and after surgery for 5 days. We measured flow-panel reactive antibodies of T-cell and B-cell-positive patients just before surgery to check desensitization efficiency. We evaluated patient survival, graft survival, graft function, and frequency of rejection and infectious diseases. RESULTS: Patient survival and graft survival were 100% in both groups. Flow cytometry crossmatch T-cell and B-cell-positive cases had no rejection events, but T-cell and B-cell-negative groups developed rejection. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of infection and graft function. Flow-panel reactive antibody demonstrated improvement in all T-cell and B-cell-positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: In living-donor kidney transplant, flow cytometry crossmatch T-cell and B-cell-positive patients are still considered to be at high risk. Although this is a short-term outcome, all T-cell and B-cell-positive patients in this study achieved excellent results with appropriate preoperative and postoperative treatment.

Pancreas transplantation: a single-institution experience in Japan.

PURPOSE: We herein report our experience with pancreas transplantation in 26 patients at a single institution in Japan between August 2001 and December 2011. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 26 pancreas transplantations performed in our institute. RESULTS: The early complications (within 2 weeks) included one graft venous thrombosis, one arterial thrombosis, and two reoperations for bleeding. Of the 26 pancreas transplant recipients, five lost pancreas graft function. Of 24 simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients, three lost kidney graft function due to noncompliance. The patient, pancreas, and kidney survival rates were 100, 96 and 93 % at 1 year; 100, 80 and 93 % at 5 years; and 100, 67 and 68 % at 10 years, respectively. Of all these complications, venous thrombosis after pancreas transplantation was the most critical. CONCLUSIONS: As the largest series of pancreas transplantations in a single institution in Japan, our series yielded better results than the worldwide data recorded by the International Pancreas Transplant Registry. Routine postoperative anticoagulation therapy is not necessary for the prevention of graft thrombosis if sufficient fluid infusion is strictly controlled and the graft blood flow is frequently monitored. When graft thrombosis occurs, both early detection and appropriate intervention are extremely important if the pancreas graft is to survive.

One-year follow-up of treatment with once-daily tacrolimus in de novo renal transplant.

OBJECTIVES: The once-daily prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus (tacrolimus QD) is expected to demonstrate equivalent efficacy and safety to the twice-daily formulation (tacrolimus BID). We reviewed the 1-year outcomes of tacrolimus QD in de novo renal transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 50 de novo renal transplant patients assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to either tacrolimus QD (n=23, historic control group) or tacrolimus BID (n=27). Other immunosuppressive drugs used in both groups included mycophenolate mofetil, basiliximab, and steroids. We evaluated trough levels, required dosages, renal function, rejection rates, and episodes of infection within 1 year after transplant. RESULTS: Trough levels of both drugs varied during the perioperative periods, but subsequently stabilized in both groups. There was a tendency toward a slow elevation and a higher dosage requirement in the tacrolimus QD group, compared with the tacrolimus BID group in the early stages, though the required dosages decreased steadily. The rejection rate in the tacrolimus QD group was low, and only 1 patient experienced subclinical rejection. No severe infectious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking tacrolimus QD tended to have lower trough levels and require higher dosages than those taking tacrolimus BID during the early posttransplant period, though the differences decreased with increasing time after transplant. Tacrolimus QD can be administered with excellent efficacy and safety in de novo renal transplant recipients.