The survival advantage of pancreas after kidney transplant.

Patient survival after pancreas after kidney transplant (PAK) has been reported to be inferior to patient survival after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPK). The authors examine national data to further explore allograft (kidney and pancreas) and patient survival after PAK. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data from 1995 to 2010. The analysis compared PAK and SPK candidates and recipients. Kaplan-Meier analysis results showed that PAK after either a living or a deceased donor kidney transplant is associated with increased kidney graft survival compared with recipients with type 1 diabetes who received only a kidney. The best kidney allograft survival was for patients who received a living donor kidney followed by PAK. Receiving a living donor kidney was associated with increased pancreas allograft survival compared with receiving a deceased donor kidney. PAK transplant recipients who receive both organs have a survival advantage compared with uremic candidates who receive neither (SPK waitlist). Compared with uremic diabetic waitlist patients, SPK and PAK recipients showed similar overall patient survival. Successful PAK offers a survival advantage compared with receiving neither a kidney nor a pancreas transplant. These data also suggest that receiving a pancreas (after kidney) transplant may have a protective effect on the kidney allograft.

20- to 25-year patient and graft survival following a single pediatric liver transplant-Analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing database: Where to go from here.

To understand factors contributing to liver graft loss and patient death, we queried a national database designed to follow pediatric patients transplanted between 1987 and 1995 till adulthood. A comparison was made to a cohort transplanted between 2000 and 2014. The 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year patient survival and graft survival were 95.5%, 93.7%, 89.1%, 80.8%, and 73.1%, and 92.5%, 86.7%, 77.6%, 68.7%, and 62.2%, respectively. The twenty-year patient/graft survival was significantly worse in those transplanted between 5 and 17 years of age compared to those transplanted at <5 years of age (P < 0.001). For the modern era cohort, the 3-year patient survival was significantly lower in children transplanted at 16-17 years of age compared to those transplanted at <5 and 11-15 years of age (P ≤ 0.02). The 3-year graft survival was similarly lower in children transplanted at 16-17 years of age compared to those transplanted at <5, 5-10, and 11-15 years of age (P ≤ 0.001). Infection as a cause of death occurred either early or >15 years post-transplant. Chronic rejection remained the leading cause of graft loss in both cohorts and the commonest indication for retransplantation 20-25 years following primary transplant. Further research is required to identify modifiable factors contributing to development of chronic rejection.

Comparison of heart transplant outcomes between recipients with pulsatile- vs continuous-flow LVAD.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous-flow (CF) left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have replaced pulsatile flow (PF) LVADs irrespective of concerns from the physiologic changes/morbidity secondary to lack of pulsatility. Data comparing posttransplant outcomes in patients with CF vs PF LVADs are limited and conflicting. We used the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network database to compare posttransplant outcomes between CF and PF LVAD patients. METHODS: From 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011, 3449 adult patients underwent primary heart alone transplantation. The cohort was restricted to 2741 recipients with LVAD at the time of transplant and divided into two groups: PF (Heartmate XVE) (n = 705) and CF (Heartmate II, HeartWare HVAD, and Jarvik 2000) (n = 2036). Endpoints were 30-day freedom from graft failure, 1-, and 5-year patient survival. Propensity score matching identified 705 pairs for adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: Among propensity-matched patients, 30-day freedom from graft failure after heart transplantation (PF = 94.8% vs CF = 95.2%, P > .7), and 1-, and 5-year patient survival (PF; 87.5% vs CF; 88.9%, P = .4, and PF;75.7% vs CF;77.5%, P = .3) were not different. CONCLUSION: Survival and freedom from graft failure after heart transplantation is similar between CF and PF LVADs. These findings are relevant as the use of CF devices increases despite physiologic changes related to the absence of pulsatility.

Duration of corticosteroid use and long-term outcomes after adult heart transplantation: A contemporary analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term corticosteroid (CS) maintenance remains an effective option for immunosuppression following heart transplantation. We used the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry to examine characteristics and long-term survival among heart transplant recipients with different duration of CS therapy. METHODS: Primary adult heart recipients transplanted between 2000 and 2008 who survived at least 5 years were categorized into three groups according to CS use: early withdrawal (≤2 years) (EARLY D/C), late withdrawal (between 2 and 5 years) (LATE D/C), or long-term use (>5 years) (LONG-TERM). Recipient and donor characteristics, post-transplant morbidities, and mortality were compared among groups. Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate survival up to 10 years post-transplant. RESULTS: The study cohort included 8161 recipients (2043 in EARLY D/C; 2031 in LATE D/C; and 4087 in LONG-TERM). LONG-TERM use of CS decreased over time, from 60% in 2000 to 43% in 2008, while EARLY D/C increased from 19% to 33%, respectively. Survival at 10 years after transplant was lower among the LONG-TERM group (73% vs EARLY D/C 82% vs LATE D/C 80%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational cohort, the practice of long-term CS maintenance was associated with lower long-term survival compared with shorter CS use.