成人间双供体活体肝脏移植成功2例报告

目的供肝短缺是影响肝脏移植发展的主要因素之一，活体供肝是解决这一矛盾的重要措施，供者提供足够的肝脏是影响活体肝脏移植的重要因素。方法施行成人间双供体活体肝移植2例，1例由受者的两位姐姐分别提供左半肝作为供肝，另1例由受者母亲提供右半肝，由无心跳供者提供左半肝(采用劈裂方式，其另一部分肝脏同时为另一成人受者实施肝脏移植)作为供肝。结果术后供、受者肝功能均恢复良好。结论成人问双供肝活体肝脏移植可以为受者提供更大重量的肝脏，又可减少供者提供较多肝脏所带来的风险；双供肝一受者肝脏移植手术操作复杂。     

Extended Criteria Donors in Liver Transplantation: Adapting Donor Quality and Recipient

Despite the progressive increase in the number of liver transplantations, the mortality on the waiting list remains between 5% and 10%, and patients have to deal with longer waiting periods. Facing this situation, transplant centers have developed alternatives to increase the number of grafts by accepting donors who were previously considered to be inadequate, because they are at higher risk of initial poor function and graft failure or may cause disease transmission. Currently, some marginal donors are being routinely used: elderly donors, steatotic grafts, non-heart-beating donors, hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) or hepatitis B core antibody-positive donors. These so-called marginal or extended-criteria donors were initially used in high-risk or urgent recipients; however, the number of marginal grafts has significantly increased, forcing the transplant community toward their more rationale use to maintain excellent results of liver transplantation. In this new scenario, the adequacy between donor and recipient may be paramount. Advanced donor age seems to be related to a greater graft failure rate in HCV+ recipients. Early survival seems to be significantly reduced when steatotic grafts are used in recipients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Moreover, a decreased survival has been observed among high-risk patients receiving organs from marginal donors. No benefit seems to exist when high-donor risk index grafts are transplanted into recipients with low MELD Scores. The recognition of various donor groups according to their quality and the need for good donor and recipient selection must lead us to define new policies for organ allocation of marginal grafts that may come into conflict with current policies of organ allocation according to the risk of death among patients awaiting a liver transplantation.     

Transplanting kidneys from donors with prior hepatitis B infection: one response to the organ shortage

While the number of cadaveric organ donors remains relatively stable, the number of patients awaiting transplantation continues to increase, creating a shortage of donor organs. To address this imbalance, there is interest in transplanting organs formerly considered marginal or undesirable. Thus, more organs are currently transplanted from living donors, older donors, hemodynamically unstable donors, non-heart-beating donors and donors with markers of prior hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. A large number (up to 93.8%) of liver transplant seronegative recipients from anti-HBc antibody positive donors have acquired HBsAg after liver transplantation in the absence of immunoprophylaxis. Based on experience in liver transplantation programs, transmission of HBV from donors without HBsAg but with antibody to HBV core antigen (anti-HBc), although conventionally defined as evidence of resolved infection, can have adverse consequences on both graft and recipient. On the contrary, HBV appears to be in-frequently transmitted from HBsAg negative/anti-HBcAb positive kidney donors: the incidence of de novo HBsAg seropositivity after renal transplantation ranges between 0 and 5.2%. A significantly higher incidence of anti-HBc antibody seroconversion (without developing HBsAg) after renal transplantation with anti-HBc antibody positive donors was seen. However, anti-HBc antibody positive renal allografts should be considered, especially for recipients who have been successfully immunized with HBV vaccine. Prospective long-term studies are in progress to assess the risk of de novo HBV infection (HBsAg seroconversion) in renal transplant recipients who have not been successfully immunized with vaccine against HBV.     

Occult hepatitis B virus infection in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C: relationship with donor age and fibrosis progression

Abstract:  Liver transplantation (OLT) recipients who receive a graft from donors positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV) anti-core antibodies may develop overt " de novo " HBV infection. The study was undertaken to explore how often HBV infection may remain occult after OLT for hepatitis C, and whether it may represent a factor of graft fibrosis progression. We studied 30 consecutive patients transplanted for hepatitis C liver disease. Specimens from the native liver and from the graft were searched for occult HBV infection (O-HBV). In the native liver, 8/30 patients had detectable O-HBV; during the follow-up, O-HBV infection was demonstrated in 14 graft specimens. Graft O-HBV was associated with older donor age (≥50 yr; 8/9 vs. 6/21, p < 0.005). Recipients with graft O-HBV and no O-HBV in the native liver who received their grafts from donors aged >40 yr had faster fibrosis progression than recipients with no post-transplant O-HBV, whose grafts came from donors aged >40 yr and recipients whose grafts came from donors aged ≤40 yr (4/7 vs. 1/7 vs. 2/16, p < 0.05). In OLT recipients, O-HBV is more likely to occur when grafts are obtained from aged donors and may affect the rate of fibrosis progression because of recurrent hepatitis C.     

The use of contaminated donor organs in transplantation

Introduction. Organ transplantation has become an accepted means of treating end‐stage organ disease in recent years with acceptable patient and graft survival. Transplant recipients have an increased risk of infectious complications due to multiple factors including decreased host resistance from chronic end‐stage organ failure as well as from the immunosuppression required to prevent graft rejection.
Hypothesis. Therefore, the use of contaminated allografts could result in life‐threatening infections in organ recipients.
Method. In this study, transplant patients receiving organs from donors with positive blood or urine cultures, from 1993 to 1997, were retrospectively reviewed.
Results. There was a total of 599 organ donors in our state. Forty‐six (7.5%) had positive blood cultures and 25 (4.5%) had positive urine cultures. A total of 179 patients received organs from these contaminated donors, 36 of which were transplanted at our center. In this group, there were 16 kidney, 9 liver, and 11 heart transplants. Both donors and recipients received prophylactic broad‐spectrum antibiotics, which were adjusted based on culture and sensitivity results. The most common organisms isolated from the blood were staphylococci followed by streptococci and Gram‐negative organisms. Three of the 9 liver transplant patients in the series died with a mortality of 33%. Two of the 3 patients who died had sepsis but the responsible organisms were different from those recovered from the donor. The rest (66%) did well and have acceptable liver function. None of the 16 renal transplant recipients developed an infection and all survived. One patient developed acute irreversible rejection requiring transplant nephrectomy. There was one death in the heart transplant group resulting in a mortality of 9%. This death was not attributed to infectious processes. Three of 11 heart transplant patients grew organisms in the post‐operative period that were similar to those found in the corresponding donors. However, no patient suffered significant morbidity or mortality from these infections and all recovered. The recipients of contaminated organs had levels of organ function similar to those of randomly chosen recipients of non‐contaminated organs, and both groups had similar lengths of hospital stay.
Conclusion. Only 3 of 36 organ recipients had infections caused by organisms found in the contaminated donor organs for a rate of 8%. Contaminated donor organs seem to fare as well as non‐contaminated donor organs and there was no increase in morbidity or mortality. Contamination of organs should not be an absolute contraindication to the use of these organs in transplantation.     

Organ Donors With Exceptional Medical Conditions Also Count!

All organ donors, even those who have died under exceptional conditions, can provide at least one valid organ for transplantation. It is thus necessary to evaluate the outcomes of donors with unusual diseases. We reviewed 909 organ donors at six hospitals over the last 15 years. Of these, 29 (3.19%) were considered to be exceptional either because of prior disease, the circumstance of death, or complications arising during admission. Among the 53 organs transplanted from all these donors (except two), the mean number of valid organs per donor was 1.88 rather than 2.36 for standard donors. One patient who received a liver transplant died due to the same infection as that diagnosed in the donor. The remaining recipients experienced no primary graft failure or transmission of problems present in the donor.     

Optimized donor management and organ preservation before kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is a major medical improvement for patients with end‐stage renal disease, but organ shortage limits its widespread use. As a consequence, the proportion of grafts procured from extended criteria donors (ECD) has increased considerably, but this comes along with increased rates of delayed graft function (DGF) and a higher incidence of immune‐mediated rejection that limits organ and patient survival. Furthermore, most grafts are derived from brain dead organ donors, but the unphysiological state of brain death is associated with significant metabolic, hemodynamic, and pro‐inflammatory changes, which further compromise patient and graft survival. Thus, donor interventions to preserve graft quality are fundamental to improve long‐term transplantation outcome, but interventions must not harm other potentially transplantable grafts. Several donor pretreatment strategies have provided encouraging results in animal models, but evidence from human studies is sparse, as most clinical evidence is derived from single‐center or nonrandomized trials. Furthermore, ethical matters have to be considered especially concerning consent from donors, donor families, and transplant recipients to research in the field of donor treatment. This review provides an overview of clinically proven and promising preclinical strategies of donor treatment to optimize long‐term results after kidney transplantation.     

The use of marginal grafts in liver transplantation

Because of the shortage of organ supplies, more transplant programs have begun to use marginal grafts in liver transplantation. A number of single-center experiences with marginal grafts have yielded encouraging results, but recent analyses using nationwide databases show that outcomes are inferior to results with normal whole-liver grafts. Use of marginal grafts is still acceptable, however, and plays an important role in expanding the donor pool and decreasing mortality on the waiting list. In the broadest terms, national data and single-center experiences show that: (1) there is no limit in donor age for liver transplantation, (2) appropriate selection of steatotic livers improves outcomes, (3) prolonged graft ischemia is a preventable factor, (4) livers from donors with hepatitis B or C virus can be safely transplanted, and (5) adequate prophylaxis prevents recurrence of hepatitis B without significant graft loss. In addition, grafts procured after cardiac death are another growing source of marginal grafts. Transmission of malignancy from donors is rare but life-threatening. Reduced-size grafts from living-donor or split-liver transplantation have shown similar outcomes to whole-liver transplantation. In this review, we will discuss the current status of the utility of these marginal grafts in liver transplantation.     

Outcomes of organ transplants when the donor is a prior recipient

Organ shortage continues to challenge the field of transplantation. One potential group of donors are those who have been transplant recipients themselves, or Organ Donation After Transplant (ODAT) donors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe ODAT donors and to compare outcomes of ODAT grafts versus conventional grafts. From October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2015, 517 former recipients successfully donated 803 organs for transplant. Former kidney recipients generally survived a median of approximately 4 years before becoming an ODAT donor whereas liver, lung, and heart recipients generally survived less than a month prior to donation. In the period June 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014, liver grafts from ODAT donors had a significantly higher risk of graft failure compared to non‐ODAT liver transplants (P = .008). Kidney grafts donated by ODAT donors whose initial transplant occurred >1 year prior were associated with significantly increased graft failure (P = .012). Despite increased risk of graft failure amongst certain ODAT grafts, 5‐year survival was still high. ODAT donors should be considered another form of expanded criteria donor under these circumstances.     

Kidneys from Deceased Donors: Maximizing the Value of a Scarce Resource

Donor age is a significant risk factor for graft loss after kidney transplantation. We investigated the question whether significant graft years were being lost through transplantation of younger donor kidneys into older recipients with potentially shorter lifespans than the organs they receive. We examined patient and graft survival for deceased donor kidney transplants performed in the United States between the years 1990 and 2002 by Kaplan-Meier plots. We categorized the distribution of deceased donor kidneys by donor and recipient age. Subsequently, we calculated the actual and projected graft survival of transplanted kidneys from younger donors with the patient survival of transplant recipients of varying ages. Over the study period, 16.4% (9250) transplants from donors aged 15-50 were transplanted to recipients over the age of 60. At the same time, 73.6% of donors above the age of 50 were allocated to recipients under the age of 60. The graft survival of grafts from younger donors significantly exceeded the patient survival of recipients over the age of 60. The overall projected improvement in graft survival, by excluding transplantation of younger kidneys to older recipients, was approximately 3 years per transplant. Avoiding the allocation of young donor kidneys to elderly recipients, could have significantly increased the overall graft life, by a total 27,500 graft years, between 1990 and 2002, with projected cost savings of about 1.5 billion dollars.     

Donor diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for diminished outcome after liver transplantation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study

With the growing incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM), an increasing number of organ donors with DM can be expected. We sought to investigate the association between donor DM with early post-transplant outcomes. From a national cohort of adult liver transplant recipients (1996–2016), all recipients transplanted with a liver from a DM donor (n = 69) were matched 1:2 with recipients of livers from non-DM donors (n = 138). The primary end-point included early post-transplant outcome, such as the incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), and 90-day graft survival. Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of donor DM on graft failure. PNF was observed in 5.8% of grafts from DM donors versus 2.9% of non-DM donor grafts (P = 0.31). Recipients of grafts derived from DM donors had a higher incidence of HAT (8.7% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.03) and decreased 90-day graft survival (88.4% [70.9–91.1] vs. 96.4% [89.6–97.8], P = 0.03) compared to recipients of grafts from non-DM donors. The adjusted hazard ratio for donor DM on graft survival was 2.21 (1.08–4.53, P = 0.03). In conclusion, donor DM is associated with diminished outcome early after liver transplantation. The increased incidence of HAT after transplantation of livers from DM donors requires further research.     

29例脑死亡器官移植供体的维护体会

【摘要】 目的 探讨脑死亡器官移植供体在ICU的维护要点。方法〓回顾性分析我科2012年1月~2013年12月间完成的29例脑死亡供体器官捐献资料,分析脑死亡供体器官获取前情况,移植肾、移植肝受者情况及急性肾损伤(AKI)供肾的移植效果,总结脑死亡患者作为潜在供体的维护要点。结果〓维护脑死亡供体29例,共捐献肾脏40个、肝脏27个、心脏4个、角膜21对。6例(15%)移植肾受者发生移植物功能延迟恢复,1例(2.5%)发生急性排斥反应、1例(2.5%)发生髂内动脉假性动脉瘤出血切除移植肾,1例(2.5%)发生重症肺炎术后死亡;AKI供肾与非AKI供肾的受者在术后7天、2月肌酐恢复情况及不良事件发生率比较无明显差异;1例(4%)移植肝受者发生多脏器功能衰竭术后死亡。余受者随访至今均恢复顺利,器官功能良好。结论〓经过ICU内积极管理后的潜在器官移植供体能够获得较高质量的移植器官,有较好的移植效果。     

Donors with cardiac arrest: improved organ recovery but no preconditioning benefit in liver allografts

BACKGROUND: Historically, organ recovery rates in donors with cardiac arrest (CA) have been low, presumably from hemodynamic instability. We hypothesized that donor resuscitation has improved hemodynamic stability and organ recovery in CA donors, and that CA triggers ischemic preconditioning (IP) in liver grafts. METHODS: A total of 131 donor pairs with and without CA were matched in age, gender, and year of recovery. Hemodynamic stability was determined by vasopressor use. Abdominal and thoracic organs recovered and livers transplanted were compared between the groups. Liver graft function, injury, and IP benefit were examined by comparing liver chemistries after transplantation and postperfusion biopsies between recipients of grafts from both groups (n=40 each). RESULTS:Hemodynamic stability was similar in both groups, but recovery of thoracic organs was significantly lower in CA versus non-CA donors (35 vs. 53%, P<0.01). On the other hand, recovery rates of three or more abdominal organs from CA donors approached those of non-CA donors (77 vs. 87%, not significant). Although significantly fewer livers were transplanted from CA donors (69 vs. 85%, P<0.01), posttransplantation graft function and injury parameters were similar between the two groups, and CA did not appear to trigger IP. CONCLUSION: Compared with historical data, cardiovascular stability and abdominal organ recovery rates have improved considerably in CA donors. Liver grafts from CA donors function similarly to grafts from non-CA donors with no IP from CA. Our data support the increased use of livers and other organs from donors with CA.     

The use of "marginal" donors for organ transplantation. The influence of donor age on outcome

The influence of donor age on outcome was studied in the recipients of 12,131 cadaveric renal allografts, 3026 heart allografts, and 2913 liver allografts with followup information in the UNOS data base for transplants performed between 10/1/87 and 12/31/89. For recipients of kidney transplants, donors of ages 6-15 had significantly better 1-year graft survival than donors of ages 56-65, but the difference was only 7.0%. Donors of age greater than 65 actually did better than donors ages 56-65, but donors less than or equal to 5 were less satisfactory. Kidneys from older donors survived as well as kidneys from younger donors in patients with repeat transplants, diabetes, black race, age over 45, O HLA or 5 and 6 HLA matches, delayed graft function, shared kidneys and PRA greater than 50. For kidney recipients, multifactorial analysis by Cox regression showed that donor age was less important than the use of ALG, donor race, diabetes or peak PRA in ages 16-45, delayed function, repeat transplant, and HLA match. Recipients of heart transplants from donors ages 45-55 had 1-year graft survival that was 8.4% less than recipients of hearts from donors age 16-45. However, 32.7% of heart patients died during the first 12 months after listing without benefit of a transplant. Liver transplant recipients of donor ages 16-45 had 10.8% better 1-year graft survival than recipients of donors greater than 45, but a greater percentage of older donors were transplanted to high risk and older recipients. Tragically, 24.3% of patients listed for liver transplantation died within 12 months without a transplant. This analysis shows that satisfactory graft survival can be achieved using older donors and that age in itself should not be a barrier to organ donation, providing that organ function is normal and that specific disease of the organ is absent.     

Kidney graft survival in patients with hepatitis C: a single center experience

Abstract:  Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly prevalent in renal transplant candidates; however, its effect on the transplant outcome is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of HCV infection in the outcome of kidney transplantation in a single transplant center. The study population 144 HCV− randomized selected patients and 64 HCV+ patients transplanted from 1973 to 2000, followed for up to 60 months post-transplantation. This retrospective study included the following variables: type of dialysis, time on renal replacement therapy, number of transfusions before and after transplantation, number of transplants, type of donor, immunosuppression, and rejection episodes. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate graft and patient survival. Log-rank test was used to assess the difference in survival between HCV+ and HCV−. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the relation between graft and patient survival. HCV+ and HCV− patients had similar demographic and clinical characteristics; however, a higher number of HCV+ patients received blood transfusions after transplantation. Patient survival was not significantly different in 39 HCV+ and 96 HCV− patients transplanted with living-related donors (71% and 77% at five yr, respectively). Similarly, there was not significant difference in 25 HCV+ and 48 HCV− patients transplanted with kidneys from deceased donors, although there was a tendency to better outcome in HCV− patients (55% and 72% at five yr respectively). Regarding graft survival, there was also no differences in HCV+ and HCV− recipients of living-related grafts (61% and 66% at five yr post-transplant, respectively) and recipients of kidneys from deceases donors (44% and 41%, respectively). The results show that HCV+ patients can be transplanted with the same success than HCV− patients.     

Organ transplantation from “increased infectious risk donors”: the experience of the Nord Italia Transplant program — A retrospective study

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and the clinical outcome associated with organ transplantation from increased infectious risk donors (IRD). We retrospectively identified all adult deceased IRD referred to the Nord Italia Transplant program coordinating center from November 2006 to November 2011. All potential donors were screened for social risk factors that may increase the risk of donor‐derived infection with human immunodeficiency (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV). All recipients were followed monthly for the first 6 months post‐transplant. A total of 86 potential IRD were identified during the study period. Three hundred and seventy‐nine organs from IRD were offered to the transplant centers, but only 185 (48.8%) were used for transplantation. Organs from IRD were transplanted into 174 recipients. The complete follow‐up data were available for 152 of 174 (87.3%) recipients. During a mean follow‐up of 11.7 months (median 12; range 2.4–12), no transmission of HIV, HBV, or syphilis was documented by serology and nucleic acid testing (NAT) testing. Two patients transplanted with organs from HCV‐RNA‐positive donors, as expected, developed post‐transplant HCV infection. In conclusion, the use of organs from IRD was associated with a safe increase in the transplant procedures in our country.     

Donor‐Derived Strongyloides stercoralis Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients in the United States, 2009–2013

Infection with Strongyloides stercoralis is typically asymptomatic in immunocompetent hosts, despite chronic infection. In contrast, immunocompromised hosts such as solid organ transplant recipients are at risk for hyperinfection syndrome and/or disseminated disease, frequently resulting in fatal outcomes. Infection in these recipients may result from reactivation of latent infection or infection through transmission from an infected donor. We describe the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's experience with seven clusters of donor‐derived infection from 2009 to 2013. Six of the seven (86%) donors were born in Latin America; donor screening was not performed prior to organ transplantation in any of these investigations. Eleven of the 20 (55%) organ recipients were symptomatic, two of whom died from complications of strongyloidiasis. We also describe the New York Organ Donor Network (NYODN) experience with targeted donor screening from 2010 to 2013. Of the 233 consented potential donors tested, 10 tested positive for Strongyloides antibody; and 18 organs were transplanted. The majority (86%) of the donors were born in Central or South America. Fourteen recipients received prophylaxis after transplantation; no recipients developed strongyloidiasis. The NYODN experience provides evidence that when targeted donor screening is performed prior to transplantation, donor‐derived infection can be averted in recipients.     

Optimisation of the organ donor and effects on transplanted organs: a narrative review on current practice and future directions

Mortality remains high for patients on the waiting list for organ transplantation. A marked imbalance between the number of available organs and recipients that need to be transplanted persists. Organs from deceased donors are often declined due to perceived and actual suboptimal quality. Adequate donor management offers an opportunity to reduce organ injury and maximise the number of organs than can be offered in order to respect the donor's altruistic gift. The cornerstones of management include: correction of hypovolaemia; maintenance of organ perfusion; prompt treatment of diabetes insipidus; corticosteroid therapy; and lung protective ventilation. The interventions used to deliver these goals are largely based on pathophysiological rationale or extrapolations from general critical care patients. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence that has assessed whether any interventions in the donor after brain death may actually improve immediate post-transplant function and long-term graft survival or recipient survival after transplantation. Improvements in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms following brain death, in particular the role of immunological and metabolic changes in donors, offer promising future therapeutic opportunities to increase organ utilisation. Establishing a UK donor management research programme involves consideration of ethical, logistical and legal issues that will benefit transplanted patients while respecting the wishes of donors and their families.     

Successful organ donation from brain dead donors in a Chinese organ transplantation center

Solid organ transplantation is an effective treatment for patients with end-stage organ failure. Donation after brain death (DBD) is a means of addressing the inadequate supply of acceptable donor organs but has only gradually begun to be accepted in mainland China. A major barrier has been the absence of brain death and organ transplant legislation. This paper describes our initial experience with organ transplantation using organs from brain dead donors and discusses strategies for encouraging organ transplantation and brain death legislation in China. Six patients underwent renal transplantation and two patients underwent liver transplantation with organs procured from three brain dead donors at the Organ Transplantation Center, the 181st Hospital. All patients are alive with excellent graft function. DBD is an important means of increasing the number of organs available for transplantation and its widespread implementation in China should be encouraged. Brain death and organ transplantation legislation is necessary to ensure the rights and obligations of donors, recipients and medical institutions.     

Transplantation of Kidneys from Deceased Adult Polycystic Donors

Renal transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease. The discrepancy between donor organ supply and demand continues to widen. Maximum efforts should be made to make use of donor kidneys and we suggest that polycystic kidneys can be suitable marginal donor organs. Five polycystic cadaveric donor kidneys were transplanted in four recipients at our institution between year 2000 and 2004. The donor kidneys were either of normal size or moderately enlarged (less than 15 x 10 cm). Donor ages were 24, 46 and 55 years. All donors had normal serum creatinine at the time of organ retrieval. Recipients gave informed consent to be transplanted with the polycystic kidneys. Three of four recipients had primary graft function. The patient with primary nonfunction required graft nephrectomy 8 weeks post-transplantation. One patient died due to cardiovascular causes with a functioning graft 18 months after transplantation. Two patients remain well, 26 and 58 months after transplantation, with normal graft function. Our experience and the limited evidence from the literature suggest that, with careful selection of both donor and recipient, transplantation of cadaveric polycystic donor kidneys should be considered given the current organ shortage.