Cardiac retransplantation in children

Background

Experience with pediatric cardiac retransplantation is limited. Outcomes should be inspected to insure proper use of donor hearts.

Methods

Of 152 pediatric heart transplantations, we performed 20 retransplants in 17 children (3 had a second retransplant). The retransplant children were older than the primary transplant children (11.1 ± 4.4 years versus 7.1 ± 6.0 years; p = 0.005). Excluding 1 early retransplant, the interval from primary transplant to retransplant was 5.5 ± 3.3 years (range, 1.1 to 11.1). The retransplant patients were clinically more ill than the primary transplant patients (United Network for Organ Sharing status I, 75% versus 63%; mechanical circulatory support or dialysis, 20% versus 3.8%).

Results

Donor ischemia time (188 versus 165 minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (127 versus 127 minutes) were not significantly different for the retransplant patients. Excluding 1 retransplant patient who required a tracheostomy, days on the ventilator (2.7 versus 2.7), days on inotropic support (3.0 versus 3.2), intensive care unit days (7.2 versus 6.7), and hospital days (15.9 versus 13.8) were similar in the retransplant group. Freedom from rejection at 90 days and 1 year was not different in the retransplant patients. Actuarial patient survival in the patients undergoing first retransplant was similar to the primary transplant patients at 30 days (95% versus 94.7%), 1 year (94.1% versus 80.7%), and 3 years (78.4% versus 73.1%). Two of 3 children receiving a third transplant died within 1 year of redo retransplantation.

Conclusions

Cardiac retransplantation can be performed in children with results comparable with those for primary transplantation despite increased clinical acuity. These early results suggest that cardiac retransplantation in children is a reasonable therapeutic option. Children with repeat retransplantation do not fare as well.     

Cardiac retransplantation: is it justified in times of critical donor organ shortage? Long-term single-center experience

Objective: Survival after heart transplantation has improved significantly over the last decades. There are a growing number of patients that require cardiac retransplantation because of chronic allograft dysfunction. With regard to the critical shortage of cardiac allograft donors the decision to offer repeat heart transplantation must be carefully considered. Methods: Since 1983 a total of 807 heart transplantations have been performed at our institution. Among them 41 patients received cardiac retransplantation, 18 patients because of acute graft failure and 23 because of chronic graft failure. Data were analyzed for demographics, morbidity and risk factors for mortality. The acute and chronic retransplant group was compared to those patients undergoing primary transplantation. Results: The mean interval between primary transplantation and retransplantation was 1.9 days in the acute and 6.7 years in the chronic retransplant group. Mean follow-up was 6.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar in the primary and retransplant group. Actuarial survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years after primary cardiac transplantation compared to retransplantation were 83, 78, 72 and 64% vs 53, 50, 47 and 36%, respectively (p < 0.001). Early mortality after acute retransplantation was significantly higher compared to late retransplantation (10/18, 55.6% vs 4/23, 17.4%, p = 0.011). Major causes of death were acute and chronic rejection, infection and sepsis. Conclusions: Cardiac retransplantation is associated with lower survival rates compared to primary transplantation. However, results after retransplantation in chronic graft failure are significantly better compared to acute graft failure. Therefore, we consider cardiac retransplantation in chronic graft failure a justified therapeutic option. In contrast, patients with acute graft failure seem to be inappropriate candidates for cardiac retransplantation.     

Cardiac retransplantation in childhood: analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing

OBJECTIVE: For children in whom graft failure develops after cardiac transplantation, retransplantation is often considered. Although some centers have reported equivalent results for retransplantation as for primary transplantation, this strategy remains controversial. We sought to examine outcomes after retransplantation in children and to identify risk factors for mortality. METHODS: United Network for Organ Sharing records of heart transplantation for subjects younger than 18 years from 1987 to 2004 were reviewed. Indications for retransplantation and patient characteristics were evaluated. Analysis was performed with proportional hazards regression, controlling for other potential risk factors. RESULTS: Among the 4227 pediatric heart transplants, there were 219 retransplants. The most common indication for retransplantation was coronary allograft vasculopathy (51%). The mean interval from initial heart transplant to retransplantation was 4.7 +/- 3.8 years. Forty-two retransplants (19%) were performed within 180 days of primary transplantation. Survivals at 1, 5, and 10 years after retransplantation were 79%, 53%, and 44%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, retransplantation was associated with significantly higher mortality than primary transplantation (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.32-2.12, P < .001). Patients who underwent retransplantation within 180 days of primary transplantation had a significantly lower 1-year survival than did other retransplant recipients (53% vs 86%, respectively, P < .02). Subjects who required mechanical ventilation before retransplantation also had poorer survival (P < .03). CONCLUSION: Survival after cardiac retransplantation in children is inferior to that after primary transplantation. Although results are acceptable, the impact of retransplantation on the availability of donor hearts requires further consideration.     

Repeat Organ Transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005

The prospect of graft loss is a problem faced by all transplant recipients, and retransplantation is often an option when loss occurs. To assess current trends in retransplantation, we analyzed data for retransplant candidates and recipients over the last 10 years, as well as current outcomes. During 2005, retransplant candidates represented 13.5%, 7.9%, 4.1% and 5.5% of all newly registered kidney, liver, heart and lung candidates, respectively. At the end of 2005, candidates for retransplantation accounted for 15.3% of kidney transplant candidates, and lower proportions of liver (5.1%), heart (5.3%) and lung (3.3%) candidates. Retransplants represented 12.4% of kidney, 9.0% of liver, 4.7% of heart and 5.3% of lung transplants performed in 2005. The absolute number of retransplants has grown most notably in kidney transplantation, increasing 40% over the last 10 years; the relative growth of retransplantation was most marked in heart and lung transplantation, increasing 66% and 217%, respectively. The growth of liver retransplantation was only 11%. Unadjusted graft survival remains significantly lower after retransplantation in the most recent cohorts analyzed. Even with careful case mix adjustments, the risk of graft failure following retransplantation is significantly higher than that observed for primary transplants.     

Hepatitis C is a risk factor for death after liver retransplantation.

Retransplantation for liver allograft failure associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been increasing due to nearly universal posttransplant HCV recurrence and has been demonstrated to be associated with poor outcomes. We report on the risk factors for death after retransplantation among liver recipients with HCV. A retrospective cohort of liver transplant recipients who underwent retransplantation between January 1997 and December 2002 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Cox regression was used to assess the relative effect of HCV diagnosis on mortality risk after retransplantation and was adjusted for multiple covariates. Of 1,718 liver retransplantations during the study period, 464 (27%) were associated with a diagnosis of HCV infection. Based on Cox regression, retransplant recipients with HCV had a 30% higher covariate-adjusted mortality risk than those without HCV diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.54; P = 0.002). Other covariates associated with significant relative risk of death after retransplantation included older recipient age, presence in an intensive care unit (ICU), serum creatinine, and donor age. Additional regression analysis revealed that the increase in mortality risk associated with HCV was concentrated between 3 and 24 months postretransplantation, among patients age 18 to 39 at retransplant, and in patients retransplanted during the years 2000 to 2002. In conclusion, HCV liver recipients account for a considerable proportion of all retransplantations performed. Surprisingly, younger age predicted a higher mortality for recipients with HCV undergoing liver retransplantation. This may reflect a willingness to retransplant younger patients with an increased severity of illness or a more virulent HCV infection in this population. Although HCV was predictive of an increased risk of death, consideration of other characteristics of HCV patients, including donor and recipient age and need for preoperative ICU care may identify those at significantly higher risk.     

再次肝移植--挽救肝移植失败受体生命唯一的手段(附774例报告)

目的 评估肝移植，尤其是再次肝移植的长期随访结果及影响结果的因素。方法 对1981年2月至1998年4月期间进行的、存活时间大于2年的4000例肝移植进行随访，其中再次肝移植774例。根据首次肝移植的时间，分为A、B、C三期。结果 774例（19．4％）接受第2次肝移植，148例（3．7％）接受第3次肝移植，20例（0．5％）接受第4次肝移植，5例（0．13％）接受第5次及5次以上肝移植。第1次再移植原因主要为移植肝原发性无功能、肝动脉栓塞和排斥反应。C期再次肝移植率（13．4％）明显低于A期（33．4％）和B期（23．7％），P＝0．001。结论 掌握适当的再移植指征、再次手术时机、受体的选择和手术技巧，再次肝移植的长期生存率明显改善。     

Improved technique of mouse heterotopic heart graft retransplantation

Research on chronic graft failure requires a graft retransplantation model to elucidate the affects of early transplant episodes on long-term graft survival. Prolonged ischemic time is the major hurdle for this retransplant model. Here we describe a novel technique of mouse heart retransplantation, with a shortened retransplant ischemic time and higher success rate. The primary heart transplant employed an allogeneic abdominal heart-transplant technique (Balb/C to C57BL/6 mice). Thirty to 60 days later, the graft was reharvested and retransplanted into the second syngeneic recipient (Balb/C mice) by using cervical heterotopic heart transplantation with a cuff technique. The total ischemic time of retransplant was reduced to within 35 min with the cuff technique, and a greater retransplant success rate (90.6%) was achieved. This heart retransplantation technique is a novel, useful tool in transplantation research.     

Is third-time heart retransplantation justifiable?

Since repeat heart transplantation traditionally carries higher risk than primary engraftment, we tested the hypothesis that third-time cardiac allograft transplantation is associated with prohibitive mortality and morbidity. The cohort of all third-time cardiac retransplants performed at our institution (n=3) and reported to UNOS from 1987 to 2002 (n=10) was reviewed. The primary endpoints were early and late mortality. Extending the study frame through 2003 captures a total of 5 and 15 third-time heart transplant recipients in UCLA and UNOS databases, respectively. Of the 15 patients undergoing third-time retransplants, preoperatively one was ventricular assist device-dependent, four were on intravenous inotropes, and two had creatinine levels greater than 2.5. Additionally, four were male recipients of female donor hearts and the mean donor ischemic time was 2.6 hours. One patient was diagnosed with acute allograft rejection, 13 with coronary artery vasculopathy/chronic rejection, and one with primary graft failure. At our institution, five patients underwent a third heart transplant. There was no early or hospital mortality. One patient died late from transplant coronary artery disease and another following a fourth allograft. The mortality rate for third-time heart allograft recipients is acceptable. These results are influenced by small sample size, younger age, case selection, and operations at select, high-volume institutions with significant experience.     

A single-center experience of late retransplantation of the liver

Liver retransplantation is considered to carry a higher risk than primary transplantation. However, there are an increasing number of retransplant candidates, especially owing to late graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyze a single-center experience in late liver retransplantation. The overall rate of primary retransplantation was 11.4% (28 re-OLT out of 245 primary OLT); the 14 (52%) who underwent retransplantation at more than 3 months after the first transplant were analyzed by a medical record review. Causes of primary graft failure leading to retransplantation were chronic hepatic artery thombosis in five cases (36%); recurrent HCV cirrhosis in four cases (29%); chronic rejection in two cases (14%); veno-occlusive disease; hepatic vein thrombosis or idiopathic graft failure in one case each (7%). UNOS status at re-OLT was always 2A, all patients were hospitalized; three were intensive care unit bound. ICU and total hospital stay had been 7 +/- 5 and 28 +/- 16 days, respectively. One- and 2-year patient and graft survivals were 84% and 62% and 67% and 67%, respectively. Death occurred in four patients. Two out of the three recovered in ICU at the time of retransplantation, at a median interval of 15 +/- 9 days after retransplantation. The survival rate after late retransplantation is improving, and this option should be considered to be a efficient way to save lives, especially by defining the optimal timing for retransplantation.     

Long-term survival after cardiac retransplantation: a twenty-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for survival after cardiac retransplantation and compare the survival after retransplantation with that after primary cardiac transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 952 patients undergoing cardiac transplantation for the treatment of end-stage heart disease at a single center between 1977 and October 1997. Of these, 43 patients (4.5%) underwent cardiac retransplantation for cardiac failure resulting from transplant-related coronary artery disease, rejection, and early graft failure. RESULTS: No significant difference in actuarial patient survival was found by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1, 2, and 5 years between patients undergoing primary transplantation and those undergoing retransplantation 76%, 71%, and 60% versus 66%, 66%, and 51%, respectively (P =.2). Multivariable analysis identified a shorter interval between transplants and an initial diagnosis of ischemic cardiomyopathy as significant risk factors for death after retransplantation (P =.04 and.03, respectively). Since 1993, when our criteria for patient selection for retransplantation were revised on the basis of earlier experience to exclude patients with allograft dysfunction as a result of primary graft failure and those with intractable acute rejection occurring less than 6 months after transplantation, the survival has been significantly better (<1993 = 45%, 45%, and 33% versus >/=1993 = 94%, 94%, and 94% at 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively, P =.003). CONCLUSION: The long-term outcome of cardiac retransplantation is comparable with that of primary transplantation, especially in patients with transplant-related coronary artery disease. Patient characteristics and other preoperative variables should assist in the rational application of retransplantation to ensure optimal use of donor organs.     

Retransplant and Medical Therapy for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry Analysis

Cardiac retransplantation for heart transplant recipients with advanced cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) remains controversial. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry was used to examine survival in adult heart recipients with CAV who were retransplanted (ReTx) or managed medically (MM). Recipients transplanted between 1995 and 2010 who developed CAV and were either retransplanted within 2 years of CAV diagnosis (ReTx) or alive at ≥2 years after CAV diagnosis, managed medically (MM), without retransplant, constituted the study groups. Donor, recipient, transplant characteristics and long‐term survival were compared. The population included 65 patients in ReTx and 4530 in MM. During a median follow‐up of 4 years, there were 24 deaths in ReTx, and 1466 in MM. Survival was comparable at 9 years (55% in ReTx and 51% in MM; p = 0.88). Subgroup comparison suggested survival benefit for retransplant versus MM in patients who developed systolic graft dysfunction. Adjusted predictors for 2‐year mortality were diagnosis of CAV in the early era and longer time since CAV diagnosis following primary transplant. Retransplant was not an independent predictor in the model. Challenges associated with retransplantation as well as improved CAV treatment options support the current consensus recommendation limiting retransplant to highly selected patients with CAV.     

Long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the long-term outcome of patients undergoing hepatic retransplantation at their institution. Donor, operative, and recipient factors impacting on outcome as well as parameters of patient resource utilization were examined. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hepatic retransplantation provides the only available option for liver transplant recipients in whom an existing graft has failed. However, such patients are known to exhibit patient and graft survival after retransplantation that is inferior to that expected using the same organs in naiive recipients. The critical shortage of donor organs and resultant prolonged patient waiting periods before transplantation prompted the authors to evaluate the results of a liberal policy of retransplantation and to examine the factors contributing to the inferior outcome observed in retransplanted patients. METHODS: A total of 2053 liver transplants were performed at the UCLA Medical Center during a 13-year period from February 1, 1984, to October 1, 1996. A total of 356 retransplants were performed in 299 patients (retransplant rate = 17%). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with survival. Additionally, a case-control comparison was performed between the last 150 retransplanted patients and 150 primarily transplanted patients who were matched for age and United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) status. Differences between these groups in donor, operative, and recipient variables were studied for their correlation with patient survival. Days of hospital and intensive care unit stay, and hospital charges incurred during the transplant admissions were compared for retransplanted patients and control patients. RESULTS: Survival of retransplanted patients at 1, 5, and 10 years was 62%, 47%, and 45%, respectively. This survival is significantly less than that seen in patients undergoing primary hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (83%, 74%, and 68%). A number of variables proved to have a significant impact on outcome including recipient age group, interval to retransplantation, total number of grafts, and recipient UNOS status. Recipient primary diagnosis, cause for retransplantation, and whether the patient was retransplanted before or after June 1, 1992, did not reach statistical significance as factors influencing survival. In the case-control comparison, the authors found that of the more than 25 variables studied, only preoperative ventilator status showed both a significant difference between control patients and retransplanted patients and also was a factor predictive of survival in retransplanted patients. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated total hospitalization charges more than 170% of those by control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic retransplantation, although life-saving in almost 50% of patients with a failing liver allograft, is costly and uses scarce donor organs inefficiently. The data presented define patient characteristics and preoperative variables that impact patient outcome and should assist in the rational application of retransplantation.     

Invasive aspergillosis in the recipients of liver retransplantation.

Retransplantation is a major risk factor for invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients. However, the risk for invasive aspergillosis with time elapsed since retransplantation, clinical characteristics, and outcome of patients who develop this infection after retransplantation of the liver has not been defined. Patients comprised 17 liver retransplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis between 1990 and 2004. Retransplantation was considered early if it was performed within 30 days and late if performed after 30 days of the first or primary transplant. Retransplant recipients comprised 25% of all cases of invasive aspergillosis after liver transplantation. Fifty-three percent of the Aspergillus infections occurred within 30 days, and 76% within 90 days of retransplantation. In all, 53% (9/17) of the patients were late retransplant recipients. Late compared to early retransplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis were more likely to have central nervous system involvement with invasive aspergillosis (56% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). Mortality rate was 100% for late and 63% for early retransplant recipients with Aspergillus infections. In conclusion, time-varying risk for invasive aspergillosis after retransplantation has implications relevant for guiding antifungal prophylaxis. Given a greater risk for disseminated infection and poor outcome in late retransplant recipients with aspergillosis, potent and aggressive antifungal therapy should be considered upfront in these patients.     

Mortality Experience in Recipients Undergoing Repeat Transplantation with Expanded Criteria Donor and Non-ECD Deceased-Donor Kidneys

Nearly one-quarter of the kidney transplant waiting list is composed of repeat transplantation candidates. Survival following retransplantation using expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys has not been adequately studied. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we analyzed mortality after retransplantation with ECD and non-ECD deceased-donor kidneys. Adult patients who experienced graft failure and were relisted for transplantation between 1995 and 2004 were studied (n=9641). Follow-up began at the date of relisting and continued until death or the end of the observation period (December 31, 2004), with censoring at living-donor transplantation. Sequential stratification (an extension of Cox regression) was used to compare mortality between patients receiving an ECD retransplant and those remaining on the waiting list or receiving a non-ECD retransplant (conventional therapy). Of 2908 retransplantations, 292 used ECD kidneys. Survival after ECD retransplantation was approximately equal to that of conventional therapy, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.98 (p=0.88). In contrast, non-ECD retransplant recipients experienced a significant reduction in mortality (HR=0.44; p<0.0001). Based on these national data, recipients of ECD retransplantation do not have a survival advantage relative to conventional therapy, whereas non-ECD retransplantation is associated with a significant survival advantage.     

Retransplantation in 7,290 primary transplant patients: a 10-year multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac retransplantation is a controversial procedure due to the disparity between donor heart demand and supply. METHODS: Of 7,290 patients undergoing primary cardiac transplantation between January 1990 and December 1999 at 42 institutions contributing to the Cardiac Transplant Research Database (CTRD), 106 patients later underwent a second and 1 patient a third cardiac transplant procedure. RESULTS: The actuarial freedom from retransplantation was 99.2% and 96.8% at 1 and 10 years, respectively. Reasons for retransplantation included early graft failure (n = 34), acute cardiac rejection (n = 15), coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV, n = 39), non-specific graft failure (n = 7), and miscellaneous (n = 10). The only risk factor associated with retransplantation was younger age, reflecting the policy of preferential retransplantation of younger patients. Survival after retransplantation was inferior to that after primary transplantation (56% and 38% at 1 and 5 years, respectively). Risk factors associated with death after retransplantation included retransplantation for acute rejection (p = 0.0005), retransplantation for early graft failure (p = 0.03), and use of a female donor (p = 0.005). Survival after retransplantation for acute rejection was poorest (32% and 8% at 1 and 5 years, respectively) followed by retransplantation for early graft failure (50% and 39% at 1 and 5 years, respectively). Survival after retransplantation for CAV has steadily improved with successive eras. CONCLUSIONS: The results of retransplantation for acute rejection and early graft failure are poor enough to suggest that this option is not advisable. However, retransplantation for CAV is currently associated with satisfactory survival and should continue to be offered to selected patients.     

When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors

Outcomes of retransplantation after initial living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand the indications, timing, and outcomes of retransplantation after initial LDLT when compared to after initial deceased donor transplantation (DDLT). From 2002 to 2013, 209 retransplant recipients after initial LDLT and 2893 after initial DDLT were identified in Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable logistic models evaluated the association between initial transplant type and 1‐year mortality. The most frequent reason for early graft failure (≤14 days) in LDLT recipients was vascular thrombosis (63.6%) versus primary graft failure in initial DDLT recipients (59.1%). LDLT recipients were more often acutely and/or critically ill with a greater proportion of Status 1 (42.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (52.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.001) recipients at the time of retransplantation. There was no difference in adjusted 1‐year mortality between retransplant recipients after initial LDLT versus DDLT (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.08). The proportion of recipients who ultimately required retransplantation for a third time was not different between the two groups (4.8%). Retransplantation outcomes after LDLT are not different from other retransplant procedures, despite recipients having greater acuity of illness and different indications.     

Liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic cholestatic disease that progresses to end-stage liver disease. This report is a retrospective analysis of a Canadian centre experience with liver transplantation (LT) for PSC. Of 1107 LTs performed between 1984 and 2002, 132 were performed on 111 patients with PSC. Patient survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 84.5%, 84.5%, 83.4%, and 68.9%, respectively. Graft survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 80.8%, 79.8%, 72.7%, and 55.3%. These were not significantly different from overall patient survival (P =.91) or graft survival (P =.28) in non-PSC patients transplanted over the same time period. Early mortality was predominantly related to primary nonfunction and multi-organ failure; late mortality was predominantly related to malignancy. No patient with known cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) underwent LT, but three patients had an incidental CCA noted on explant pathology. All three died of widespread metastatic disease (10.8, 38.0, and 39.8 months after LT). Nineteen patients lost their primary grafts requiring retransplantation, and two of these patients required a third transplant. Recurrent PSC was detected in six patients and suspected in another six. Four patients have been retransplanted for recurrent PSC. Chronic rejection was detected in nine patients. Eight have required retransplantation. The incidence of biliary complications was 16.2%. CONCLUSIONS: LT is effective therapy for PSC. Patient and graft survival is comparable to that seen in patients transplanted for indications other than PSC, but long-term graft survival may be lower. Recurrent PSC and chronic rejection are the major determinants of graft loss.     

Risk factors for death following liver retransplantation

AIM: Our goal was to retrospectively analyze graft loss and mortality risk factors using multi-centre data on liver retransplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 1991-1995, 640 patients underwent 718 liver transplants in Barcelona. Mean age of the 74 patients receiving a second transplant was 47.6 years (range 19-65). Causes of retransplantation were immunologic in 26 patients (35.1%), technical in 23 (31.1%), primary dysfunction in 12 (16.2%), recurrent original disease in 7 (9.5%), and other causes in 6 (8.1%). Mean time between first and second transplant was less than 7 days in 20 patients (27%), between 8 and 30 days in 4 (5.4%) and more than 30 days in 50 patients (67.6%). Recipient, donor, and operative variables were analyzed using univariate (Kaplan-Meier curves) and multivariate techniques (Cox regression) to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Retransplant patient survival at 1 and 5 years was 60.8% and 49.5%, respectively, compared to 75.6% and 64.8% in a series of 640 first transplant patients. Mortality risk factors identified by multivariate analysis were bilirubin >12 mg/dL (RR 2.3; P=.010), recipient age (RR increase 0.04 for each additional year; P=.02), cause for retransplant (immunologic RR 4.01, technical RR 2.7 and other causes RR 6.9; compared to primary dysfunction RR 1; P=.020). Urea >54 mg/dL (0.02) and multiple transfusions >15 units red blood cells (0.001) were only significant in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, retransplantation for primary dysfunction is the setting that has the best prognosis. Of the other causes, retransplantation should be performed before the total bilirubin reaches >12 mg/dL or before the appearance of variables indicative of severe renal insufficiency.     

Simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) retransplantation in prior SPK recipients

LaMattina JC, Sollinger HW, Becker YT, Mezrich JD, Pirsch JD, Odorico JS. Simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) retransplantation in prior SPK recipients.
Clin Transplant 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399‐0012.2011.01540.x.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: We have performed 113 renal and 28 isolated pancreas retransplants in our cohort of more than 1200 prior simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) recipients. On the basis of these experiences, we began performing repeat SPK in prior SPK recipients (n = 9). Methods: This retrospective review summarizes our experience with repeat SPK transplantation in prior SPK recipients. Mean age at retransplant was 39 yr; mean interval to retransplant was 7.8 yr. Thirty‐three percent were pre‐dialysis. Eighty‐nine percent of patients underwent transplant nephrectomy (five during the repeat SPK and three prior to it), and 78% underwent transplant pancreatectomy (four during the repeat SPK and three prior to it). Enteric drainage was performed in all repeat SPKs. Results: Median length of stay was 11 d. Perioperative complications included the following: renal artery thrombosis (1), pancreatic portal venous thrombosis (1), enteric leak (1), and hematoma (2). Overall pancreatic allograft survival was 78% at one yr and 67% at two yr. Overall renal allograft survival was 89% at one yr and 78% at two yr. Patient survival at one and three yr was 100%. Conclusions: Survival of repeat SPK allografts is acceptable despite the increased technical and immunologic demands of retransplantation. Graftectomy prior to or at the time of retransplantation is often necessary.     

Decision for retransplantation of the liver: an experience- and cost-based analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the patient factors affecting patient outcome of first liver retransplantation at a single center to help in the decision process for retransplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Given the critical organ shortage, one of the most controversial questions is whether hepatic retransplantation, the only chance of survival for patients with a failing first organ, should be offered liberally despite its greater cost, worse survival, and the inevitable denial of access to primary transplantation to other patients due to the depletion of an already-limited organ supply. The authors' experience of 139 consecutive retransplantations was reviewed to evaluate the results of retransplantation and to identify the factors that could improve the results. METHODS: From 1986 to 2000, 1,038 patients underwent only one liver transplant and 139 patients underwent a first retransplant at the authors' center (first retransplantation rate = 12%). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables, excluding intraoperative and donor variables, associated with graft and patient long-term survival following first retransplantation. Lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stay and hospital charges incurred during the transplantation admissions were compared for retransplanted patients and primary-transplant patients. RESULTS: One-year, 5-year, and 10-year graft and patient survival rates following retransplantation were 54.0%, 42.5%, 36.8% and 61.2%, 53.7%, and 50.1%, respectively. These percentages were significantly less than those following a single hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (82.3%, 72.1%, and 66.9%, respectively). On multivariate analysis, three patient variables were significantly associated with a poorer patient outcome: urgency of retransplantation (excluding primary nonfunction), age, and creatinine. Primary nonfunction as an indication for retransplantation, total bilirubin, and factor II level were associated with a better prognosis. The final model was highly predictive of survival: according to the combination of the factors affecting outcome, 5-year patient survival rates varied from 15% to 83%. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated significantly higher total hospital charges than those receiving only one transplant.CONCLUSIONS These data confirm the utility of retransplantation in the elective situation. In the emergency setting, retransplantation should be used with discretion, and it should be avoided in subgroups of patients with little chance of success.