Donation After Cardiac Death in Liver Transplantation: An Additional Source of Organs With Similar Results to Donation After Brain Death.

BACKGROUND: As new sources of organs are needed, liver transplantation using donors after cardiac death (DCD) is progressively increasing, but outcomes with this method are still questioned. This study was accomplished to verify that DCD outcomes are comparable to those seen in donation after brain death (DBD). METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study including 100 liver transplantation performed between 2014 and 2017, divided according to donor type in 75 DBD and 25 DCD. RESULTS: DCD donors were younger (mean age: DCD 56 years, DBD 59 years; P = .009). Mean Modified End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was lower for DCD (DCD 16, DBD 19; P < .001). No differences were found regarding ischemia times and development of postreperfusion syndrome or coagulopathy. Primary graft dysfunction was more frequent in DCD (60%, DCD 29.3%; P = .006). Rates of primary graft nonfunction (DCD 0%, DBD 1.3%; P = .562) and acute rejection (DCD 20%, DBD 16.4%; P = .685) were similar. Acute kidney injury occurred more often in DBD (DCD 32%, DBD 12%; P = .051). Length of stay was comparable. Rates of biliary complications (DCD 20%, DBD 26.7%; P = .505) were similar, unlike ischemic cholangiopathy (DCD 12%, DBD 1.3%; P = .018). Retransplantation rates were also similar (DCD 8%, DBD 4%; P = .427) as was survival rate after 3 years (DCD 84%, DBD 86.7%; P = .739). CONCLUSION: DCD represents an additional graft source with results that are encouraging and may be comparable to DBD with a careful donor and recipient selection.

Comparison of 3 Explant-Based Prognostic Models as Predictors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Liver Transplantation: Analysis of Our Experience.

Tumor load is often underdiagnosed on radiological examination previous to liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocarcinoma (CHC). Thus, post-liver transplant explant analysis is required following transplantation to assess the risk of the recurrence of CHC. The objectives were to compare the characteristics of CHC on pre-LT radiological examination and explant histology and validate three models for the prediction of recurrence based on data from a cohort of patients treated in our hospital. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken of 105 LTs for CHC performed in our unit between January 2006 and January 2015. The minimum follow-up was five years. The preoperative radiological tumor stage was compared to the explant-based histologic stage. Three prognostic models were validated using our cohort of patients. RESULTS: Following Milan's criteria, the tumor load was underdiagnosed on pre-LT radiological examination in 20 patients, which accounted for 19% of the total sample. The 5-year overall recurrence was 6.6% for scores <4 and 33.3% for scores ≥4 according to Decaens' model; 7% for scores ≤7 and 25% for scores >7 in the Up-to-Seven model; and 3.6% for PCRS ≤0, 27.8% for PCRS1-2, and 100% for PCRS≥3 according to Chan's model. The predictive model for 5-year recurrence after LT with the greatest area under the curve was Chan's model (0.813 [95% CI: 0.650-0.977]) versus Decaens' model (0.674 [95% CI: 0.483-0.866]) and the Up-to-Seven model (0.481 [95% CI: 0.296-0.667]). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-LT radiological examination leads to the underdiagnosis of tumor load, and the risk for recurrence must be recalculated following LT. In light of the results obtained, Chan's model is more accurate in predicting 5-year recurrence of CHC post-LT based on 3 levels of risk. New prognostic models are needed to optimize the prediction of recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma.

Acute Liver Failure Caused by Primary Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma of the Liver.

INTRODUCTION: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare syndrome involving maximum liver dysfunction. This disease is characterized by a less than 26-week history of coagulopathy (INR ≥1.5) and hepatic encephalopathy and generally occurs in patients without any previously known disease. METHODS: We report the case of a healthy 25-year-old subject who presented with fulminant liver failure caused by a primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the liver that required emergency liver transplantation. Diagnosis was based on pathologic confirmation of T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma and submassive hepatocyte necrosis. One year after surgery, the patient remains in complete remission. CONCLUSIONS: Fulminant liver failure is a sudden-onset severe disease that can be caused by a primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the liver, which accounts for <1% of extranodal lymphomas. The diagnosis of this rare disease demands high diagnostic suspicion, and progression can be prevented through liver transplantation.

Pancreas Preservation With Viaspan, Celsior, and Custodiol Solutions: An Initial Experience.

BACKGROUND: There is still controversy about which preservation solution in pancreas transplantation could be the best. The aim of this study was to analyze our initial experience with Custodiol solution (CuS) compared with Viaspan solution (VS) and Celsior solution (CS) in pancreas transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective study included 94 consecutive pancreatic transplants, from 2007 until 2015. We compared 3 groups, depending on preservation solution: Viaspan (n = 41), Celsior (n = 40), or Custodiol (n = 13). The primary end point was patient and pancreas survival at 1 year after pancreas transplantation. RESULTS: The recipient and donor characteristics were similar except in cold ischemia time; it was higher with Celsior. No differences were found in postoperative complications and pancreas graft function at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year (glucose, HbA1c, C-peptide, creatinine). The pancreas and patient survival at 1 year was comparable (pancreas survival: VS, 80%; CS, 90%; CuS, 92%; log-rank, 0.875; and patient survival: VS, 92%; CS, 97%; CuS, 100%; log-rank, 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, the Custodiol solution in pancreas transplantation presented similar outcomes in terms of postoperative complications, pancreas graft function, and 1-year survival.

Induction therapy in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation: thymoglobulin versus basiliximab.

BACKGROUND: Induction therapy for simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. Both thymoglobulin (ATG) and basiliximab are the most-used types of induction antibodies therapies in clinical practice. The aim of our report was to analyze our experience comparing 2 induction therapies, for SPK transplantation in terms of pancreas and patient survival, as well as rejection rate. METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively a total of 97 SPK transplantations in our institution. The cases were divided according to induction therapy in 2 groups, basiliximab (n = 38) and ATG (n = 59). Rejection, patient and graft survival, and postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Survival in the ATG group was better without statistical difference at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up (97%, 95%, and 95% versus 92%, 90%, and 87%, respectively). No difference was detected in pancreas graft survival after 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up (basiliximab 85%, 80%, and 77% versus ATG 84%, 84%, and 81%, respectively; log-rank, 0.847). Overall cellular rejection and early rejection were more common in the basiliximab group (30 versus 14%, and 21% versus 6%). In the multivariate analysis considering human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, the ATG group was a protective factor for cellular rejection. Major complications (Grade III-IV) and median length of the hospital stay were higher in the basiliximab group (55% versus 34%, P = .057, and 21 versus 16 days, P = .056). CONCLUSIONS: The pancreas graft survival was not affected by induction therapy. ATG induction therapy compared with basiliximab is associated with lower overall and early rejection rate. Over time this difference disappears.

Pancreas graft survival in simultaneous pancreas-kidney versus pancreas-after-kidney and pancreas alone transplantations: a single institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas transplantation offers excellent outcomes today in patients who have type-1 diabetes mellitus (DM) with difficult control in terms of increasing patient and pancreatic graft survival. Different factors in donors, recipients, and the perioperative period have been associated with long-term graft survival. The aim of this study was to compare pancreatic graft survival in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and the other two modalities, pancreas-alone and pancreas-after-kidney transplantation (non-SPK), at our institution. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 63 pancreas transplantation patients from January 2007 to May 2012 at our institution. The patients were divided into two groups: SPK and non-SPK transplantations. We excluded those patients who had transplants with vascular graft loss. The primary endpoint was 1-year and overall graft survival with consideration of multiple relevant variables. Non-parametric tests were calculated with the statistical package SPSS 20 (SPSS INC, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The 1-year and overall graft survival in this period was 87.3% and 82.5%, respectively. The median follow-up was 963 days. The causes of graft loss were vascular (64%) and immunologic (34%). Finally, we included 56 pancreas transplantations, 46 (82%) were SPK and 10 (18%) non-SPK. The donor and recipient characteristics were similar in both groups, except for the duration of DM (SPK 22 years vs. non-SPK 29 years) and recipient body mass index (SPK 23 vs. non-SPK 28); P = .042 and P = .003, respectively. The cold ischemia time was 563 minutes (standard deviation, 145). Bivariate analysis showed that long-term graft loss was only influenced by matching for gender (P = .023). Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the pancreas graft survival was better in SPK than in non-SPK transplants (log rank .038). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who receive pancreas-alone or pancreas-after-kidney grafts have shorter long-term graft survival. Multiple strategies should be applied to improve immunologic surveillance and obtain an early diagnosis of graft rejection.

Impact of blood amylase peak over vascular graft thrombosis in pancreas transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Vascular graft thrombosis (VGT) is still the achuilles heel in pancreas transplantation (PT); it is the main cause of nonimmunologic graft loss. Early diagnosis is essential to avoid transplantectomy. The aim of our study was to analyze the peak amylase during the first 3 days after PT as risk factor for VGT. METHODS: This retrospective study included 58 pancreas transplants in 55 patients from January 2007 to November 2011. They underwent an anticoagulation protocol based on unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin. The technique consisted of enteric drainage and systemic venous drainage. The primary endpoint was VGT with consideration of multiple relevant variables. The maximum amylase level was determined during the first 3 days after transplantation. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish a cutoff point as (mean plus one standard deviation; 745 mg/dL), calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. RESULTS: Recipient characteristics were 71% males with an overall mean age of 39 years (range, 23-55) and body mass index 24 (range, 19-36). The donor sex was similar. Mean donor age was 32 years with occurrences of hypotension in 9%, cerebrovascular brain death in 46%. Mean ischemia time was 10 hours and 45 minutes. Mean blood amylase peak was 395 mg/dL. Seven VGT cases were diagnosed during the postoperative period including six with complete thrombosis requring transplantectomy. Bivariate analysis showed the group of subjects with amylase levels above 745 mg/dL to display on eight-fold greater risk for VGT (odds ratio = 8.6; P = .032). The area under the curve of blood amylase peak during the first 3 days to detect VGT was 0.630 (95% confidence interval 0.41-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: A blood amylase peak above 745 mg/dL in the first 3 days after transplantation was associated with risk for VGT.