Indications for liver transplantation in British Columbia's Aboriginal population: a 10-year retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To study the indications for liver transplantation among British Columbia's First Nation population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the British Columbia Transplant Society's database of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal liver transplant recipients from 1989 to 1998 was undertaken. For primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), the transplant assessment database (patients with and without transplants) was analyzed using a binomial distribution and compared with published census data regarding British Columbia's proportion of Aboriginal people. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1998, 203 transplantations were performed in 189 recipients. Fifteen recipients were Aboriginal (n=15; 7.9%). Among all recipients, the four most frequent indications for liver transplantation were hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (n=57; 30.2%), PBC (n=34; 18.0%), alcohol (n=22; 11.6%) and autoimmune hepatitis (n=14; 7.4%). Indications for liver transplantation among Aboriginal people were PBC (n=8; 53.3%; P<0.001 compared with non-Aboriginal people), autoimmune hepatitis (n=4; 26.67%; P=0.017), acute failure (n=2; 13.3%) and HCV (n=1). Among all patients referred for liver transplantation with PBC (n=43), 29 (67.44%) were white and 11 (25.6%) were Aboriginal. A significant difference was found between the proportion of Aboriginal people referred for liver transplantation and the proportion of Aboriginal people in British Columbia (139,655 of 3,698,755 [3.8%]; 1996 Census, Statistics Canada) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginal people in British Columbia are more likely to be referred for liver transplantation with a diagnosis of PBC but are less likely to receive a liver transplant because of HCV or alcohol than are non-Aboriginal people.

Correlation between physiological assessment and outcome after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Critical shortages of organ donors for transplantation require appropriate utilization of this scarce resource. The purpose of this study was to assess whether use of physiological parameters of preliver transplant recipients is helpful in determining eventual outcome. METHODS: Between October 1989 and June 1999, 215 liver transplants were performed on 199 patients at the Vancouver Hospital nad Health Sciences Centre. Thirty-one patients undergoing transplantation between May 1993 and June 1994 were retrospectively evaluated to obtain a minimum 5-year follow-up. Variables examined included pretransplant activation status (status 1, at home; status 2, hospitalized; status 3, admitted to intensive care; status 4, mechanical ventilation), simplified acute physiological score (SAPS), Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and APACHE III scores at the time of transplantation. The scores were correlated to posttransplant mortality and functional outcome. RESULTS: The 5-year mortality for status 1 patients was 14.3% versus 30% for patients listed as status 2 or greater (P = not significant). There were no significant differences in any of the physiological scoring assessments with regard to posttransplant mortality or functional assessment. Of the surviving patients, 18 of 22 who were employed, in school, or active at home pretransplant returned to their pretransplant activity. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed physiological scoring systems are no more accurate in predicting outcome after liver transplant than current listing status parameters.

Assessment of immunologic status of liver transplant recipients by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in response to stimulation by donor alloantigen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a role for assessing peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) cytokine patterns as a means of measuring the immunologic and clinical status of liver transplant recipients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The role of assessing cytokine patterns in the prediction of clinical graft rejection or acceptance remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the cytokine profiles of PBMC stimulated in vitro with donor alloantigen and to correlate prospectively the data with clinical assessment of graft status in orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipients. METHODS: PBMCs from OLT recipients were examined for proliferation and cytokine mRNA expression after stimulation by donor alloantigen, third-party alloantigen, or phytohemagglutinin (PHA). mRNA extracted from PBMC was amplified by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction with oligospecific primer pairs for interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, interferon (IFN) gamma, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha and transforming growth factor (TGF) beta. Results were prospectively correlated with each patient's allograft status. RESULTS: Increased IL-4 and TGF-beta and decreased IL-2, IFNgamma, and TNF-alpha mRNA expression by PBMCs in response to donor alloantigen stimulation predicted immunologic graft stability over a minimum 60-day interval compared with mRNA expression of PBMCs from patients with established rejection or those who experienced a rejection episode within a 30-day period (p < 0.05). Stimulation of recipient PBMCs with third-party alloantigens or PHA yielded similar but less specific results. PBMC proliferation to varying antigenic stimulation did not correlate with clinical graft status, nor did cytokine production by unstimulated PBMC. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective assessment of cytokine expression by PBMC from OLT recipients in response to stimulation by donor alloantigen is helpful for predicting the clinical status of the allograft and may be useful in the development of more precise immunologic monitoring protocols.

Double-blind comparison of cefazolin and ceftizoxime for prophylaxis against infections following elective biliary tract surgery.

Antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence of wound infections after elective biliary tract procedures. Cefazolin and cefoxitin are among the agents most commonly promoted for this purpose. Cefoxitin has been substituted with ceftizoxime in many institutions; however, the role of ceftizoxime as a prophylactic agent in this setting has not been determined. To assess the comparative prophylactic efficacies of cefazolin and ceftizoxime in biliary tract surgery, we conducted a double-blind, randomized prospective clinical trial in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Adult patients were randomized to one of two treatment groups and received a 30-min preoperative dose of study drug and as many as two postoperative doses at 12 and 24 h, depending on hospitalization status. Cefazolin and ceftizoxime were given as 1,000-mg doses. Patients with infections, those receiving prior antibiotics, or those with beta-lactam allergies were excluded. Over the 19-month study tenure, 167 patients were enrolled. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis because of protocol violations. Of the 150 evaluable patients (72 and 78 receiving cefazolin and ceftizoxime doses, respectively), there was no significant difference among groups regarding sex, age, weight, preoperative Apache II score, baseline chemistry, and hematological parameters. Groups were also equivalent regarding the surgeon, type of procedure, characteristics (blood loss, drains, organ injury, and complications), and duration of hospital stay (mean, 5.6 versus 4.3 days [P = 0.31]). No clinical evidence of infection (7-day hospital stay and 30-day follow-up) was identified in 93% of cefazolin and 92% of ceftizoxime patients (P = 1.0). Microbiological confirmation was found in only 18% of primary-site infections. In conclusion, cefazolin and ceftizoxime appear to be equivalent for the prevention of infection in biliary tract surgery with the dosage regimens studied.