Benjamin Philosophe

Increased Rates of Donation With Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

ObjectiveTo examine the impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy and recipient education on the proportion of kidney recipients who could identify a potential live donor, and on the live donor (LD) transplantation rate. Summary Background DataLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) results in less postoperative surgical pain, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery than the standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN). The authors hypothesized that the availability of this less invasive surgical technique would enhance the willingness of family and friends to donate. MethodsThe study population consisted of 3,298 end-stage renal disease patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation between November 1991 and February 2000, divided into three groups. The first group received no formal LD education and had only ODN available. The second group received formal education about the LD process and had only ODN available. The third group had both formal LD education and LDN available. Records were examined to determine what proportion of each group had any potential donors tissue-typed, and the rate at which they received an LD transplant. ResultsBefore LDN availability and formal LD education, only 35.1% of referrals found a potential donor, and only 12.2% received an LD transplant within 3 years. Institution of a formal education program increased the volunteer rate to 39.0%, and 16.5% received an LD transplant. When LDN became available, 50% of patients were able to find at least one potential donor, and within 3 years 24.7% received an LD transplant. Regression analysis indicated that availability of LDN was independently associated with a 1.9 relative risk of receiving an LD transplant. Kaplan-Meier death-censored 1- and 3-year graft survival rates for ODN transplants were 95.8% and 90.6%, versus 97.5% and 94.8% for LDN. ConclusionsThe availability of LDN and an LD family education program has doubled the live donor transplantation rate, and outcomes remain excellent.

A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy.

Background. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increase living kidney donation rates by reducing the pain and suffering of the donor. However, renal function outcomes of a large series of recipients of laparoNx have not been studied. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 132 recipients of laparoNx done at our center between 3/96 and 11/97 and compared them to 99 recipients of kidneys procured by the open technique (openNx) done between 10/93 and 3/96. Results. Significantly more patients in the laparoNx group (25.2%) were taking tacrolimus within the first month than those in the openNx group (2.1%). Mean serum creatinine was higher in laparoNx compared with openNx at 1 week (2.860.3 and 1.860.2 mg/dl, respectively; P50.005) and at 1 month (2.060.1 and 1.660.1 mg/dl, P50.05) after transplant. However, by 3 and 6 months, the mean serum creatinine was similar in the two groups (1.760.1 versus 1.560.05 mg/dl, and 1.760.1 versus 1.760.1, respectively). By 1 year posttransplant, the mean serum creatinine for laparoNx was actually less than that for openNx (1.460.1 and 1.760.1 mg/dl, P50.03). Although patients in the laparoNx compared to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral complications (4.5 versus 1.0%), the rate of other complications, as well as hospital length of stay, patient and graft survival rates were similar in the two groups. Conclusion. Although laparoNx allografts have slower initial function compared with openNx, there was no significant difference in longer term renal function. Kidney transplantation is considered to be the treatment of choice for end-stage renal failure. Insufficient supply of organs for donation has produced long waiting times for many patients who may benefit from transplantation (1). During this period patients accumulate the morbidity of renal failure, they must endure the lifestyle limitations of dialysis, and they often die while waiting for the organ sharing system to grant them this resource. Live donor renal transplantation represents a large potential supply of organs that may relieve much of this shortage. Additionally, recipients of live renal transplants may reap benefits of improved patient and allograft survival that have been clearly demonstrated in this population (2,3). Although unilateral nephrectomy has proven to be safe and the solitary kidney state has been found to be well tolerated in a carefully chosen candidate for donation (4,5), substantial disincentives to donation exist. These include a significant hospitalization, prolonged convalescence period with time away from jobs, intractable perioperative pain, and, for some, cosmetic concerns of the resulting

Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique.

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a recently developed procedure, the performance of which needs to be studied. Given the reported advantages in the donors, this study looks at graft outcome and ureteral complications in recipients of kidneys procured by open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus LDN. METHODS The LDN recipients consisted of 193 patients since 3/27/96. A total of 168 ODN recipients from 1991 to 1998 served as controls. Immunosuppression protocols were similar for both groups. RESULTS Two-year graft survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 96%, respectively. Two-year patient survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 97%, respectively. The incidence of delayed graft function and mean serum creatinine at 3 and 12 months was similar in both groups. However, the number of ureteral complications that required operative repair was significantly higher for LDN recipients compared to ODN recipients, 7.7% (n=15) vs. 0.6% (n=1) respectively (P=0.03). Ureteral stenting was required in an additional 3.1% (n=6) of LDN and 2.4% (n=4) of ODN (P=NS). There was, however, a learning curve with time. For the first 130 LDN patients, a total of 20 ureteral complications were recorded, whereas only one occurred in the more recent 63 patients (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS The higher ureteral complication rate in LDN recipients has improved over time as technical causes have been identified. We have noted significant improvement in ureteral viability by using the endogastrointestinal anastomosis instrument on the ureter and peri-ureteral tissue. LDN is therefore an excellent alternative to ODN. Identification of hazards unique to this technique is critical before its broader application.

A high panel-reactive antibody rescue protocol for cross-match-positive live donor kidney transplants.

Background. Alloimmunization can present a virtually insurmountable barrier to kidney transplantation. Past protocols to desensitize patients using plasmapheresis and cyclophosphamide have not been broadly applied because of the fear of complications, including high rates of immunologic failure. Methods. Fifteen patients with a positive donor-recipient cross-match were desensitized with plasmapheresis to permit live donor (LD) transplantation under newer maintenance immunosuppressants. Pretransplant the patients received plasmapheresis three times weekly for a planned maximum of six treatments, plus intravenous hyperimmune globulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. Patients who were successfully desensitized and received transplants were given 10 days of OKT3 postoperatively. Results. Eleven of the 15 patients became anti-human globulin cross-match-negative after one to five plasmapheresis treatments and underwent LD transplantation. Relatively low initial titers of donor-specific antibody were predictive of successful attainment of a negative cross-match. Few side effects and rejection episodes were observed. All transplant patients remain dialysis-free after 3–26 months of follow-up. Conclusion. A positive cross-match is not necessarily a contraindication to LD transplantation, especially for patients with low donor-specific alloantibody titers.

Mic Expression In Renal And Pancreatic Allografts

BACKGROUND MHC class I chain-related antigen A (MICA) and MHC class I chain-related antigen B (MICB) are HLA class I related products of polymorphic MHC genes. Constitutive expression in normal tissue is limited to gut epithelium but can be induced in other epithelial cells by stress. Specific antibodies against MICA have been reported in the serum of patients who had rejected kidney allografts, suggesting a potential role for these molecules in transplant immunopathology. However, expression of MICA and MICB in transplanted organs has not been demonstrated. In this study, we report the expression of MICA and MICB in renal and pancreatic allograft biopsies, which were obtained due to clinical signs of rejection. METHODS A monoclonal antibody directed against MICA and MICB was used to perform indirect immunohistochemistry on formalin fixed, paraffin embedded needle biopsies of kidney and pancreas allografts. The results of staining were then compared to the standard light microscopic evaluation of the biopsies for rejection. RESULTS A total of 53 individual renal transplant biopsies and 19 pancreas transplant biopsies were assayed for expression of MIC. Histologically, renal biopsies were diagnosed as no rejection, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), acute rejection (AR), chronic rejection (CR), and acute and chronic rejection (ACR). No staining was observed in 7 of 10 kidneys showing no rejection. All 11 of the kidney biopsies with AR were positive, as were the 11 ATN cases, 9 of the 11 kidney biopsies with CR, and 7 of the 10 with ACR. The acini of normal, nontransplanted, pancreas, control specimen were consistently negative; however, islets were positive in all specimens. The acini and islets of five histologically normal pancreas biopsies were positive, as were the four biopsies with AR, seven biopsies with CR, and two with ACR. CONCLUSIONS MICA and MICB are expressed in epithelial cells in allografted kidney and pancreas that show histologic evidence of rejection and/or cellular injury. In addition to previous findings of alloantibodies against MICA, expression of these gene products may play a role in allograft rejection.

Basiliximab versus antithymocyte globulin for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection

Background. Basiliximab (Simulect), a high-affinity chimeric, monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha chain of human interleukin-2 receptor (CD25), reduces the incidence of acute renal allograft rejection when used in combination with cyclosporine (Neoral) and steroids. This study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of basiliximab to polyclonal anti-T-cell (ATGAM) therapy for the prevention of acute rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients. Methods. This 1-year, open-label, randomized trial was conducted in recipients of cadaveric or living-related donor renal transplants. All patients received cyclosporine (Neoral), mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept, MMF), and corticosteroids. Patients who were randomized to basiliximab therapy received a 20 mg i.v. bolus dose on days 0 and 4, and the majority of patients were initiated on cyclosporine within 48 hr of transplantation. Patients who were randomized to antithymocyte globulin therapy (ATGAM, ATG) received 15 mg/day i.v. within 48 hr of transplant and continued treatment for up to 14 days; ATG was stopped once therapeutic cyclosporine blood levels were achieved. The initiation of cyclosporine use was delayed in the ATG group until renal function was established (serum creatinine <3.0 mg/dl or 50% fall from baseline). Results. Of the 138 randomized patients, 135 received at least 1 dose of study medication (70 patients, basiliximab; 65 patients, ATG). Demographic characteristics were similar between the basiliximab and ATG-treatment groups. At 12 months, the rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection was 19% and 20%, respectively, in the basiliximab and ATG groups. Although the overall profile of adverse events was similar between basiliximab- and ATG-treated patients, adverse events considered by the investigators to be associated with the study drug occurred more often among patients receiving ATG (42% vs. 11% with basiliximab). Conclusions. Basiliximab combined with early initiation of cyclosporine therapy resulted in low acute rejection rates similar to those achieved with ATG combined with delayed cyclosporine. Basiliximab therapy showed an excellent safety profile, with no increases in malignancies, infections, or deaths. Based on its convenient two-dose, body-weight independent regimen and comparable effectiveness to ATG, basiliximab is an attractive choice for the prevention of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant patients.

Superiority of portal venous drainage over systemic venous drainage in pancreas transplantation: a retrospective study.

ObjectiveTo compare portal and systemic venous drainage of pancreas transplants and demonstrate an immunologic and survival superiority of portal venous drainage. Summary Background DataTraditionally, solitary pancreas transplants have been performed using systemic venous and bladder drainage, but more recently, the advantages of enteric drainage have been well documented. Although physiologic benefits for portal venous drainage have been described, the impact of portal venous drainage, especially with solitary pancreas transplants, has yet to be determined. MethodsSince August 1995, 280 pancreas transplants with enteric duct drainage were analyzed. One hundred and seventeen were simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK), 63 with systemic venous drainage (SV) and 54 with portal venous drainage (PV). The remainder were solitary transplants; 97 pancreas after kidney (PAK; 42 SV and 55 PV) and 66 transplants alone (PTA; 26 SV and 40 PV). Immunosuppressive therapy was equivalent for both groups. ResultsThe groups were similar with respect to recipient characteristics and HLA matching. Thirty-six month graft survival for all transplants was 79% for PV and 65% for SV (P = .008). By category, SPK graft survival was 74% for PV and 76% for SV, PAK graft survival was 70% for PV and 56% for SV, and PTA graft survival was 84% for PV and 50% for SV. The rate of at least one rejection episode was also significantly higher in the SV group. At 36 months, for all pancreas transplants, the rejection rate was 21% for PV and 52% for SV (P < .0001). For SPK, rejection rates were 9% for PV and 45% for SV. For PAK, rejection rates were 16% for PV and 65% for SV, and for PTA 36% for PV and 51% for SV. The rejection rates for kidneys following SPK were also lower in the PV group (26% versus 43% for SV). Furthermore, the grades of rejection were milder in PV for all transplants (P = .017). By multivariate analysis, portal venous drainage was the only parameter that significantly affected rejection. ConclusionGraft survival and rejection is superior for PV. These clinical findings are consistent with published reports of experimentally induced portal tolerance and strongly argue that PV drainage should be the procedure of choice for pancreas transplantation.

Pancreas transplantation: the histologic morphology of graft loss and clinical correlations.

Background. Graft losses due to leaks, bleeding, thrombosis, infections, and early pancreatitis are grouped together under the category of technical failure. Among these complications, massive vascular thrombosis continues to be the most important cause of early graft loss due to technical failure. Pathological evaluation of most allografts lost early in the posttransplantation period shows vascular thrombosis with associated proportional parenchymal necrosis. The morphological findings in allografts that are considered to be lost due to technical failure has not been systematically addressed. In particular, the role of acute rejection in early graft loss has not been well studied. Methods. Seventy-four consecutive pancreas graft pancreatectomies were studied histologically to evaluate for thrombosis (recent versus organized), type of vessel involved by thrombosis (arteries, veins, or both), acute rejection grade, chronic rejection grade, endotheliitis, transplant arteritis, coagulation necrosis, acute pancreatitis, presence of infectious organisms, transplant (obliterative) arteriopathy, neoplasia, relative proportions of alpha and beta islet cells, and immunoglobulin and complement deposition. The histological findings were correlated with donor and recipient data as well as clinical presentation. Results. In 23 out of 39 grafts lost in the first 4 weeks posttransplantation, the only pathological changes found were vascular thrombosis and bland ischemic parenchymal necrosis. In these cases, no underlying vascular pathology or any other specific histological change was identified. Most of these grafts (78%) were lost in less than 48 hr and all in the first 2 weeks posttransplantation. Massive vascular thrombosis occurring in an otherwise histologically normal pancreas was the most common cause of graft loss in the first 4 weeks posttransplantation (59%). In most of the remaining cases (33%), although the clinical presentation suggested technical failure, there was clear histological evidence that the massive thrombosis resulted from vascular injury due to immune damage (acute and hyperacute rejection). Increased incidence of early graft thrombosis was seen in grafts from older donors and longer cold ischemia times. After the first month posttransplantation, graft pancreatectomies revealed a wider variety of pathological processes that included severe acute rejection, combined acute and chronic rejection, chronic rejection, and infections. Acute and chronic vascular thrombosis in large and small vessels was commonly seen at all times posttransplantation; chronic, organized thrombosis was strongly associated with chronic rejection. Conclusions. (a) Early acute thrombosis occurring in a histologically normal pancreas defines a true technical failure. This study showed that acute rejection leading to massive thrombosis, which clinically simulates technical failure, results in a significant proportion of early graft losses. (b) Systematic histological evaluation of failed grafts is absolutely necessary for the accurate classification of the cause of graft loss. (c) There is morphological evidence that chronically ongoing thrombosis is an important, common, contributing factor for late graft loss.

The Maryland aggregate pathology index: a deceased donor kidney biopsy scoring system for predicting graft failure.

Despite the common use of diagnostic pretransplant deceased donor kidney biopsy, there is no consensus on the prognostic significance of the pathologic findings. In order to assist clinicians with interpretation we analyzed 371 pretransplant biopsies and correlated the findings with graft failure. Glomerular pathology was assessed with percent glomerulosclerosis (GS), glomerular size and periglomerular fibrosis (PGF); vascular pathology with arterial wall‐to‐lumen ratio (WLR) and arteriolar hyalinosis and interstitial pathology with measurement of cumulative fibrosis and presence of scar. Using two‐thirds of the study population as a model‐development cohort, we found that biopsy features independently associated with an increased risk of graft failure were GS ≥15%, interlobular arterial WLR ≥0.5 and the presence of PGF, arteriolar hyalinosis or scar. The Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index (MAPI), was developed from these parameters and validated on the remaining one‐third of the population. Five‐year actuarial graft survival was 90% for kidneys with MAPI scores between 0 and 7, 63% for scores from 8 to 11 and 53% for scores from 12 to 15 (p < 0.001). We conclude MAPI may help transplant physicians estimate graft survival from the preimplantation biopsy findings, in clinical situations similar to this study population (cold ischemia over 24 h, GS < 25%).

Simultaneous Cadaver Pancreas Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: A New Approach for the Type 1 Diabetic Uremic Patient

ObjectiveTo review the authors’ experience with a new approach for type I diabetic uremic patients: simultaneous cadaver-donor pancreas and living-donor kidney transplant (SPLK). Summary Background DataSimultaneous cadaver kidney and pancreas transplantation (SPK) and living-donor kidney transplantation alone followed by a solitary cadaver-donor pancreas transplant (PAK) have been the transplant options for type I diabetic uremic patients. SPK pancreas graft survival has historically exceeded that of solitary pancreas transplantation. Recent improvement in solitary pancreas transplant survival rates has narrowed the advantage seen with SPK. PAK, however, requires sequential transplant operations. In contrast to PAK and SPK, SPLK is a single operation that offers the potential benefits of living kidney donation: shorter waiting time, expansion of the organ donor pool, and improved short-term and long-term renal graft function. MethodsBetween May 1998 and September 1999, the authors performed 30 SPLK procedures, coordinating the cadaver pancreas transplant with simultaneous transplantation of a laparoscopically removed living-donor kidney. Of the 30 SPLKs, 28 (93%) were portally and enterically drained. During the same period, the authors also performed 19 primary SPK and 17 primary PAK transplants. ResultsOne-year pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates were 88%, 95%, and 95% for SPLK recipients. One-year pancreas graft survival rates in SPK and PAK recipients were 84% and 71%. Of 30 SPLK transplants, 29 (97%) had immediate renal graft function, whereas 79% of SPK kidneys had immediate function. Reoperative rates, early readmission to the hospital, and initial length of stay were similar between SPLK and SPK recipients. SPLK recipients had a shorter wait time for transplantation. ConclusionsEarly pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates after SPLK are similar to those for SPK. Waiting time was significantly shortened. SPLK recipients had lower rates of delayed renal graft function than SPK recipients. Combining cadaver pancreas transplantation with living-donor kidney transplantation does not harm renal graft outcome. Given the advantages of living-donor kidney transplant, SPLK should be considered for all uremic type I diabetic patients with living donors.