Effects of portal versus systemic venous drainage in pancreas and kidney-pancreas transplantation.

UNLABELLED: We performed a retrospective analysis to compare pancreas transplantation with systemic-enteric drainage (SE) or portal-enteric drainage (PE). METHODS: We reviewed 38 consecutive pancreas transplants including 31 simultaneous kidney-pancreas (SKP) and 7 pancreas after kidney (PAK), using either systemic (n = 18) or portal (n = 20) venous drainage. Demographic, clinical, and immunologic variables were similar for both groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient, kidney, or pancreas allograft survival rates after a mean follow-up of 23 months (range 1-60). The mean length of hospital stay within 3 months was 34 days among the SE group versus 20 days in the PE group (P = ns). The incidences of intraabdominal infection, early relaparotomy, and acute rejection episodes were not different between groups. The blood pressure levels were similar among the SE and PE groups. There was no significant difference in creatinine, or fasting glucose, C-peptide, cholesterol, or triglyceride levels or homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) beta cell, HOMA-S, and HOMA-IR index. HbA1c was lower at 6 and 12 months in the PE group (P < .05). Mean prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil doses as well as tacrolimus levels were identical for both groups. CONCLUSION: The results suggested sustained long-term endocrine function in both groups, showing that in the short term, portal venous drainage did not offer major metabolic or immunologic advantages compared with systemic delivery of insulin.

Renal transplantation from non-heart-beating donors: a single-center 10-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Reluctance to accept non-heart-beating donors (NHBD) as a source of kidneys, is due to medical, ethical, and logistical reasons. Evidence suggest that the short-term graft survival is similar to that of kidneys obtained from heart-beating donors (HBD). However, few studies, with long-term follow-up are available. We conducted a single-center study of kidneys obtained from NHBD, in a 14-year period. METHODS: We studied 100 patients transplanted with kidneys between 1989 and 2004, using NHBD, supported by heart compression and mechanical ventilation (n = 24), intravascular in situ cooling (n = 59), or cardiorespiratory resuscitation plus manual abdominal counterpulsation without cooling (n = 17), the last technique being used from 1998. The median follow-up was 51 +/- 51 months (range, 1 to 170). The outcomes of these procedures were compared to those of 1025 transplantations of kidneys from HBD performed during the same period. RESULTS: The characteristics of the recipients did not differ significantly between the two groups. Kidneys from NHBD showed a significantly higher rate of delayed graft function (DGF; 84% vs 26%; (P < .001), furthermore, the primary nonfunction (PNF) incidence was significantly higher with NHBD vs HBD (16% vs 10%; P < .001). The incidence of acute rejection episodes (ARE) within 3 months and at 1 year did not differ between the groups of donors; however, more NHBD kidneys were lost from ARE. The short-term (3-month and 1 year) and long-term (5 and 10 years) renal function, determined by the serum creatinine levels, and patient and graft survival were not different for kidneys obtained from NHBD. CONCLUSIONS: The incidences of PNF and DGF were significantly higher with NHBD, which produced poorer renal function at the time of hospital discharge. One-, 5-, and 10-year graft survivals and renal function did not differ between NHBD and HBD grafts. In our series, PNF was the main barrier to the use of NHBD.