Anesthetic management for intestinal transplantation: A decade of experience.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal transplantation (ITx) is the definitive therapy for patients suffering from intestinal failure. Previously published reports suggest that these cases should be managed perioperatively with the same intensive monitors and techniques as in liver transplantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the anesthetic management of 67 isolated intestinal, intestinal-pancreas, and intestinal-kidney transplants over the previous decade (2005-2015) in our tertiary care institution. RESULTS: Patients were typically managed with a single arterial line, a single central venous catheter, and rarely intensive modalities such as a pulmonary artery catheter, a transesophageal echocardiography, a second arterial catheter or central venous catheter, a rapid infusion system, a cell salvage device, or viscoelastic testing. Significant hemodynamic derangements were rare, and the rate of postreperfusion syndrome was 8.96%. Our fluid administration type and volume and transfusion type and volume were similar to previous reports in which more intensive anesthetic management was employed. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that ITx can safely occur without utilizing the intensive resources requisite for a liver transplant.

Small-for-size Syndrome Does Not Occur in Intestinal Transplantation Without Liver Containing Grafts.

BACKGROUND: The ideal donor in intestinal transplantation (ITX) is generally considered to be 50% to 70% of recipient body weight. This may be due to concerns for "small for size" syndrome as seen in liver transplantation. We report our experience using smaller donors (donor-recipient weight ratio [DRWR], < 50%) in ITX recipients. METHODS: We studied a group of ITX recipients with DRWR of 50% or less to unmatched controls who received intestinal allografts with DRWR greater than 50%. We examined patient and graft survival and enteral autonomy from parenteral nutrition as surrogate markers for safety of using smaller donors and ease of abdominal wall closure between groups to determine the value. RESULTS: There was no difference in overall patient and graft survival, time to enteral autonomy from parenteral nutrition, and weight gain after ITX over time between groups. The need for complicated abdominal closure techniques was significantly more frequent in the control group than in the study group (34.6% vs 6.9%, P = 0.01). Secondary abdominal closure occurred more frequently in the control group (15.4% vs 0%, P = 0.014). Wound revisions also occurred more frequently in the control group (15.4% vs 0%, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ITX using smaller donors (DRWR ≤ 50%) seems to be an acceptable practice without adverse impact on surgical complications, nutritional autonomy, and patient and graft survival. Abdominal wall closure seems easier in recipients of smaller donors and "small for size" syndrome as described in liver transplantation does not occur with intestinal allografts.