Edmund Q. Sanchez

Acute kidney injury following liver transplantation: Definition and outcome

The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) has been reported to vary between 17% and 95% post–orthotopic liver transplantation. This variability may be related to the absence of a uniform definition of AKI in this setting. The purpose of this study was to identify the degree of AKI that is associated with long‐term adverse outcome. Furthermore, to determine the best definition (for use in future studies) of AKI not requiring dialysis in post–liver transplant patients, we retrospectively reviewed the effect of 3 definitions of AKI post–orthotopic liver transplantation on renal and patient outcome between 1997 and 2005. We compared patients with AKI to a control group without AKI by each definition. AKI was defined in 3 groups as an acute rise in serum creatinine, from the pretransplant baseline, of >0.5 mg/dL, >1.0 mg/dL, or >50% above baseline to a value above 2 mg/dL. In all groups, the glomerular filtration rate was significantly lower at both 1 and 2 years post‐transplant. Patient survival was worse in all groups. Graft survival was worse in all groups. The incidence of AKI was highest in the group with a rise in creatinine of >0.5 mg/dL (78%) and lowest in patients with a rise in creatinine of >50% above 2.0 mg/dL (14%). Even mild AKI, defined as a rise in serum creatinine of >0.5 mg/dL, was associated with reduced patient and graft survival. However, in comparison with the other definitions, the definition of AKI with the greatest impact on patients outcome post–liver transplant was a rise in serum creatinine of >50% above baseline to >2 mg/dL. Liver Transpl 15:475–483, 2009.

Hepatorenal syndrome: A proposal for kidney after liver transplantation (KALT)

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a well‐recognized complication of end‐stage liver disease. Once thought to be a reversible condition with liver transplantation (LT) alone, HRS may directly contribute to the requirement for long‐term dialysis posttransplant. As a result, discussion has now focused on whether or when a kidney allograft should be considered for these patients. Using the International Ascites Club guidelines with a pretransplant serum creatinine (SCr) >2.0 mg/dL to define HRS, 130 patients undergoing LT over a 10‐yr period were identified, for an overall incidence of 9%. Patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 yr were 74%, and 68%, and 62%, respectively. Survival was significantly worse when compared to non‐HRS patients undergoing LT over the same study period (P = 0.0001). For patients presenting with type 2 HRS, 7 patients (6%) developed irreversible kidney failure posttransplant compared to 0.34% in the non‐HRS population (P < 0.0001). Five of these patients died within 1 yr with a median survival time of 139 days. Combined liver and kidney transplantation (CLKT) for patients with HRS is not recommended. However, an improvement in outcome can be accomplished by addressing those patients who require dialysis greater than 60 days posttransplant. We propose a role for kidney after liver transplantation (KALT) in select HRS patients. Liver Transpl 13:838–843, 2007.

Clinical outcomes from hepatic artery stenting in liver transplantation

Hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation may affect liver function and result in hepatic artery thrombosis. Surgical reconstruction has been the first choice for treatment. Interventional radiologic technique can be used, but there is no report on long‐term outcome. The aim of this paper is to assess current outcome and complications of hepatic artery stenting. Twenty‐six adult patients were stented for hepatic artery stenosis between 1998 and 2003. Nine patients had previous surgical reconstruction for hepatic artery stenosis. Seventeen patients suffered newly developed hepatic artery stenosis. Three patients were retransplanted. After stenting, the patients were followed by Doppler ultrasound at day 1, 1 month, and 6 months. Angiography was scheduled in 6 months. Four patients died within 2 months. The other 22 patients were followed for mean 31 ± 14 months (8‐71 months). One of 22 patients died from renal failure 2 years later. Twelve patients hepatic arteries looked normal after stenting. Restenosis was seen in 8 patients (36%). Other complications were artery thrombosis (n = 1) and long segment stricture (n = 1). In 2 patients (25%) restenosis resulted in thrombosis. Six of the 8 patients who developed recurrent stenosis were successfully treated interventionally: restent (n = 5) and balloon dilation (n = 3). However, 3 patients (38%) restenosed. Kaplan‐Meier complication‐free survival was 54% at 1 year after stenting. In conclusion, hepatic artery stenting is a viable treatment for hepatic artery stenosis with reasonable results. Stenting is useful as adjuvant treatment after surgical revision. Liver Transpl 12:422–427, 2006.

Twenty years' follow‐up of portal vein conduits in liver transplantation

Portal vein problems remain a formidable challenge in liver transplantation. In select situations, a portal vein conduit can provide a solution. No long‐term results have been reported. This study was designed to assess the impact of portal vein conduits on graft survival after liver transplantation and the safety of portal vein conduits and to establish the long‐term results (up to 20 years) of portal vein conduits. Data from 2370 adult liver transplants were prospectively collected into a computerized research database and analyzed. All portal vein conduits were constructed from the donor iliac vein obtained at the liver retrieval. Portal vein conduits were required in 35 (1.5%) first transplants. The long‐term (up to 20 years of follow‐up) graft survival after liver transplantation using portal vein conduits was excellent and comparable to that of the control group. The graft survival was 65% with the conduit versus 66% without the conduit at 5 years of follow‐up, 58% versus 51% at 10 years, and 48% versus 35% at 15 years. There was a higher rate (8.6% versus 1.4%) of portal vein thrombosis after the portal vein conduit, and the majority occurred in the first 3 months after transplantation. For the same time period, there was no statistically significant difference in graft survival or patient survival for the retransplants with and without portal vein conduits. There was no statistically significant difference in graft survival or patient survival for the transplants with portal vein conduits and with portal vein thrombendvenectomy. In conclusion, portal vein conduits can be used safely for liver transplantation with no negative impact on long‐term graft survival or patient survival. Despite the higher rate of portal vein thrombosis in the immediate postoperative period, excellent long‐term results can be obtained. Liver Transpl 15:400–406, 2009.

Twenty years of follow‐up of aortohepatic conduits in liver transplantation

Arterial problems remain a formidable challenge in liver transplantation. In many situations, an aortohepatic conduit can provide a solution. No long‐term results (over 5 years) have been reported. This study was designed to assess the impact of aortohepatic conduits on graft survival after liver transplantation and the safety of aortohepatic conduits and to establish the long‐term results (up to 20 years) of aortohepatic conduits. Data from 2346 adult liver transplants were prospectively collected into the computerized database and analyzed. In the majority of cases, arterial conduits were constructed from the donor iliac artery obtained at the liver retrieval. Aortohepatic conduits were required in 149 (6.4%) first transplants. The long‐term graft survival after liver transplantation using aortohepatic conduits was excellent and comparable to that of the control group. The graft survival was 59% with the conduit versus 67% without the conduit at 5 years of follow‐up, 50% versus 52% at 10 years, and 33% versus 35% at 15 years. With up to 20 years of follow‐up, there was no statistically significant difference in graft survival, patient survival, hepatic artery complications, or biliary complications. For the same time period, there was no statistically significant difference in graft survival or patient survival for the retransplants with and without aortohepatic conduits. In conclusion, in experienced hands, aortohepatic conduits can be used safely for liver transplantation with no negative impact on long‐term graft survival, patient survival, hepatic artery complications, or biliary complications. Excellent long‐term results can be obtained. Liver Transpl 14:1486–1490, 2008.

Indications for combined liver and kidney transplantation: propositions after a 23‐yr experience

Ruiz R, Jennings LW, Kim P, Tomiyama K, Chinnakotla S, Fischbach BV, Goldstein RM, Levy MF, McKenna GJ, Melton LB, Onaca N, Randall HB, Sanchez EQ, Susskind BM, Klintmalm GB. Indications for combined liver and kidney transplantation: propositions after a 23‐yr experience. u2028Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 807–811.

Intraoperative imaging of pancreas transplant allografts using indocyanine green with laser fluorescence

Vascular thrombosis is a cause of allograft loss after pancreas transplantation. We present the use of intraoperative fluorescence imaging with the SPY imaging device (Novadaq Technologies Inc, Toronto, Canada) in two pancreas transplants as a means to assess patency of the vascular anastomoses. Intravenous indocyanine green 2.5 mg/mL was fluoresced with the device to create the intraoperative video sequences, which were recorded. After 60-day follow-up, real-time SPY imaging on these two pancreas transplants did not demonstrate adverse effects on patients or the transplanted allografts. This method of vascular imaging could prove useful in improving short-term graft survival and possibly lowering the thrombosis rates seen with pancreas transplantation. Long-term correlation studies between intraoperative findings and graft survival must be performed to confirm the utility of this imaging method.

Whole-organ pancreas transplantation at Baylor Regional Transplant Institute: a chance to cure diabetes.

The success of pancreas transplantation has improved over the past several decades with advancements in surgical technique, immunosuppressive medicines, and immunologic testing. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with pancreas transplantation from 1995 to 2008. At the Baylor Regional Transplant Program, 151 pancreas transplants were performed in 147 patients: 135 were simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants, 10 were pancreas transplants after kidney transplants, and 6 were pancreas transplants alone. Follow-up information was available for 138 patients. The 1-year acute cellular rejection rate was 31.6%; the 30-day surgical reexploration rate was 10%; and the technical failure rate was 5.3%. Five-year pancreas graft survival rates were 67% for simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants and 50% for pancreas transplants after kidney transplants. These outcomes exceed expected results as calculated by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. In addition, the median time to transplant was 3.8 months, compared with a US median of 14.1 months. Pancreas transplantation is currently the closest thing to a cure for diabetes and should be given as an option for diabetic patients with or without end-stage renal disease.

Use of two expanded-criteria-donor renal allografts in a single patient

The disparity between the number of available renal donors and the number of patients on the transplant waiting list has prompted the use of expanded-criteria-donor (ECD) renal allografts to expand the donor pool. ECD allografts have shown good results in appropriately selected recipients, yet a number of renal allografts are still discarded. The use of dual renal transplantation may lower the discard rate. Additionally, the use of perfusion systems may improve acute tubular necrosis rates with these allografts. We report a successful case of a dual transplant with ECD allografts using a perfusion system. The biopsy appearance and the pump characteristics were suboptimal for these kidneys, making them unsuitable for single transplantation; however, the pair of transplanted kidneys provided increased nephron mass and functioned well. We recommend that ECD kidneys that are individually nontransplantable be evaluated for potential dual renal transplantation. Biopsy criteria and perfusion data guidelines must be developed to improve the success rates with ECD dual renal allografts. Finally, recipient selection is of utmost importance.