Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation: A national quality improvement project.

Cannulation is essential for haemodialysis with arteriovenous access, but also damages the arteriovenous access making it prone to failure, is associated with complications and affects patients' experiences of haemodialysis. Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation is a national UK quality improvement project, designed to improve cannulation practice in the United Kingdom, ensuring it reflects current needling recommendations. It uses a simple quality improvement method, the Model for Improvement, to structure improvement to cannulation practice. It assists units in the practical implementation of the British Renal Society and Vascular Access Society of Britain and Ireland needling recommendations, ensuring actual cannulation practice reflects what is defined as best practice in cannulation. An eLearning package and awareness materials have been developed, to assist units in changing their cannulation practice. The Kidney Quality Improvement Partnership provides a structure for Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation that promotes development and dissemination. It is hoped that Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation will raise an understanding about the cannulation of arteriovenous access and change behaviours and beliefs around correct cannulation practice, to ensure longevity of this lifeline.

Surgical complications following liver transplantation in patients with portal vein thrombosis--a single-center perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) was once considered a contraindication for liver transplantation (LTx) because of technical difficulties. Though no longer a contraindication, it remains a risk factor. AIM: A study of surgical complications following LTx in patients with and without PVT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 1,171 consecutive patients who underwent LTx between June 1995 and June 2007 was performed, and 78 recipients with PVT (study group) were compared with a stratified random sample of 78 contemporous recipients without PVT (control group) for postoperative complications. Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, race, and other confounding variables. RESULTS: The rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) in the study and control groups was 9.0% and 1.3%, (p = 0.063), while that of retransplantation was 17.9% and 7.7% (p = 0.055), respectively. The mean donor risk index (DRI) among the patients with and without PNF in the study group was 2.58 +/- 0.44 and 2.08 +/- 0.42, respectively (p = 0.014). A significantly higher number of packed red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma transfusions were observed in study group compared to controls (p = 0.012, 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSION: A higher rate of PNF was related to the complexity of the surgical procedure and the use of donor livers with a high DRI. Higher rates of PNF eventually led to a higher rate of retransplant. A strategy of offering donor livers with a low DRI might be helpful in decreasing the rate of PNF. Further, a PV interposition graft in difficult cases instead of thrombectomy could lead to a lower rethrombosis rate.

Liver grafts from donors with central nervous system tumors: a single-center perspective.

Traditionally, patients who die with a malignancy have been excluded from donation. However, it has become a common practice to accept organs from donors that have low-grade tumors or tumors with low metastatic potential. The aim of this study was to analyze our experience with the use of liver grafts from donors with central nervous system (CNS) tumors. A retrospective review of 1173 liver transplants performed between 1992 and 2006 identified 42 donors diagnosed with a CNS tumor. Thirty-two tumors were malignant, and 10 tumors were benign. Forty-two liver transplant recipients received livers from these donors. All patients were followed until May 2007 with a mean follow-up of 29 +/- 17 months. Among 42 donors, there were 28 males and 14 females. The mean donor risk index was 1.78 +/- 0.39. Twenty (47.6%) of the CNS tumors were glioblastoma multiforme (astrocytoma grade IV), 11 (26.2%) were other astrocytomas, and 1 (2.4%) was an anaplastic ependymoma. Twenty (62.5%) neoplasms were grade IV tumors, 8 (25%) were grade II tumors, and 4 (12.5%) were grade III tumors. Over 80% of the patients had at least 1 kind of invasive procedure violating the blood-brain barrier. The rate of recurrence for the entire group was 2.4% (all CNS tumors). There were 7 (7.2%) deaths in all. The most common cause of death was sepsis (n = 3, 7.2%). There was no difference in survival between recipients of grafts from donors with CNS tumors and recipients of grafts from donors without CNS tumors (1 year: 82% versus 83.3%, P = not significant; 3 years: 77.4% versus 72%, P = not significant). In conclusion, in our experience, despite violation of the blood-brain barrier and high-grade CNS tumors, recurrence was uncommon. Grafts from these donors are often an overlooked source of high-quality organs from younger donors and can be appropriately used, particularly in patients who, despite low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, carry a high risk of mortality.

Potential immunological advantage of intravenous mycophenolate mofetil with tacrolimus and steroids in primary deceased donor liver transplantation and live donor liver transplantation without antibody induction.

With the current immunosuppressive regimens, graft loss secondary to immunological reasons after successful liver transplantation is a rarity; acute rejections, however, do occur, with the majority of them being steroid-responsive. The aim of the present study is to examine the rate of acute rejection with tacrolimus, intravenous (IV) mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and steroids in primary deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) and live donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients. During the year 2005, 130 patients (mean age: 54.9 +/- 10.8, males: 84, females: 46, 112 DDLT and 18 LDLT) received primary liver transplantation. They were followed up for the incidence of acute rejection in the first 12 months. Liver biopsies were performed as clinically indicated; protocol liver biopsies were never performed. A total of 127 liver biopsies were performed. Thirty-two had a rejection activity index (RAI) score of > or =3, of which 24 biopsies in 20 patients were not treated with a steroid bolus. Eight (6.1%) patients (mean RAI score: 5.1 +/- 1.4) received 750 to 1500 mg of methylprednisolone over 3 days. Out of these, 2 were noncompliant, 4 were off MMF, and 1 was on cyclosporine. All patients responded to steroid therapy. None of the patients required any antibody preparation. In conclusion, IV MMF with tacrolimus and steroids is useful and required antirejection therapy in 6.1% of liver transplant recipients.