Timing of surgery in ulcerative colitis in the biologic therapy era-the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: There is no general consensus regarding the ideal timing of surgery in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). Decision-making and timing of restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is influenced by treating physicians and patients themselves. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not patients would have preferred the operation to be performed earlier, at the same time, or at a later point of time and to determine the reasons for their preference. METHODS: Clinical data of 193 patients with UC who have undergone IPAA were documented in a prospective database at our institution between 2004 and 2015. From this database, 190 patients were identified and a standardized custom-made questionnaire was mailed for follow-up survey. Patients who did not respond were called by telephone and encouraged to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred nine questionnaires were eligible for analysis (57.4%). Average time between diagnosis and surgery was 11.2 ± 10.8 years (mean ± SD). Indications for surgery were refractory disease (70.6%), colitis-associated colorectal cancer (11.0%), high-grade dysplasia or stenosis (11.9%), and septic complications of UC (6.4%); 39 of 77 patients (50.6%) with refractory UC reported to have preferred their operation to be carried out earlier as it was actually performed (16.8 ± 11.9 months). Refractory course of the disease was identified as a predictor for a retrospectively desired earlier surgical approach (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients felt that they should have undergone surgery earlier than actually performed. It appears that timing of the decision to undergo surgery is suboptimal. This situation may be improved by earlier surgical consultation in the course of the disease.

Long-Term Function of Kidneys From an Acute Renal Failure Donor on Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration: A Case Report.

The organ shortage has induced many transplant centers to use suboptimal grafts, such as those from expanded criteria donors and donors after cardiac death. Acute renal failure donors, sometimes present in intensive therapy units, have been used in a very low number of cases due to the fear of primary nonfunction of this type of graft. There are few published studies about the utilization of donors with severe acute renal failure and there is no general consensus identifying unequivocal criteria for their use by different transplant centers. We transplanted 2 kidneys from a 67-year-old donor who suffered from acute renal failure as a consequence of extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery and died of a massive cerebral edema with cistern obliteration. The kidneys were discarded by other transplant centers due to the patient's acute renal failure, treated by continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Both transplants were successful and both grafts showed very good renal function after 6 months. One recipient suffered from delayed graft function and renal drug toxicity, which resolved 1 month post transplant. The long-term graft function at 10 years is acceptable, with very low proteinuria. As a growing gap between the inadequate supply and constantly high demand for kidney transplantation has led doctors to explore novel policies to increase the number of available organs over the last 2 decades, acute renal failure treated by continuous venovenous hemofiltration does not seem to be a contraindication for the utilization of grafts.