Readmission After Pancreas Transplantation: Timing of Surgery Matters.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreas transplantation is associated with good long-term outcomes, but readmissions are frequent. In this study, our objective was to understand the effects of operation start time on postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent deceased donor pancreas transplant in a single center from January 2017 to December 2018. We compared postoperative outcomes of patients in relation to operation start time, which included morning (6 AM to 3 PM), afternoon (3 PM to 7 PM), and evening (7 PM to 6 AM). RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included in the study. The median age was 45 years old, 54.2% were males, and 79.5% had diabetes mellitus type 1. With regard to surgery start time, 50 patients (60.2%) had a start time in the morning, 25 patients (30.1%) in the afternoon, and 8 (9.6%) in the evening. Patients in the morning group had a significantly lower readmission rate compared with the afternoon and evening groups, respectively (50% vs 84% vs 87.5%; P = .04).There were no significant differences in reoperation rate (26% vs 32% vs 12.5%; P = .57), percutaneous drain placement (20% vs 12% vs 12.5%; P = .75), or graft failure (8% vs 4% vs 12.5%; P = .55) among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Morning operative start times were associated with lower readmission after pancreas transplant.

Is Prophylactic Drainage After Pancreas Transplant Associated With Reduced Reoperation Rate?

OBJECTIVES: Advances in surgery and perioperative care have contributed to improved outcomes after pancreas transplant. However, the development of peripancreatic infections carries a poor prognosis. It is not clear whether abdominal drainage is helpful in collection prevention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of adult consecutive pancreas transplants at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2018 was undertaken. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients in whom prophylactic intraoperative drains were placed and patients with no drains. RESULTS: We identified 83 patients who underwent pancreas transplant with a median age of 45 years; 54.2% were males, and median body mass index was 25.8. Thirty patients had 1 or 2 drains placed (36.1%). There was no difference in the readmission rate (70.0% vs 60.4%; P = .48), reoperation (20.0% vs 30.2%; P = .44), or percutaneous drainage of peripancreatic infections (20.0% vs 15.1%; P = .56) between patients with drains and no drains, respectively. However, prophylactic drainage was associated with a lower rate of reoperation for peripancreatic infections compared with those who were not drained (0.0% vs 13.2%; P < .05). No graft loss occurred in the drain group. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic drainage after pancreas transplant may be helpful for reduction in the infection rate after reoperation. The risks of drain placement should be weighed against those of drain avoidance.

Hepatic Artery Pseudoaneurysm in the Liver Transplant Recipient: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm is a rare and potentially fatal complication of liver transplantation with a reported incidence of 0.3-2.6% and associated mortality approaching 75%. Clinical presentation typically includes sudden hypotension, gastrointestinal bleed or abnormal liver function tests within two months of transplantation. We report a series of four cases of hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm in adult liver transplant recipients with the goal of identifying factors that may aid in early diagnosis, prior to the development of life threatening complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review at a high volume transplant center revealed 4 cases of hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm among 553 liver transplants (Incidence 0.72%) between March 2013 and March 2017. RESULTS: Two of the four patients died immediately after intervention, one patient survived an additional 151 days prior to death from an unrelated condition and one patient survived at two years follow up. All cases utilized multiple imaging modalities that failed to identify the pseudoaneurysm prior to diagnosis with computed tomography angiography (CTA). Two cases had culture proven preoperative intrabdominal infections, while the remaining two cases manifested a perioperative course highly suspicious for infection (retransplant for hepatic necrosis after hepatic artery thrombosis and infected appearing vessel at reoperation, respectively). Three of the four cases either had a delayed biliary anastomosis or development of a bile leak, leading to contamination of the abdomen with bile. Additionally, three of the four cases demonstrated at least one episode of hypotension with acute anemia at least 5 days prior to diagnosis of the hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of several clinical features may increase the early identification of hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm in liver transplant recipients. These include culture proven intrabdominal infection or high clinical suspicion for infection, complicated surgical course resulting either in delayed performance of biliary anastomosis or a biliary leak, and an episode of hypotension with acute anemia. In combination, the presence of these characteristics can lead the clinician to investigate with appropriate imaging prior to the onset of life threatening complications requiring emergent intervention. This may lead to increased survival in patients with this life threatening complication.