Endoluminal management of arterioportal fistulae in liver transplant recipients: a single-center experience

Transcatheter embolization of arterioportal fistulae in liver transplant recipients is restricted to symptomatic arterioportal fistulae. Angiograms of liver transplant recipients from a single university medical center were retrospectively reviewed. Hemodynamically significant arterioportal fistulae were defined as those exhibiting opacification of the main portal vein of the transplanted hepatic graft or its first order branch with or without portal venous changes by Doppler ultrasound imaging. Six arterioportal fistulae were found. Doppler ultrasound imaging detected 50% of all arterioportal fistulae and all 3 hemodynamically significant arterioportal fistulae. Three successful embolizations were performed. Follow-up (37 to 67 months) demonstrated patent hepatic arteries and no parenchymal ischemic changes with graft preservation. High-throughput arterioportal fistulae may require larger intrahepatic artery branch embolization. There is a window of opportunity for embolizing significant arterioportal fistulae before their progression to large symptomatic, high through-put arterioportal fistulae with their added risk of ischemic changes before and after embolization.     

Whole liver versus split liver versus living donor in the adult recipient: an analysis of outcomes by graft type

BACKGROUND: We studied patient and graft survival rates in adult liver transplant recipients, analyzing outcomes based on donor source (deceased donor [DD] vs. living donor [LD]) and graft type (whole liver vs. partial liver). METHODS: A retrospective database analysis of all adult liver transpants performed at our center over a 7-year period of time. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2005, 384 liver transplants were performed in adult recipients, either as a whole liver from a deceased donor (DD-WL, n=284), split liver from a DD (DD-SL, n=31), or a partial transplant from a living donor (LD, n=69). DD-SL transplants were performed with a full right or left lobe graft, while LD transplants used the right lobe. Demographic differences in the three groups were most noticeable for lower model for end-stage liver disease scores in LD recipients (P<0.001) and younger donor age in DD-SL recipients (P<0.001). Superior graft survival results were seen in LD recipients versus either DD-WL recipients or DD-SL recipients (P=0.02 and P=0.05, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed hepatitis C (HR=1.53, P=0.05) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.74, P=0.03) to be significant risk factors for patient survival. Hepatitis C (HR=1.61, P=0.03) and donor age more than 50 (HR=1.64, P=0.04) were significant risk factors for graft survival. However, neither graft type nor donor source were significant independent risk factors for patient or graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that the status of the recipient is probably a more important determinant of outcome than graft type or donor source.     

Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: a paired donor kidney analysis

BACKGROUND: Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes after living and cadaveric transplantation. To validate and quantify end-stage renal disease (ESRD) time as an independent risk factor for kidney transplantation, we compared the outcome of paired donor kidneys, destined to patients who had ESRD more than 2 years compared to patients who had ESRD less than 6 months. METHODS: We analyzed data available from the U.S. Renal Data System database between 1988 and 1998 by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to quantify the effect of ESRD time on paired cadaveric kidneys and on all cadaveric kidneys compared to living-donated kidneys. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year unadjusted graft survival rates were significantly worse in paired kidney recipients who had undergone more than 24 months of dialysis (58% and 29%, respectively) compared to paired kidney recipients who had undergone less than 6 months of dialysis (78% and 63%, respectively; P<0.001 each). Ten-year overall adjusted graft survival for cadaveric transplants was 69% for preemptive transplants versus 39% for transplants after 24 months on dialysis. For living transplants, 10-year overall adjusted graft survival was 75% for preemptive transplants versus 49% for transplants after 24 month on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD time is arguably the strongest independent modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes. Part of the advantage of living-donor versus cadaveric-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time. This effect is dominant enough that a cadaveric renal transplant recipient with an ESRD time less than 6 months has the equivalent graft survival of living donor transplant recipients who wait on dialysis for more than 2 years.     

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BackgroundDespite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.MethodWe aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.ResultsA total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.ConclusionPatients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.     

Comparison of survival probabilities for living-unrelated versus cadaveric renal transplant recipients

Any attempt to improve organ donation would be of benefit due to the growing shortage of cadaveric sources for transplantation. OBJECTIVE: We compared the graft survivals and possible predictive variables among renal transplant recipients with organs from living unrelated (LURD) versus cadaveric donors (CD). METHOD: Among 104 consecutive renal transplants performed from July 1992 to February 2003, 41 were from LURD and 24 from CD. Immunosuppressive regimens were based on cyclosporine and steroids with mycophenolate mofetil added after 1998. Patient and graft survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. The significance level of predictive variables was analyzed with the Cox proportional hazard model. The follow-up period was 2 to 127 months (median 46 months). RESULTS: Eight recipients lost their grafts (six from LURD and two from CD) due to four chronic rejections, one acute rejection, one recurrence of primary disease, and one death with a functioning graft. The graft survival rates at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years were 97.6%, 91.9%, 88.5%, and 82.2% for LURD transplants versus 95.5%, 90.9%, 90.9%, and 90.9% for CD transplants, respectively (P > .05). Delayed graft function and donor age (>55 years old) were statistically significant predictors of graft survival among LURD transplants. Donor age (>55 years old) and multiple preoperative transfusion history were significant in CD transplants. CONCLUSION: LURD transplant survival was similar to that of CD transplants in our series. LURDs are an excellent source of organs to expand the donor pool.     

Renal transplantations performed using non-heart-beating organ donors: going back to the future?

BACKGROUND: As more expanded-criteria organ donors are used to bridge the widening gap between organ supply and demand, non-heart-beating (NHB) donors will become increasingly important. The purpose of this study was to analyze renal transplant outcomes using this source of cadaveric (CAD) organs and compare the results with heart-beating organ sources. METHODS: Data from 98,698 adult CAD renal transplant recipients and 34,531 living donor renal transplant recipients registered in the U. S. Renal Data System database between January 1993 and June 2000 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to compare graft and patient survival rates between NHB, CAD, and living donor transplant recipients. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors for NHB donor recipients, while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Recipients of NHB donor organs experienced nearly twice the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) compared with heart-beating donors (42.4% vs. 23.3%, respectively). NHB donor transplants experienced comparable allograft survival when compared with CAD transplants at 6 years (73.2% vs. 72.5%, respectively; P=NS); patient survival was greater at 6 years for NHB compared with CAD renal transplant recipients (80.9% vs. 77.8%, respectively; P=NS). Significant factors for allograft loss for NHB donor organ recipients included the following: organ used for repeat transplants; DGF; donor age older than 35 years; and head trauma as a cause of initial injury (relative risk 2.74, 1.90, 1.78, and 1.41, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although exhibiting elevated DGF rates, allograft and patient survival rates of transplants from NHB donor sources are equivalent to those from conventional CAD sources. Donor age, recipient transplant number, female recipient, mechanism of injury, and DGF were the most pertinent variables leading to poor outcomes.     

The influence of acute rejection on long-term renal allograft survival: a comparison of living and cadaveric donor transplantation

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether recipients of living donor grafts who suffer an acute rejection progress to graft loss because of chronic rejection at a slower rate than recipients of cadaveric grafts. METHODS: A retrospective review was made of 296 renal transplantations performed at Mount Sinai Hospital. Only grafts functioning for at least 3 months were included in this analysis. Demographic variables of donor and recipient age, race, sex, and serum creatinine at 3 months after transplantation were compared between groups. RESULTS: Among the acute rejection-free cohort, the estimated 5-year graft survival was 90% for those receiving transplants from living relatives and 88% for those receiving cadaveric transplants (P=0.76). However, in grafts with early acute rejection, the 5-year survival was 40% for cadaveric recipients compared with 73% for living related graft recipients (P<0.014). Using the proportional hazards model, cadaveric donor source, older donor age, African American recipient race, and elevated 3-month serum creatinine were independent predictors of long-term graft loss caused by chronic rejection. The severity of acute rejection and recipient age had no impact on the risk of graft loss because of chronic rejection. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the benefit of living related transplantation results from the fact that a living related graft progresses from acute to chronic rejection at a slower rate than a cadaveric graft. Furthermore, a cadaveric graft that is free of acute rejection 3 months after transplantation has an equal likelihood of functioning at 5 years as that of a graft from a living related donor.     

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。     

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The shortage of livers for transplantation has prompted transplant centers to seek alternatives to conventional cadaveric liver transplantation. Left lateral segmentectomy from living donors has proven to be a safe operation for the donor with excellent results in the pediatric population. Left lobectomy, conceived to supply more tissue, still provides insufficient liver mass for an average size adult patient. Right lobectomy could supply a graft of adequate size. METHODS: Donors were considered only after recipients were listed according to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) criteria. Donor evaluation included liver biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging, and celiac and mesenteric angiography. The donor operation consisted of a right lobectomy uniformly performed throughout the series as described herein. RESULTS: Twenty-five right lobe living donor liver transplants were performed between adults, with no significant complications in donors. Recipient and graft survival was 88%, with three recipient deaths secondary to uncontrolled sepsis in patients at high risk for liver transplant; all three had functioning grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Right lobe living donor liver transplantation poses challenges that require a meticulous surgical technique to minimize morbidity in the recipient. Right lobectomies for living donation can be performed safely with minimal risk to both donor and recipient although providing adequate liver mass for an average size adult patient.     

Living related and unrelated donors for kidney transplantation. A 28-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze a single center's 28-year experience with 1000 living donor transplants. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The number of potential renal transplant recipients far exceeds the number of cadaveric donors. For this reason, living related donors (LRDs) and, more recently, living unrelated donors (LURDs) have been used to decrease the cadaveric donor shortage. METHODS: From November 15, 1966, until August 5, 1994, 1000 living donor transplants were performed; 906 were living related and 94 were living unrelated transplants. Results were divided into precyclosporine (1966-1986, era I) and cyclosporine (1986-1994, era II) eras. Patient and graft survivals were compared between diabetic and nondiabetic recipients, between LRDs and LURDs, and according to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching. Donor mortality, morbidity, and postoperative renal function were also analyzed. RESULTS: The 5-, 10-, and 20-year graft survivals were 78.8%, 64.8%, and 43.4%, respectively. Patient and graft survival improved in era II (patient = 87.0% vs. 81.7%, p = 0.03; graft = 72.9% vs. 67.7%, p = 0.04). Nondiabetic patient and graft survivals were better than diabetic patient survivals in both eras. However, diabetic patient survival improved in era II (78.0% vs. 66.9%, p = 0.04). In era II, HLA-identical recipients had better graft survival than haploidentical or mismatched recipients (91.7% vs. 67.3% and 66.1%, p = 0.01). No difference between haploidentical LRDs and LURDs was seen. One donor death occurred in 1970, and 17% of donors developed postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Living related and unrelated renal donation continues to be an important source of kidneys for patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Monosegmental living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) program has been started from 1990 in Japan, and is still major form of liver transplantation because of the scarcity of cadaveric donor organs. In small infants, implantation of left lateral segment grafts can be a problem because of a large-for-size graft. Until November 2002, we performed 867 transplants for 828 patients (561 children and 306 adults), and 14 cases received monosegment grafts from living donors. METHODS: Fifteen patients, median age 211 days, median weights 5.95 kg, received monosegmental LDLT. The indication for using this technique was infants with an estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio of over 4.0%. RESULTS: Graft and patient survival is 85.7%. There were no differences in donor operation time and blood loss between monosegmentectomy and left lateral segmentectomy. Segment III grafts were indicated in 13 cases. Two vascular complications were observed (one hepatic artery thrombosis and one portal vein thrombosis). CONCLUSIONS: Monosegental living donor liver transplantation is a feasible option with satisfactory graft survival in small babies with liver failure.     

Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living unrelated donors remain an underutilized resource, despite their high graft survival rates. In this article, we updated the long-term results of more than 2500 living unrelated donor transplants performed in the United States. METHODS: Between 1987 and 1998, 1765 spouse, 986 living unrelated, 27,535 living related, and 86,953 cadaver donor grafts were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Registry. Kaplan-Meier curves compared graft survival rates in stratified analyses, and a log-linear analysis adjusted donor-specific outcomes for the effects of 24 other transplant factors. RESULTS: The long-term survival rates for both spouse and living unrelated transplants were essentially the same (5-year graft survivals of 75 and 72% and half-lives of 14 and 13 years, respectively). The results were similar to that for parent donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 74% and half-life = 12 years) and were significantly (P = 0.003) better than cadaver donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 62% and half-life = 9 years). After adjusting for the presence of transplant factors known to influence survival rates, recipients of living unrelated donor kidney transplants still had superior outcomes compared with cadaver transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Living unrelated kidney donors represent the fastest growing donor source in the United States and provide excellent long-term results. Encouraging spouses to donate could remove nearly 15% of the patients from the UNOS waiting list, effectively increasing the number of available cadaveric organs.     

Outcomes of renal transplantation for recipients with lupus nephritis: analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database

Prior analyses of transplant outcomes in lupus transplant recipients have not consisted of multivariate analyses in the modern immunosuppressive era. Here, we compared patient and graft outcomes in lupus and non-lupus recipients transplanted between 1996 to 2000 using the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. We evaluated the impact of recipient and donor demographic factors, time on dialysis and the initial immunosuppression regimen on rejection rates and transplant outcomes. Univariate analysis showed similar graft but better patient survival rates for primary lupus and non-lupus transplant recipients (5-year patient survival rates for lupus cohort 85.2% for deceased donor transplants and 92.1% for living donor transplants as opposed to 82.1% and 89.8% respectively for the non-lupus cohort; P=0.05 and 0.03) but similar patient survival rates for deceased donor retransplant patients. After controlling for confounding factors, no differences in patient or graft survival were seen between the two groups. No difference in acute rejection rates were observed in deceased donor transplants, but there was a small but significant increase in the risk of acute rejection in living donor lupus transplant recipients (hazard ratio=1.19, P=0.05). Risk of graft failure was lower for deceased donor recipients receiving MMF (five-year graft loss rate=29.6% for MMF vs. 40.2% for those not receiving MMF, P<0.0001), but no differences were seen among living donor recipients. Outcomes were similar regardless of type of calcineurin inhibitor, induction therapy, and time on dialysis. We conclude that lupus transplant recipients have outcomes generally equivalent to non-lupus transplant recipients.     

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and living related donor renal transplantation in patients with diabetes: is there a difference in survival?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and living related donor renal transplantation (LRD) in patients with diabetes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It remains unanswered whether diabetic patients with end-stage renal failure are better served by LRD or SPK. METHODS: Using a longitudinal database, data from all diabetic patients receiving LRD or cadaveric renal transplants or SPKs from January 1986 through January 1996 were analyzed. Patient and graft survival, early graft function, and the cause of patient and graft loss were compared for 43 HLA-identical LRDs, 87 haplotype-identical LRDs, 379 SPKs, and 296 cadaveric renal transplants. RESULTS: The demographic composition of the SPK and LRD groups were similar, but because of less strict selection criteria in the cadaveric transplant group, patients were 10 years older, more patients received dialysis, and patients had been receiving dialysis longer before transplantation. Patient survival was similar for the SPK and LRD groups but was significantly lower for the cadaveric renal transplant group. Similarly, there was no difference in graft survival between SPK and LRD recipients, but it was significantly lower for recipients in the cadaveric renal transplant group. Delayed graft function was significantly more common in the cadaveric renal transplant group. Discharge creatinine, the strongest predictor of patient and graft survival, was highest in the SPK group and lowest in the HLA-identical LRD group. The rate of rejection within the first year was greatest in SPK patients (77%), intermediate in the haplotype-identical LRD and cadaveric transplant groups (57% and 48%, respectively), and lowest (16%) in the HLA-identical LRD group. Cardiovascular disease was the primary cause of death for all groups. Acute rejection, chronic rejection, and death with a functioning graft were the predominant causes of graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that there was no difference in patient or graft survival in diabetic patients receiving LRD or SPK transplants. However, graft and patient survival rates in diabetic recipients of cadaveric renal transplants were significantly lower than in the other groups.     

One hundred nine living donor liver transplants in adults and children: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evolution of a living donor liver transplant program and the authors' experience with 109 cases. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The authors' institution began to offer living donor liver transplants to children in 1993 and to adults in 1998. METHODS: Donors were healthy, ages 18 to 60 years, related or unrelated, and ABO-compatible (except in one case). Donor evaluation was thorough. Liver biopsy was performed for abnormal lipid profiles or a history of significant alcohol use, a body mass index more than 28, or suspected steatosis. Imaging studies included angiography, computed tomography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Recipient evaluation and management were the same as for cadaveric transplant. RESULTS: After ABO screening, 136 potential donors were evaluated for 113 recipients; 23 donors withdrew for medical or personal reasons. Four donor surgeries were aborted; 109 transplants were performed. Fifty children (18 years or younger) received 47 left lateral segments and 3 left lobes; 59 adults received 50 right lobes and 9 left lobes. The average donor hospital stay was 6 days. Two donors each required one unit of banked blood. Right lobe donors had three bile leaks from the cut surface of the liver; all resolved. Another right lobe donor had prolonged hyperbilirubinemia. Three donors had small bowel obstructions; two required operation. All donors are alive and well. The most common indications for transplant were biliary atresia in children (56%) and hepatitis C in adults (40%); 35.6% of adults had hepatocellular carcinoma. Biliary reconstructions in all children and 44 adults were with a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy; 15 adults had duct-to-duct anastomoses. The incidence of major vascular complications was 12% in children and 11.8% in adult recipients. Children had three bile leaks (6%) and six (12%) biliary strictures. Adult patients had 14 (23.7%) bile leaks and 4 (6.8%) biliary strictures. Patient and graft survival rates were 87.6% and 81%, respectively, at 1 year and 75.1% and 69.6% at 5 years. In children, patient and graft survival rates were 89.9% and 85.8%, respectively, at 1 year and 80.9% and 78% at 5 years. In adults, patient and graft survival rates were 85.6% and 77%, respectively, at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Living donor liver transplantation has become an important option for our patients and has dramatically changed our approach to patients with liver failure. The donor surgery is safe and can be done with minimal complications. We expect that living donor liver transplants will represent more than 50% of our transplants within 3 years.     

Pancreas after kidney transplants

BACKGROUND: For certain uremic diabetic patients, a sequential transplant of a kidney (usually from a living donor) followed by a cadaver pancreas has become an attractive alternative to a simultaneous transplant of both organs. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes with simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) versus pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplants to determine advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. METHODS: Between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 2000, we performed 398 cadaver pancreas transplants at our center. Of these, 193 were SPK transplants and 205 were PAK transplants. We compared these two groups with regard to several endpoints, including patient and graft survival rates, surgical complications, acute rejection rates, waiting times, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, surgical complications were more common for SPK recipients. The total relaparotomy rate was 25.9% for SPK recipients versus 15.1% for PAK recipients (P = 0.006). Leaks, intraabdominal infections, and wound infections were all significantly more common in SPK recipients (P = 0.009, P = 0.05, and P = 0.01, respectively, versus PAK recipients). Short-term pancreas graft survival rates were similar between the two groups: at 1 year posttransplant, 78.0% for SPK recipients and 77.9% for PAK recipients (P = not significant). By 3 years, however, pancreas graft survival differed between the two groups (74.1% for SPK and 61.7% for PAK recipients), although this did not quite reach statistical significance (P = 0.15). This difference in graft survival seemed to be due to increased immunologic losses for PAK recipients: at 3 years posttransplant, the incidence of immunologic graft loss was 16.2% for PAK versus 5.2% for SPK recipients (P = 0.01). Kidney graft survival rates were, however, better for PAK recipients. At 3 years after their kidney transplant, kidney graft survival rates were 83.6% for SPK and 94.6% for PAK recipients (P = 0.001). The mean waiting time to receive the pancreas transplant was 244 days for SPK and 167 days for PAK recipients (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PAK transplants are a viable option for uremic diabetics. While long-term pancreas graft results are slightly inferior to SPK transplants, the advantages of PAK transplants include the possibility of a preemptive living donor kidney transplant, better long-term kidney graft survival, significantly decreased waiting times, and decreased surgical complication rates. Use of a living donor for the kidney transplant expands the donor pool. Improvements in immunosuppressive regimens will hopefully eliminate some of the difference in long-term pancreas graft survival between SPK and PAK transplants.     

Living donor liver transplant recipients achieve relatively higher immunosuppressant blood levels than cadaveric recipients

Two recent brief reports suggest that recipients of living donor liver transplants achieve higher levels of immunosuppressive agents than cadaveric (CAD) liver transplant recipients administered the same dose. These results could have important implications regarding the dosing of immunosuppressives in living donor liver transplant recipients. We report our findings relative to immunosuppressive doses and levels in a cohort of 46 living donor liver transplant recipients. Immunosuppressive blood levels and doses were recorded weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 and months 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for 46 living donor liver transplant recipients and 66 matched CAD liver transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between August 1997 and May 2001. The ratio of level to dose also was recorded at each interval. The mean overall cyclosporine A dose was similar in living donor liver transplant recipients (323 mg/d) compared with CAD recipients (344 mg/d; P = not significant [NS]). The mean overall tacrolimus dose was 15% lower in patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT; 5.7 mg/d) than CAD transplantation (6.7 mg/d), although statistical significance was not achieved (P = .08). The mean overall cyclosporine A level was 18% higher in those undergoing LDLT (275 ng/mL) than CAD transplantation (234 ng/mL; P = .015). The mean overall tacrolimus level was the same in living donor liver transplant recipients (10.8 ng/mL) and CAD recipients (10.2 ng/mL; P = NS). The overall cyclosporine A level-dose ratio was 26% higher for those undergoing LDLT (0.83) than CAD transplantation (0.66; P = .01). The overall tacrolimus level-dose ratio was 26% higher for those undergoing LDLT (1.82) than CAD transplantation (1.44; P = .01). In conclusion, (1) living donor liver transplant recipients achieve higher blood levels of tacrolimus and cyclosporine A for a given dose compared with CAD recipients, and (2) this difference is observed up to 6 months after transplantation, when hepatic regeneration is completed. (Liver Transpl 2002;8:212-218.)     

Progress in renal transplantation. A single center study of 3359 patients over 25 years.

OBJECTIVE: The study analyzed 3359 consecutive renal transplant operations for patient and graft survival, including living related, cadaveric, and living unrelated patients. The analysis was separated into three groups according to immunosuppression and date of transplant. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Improvements in renal transplantation in the past 25 years have been the result of better immunosuppression, organ preservation, and patient selection. METHODS: A single transplant center's experience over a 25-year period was analyzed regarding patient and graft survival. Potential risk factors included patient demographics, tissue typing, donor characteristics, number of transplants, acute and chronic rejection, acute tubular necrosis, primary disease, and malignancy. RESULTS: The primary cause of graft loss was rejection. Improvement in cadaveric graft survival since 1987 with quadruple therapy was not apparent in living donor patients. Race continued to be a negative factor in graft survival. Avoiding previous mismatched antigens and the use of flow cytometry improved allograft survival. The leading cause of death in the past 7 years in cadaveric recipients was cardiac (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Improved graft survival in the past 25 years was related to 1) advances in immunosuppression, 2) better methods of cytotoxic antibody detection, and 3) human lymphocyte antigen match.     

Living donor kidney transplantation in a Veterans Administration medical center

BACKGROUND: A shortage of organ donors remains the major limiting factor in kidney transplantation. Living donor renal transplantation, especially living-unrelated donors, may expand the donor pool by providing another source of excellent grafts. METHODS: Between 1983 and 2003, 109 living donor kidney transplants were performed. Potential donors were assessed with a standardized routine. Antithymocyte serum (N-ATS) and Basiliximab were used as induction agents. Sandimmune, Gengraf, Neoral, and Prograf were the main immunosuppressants with Immuran, Mycophenolate Mofetil, and steroids. Eighty-two percent of the recipients were from out of state. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of the living donors were from living-related donors and 22% were from living-unrelated donors. One- and three-year patient survival rates were 97.6% and 93.2% with 1- and 3-year graft survival rates of 93.2% and 88.3%, respectively. There were 6 delayed graft functions (5.5%), 16 acute cellular rejections (10%), and 10 chronic rejections (9%). Twelve patients died, 7 of them with a functioning graft. In the past 6 years (1997-2003), the number of living donor kidney transplants surpassed deceased donor kidney transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited number of cadaveric kidneys available for transplant, living donors represent a valuable source, and the use of living-unrelated donors has produced an additional supply of organs. In our program, the proportion of living donors used for kidney transplant is comparable with other non-Veterans Administration programs and the survival of these allografts appears to be superior to deceased donor kidney transplants.