Superior Long-term Survival for Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation as Renal Replacement Therapy: 30-Year Follow-up of a Nationwide Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 1 diabetes and end-stage renal disease, it is controversial whether a simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation improves survival compared with kidney transplantation alone. We compared long-term survival in SPK and living- or deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included all 2,796 patients with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands who started renal replacement therapy between 1986 and 2016. We used multivariable Cox regression analyses adjusted for recipient age and sex, dialysis modality and vintage, transplantation era, and donor age to compare all-cause mortality between deceased- or living-donor kidney and SPK transplant recipients. Separately, we analyzed mortality between regions where SPK transplant was the preferred intervention (80% SPK) versus regions where a kidney transplant alone was favored (30% SPK). RESULTS: Of 996 transplanted patients, 42%, 16%, and 42% received a deceased- or living-donor kidney or SPK transplant, respectively. Mean (SD) age at transplantation was 50 (11), 48 (11), and 42 (8) years, respectively. Median (95% CI) survival time was 7.3 (6.2; 8.3), 10.5 (7.2; 13.7), and 16.5 (15.1; 17.9) years, respectively. SPK recipients with a functioning pancreas graft at 1 year (91%) had the highest survival (median 17.4 years). Compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients, adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for 10- and 20-year all-cause mortality were 0.79 (0.49; 1.29) and 0.98 (0.69; 1.39) for living-donor kidney and 0.67 (0.46; 0.98) and 0.79 (0.60; 1.05) for SPK recipients, respectively. A treatment strategy favoring SPK over kidney transplantation alone showed 10- and 20-year mortality hazard ratios of 0.56 (0.40; 0.78) and 0.69 (0.52; 0.90), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with living- or deceased-donor kidney transplantation, SPK transplant was associated with improved patient survival, especially in recipients with a long-term functioning pancreatic graft, and resulted in an almost twofold lower 10-year mortality rate.

Abdominal organ procurement in the Netherlands - an analysis of quality and clinical impact.

Between March 2012 and August 2013, 591 quality forms were filled out for abdominal organs in the Netherlands. In 133 cases (23%), there was a discrepancy between the evaluation from the procuring and transplanting surgeons. Injuries were seen in 148 (25%) organs of which 12 (2%) led to discarding of the organ: one of 133 (0.8%) livers, five of 38 (13%) pancreata and six of 420 (1.4%) kidneys (P < 0.001). Higher donor BMI was a risk factor for procurement-related injury in all organs (OR: 1.06, P = 0.011) and donor after cardiac death (DCD) donation in liver procurement (OR: 2.31, P = 0.034). DCD donation is also associated with more pancreata being discarded due to injury (OR: 10.333, P = 0.046). A higher procurement volume in a centre was associated with less injury in pancreata (OR = -0.95, P = 0.013) and kidneys (OR = -0.91, P = 0.012). The quality form system efficiently monitors the quality of organ procurement. Although there is a relatively high rate of organ injury, the discard rate is low and it does not significantly affect 1-year graft survival for any organ. We identified higher BMI as a risk factor for injury in abdominal organs and DCD as a risk factor in livers. A higher procurement volume is associated with fewer injuries.

The dorsal pancreatic artery in pancreas procurement and transplantation: anatomical considerations and potential implications.

AIM: Organ procurement errors account for almost 20% of discarded pancreatic allografts. For this reason, the anatomical significance of the dorsal pancreatic artery (DPA) was reviewed. METHODS: A strategy on dealing with an often overlooked DPA is evaluated. RESULTS: The DPA provides together with the splenic artery the main blood supply to the pancreatic tail. Three different arterial variations have been described. In the rare instances when the DPA arises from the common hepatic artery or the celiac trunk, instead of the splenic origin, the DPA can easily be overlooked by surgeons not familiar with this artery. This may result in an unintentional damage to the pancreatic tail blood supply. If unrecognized during the back-table inspection, it could potentially jeopardize the pancreatic graft after reperfusion. When a cut DPA is encountered during inspection, efforts should be attempted to revascularize the graft, especially if there is no backflow from the splenic artery as sign of absent collateral circulation. CONCLUSION: The DPA may play a more prominent role in the vascularization of pancreas transplants than currently assumed. Better understanding of the vascular anatomy may lead to improved results in pancreas transplantation.

Flushing the liver with urokinase before transplantation does not prevent nonanastomotic biliary strictures.

The aim of the present study was to assess whether flushing the donor liver with urokinase immediately before implantation reduces the incidence of nonanastomotic biliary strictures (NASs) after liver transplantation, without causing increased blood loss, analyzed as a historical cohort study. Between January 2005 and October 2012, all liver (re-)transplantations were included. Of the 185 liver transplant recipients included, 63 donor livers between January 2010 and October 2012 received urokinase (study group), whereas the donor liver of 122 consecutive recipients, who served as a historical control group, between January 2005 and January 2010 did not receive urokinase. Basic donor (Eurotransplant donor risk index) and recipient (age, body mass index, laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score) characteristics did not significantly differ in both groups. Thirty-three recipients developed NASs: 22 in the control group (18%) and 11 (17.5%) in the study group (P = 0.68). Analyzed separately for donation after circulatory death (P = 0.42) or donation after brain death (P = 0.89), there was no difference between the groups in incidence of NAS. Of all the recipients developing NAS, 7 (21%) needed retransplantation and all others were treated conservatively. Autologous blood transfusion requirements did not differ significantly between both groups (P = 0.91), whereas interestingly, more heterologous blood transfusions were needed in the control group (P < 0.001). This study has its limitations by its retrospective character. A multi-institutional prospective study could clarify this issue. In conclusion, arterial flushing of the liver with urokinase immediately before implantation did not lead to a lower incidence of NAS in this study, nor did it lead to increased blood loss.