The significance of pre-operative coronary interventions on outcome after pancreas transplantation.

Pancreas transplant candidates are at very high risk of coronary vascular disease. We hypothesized that the requirement for pre-operative coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with an adverse impact on short- and long-term outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 366 consecutive primary pancreas transplants was undertaken. Outcomes were compared between recipients who had undergone PCI (n = 48) and those who had not (n = 318). In 48% (23/48) of instances, the PCI was initiated by the transplant cardiology evaluation. The recipients undergoing PCI were older than those not undergoing PCI (47.6 yr vs. 41.9 yr, respectively, p < 0.0001). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher rate of post-operative major cardiovascular events (MCVE) in the PCI group (10.4%) compared with those not undergoing PCI (4.7%) (RR [95% CI]: 2.0 [0.90-4.5]; p = 0.17). In the long term, there were no differences in the rate of death with graft function (p = 0.77) or rejection (p = 0.17). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to patient (p = 0.54), kidney (p = 0.76), or pancreas (p = 0.63) graft survival. PCI is not a risk factor for short-term perioperative events, and long-term transplant outcomes are equivalent to patients not requiring PCI. PCI, by itself, should not be considered a contraindication for pancreas transplantation, but should raise awareness of perioperative risk.

Infiltrative (sinusoidal) and hepatitic patterns of injury in acute cellular rejection in liver allograft with clinical implications.

Acute cellular rejection post liver transplant occurs most commonly but not exclusively in the first year. In this study, we report two patterns: sinusoidal infiltrative and hepatitic, which are not considered in the Banff system. We describe their presentation, response to Solu-Medrol, and compare these to the typical moderate-severe acute cellular rejection. Patients transplanted from 2007 to 2012 at University Health Network, who had biopsy-proven rejection in the first year, were studied. Baseline transaminases and bilirubin, time of acute cellular rejection, follow-up, and treatment responses were analyzed. A total of 407 biopsies were received, of which 77 had diagnosis of acute cellular rejection with rejection activity index 5 or above; 49 from viral hepatitis patients were excluded. Twenty-eight were included; 15/28 (54%) had typical acute cellular rejection (tACR) using Banff criteria. Six (21%) had hepatitic acute cellular rejection overlapping with typical features of acute cellular rejection; seven (25%) had infiltrative acute cellular rejection (iACR) overlapping with typical features. The iACR occurred later than the tACR (124 versus 50 days; P = 0.032) and had a higher rise in baseline aspartate aminotransferase (ΔAST) compared with tACR (289 U/l versus 109 U/l; P=0.046). Only one out of seven patients with iACR (14 versus 40% in tACR) failed Solu-Medrol boluses and required thymoglobulin. Patients with hepatitic acute cellular rejection (hACR) had similar ΔAST (P = 0.12) but higher bilirubinemia than typical acute cellular rejection (tACR) (160 µmol/l versus 35 mol/l; P = 0.039) and required thymoglobulin in four out of six (67% versus 40%) instances. Patients with iACR had higher ΔAST than tACR but better Solu-Medrol response compared with both tACR and hACR. hACR is different from plasma cell-rich late-occurring cellular rejection in its pattern but similar in its poor Solu-Medrol response.

Duodenal leaks after pancreas transplantation with enteric drainage - characteristics and risk factors.

Pancreas-kidney transplantation with enteric drainage has become a standard treatment in diabetic patients with renal failure. Leaks of the graft duodenum (DL) remain a significant complication after transplantation. We studied incidence and predisposing factors of DLs in both simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) and pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation. Between January 2002 and April 2013, 284 pancreas transplantations were performed including 191 SPK (67.3%) and 93 PAK (32.7%). Patient data were analyzed for occurrence of DLs, risk factors, leak etiology, and graft survival. Of 18 DLs (incidence 6.3%), 12 (67%) occurred within the first 100 days after transplantation. Six grafts (33%) were rescued by duodenal segment resection. Risk factors for a DL were PAK transplantation sequence (odds ratio 3.526, P = 0.008) and preoperative immunosuppression (odds ratio 3.328, P = 0.012). In the SPK subgroup, postoperative peak amylase as marker of preservation/reperfusion injury and recipient pretransplantation cardiovascular interventions as marker of atherosclerosis severity were associated with an increased incidence of DLs. CMV-mismatch constellations showed an increased incidence in the SPK subgroup, however without significance probability. Long-term immunosuppression in PAK transplantation is a major risk factor for DLs. Early surgical revision offers the chance of graft rescue.

Cytomegalovirus infection post-pancreas-kidney transplantation--results of antiviral prophylaxis in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major pathogen affecting solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Prophylactic strategies have decreased the rate of CMV infection/disease among SOT. However, data on the effect of current prophylactic strategies for simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) or pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplant remain limited. We report our experience of CMV prophylaxis in SPK/PAK recipients. METHODS: A total of 130 post-SPK/PAK patients were analyzed retrospectively for the rate of CMV and the risk factors associated with the acquisition of CMV. All patients received antiviral prophylaxis. The follow-up period was one yr post-transplant or until death. RESULTS: The rate of CMV post-SPK/PAK transplant was 24%, 44%, and 8.2% among the whole cohort, the D+/R- and the R+ groups, respectively. Median time of prophylaxis was 49 (0-254) d. In the whole cohort, risk factors for CMV infection/diseases were D+/R- CMV status (odds ratio [OR] = 16.075), preceding non-CMV (infection caused by bacteria or fungi and other viruses) infection (OR = 6.362) and the duration of prophylaxis (OR = 0.984). Among the CMV D+/R- group, non-CMV infection was the only risk factor for CMV disease (OR = 10.7). CONCLUSIONS: Forty-four per cent (25/57) of the D+/R- recipients developed CMV infection/disease despite CMV prophylaxis. Current CMV prophylaxis failed to prevent CMV infection/disease in this group of patients.

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria are superior to European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria at 1 month follow-up for predicting long-term survival in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether response to transarterial chemoembolization can predict survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are candidates for orthotopic liver transplantation (LT) and if either European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria are more accurate for this purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent LT after transarterial chemoembolization between January 2005 and June 2011 was performed. Follow-up imaging with multiphasic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was performed 1 month after transarterial chemoembolization and every 3 months thereafter until LT. Treatment response was evaluated at each imaging time point using RECIST criteria and EASL criteria. The relationship between survival and objective response (OR), time to response (TTR), time to progression (TTP), and time interval between transarterial chemoembolization and LT was assessed. RESULTS: A median of one transarterial chemoembolization procedure was performed before LT in 58 patients (52 men, 6 women; mean age, 57 y). OR was shown by 28 (48%) patients and 51 (88%) patients at 1 month by EASL criteria and RECIST criteria, respectively. OR at 1-month follow-up using RECIST criteria was associated with increased survival compared with patients with no response (NR) (P = .03). Using RECIST criteria, 5-year survival in the OR group was 66.7% versus 0% in the NR group (P = .015). There was no significant difference in survival in patients who showed OR at 1 month using EASL criteria. There was poor agreement between RECIST and EASL response assessments (κ = 0.23). There was no significant association between survival and TTR, TTP, or time interval between transarterial chemoembolization and LT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with objective response to transarterial chemoembolization at 1 month using RECIST criteria showed improved survival over nonresponders. RECIST criteria demonstrated better accuracy compared with EASL criteria for predicting survival in patients after LT who had transarterial chemoembolization as a "bridge."

Optimizing pancreas transplantation outcomes in obese recipients.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas transplant recipient obesity has been associated with increased risk of perioperative complications, graft failure, and death. The imperative to maximize organ utility must be balanced against the need to maintain equity of access, including for the increasing number of obese diabetic patients. METHODS: We compared the outcomes of pancreas transplant recipients with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m(2) (n=60, mean ± SD BMI 32.1 ± 1.7 kg/m(2)) to those with BMI less than 30 kg/m(2) (n=308, mean ± SD BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)) between 1996 and 2013. RESULTS: There were no differences in the pretransplant recipient or donor characteristics apart from BMI. The BMI greater than 30 group were more likely to suffer a rejection episode (43% vs. 29%; P = 0.03). The median time to first rejection was shorter (1 vs. 6 months; P = 0.04), and wound infection was more common in the BMI greater than 30 group (P = 0.03). There was no difference in the rate of patient, pancreas, or kidney graft survival or difference in graft function between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The obese recipients in this study were in the lower range of the obese category. Although there was an increased risk of rejection and wound infection in the obese group, there was no difference in patient or graft survival. This finding, when compared with previous reports, may be related to stringent recipient selection and posttransplant care particularly with respect to cardiovascular disease.

Intestinal Transplantation: International Outcomes.

Intestinal transplantation has continued to evolve over the past decade. Fewer patients have received intestine transplants in the past 5 years, perhaps due to efforts in intestine rehabilitation. Despite improvement in earlier outcomes, long-term survival has remained steady over the past decade. This is potentially due to the complications of immunosuppression, as well as inherent poor graft half-life due to chronic rejection. Improvements in outcome will require multidisciplinary efforts to understand the long-term mechanisms of intestine graft acceptance and to properly optimize and individualize immunosuppression for the transplant recipient.

Pancreas-after-kidney versus synchronous pancreas-kidney transplantation: comparison of intermediate-term results.

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists over the safety and efficacy of pancreas transplantation in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who have received a prior kidney transplant. METHODS: We compared the outcomes of recipients who received either Synchronous-Pancreas Kidney-Transplantation (SPK, n=123) or Pancreas-After-Kidney-Transplants(n=49)at our institution between August 2002 to January 2010. RESULTS: Donor and recipient demographics were similar. Time interval between kidney and pancreas transplantation was 5.9 ± 3.8 (4.8 [1.6-12.2]) years. The majority of kidney-recipients in PAK group were transplanted at outside institutions and referred to us for PAK. Most patients received thymoglobulin induction and were maintained on tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisone. For SPK versus PAK recipients, there was no difference in median of length of hospital stay or incidence of overall complications. All PAK recipients are alive with functioning kidney grafts, whereas the 1-, 3-, and 5-year SPK patient survival rates were 98%,96%,and 94%, P=0.09. The 1-,3-, and 5-yr uncensored pancreas survival rates for SPK versus PAK were 93% vs. 90%, 90% vs. 90%, and 82% versus 85%, respectively (P=0.4). CONCLUSION: Glycemic control and intermediate survival outcomes were similar in both groups. Pancreas-graft outcomes in SPK and PAK were equivalent in our study, but our specific population entailed among other factors a long K to PAK time interval; PAK could be a comparable option to SPK for patients with access to kidney grafts.

Thymoglobulin versus basiliximab induction therapy for simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation: impact on rejection, graft function, and long-term outcome.

BACKGROUND: Thymoglobulin (ATG) and basiliximab induction therapies are used by the majority of centers for pancreas transplantation today. Although both strategies have different mechanisms, there is a paucity of studies comparing them. We compared the efficacy and side effects of both methods in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed 128 SPKs at our institution between January 2001 and August 2008. Forty-nine patients received basiliximab (40 mg), whereas 79 patients had ATG (5 mg/kg). Graft function, complications, rejection, and survival rates were analyzed. RESULTS: ATG versus basiliximab therapy was associated with decreased 3-month (6% vs. 21%; P=0.01) and 1-year (14% vs. 27%; P=0.049) rejection rate. Steroid-resistant rejections were decreased with ATG (3%) vs. basiliximab (14%) (P=0.01). In a univariate regression analysis, basiliximab induction was a risk factor for rejection (HR, 7.1; CI, 3.8-13). No differences were observed regarding complications and graft function up to 5 years. ATG versus basiliximab therapy resulted in identical 1-year (90% vs. 93%), 3-year (87% vs. 89%), and 5-year (78% vs. 83%) pancreas survival (P=0.7). No difference was observed in kidney survival after 1 year (99% vs. 98%), 3 years (97% vs. 98%), and 5 years (95% vs. 95%) (P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: ATG versus basiliximab induction therapy results in decreased acute cellular rejection in the first year after SPK with similar side effects. Long-term graft function and survival are not affected by induction regimen.