Anthony M. D'Alessandro

Risk factors for primary dysfunction after liver transplantation - A multivariate analysis

In a retrospective analysis on 323 orthotopic liver transplant procedures performed between July 1984 and October 1991 the incidence of two forms of primary dysfunction (PDF) of the liver: primary nonfunction (PNF), and initial poor function (IPF) were studied. The incidence of PDF was 22% (73/323) with 6% PNF (20/323) and 16% IPF (53/323), while 78% (250/323) had immediate function (IF). Occurrence of both IPF and PNF resulted in a higher graft failure rate (P < 0.001), retransplantation rate (P < 0.001), and patient mortality (P < 0.003) within the first three months after OLTx. Univariate analyses of donor and recipient factors and their influence on PDF demonstrated that longer donor hospitalization (> 3 days), older donor age (> 49 years), extended preservation times (> 18 hr), and fatty changes in the donor liver biopsy, as well as reduced-size livers, younger recipient age, and renal insufficiency prior to OLTx, significantly affected the incidence of IPF and PNF. Multivariate analysis of potential risk factors showed that reduced-size liver (P = 0.0001), fatty changes on donor liver biopsy (P = 0.001), older donor age (P = 0.009), retransplantation (P = 0.01), renal insufficiency (P = 0.02), and prolonged cold ischemia times (P = 0.02) were independently associated with a higher incidence of IPF and PNF. No statistical correlation was found between PDF and etiology of ESLD, nutritional status of the recipient, UNOS status, and Child-Pugh classification in this study. We conclude that PNF and IPF are both separate clinical entities that have a significant effect on outcome after OLTx. Routine donor liver biopsies are recommended to decrease the rate of IPF and PNF. The combination of risk factors shown to be significant for PDF should be avoided--and, if that is not possible, the only variable that can be controlled, the preservation time, should be kept as short as possible.

Report of a National Conference on Donation after cardiac death.

A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end‐of‐life care.

The predictive value of donor liver biopsies for the development of primary nonfunction after orthotopic liver transplantation

Methods of accurately assessing the suitability of donor livers prior to transplantation are required if the incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) is to be reduced. This study evaluated the ability of donor liver biopsies to predict the development of primary nonfunction after transplantation. From June 1987 until May 1990, 170 liver transplants were performed in 147 patients. A total of 124 donor liver biopsies were obtained and divided into three groups. Group 1 biopsies (n = 77) were obtained after revascularization of the liver, group 2 biopsies (n = 19) were obtained prior to donor hepatectomy but examined only after implantation, and group 3 biopsies (n = 28) were obtained as in group 2, but were examined prior to implantation. Three of 89 (3.4%) livers interpreted as having normal histology developed primary nonfunction, while one of 26 (3.8%) biopsies interpreted as having a minimal or moderate amount of fatty infiltration developed primary nonfunction. PNF occurred in 7 of 8 livers with severe fatty infiltration (3), hydropic degeneration (3), and centrilobular necrosis (1). A fourth liver with hydropic degeneration and poor function ultimately failed requiring retransplantation 8 weeks later. Analysis of liver function revealed progressive elevation in aspartate-aminotransferase, alanine-aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and serum ammonia (NH3) with increasing degrees of fatty infiltration. Donor age and weight was also found to be significantly higher in livers with fatty infiltration. This study suggests that donor liver biopsies demonstrating normal histology or minimal-to-moderate fatty infiltration function adequately, but that donor livers with severe fatty infiltration or hydropic degeneration function poorly and should not be transplanted.

Campath-1H induction plus rapamycin monotherapy for renal transplantation: results of a pilot study.

Campath‐1H, an anti‐CD52 monoclonal antibody, was used as induction therapy (40 mg i.v. total dose) in 29 primary human renal transplants, and the patients were maintained on rapamycin monotherapy (levels 8–15 ng/mL) post‐transplant. Campath‐1H profoundly depletes lymphocytes long‐term and more transiently depletes B cells and monocytes. All patients are alive and well at 3–29 months of follow up. One graft was lost because of rejection. There have been no systemic infections and no malignancies. Eight of 29 patients have experienced rejection, which was successfully treated in seven of eight patients. Five of these patients had pathological evidence of a humoral component of their rejection. Seven of the 29 patients were converted to standard triple therapy on account of rejection. Rapamycin was generally well tolerated in that there were no significant wound‐healing problems; two lymphoceles required surgical drainage; and most patients were treated with a lipid‐lowering agent. Flow crossmatch testing post‐transplant revealed evidence of alloantibody in two patients tested with previous combined cellular and humoral rejection. Biopsies have shown no chronic allograft nephropathy to date. In view of the relatively high incidence of early humoral rejection, we plan to modify the immunosuppressive regimen in subsequent pilot studies. This clinical trial provides insight into the use of Campath‐1H induction in combination with rapamycin maintenance monotherapy.

Donation After Cardiac Death: The University of Wisconsin Experience With Liver Transplantation

Objective:To determine whether the outcomes of liver transplantation (LTx) from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are equivalent to those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Summary Background Data:Because of the significant donor organ shortage, more transplant centers are using livers recovered from DCD donors. However, long-term, single-center outcomes of liver transplantation from DCD donors are limited. Methods:From January 1, 1993, to July 31, 2002, 553 liver transplants were performed from DBD donors and 36 were performed from DCD donors. Differences in event rates between the groups were compared with Kaplan-Meier estimates and the log-rank test. Differences in proportion and differences of means between the groups were compared with Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively. Results:Mean warm ischemic time at recovery in the DCD group was 17.8 ± 10.6 minutes. The overall rate of biliary strictures was greater in the DCD group at 1 year (33% versus 10%) and 3 years (37% versus 12%; P = 0.0001). The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein stenosis/thrombosis, ischemic-type biliary stricture (ITBS), and primary nonfunction were similar between groups. However, the incidence of both hepatic artery stenosis (16.6% versus 5.4%; P = 0.001) and hepatic abscess and biloma formation (16.7% versus 8.3%; P = 0.04) were greater in the DCD group. Trends toward worse patient and graft survival and increased incidence of ITBS were seen in DCD donors greater than 40 years compared with DCD donors less than 40 years. Overall patient survival at 1 year (DCD, 80%; versus DBD, 91%) and 3 years (DCD, 68%; versus DBD, 84%) was significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.002). Similarly, graft survival at 1 year (DCD, 67%; versus DBD, 86%) and 3 years (DCD, 56%; versus DBD, 80%) were significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.0001). Conclusions:Despite similar rates of primary nonfunction, LTx after controlled DCD resulted in worse patient and graft survival compared with LTx after DBD and increased incidence of biliary complications and hepatic artery stenosis. However, overall results of LTx after controlled DCD are encouraging; and with careful donor and recipient selection, LTx after DCD may successfully increase the donor liver pool.

Experience with 500 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants.

METHODS From December 1985 to October 1997, 500 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (SPKs) were performed at the University of Wisconsin. Bladder drainage (BD) was used in 388 and enteric drainage (ED) in 112. All pancreas transplants were preserved in UW solution. RESULTS Patient survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 96.4%, 88.6%, and 76.3%; kidney function, 88.6%, 80.3%, and 66.6%; and pancreas function, 87.5%, 78.1%, and 67.2%. Thrombosis of the pancreas occurred in three to four (0.6% to 0.8%) and primary nonfunction in one (0.2%). There was a 4.2% acute tubular necrosis rate for the kidney. Conversion from BD to ED was required in 24% of cases. Primary indications for enteric conversion (EC) were leak (14%), urethritis and extravasation (7%), and chronic hematuria (3%). No graft was lost as a result of EC. There was no difference in 1-year graft survival between ED and BD. Leading causes of pancreas loss were rejection in 45 patients and death with a functioning graft in 27 patients. Since June 1995, mycophenolate mofetil was used for immunosuppression (n = 109). One-year survival rates with mycophenolate mofetil are patient, 98.1 %; kidney, 94.2%; and pancreas, 93.1%. Steroid-resistant rejections decreased from 48% to 15%. CONCLUSIONS This series represents the worlds largest experience with SPK, including the longest follow-up for BD pancreatic transplants. Ten-year graft survival rates exceed those of all other transplants, with the exception of HLA-identical living-related grafts. This series confirms that SPK is a highly successful procedure for selected diabetic patients with renal failure.

ASTS recommended practice guidelines for controlled donation after cardiac death organ procurement and transplantation

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) champions efforts to increase organ donation. Controlled donation after cardiac death (DCD) offers the family and the patient with a hopeless prognosis the option to donate when brain death criteria will not be met. Although DCD is increasing, this endeavor is still in the midst of development. DCD protocols, recovery techniques and organ acceptance criteria vary among organ procurement organizations and transplant centers. Growing enthusiasm for DCD has been tempered by the decreased yield of transplantable organs and less favorable posttransplant outcomes compared with donation after brain death. Logistics and ethics relevant to DCD engender discussion and debate among lay and medical communities. Regulatory oversight of the mandate to increase DCD and a recent lawsuit involving professional behavior during an attempted DCD have fueled scrutiny of this activity. Within this setting, the ASTS Council sought best‐practice guidelines for controlled DCD organ donation and transplantation. The proposed guidelines are evidence based when possible. They cover many aspects of DCD kidney, liver and pancreas transplantation, including donor characteristics, consent, withdrawal of ventilatory support, operative technique, ischemia times, machine perfusion, recipient considerations and biliary issues. DCD organ transplantation involves unique challenges that these recommendations seek to address.

Successful extrarenal transplantation from non-heart-beating donors.

The current organ shortage has made utilization of organs from less-than-ideal donors more common. Although several transplant centers use kidneys from non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs), there has been reluctance to extend the use of these donors to extrarenal organs. Of the 130 donors referred to our organ procurement organization between January 1993 and May 1994, 16 (12.3%) were NHBDs. Organ retrieval from 10 of these resulted in extrarenal donation, 5 resulted in renal donation only, and 1 resulted in no retrieval as a result of prolonged warm ischemia (> 2 hr). A total of 39 organs were transplanted from these NHBDs. A rapid en bloc retrieval technique was used for extrarenal NHBDs. The mean warm ischemic time was 15.4 min; preservation times were similar for both NHBDs and heart-beating donors. After liver transplantation (n = 5), one episode of primary nonfunction that was technical in origin required retransplantation. Following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (n = 6), all patients were insulin independent and free of graft pancreatitis; one patient required hemodialysis (16.7%). After isolated renal transplantation (n = 21), 3 patients (14.3%) required hemodialysis. Three of 4 liver recipients are alive after a mean follow-up period of 12.7 months; all simultaneous pancreas-kidney and renal transplant recipients are alive after a mean follow-up period of 8.4 and 8.3 months, respectively. Three liver allografts, 5 pancreas and kidney allografts, and 19 renal allografts are functioning. The lung allograft was lost to rejection 81 days after transplantation; however, the recipient is alive 3 months after retransplantation. Our results demonstrate that in controlled situations, extrarenal organs can be utilized from NHBDs and can be expected to function similarly to organs retrieved from heart-beating donors. We increased the number of transplanted organs by 8.6% using NHBDs for both renal and extrarenal donation. Continued application of these techniques will likely further increase the number of organs retrieved for transplantation.

Determinants of graft survival after renal transplantation

We studied multiple determinants of graft survival at a single center and the effects of nonimmunologic graft loss on transplant survival. This retrospective study examined the results of 589 cadaver donor transplants performed between 1986 and 1992. Graft survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates for both overall graft survival (all causes of graft loss) and immunologic graft survival (function lost due to acute or chronic rejection and noncompliance). Cadaver graft survival was significantly poorer with an increasing degree of DR mismatch (P=0.02). An analysis of pretransplant variables showed graft loss risk was highest with greater DR mismatches, two B-antigen mismatch, higher donor serum creatinine, and younger recipient age. After transplantation, acute rejection was the most significant factor associated with long-term graft survival. Our data demonstrate a significant advantage for zero DR and one DR mismatch cadaver donor transplants, with excellent immunologic graft survival. This study suggests that a combination of immediate graft function, prevention of acute rejection by appropriate early immunosuppressive therapy, and acceptable DR match enhances cadaveric graft survival.

Donation After Cardiac Death: The University of Wisconsin Experience with Renal Transplantation

Owing to the shortage of organ donors, there is renewed interest in donation after cardiac death (DCD), formerly referred to as nonheart‐beating donation. From January 1984 until August 2000, 382 renal transplants were performed from DCD donors. These were compared with 1089 renal transplants performed from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. The mean warm ischemic time in DCD donors was 16.5 min. There was no statistical difference in cold ischemic time, rate of primary nonfunction, or graft loss in the first 30 days after transplantation. The rate of delayed graft function (DGF) was higher for DCD donors (27.5% vs. 21.3%; p = 0.016) and discharge creatinine was higher in DCD donors (1.92 mg/dL vs. 1.71 mg/dL; p = 0.001). There was no statistical difference in the 5‐, 10‐, or 15‐year allograft survival when DCD donors were compared with DBD donors (64.8%, 44.8%, 27.8% vs. 71.3%, 48.3%, 33.8%; p = 0.054). Likewise, no statistical difference in the rate of technical complications was seen. Our long‐term data indicate that the results of renal transplantation from DCD donors are equivalent to long‐term allograft survival from DBD donors despite an increase in the rate of DGF. Organ procurement organizations, transplant centers, and hospitals should work to expand the implementation of DCD policies.