Pancreas transplantation from marginal donors

BACKGROUND: Marginal donor organs are a supplementary source of grafts that has not been fully exploited for pancreas transplantation (PTx). METHODS: A total of 100 PTx were performed with grafts procured from either 48 nonmarginal donors (NMD) or 52 marginal donors (MD), namely age greater than 45 years and/or severe hemodynamic instability at the time of procurement. PTx outcome was evaluated as the incidence of delayed endocrine pancreas function (DEPF), the complication rate, and the patient and graft survivals. RESULTS: The DEPF rate was 6.2% for NMD as compared to 0 for MD (P >.05). Relaparotomy rate was 12.5% for NMD and 9.6% for MD (P >.05). Actuarial 1-year graft survival was 91.7% and 94.2% for NMD and MD, respectively (P >.05). Equivalent figures for patients were 97.9% and 98.1%, respectively (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreas from MD may be safely employed and significantly expand the donor pool for PTx.     

Donor liver dysfunction: application of a new scoring system to identify the marginal donor

Livers from marginal donors are increasingly used for transplantation due to the shortage of donor organs. The definition of a marginal donor remains unclear; prediction of organ function is a challenge. In the literature the use of steatotic livers has been associated with poor liver function or even primary dysfunction of the allograft. Tekin et al created a scoring system that classifies a donor as marginal or nonmarginal, using a mathematical model based on donor age and steatosis degree. The aims of this study were to apply the Tekin method to identify marginal and nonmarginal donors and evaluate the influence of the cold ischemia time (CIT) on allograft evolution. We retrospectively reviewed deceased donor liver transplantations performed from October 1995 to March 2006, namely, 177 adult liver transplantations in 163 patients. Fifty-five were excluded due to retransplantation (14) or insufficient data (41). Donor age and macrovesicular steatosis were evaluated according to the mathematical formula proposed by Tekin et al, classifying the donors as marginal versus nonmarginal. The authors also analyzed the CIT, 3-month mortality, and development of primary nonfunction or primary dysfunction. The median donor age was 38.9 years (range, 6-71). The postreperfusion biopsy specimen showed moderate to intense steatosis (>30%) in 14.75% of specimens, with no steatosis or mild steatosis in 85.25%. Sixty-one grafts (50%) developed primary graft dysfunction (PGD): 10 grafts, with primary nonfunction (PNF); and 51 with initial poor function (IPF). Using the criteria provided by Tekin et al, we obtained 41 marginal and 81 nonmarginal allografts. The marginal group showed 61.9% PGD, compared with 59.2% of PGD by the nonmarginal group. The CIT was greater than 12 hours in 5 marginal group transplants and 4 PGD cases (80%). Of the nonmarginal allografts, the CIT was greater than 12 hours in 29.6%, with 75% PGD. The 3-month graft survival rate was 80% in the marginal group with ischemia time more than 12 hours: 86.1% of the same group when CIT was less than 12 hours, and 82.7% in the nonmarginal group. In contrast, when we analyzed the occurrence of allograft dysfunction, the 3-month mortality rate was 34% among, grafts with dysfunction, whereas, in those without initial dysfunction, it was 4.1%. In conclusion, the score suggested by Tekin et al that classifies the donors as ideal (nonmarginal) or marginal was not able to predict initial primary dysfunction.     

What Is the Influence of Both Risk Donor and Risk Receiver on Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation?

Introduction

Some factors affect the pancreas of a marginal donor, and although their influence on graft survival has been determined, there is an increasing consensus to accept marginal organs in a controlled manner to increase the pool of organs. Certain factors related to the recipient have also been proposed as having negative influence on graft prognosis. The objective of this study was to analyze the influence of these factors on the results of our simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation series.

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.     

The influence of desmopressin and vasopressors in the donor management on graft function following pancreas transplantation

INTRODUCTION: The use of desmopressin and vasopressors in cadaveric organ donors is considered a risk factor for graft dysfunction following pancreas transplantation by influencing the microcirculation. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of these substances on early graft function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective trial included 59 patients who underwent simultaneous or solitary pancreas transplantation. The corresponding donor charts were reviewed for the use of vasopressors and desmopressin. Impaired graft function was determined as graft thrombosis or as insulin-dependence for more then 3 days posttransplant. Daily amylase and lipase concentrations from abdominal drains were measured to quantify reperfusion pancreatitis and fistula formation. RESULTS: Overall, pancreas thrombosis was observed in 4 of 59 (6.8%) recipients. There were no significant differences in thrombosis rate whether the donors received desmopressin (3/38 vs 1/21, P >.1) or the needed vasopressors (3/53 vs 1/9, P >.1). The number of patients who required insulin for more than 3 days posttransplant was comparable whether the donors received desmopressin (9/38 vs 4/21, P >.1), or vasopressors (9/46 vs 3/8, P >.1). At present all recipients with functioning pancreatic grafts (ie, 92.7%) are free of exogenous insulin therapy at 2 to 80 months posttransplant. The amylase/lipase concentrations of peritoneal fluid were independent of the administration of desmopressin or vasopressors in the donors. CONCLUSION: In this study donor desmopressin and vasopressor administration did not influence graft function after pancreas transplantation.     

Extended criteria for organ acceptance. Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool

The terms extended donor or expanded donor mean changes in donor acceptability criteria. In almost all cases, the negative connotations of these terms cannot be justified. Factors considered to affect donor or organ acceptability have changed with time, after showing that they did not negatively affect graft or patient survival per se or when the adequate measures had been adopted. There is no age limit to be an organ donor. Kidney and liver transplantation from donors older than 65 years can have excellent graft and patient actuarial survival and graft function. Using these donors can be from an epidemiological point of view the most important factor to esablish the final number of cadaveric liver and kidney transplantations. Organs with broad structural parenchyma lesion with preserved functional reserve and organs with reversible functional impairment can be safely transplanted. Bacterial and fungal donor infection with the adequate antibiotic treatment of donor and/or recipient prevents infection in the latter. The organs, including the liver, from donors with infection by the hepatitis B and C viruses can be safely transplanted to recipients with infection by the same viruses, respectively. Poisoned donors and non-heart-beating donors, grafts from transplant recipients, reuse of grafts, domino transplant and splitting of one liver for two recipients can be an important and safe source of organs for transplantation.     

Long-term results after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation using donors aged 45 years or older

With the shortage of organ donors, there is a critical need to use all available pancreas grafts for transplantation. METHODS: From June 1994 to December 2006 we performed 340 pancreas transplantations (317 simultaneous pancreas-kidney 5 pancreas only, 18 pancreas after kidney) including 69 (20%) transplantations from donors aged 45 years or older. Pancreas grafts from older donors were analyzed for graft and patient survival as well as surgical complications, compared with results from younger donors. RESULTS: Recipient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The older donor group mean age was 47.8 years (+/-2.1) versus 27.9 years (+/-10.3) for the younger group. Cumulative patient survival was 96% versus 98% after 1, 82% versus 91% after 5 and 82% versus 88% after 10 years with 1-5- and 10-year kidney graft survivals of 82%, 72%, 57% versus 93%, 83%, 73%, respectively. Pancreas transplant survival after 1, 5, and 10 years were 69%, 60%, 45% in older and 88%, 76%, and 72% in younger donor cohorts. There were 14 (20%) cases of venous thrombosis in the older group and 25 (9%) in the younger group (P = .012). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that utilization of pancreas grafts from donors over 45 years resulted in acceptable outcomes after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant and could expand the donor pool. Among the older donor group, patient survival was slightly lower than the younger group, whereas pancreas graft function was significantly inferior (P < .01). Since venous thrombosis was the main reason for pancreas graft loss in older group, anticoagulation is essential.     

Improving the rate of organ donation

BACKGROUND: Organ shortage is a major problem in transplantation. Many potential donors are still lost due to a lack of information and communication. Many transplantation centers report a major donor increase after introducing new donor policies. The aim of this study was to evaluate in retrospective fashion a new donor policy in our region. METHODS: For the past 10 years all reported donors from intensive care units (ICUs) in our region were evaluated. Our new policy had 2 main steps: accepting more marginal grafts and using a transplantation representative. The goal was the improved communication with ICUs to support physicians involved in donor care. A public information program was also implemented. RESULTS: In the first year, numbers of donors obviously improved (+60.5%) and remained stable the following year. The mean donor age increased to 41.56 years. The donor pool showed mainly an improved kidney-donation rate (+53%) with also an increase in multiorgan donation (+37%). One year posttransplantation survival was not negatively influenced by this donor pool. As expected, transplantation activities increased notably, particularly liver transplantation (+31.11%) but also kidney transplantation (+26.73%). DISCUSSION: Many donors are lost because physicians in charge of brain dead patients are not fully informed about modified donation criteria. The reason for this is a lack of information and communication by transplantation units. Improved surgical techniques and better preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative treatment have yielded better results with marginal grafts. Immediate graft function in recipients of suboptimal grafts may be delayed, but without a significantly negative impact on patient and graft survival. Because the age of organ recipients is steadily increasing with fewer contraindications for transplants, more organs will be needed.     

Organ donation by living donors in isolated pancreas and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation]

We studied retrospectively 106 pancreas transplants from living donors. Of these, 83 were solitary pancreas transplants, done between June 1979 and December 1997 (51 pancreas transplants alone for non-uremic recipients as well as 32 pancreas-after-kidney transplants for previously uremic recipients with a functioning kidney graft), and 23 were simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (SPK), done between March 1994 and December 1997. In all, 105 (99%) donors were genetically related to the recipients. Perioperative donor mortality was 0%. Donor complications included 9 splenectomies as well as 4 operatively drained and 7 percutaneously managed peripancreatic fluid collections. We noted hyperglycemia in 3 (3%) donors (all among the initial cases in this series). The 1-year survival rate was 50% for solitary pancreas recipients and 78% (pancreas) and 100% (kidney) for SPK recipients. Of the 5 pancreas graft losses which occurred after SPK, 3 were due to thrombosis, 1 to pancreatitis and infection, and 1 to chronic rejection. Currently, all kidney grafts and 18 pancreas grafts are functioning in these 23 dual organ recipients (with 0% recipient mortality). Living donor pancreas and SPK grafting is associated with low donor morbidity and good graft outcome. With stringent donor criteria and appropriate counseling of the prospective donor/recipient pairs, living donor pancreas transplants may become a more widely applied therapeutic alternative for selected non-uremic and uremic patients with Type I diabetes.     

Underutilization of pancreas donors

BACKGROUND: Transplantation of the pancreas has become the treatment of choice for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. With the current shortage of cadaver donors and the increasing number of diabetic patients on the transplant waiting list, there is a critical need to optimally use all available pancreas grafts for transplantation. We have therefore explored the use of traditionally "less-than-ideal" pancreas donors, including pediatric (4-10 years), older (>or=45 years), obese (weight >or=200 lb), and non-heart-beating donors and donors with an elevated amylase (75% greater than normal values). METHODS: A total of 620 primary simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantations were performed at our center. We analyzed the ratio of livers to pancreata transplanted at our center and compared this to the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, we then assessed the impact of these less-than-ideal donors on patient survival, graft survival, and postsurgical complications after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. RESULTS: A substantial nationwide underutilization of pancreata from donor procurements is demonstrated in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. By using these less-than-ideal donors, the ratio of liver to pancreata procured can be reduced to 1.25:1. Graft survival was not significantly different in patients receiving transplants from obese, non-heart-beating, pediatric, or hyperamylasemic donors compared with grafts from ideal donors. However, grafts from donors 45 years of age or older had significantly lower 1- and 5-year graft survival rates (76% and 65% vs. 90% and 80%, P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that utilization of pancreas grafts from selected, less-than-ideal donors results in good overall outcomes and could potentially expand the organ donor pool.     

A simple scoring system to evaluate the effects of cold ischemia on marginal liver donors

BACKGROUND: Exactly what constitutes a marginal donor remains ill defined. The authors set out to create a scoring system that objectively classifies a donor as marginal or nonmarginal and to define what the maximum acceptable preservation period is for the marginal liver to minimize early graft dysfunction. METHODS: The authors performed an analysis on data collected prospectively of 397 cadaveric liver transplants. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on donor, recipient, and perioperative factors with relation to early allograft dysfunction. A score was developed that classified donors into marginal and nonmarginal populations, and the influence of cold ischemia was determined for each group. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis-determined donor age and steatosis (moderate to severe) were independent predictors of deranged function. This enabled the authors to produce a scoring system to differentiate marginal donors with respect to risk of early allograft dysfunction as follows: Formula=(20.06xsteatosis)+(0.44xdonor age), cutoff 23.1. In the marginal group, the cutoff value of cold ischemia time was 12.6 hr. CONCLUSIONS: The authors developed a scoring system that classified an organ as marginal or nonmarginal depending on the donor age and degree of steatosis. Marginal livers have a strong risk of developing early allograft dysfunction with increasing cold ischemia times and should be transplanted within 12 hr. Cold ischemia time was not found to be an important factor in the development of early allograft dysfunction in nonmarginal donors.     

Lack of impact of human leukocyte antigen matching in living donor kidney transplantation: experience at Akdeniz University

Lack of expansion of the deceased donor supply has resulted in a severe shortage of organs worldwide. Spousal donors are one possible alternative organ source for patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Despite human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching between recipients and unrelated donors being poor, the reported survival rates for these grafts, including spouses, are comparable to those for grafts from living related donors and higher than those for deceased donor kidneys. In 2000, our renal transplantation program began accepting living donor-recipient pairs with one or zero HLA matches. The purpose of this study was to assess this policy for accepting living unrelated donors. The 3-year graft survival rates for the transplants from living unrelated donors were similar to that for transplants from living related donors (log-rank = 0.078). The number of HLA mismatches did not significantly influence the survival rates for either of these groups of living donor transplants. Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis duration (P = .057) and recipient age (P = .066) negatively influenced patient survival in living donor kidney transplantation. The graft and patient survival rates for the donor transplantations were higher than those for deceased donor transplantations. In light of these findings and considering the increasing problem of organ shortage, we conclude that living unrelated kidney transplantation should be performed, with strict guidelines. Spousal donation is the most favorable form of living unrelated renal transplantation.     

Outcomes of Pancreas Transplantation in the United States Using Cardiac-Death Donors

Organs donated after cardiac death (DCD) are used to expand the donor pool. We analyzed the outcomes in the United States of pancreatic transplantation of organs from DCD donors performed between 1993 and 2003.
We used the OPTN/UNOS Registry to compare outcomes of primary pancreas allografts from DCD donors and donors after brain death (DBD). The primary endpoints were graft failure and patient death. A national survey regarding the use of DCD donors in pancreas transplantation was conducted among the directors of pancreas transplant centers.
Data were obtained on 47 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (SPK) and 10 solitary pancreas transplants from DCD donors and on 2431 SPK and 1607 solitary pancreas transplants from DBD donors. Recipients of a SPK transplants from DCD and DBD donors had equivalent patient and graft survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years. For recipients of SPK transplants, the wait for organs from DCD donors was significantly shorter than that for organs from DBD donors. SPK recipients of organs from DCD donors had longer hospital stays than did recipients of organs from DBD donors. With renal allografts, the incidence of delayed graft function was almost four times higher with organs from DCD donors than with organs from DBD donors.
Selective use of organs from DCD donors is safe for pancreas transplantation.     

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.     

The effect of donor gender on graft survival

Differences in actuarial graft survival according to donor gender have been reported for renal allografts and for cardiac and hepatic allografts, but for the latter in small series with limited biostatistical power. Using the large database of the Collaborative Transplant Study (CTS), this study is an evaluation of graft survival according to donor and recipient gender for renal (n = 124,911), cardiac (n = 25,432), and hepatic (n = 16,410) transplants. Confounders, such as calendar year, geographical area, race, donor and recipient age, HLA mismatch, cold ischemia time, and others, as well as interaction terms were taken into consideration. Death-censored actuarial renal allograft survival from female compared with male donors was less in female recipients and even more so in male recipients. The donor gender-associated risk ratio for graft loss was 1.15 in female recipients and 1.22 in male recipients. The age-gender interaction term was statistically significant, the gender effect being more pronounced for younger (16 to 45 yr) compared with older (>45 yr) donors. Serum creatinine concentrations 1 yr after transplantation were also higher for recipients with kidney grafts coming from female donors irrespective of recipient gender. For first cardiac transplants, graft survival was inferior when the donor was female and the recipient male, but no statistical difference according to donor gender was demonstrable in female recipients. For first hepatic transplants overall, no significant differences according to donor gender were noted. The proportion of recipients who had treatment for rejection crisis during the first year was higher for male recipients of kidneys from female donors compared with male donors. No difference according to donor gender was demonstrable in female recipients. For cardiac and hepatic grafts, no significant effect of donor gender on the proportion of patients treated for rejection episodes was noted. The data show that adverse effects of female donor gender for different organs is much less uniform than reported in the past. An important confounder is donor age. A gender effect on graft survival is also observed for cardiac allografts. Therefore, in addition to potential "nephron underdosing," further pathomechanisms must play a role, possibly differences in immunogenicity according to donor gender.     

Clinical Outcome of Pancreas Transplantation From Marginal Donors in Japan

In Japan, absolute shortage of donors still continues even after the law allowing organ transplantation from deceased donors came into force in 1997. With the passage of the waiting period after registration for pancreas transplantation (PTx), both deaths and serious cases of diabetic complications necessitating withdrawal of the registration have undoubtedly increased. Therefore, so-called “marginal donor” (MD) has been considered as a potential solution for shortage of donors in Japan. The aim of the present study is to evaluate feasibility of MD in terms of post-PTx outcomes using data from Japan Organ Transplantation Network. A total of 148 PTx were performed from deceased donors in Japan from 2000 to 2012. MD was defined as follows: (1) >45 years old; (2) hemodynamically unstable at harvest using a high-dose dopamine or more than 2 vasopressors; or (3) non–heart-beating status. Postoperative outcomes after PTx were compared between the MD group and the non-MD group. Among the 148 PTx donors, 108 donors (73.0%) satisfied the criteria of MD. Early graft loss of pancreas graft during 3 months post-transplant was observed in 15 patients (10.1%), and the marginality (MD vs non-MD) was not significantly correlated with the early loss of pancreas graft. The overall patient survival of the MD group (1, 3, 5 years: 94.7%, 94.7%, 94.7%) was not significantly different from that of the non-MD group (1, 3, 5 years: 95.0%, 95.0%, 95.0%). Pancreas graft survival in the MD group (1, 3, 5 years: 80.9%, 73.2%, 66.0%) seemed to be slightly lower than that in the non-MD group (1, 3, 5 years: 92.5%, 85.2%, 77.4%), but no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups. These results suggest the feasibility of the use of MD for PTx.     

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.     

Kidney transplantation from marginal donors

AIM: The increasing demand for transplantation and the shortage of available organs limit the success of organ transplant programs. The use of marginal donors to expand the donor pool is receiving increased attention. We reviewed a 28-month experience of kidney transplants from marginal donors to assess the impact on patient and graft survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2001 to May 2003, 78 kidney transplants were performed, including 50 grafts from cadaver donors and 28 from living donors with 3 patients receiving a double kidney transplant. The patients were divided into 4 groups: 31 patients received a kidney from an ideal cadaver donor (group 1a); 19 patients received a graft from a marginal cadaver donor (group 1b); 19 patients received an ideal living related kidney (group 2a); and 9 patients received a marginal living kidney graft (group 2b). RESULTS: Twenty-eight grafts from marginal donors were transplanted with an average follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-28 months). The graft survival rates for groups 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were 93%, 79%, 100%, and 100% and patient survival rates were 96%, 89%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the observation that use of marginal donors has been associated with a worse outcome compared with ideal donors, we of such grafts resulted in improved quality of life and survival expectancy compared with maintenance dialysis. The marginal kidney donors represent a feasible way to improve the donor pool.     

Present status of pancreas transplantation in Japan--donation predominantly from marginal donors and modified surgical technique: report of Japan pancreas transplantation registry

In Japan, organ donation has been still limited because of the strict donor criteria. The aim of this study was to show the effectiveness of pancreas transplantation (PTx) by analyzing the outcomes even under poor donor conditions. Thirty-six cases of PTx (32 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantations [SPK], 4 pancreas after kidney transplantations) performed during the last 8 years were examined especially for donor characteristics. Mean donor age of 41.4 +/- 11.9 years was considerably older compared with that in the United States and Europe; donors aged over 40 years comprised 67% of the total. According to the criteria described by Kapur, 29 cases (81%) in our series would be considered marginal. Thus, to increase blood supply into the pancreatic head, the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) was anastomosed using donor artery to common hepatic artery or iliac Y graft. These procedures were performed in 16 of the 24 cases in which there was liver procurement. Eventually, 34 cases (94%) preserved GDA continuity. Mean total cold ischemic time of pancreatic grafts was 12 hours 15 minutes. Of 214 registrants, 17 patients on the waiting list for SPK died of diabetic complications. To date, patient survival remains 100% with a mean follow-up period of 33 months. Pancreas graft survivals at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplantation were 92%, 80%, and 80%, respectively. In contrast, kidney survivals were 91%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. The integrity of the pancreas head and duodenum by preservation of the GDA continuity might have decreased the risk associated with the marginal donors.     

Kidney transplantation using living donors over age 65

Efforts to increase the donor pool of available organs have resulted in some unconventional kidney transplantation procedures. One of these is the use of elderly donors for both living and cadaver kidney transplantations. The aim of this study was to review our experience with kidney transplants from living elderly donors. During a period of 10 years, 70 living renal transplantations were performed. In 32 transplants the age of the donor was above 65 years (mean 69 +/- 4 years, range: 65 to 81 years) and in 10 of these 32 transplants the age of the donor was over 70 years. The survival rate was compared with that of 38 transplants from younger donors (mean age 51 +/- 6 years, range: 24 to 59 years). The time to cold and warm ischemia, the preservation procedure and time to anastomosis of blood vessels were comparable in both groups of donors. Immunosuppression included a sequential quadruple protocol, using thymoglobulin (ATG), prednisolone (PRED), azathioprin (AZA) and cyclosporin A (CsA), which replaced ATG/PRED after day seven. A triple drug maintenance therapy (AZA, PRED, CsA) was used in all recipients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves at 1, 3 and 5 years showed that graft survival was 88%, 79% and 64% respectively for grafts from the advanced age donor group and 92%, 82% and 68% respectively for grafts from the younger donor group. The difference was slightly statistically significant (p < 0.05). Functioning of the graft was delayed in six patients who had received grafts from elderly donors and in one patient who had received a graft from a young donor. Despite worse results in transplantation with grafts from elderly donors, we consider this population as an important source of kidneys, which might help solve the present organ shortage, especially in our region.