M. Meurisse

Hemodynamic changes and catecholamine release during laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma

UNLABELLEDnWe investigated hemodynamics and plasma catecholamine concentrations in eight consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy for suspected pheochromocytoma. The same anesthesia protocol was used in all patients: a continuous infusion of sufentanil 0.5 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) and isoflurane 0.4% (end-tidal) in 50% N2O/O2. Systolic arterial pressure was maintained between 120 and 160 mm Hg by adjusting an infusion of nicardipine, a calcium-channel blocker, while tachycardia (>100 bpm) was treated by 1-mg boluses of atenolol. Hemodynamics (thermodilution technique) and plasma catecholamine concentrations were measured before surgery, after the induction of anesthesia, after turning the patient to the lateral position, during pneumoperitoneum, during tumor manipulation, after adrenalectomy, and at the end of surgery. Two events resulted in significant catecholamine release: creation of the pneumoperitoneum and adrenal gland manipulation. As a consequence, a twofold increase in cardiac output was recorded. Adjustments of nicardipine infusion (2-6 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) minimized changes in mean arterial pressure. Beta-adrenergic blockade was necessary in six patients. In conclusion, laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma results in marked catecholamine release during pneumoperitoneum and tumor manipulation. Titration of a nicardipine infusion allowed easy and quick control of the hemodynamic aberrancies related to these processes.nnnIMPLICATIONSnPneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy, now used for adrenalectomy, may complicate anesthetic management of patients with pheochromocytoma. In this study, laparoscopic adrenalectomy was associated with catecholamine release during the creation of pneumoperitoneum and tumor manipulation. Adjustments of a nicardipine infusion readily attenuated the subsequent hemodynamic aberrancies.

Donor age as a risk factor in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation in a controlled withdrawal protocol programme.

Results of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation are impaired by graft loss, resulting mainly from non‐anastomotic biliary stricture. Donor age is a risk factor in deceased donor liver transplantation, and particularly in DCD liver transplantation. At the authors institute, age is not an absolute exclusion criterion for discarding DCD liver grafts, DCD donors receive comfort therapy before withdrawal, and cold ischaemia is minimized.

Results of Kidney Transplantation From Donors After Cardiac Death

Confronting the organ donor shortage, many transplant centers around the world increasingly use donors after cardiac death (DCD). Over the past 20 years, follow-up studies in kidney recipients comparing DCD and donors after brain death (DBD) have shown comparable long-term graft function and survival. As a consequence, DCD programs should be continued and expanded, for these donors constitute a potential solution to the imbalance between the numbers of end-stage kidney disease patients on waiting lists versus available kidney grafts. DCD kidneys do not necessarily signify suboptimal grafts; they may merit to be allocated the same as DBD grafts.

Categories of Donation After Cardiocirculatory Death

The interest in donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) was renewed in the early 1990s, as a means to partially overcome the shortage of donations after brain death. In some European countries and in the United States, DCD has become an increasingly frequent procedure over the last decade. To improve the results of DCD transplantation, it is important to compare practices, experiences, and results of various teams involved in this field. It is therefore crucial to accurately define the different types of DCD. However, in the literature, various DCD terminologies and classifications have been used, rendering it difficult to compare reported experiences. The authors have presented herein an overview of the various DCD descriptions in the literature, and have proposed an adapted DCD classification to better define the DCD processes, seeking to provide a better tool to compare the results of published reports and to improve current practices. This modified classification may be modified in the future according to ongoing experiences in this field.

Liver transplant donation after cardiac death : experience at the University of Liège

OBJECTIVEnDonation after cardiac death (DCD) has been proposed to overcome in part the organ donor shortage. In liver transplantation, the additional warm ischemia time associated with DCD procurement may promote higher rates of primary nonfunction and ischemic biliary lesions. We reviewed the results of liver transplantation from DCD.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnFrom 2003 to 2007, we consecutively performed 13 controlled DCD liver transplantations. The medical records of all donors and recipients were retrospectively reviewed, evaluating in particular the outcome and occurrence of biliary complications. Mean follow-up was 25 months.nnnRESULTSnMean donor age was 51 years, and mean intensive care unit stay was 5.4 days. Mean time between ventilation arrest and cardiac arrest was 9.3 minutes. Mean time between cardiac arrest and arterial flushing was 7.7 minutes. No-touch period was 2 to 5 minutes. Mean graft cold ischemia time was 295 minutes, and mean suture warm ischemia time was 38 minutes. Postoperatively, there was no primary nonfunction. Mean peak transaminase level was 2546 UI/mL. Patient and graft survival was 100% at 1 year. Two of 13 patients (15%) developed main bile duct stenosis and underwent endoscopic management of the graft. No patient developed symptomatic intrahepatic bile duct strictures or needed a second transplantation.nnnCONCLUSIONSnOur experience confirms that controlled DCD donors may be a valuable source of transplantable liver grafts in cases of short warm ischemia at procurement and minimal cold ischemia time.

Delayed graft function does not harm the future of donation-after-cardiac death in kidney transplantation.

INTRODUCTIONnDelayed graft function (DGF) occurs more frequently in kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) than from donation after brain death (DBD). We investigated the effect of DGF on posttransplantation outcomes among grafts from controlled DCD kidneys.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnThis single-center retrospective study recruited 80 controlled DCD kidneys transplanted from January 2005 to December 2011. Mean patient follow-up was 28.5 months.nnnRESULTSnThere were no primary nonfunction grafts; the DGF rate was 35.5%. Overall graft survival rates between groups with versus without DGF were 92.4% and 95.2% at 1 year, 92.4% and 87.1% at 3 years, and 84.7% and 87.1% at 5 years, respectively (P = not significant (NS)). Patients with versus without DGF showed the same survival rates at the corresponding time 92.4% vs 97.2%, 92.4% vs 93.9%, and 84.7% vs 93.9% (P = NS). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly lower in the DGF compared with the non-DGF group at hospital discharge (29 vs 42 mL/min; P = .00) and at 6 months posttransplantation (46 vs 52 mL/min; P = .04), but the difference disappeared thereafter: 47 vs 52 mL/min at 1 year, 50 vs 48 mL/min at 3 years, and 54 vs 53 mL/min at 5 years (P = NS). DGF did not increase the risk of an acute rejection episode (29.6% vs 30.6%; P = NS) or rate of surgical complications (33.3% vs 26.5%; P = NS). However, DGF prolonged significantly the length of hospitalization in the DGF versus the non- DGF group (18.9 vs 13 days; P = .00). Donor body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2), recipient BMI ≥30 kg/m(2), and pretransplantation dialysis duration increased the risk of DGF upon multivariate logistic regression analysis.nnnCONCLUSIONSnApart from the longer hospital stay, DGF had no deleterious impact on the future of kidney allografts from controlled DCD, which showed comparable graft and patient survivals, renal function, rejection rates, and surgical complications as a group without DGF. Therefore, DGF should no longer be considered to be a medical barrier to the use of kidney grafts from controlled DCD.

End of life care in the operating room for non-heart-beating donors: organization at the University Hospital of Liège.

Non-heart-beating (NHB) organ donation has become an alternative source to increase organ supply for transplantation. A NHB donation program was implemented in our institution in 2002. As in many institutions the end of life care of the NHB donor (NHBD) is terminated in the operating room (OR) to reduce warm ischemia time. Herein we have described the organization of end of life care for these patients in our institution, including the problems addressed, the solution proposed, and the remaining issues. Emphasis is given to our protocol elaborated with the different contributors of the chain of the NHB donation program. This protocol specifies the information mandatory in the medical records, the end of life care procedure, the determination of death, and the issue of organ preservation measures before NHBD death. The persisting malaise associated with NHB donation reported by OR nurses is finally documented using an anonymous questionnaire.

Contribution of Donors After Cardiac Death to the Deceased Donor Pool: 2002 to 2009 University of Liege Experience

OBJECTIVEnIn this study, we have evaluated the organ procurement and transplantation activity from donors after cardiac death (DCD) at our institution over an 8-year period. Our aim was to determine whether this program influenced transplantation programs, or donation after brain death (DBD) activity.nnnMETHODSnWe prospectively collected our procurement and transplantation statistics in a database for retrospective review.nnnRESULTSnWe observed an increasing trend in potential and actual DCD number. The mean conversion rate turning potential into effective donors was 58.1%. DCD accounted for 16.6% of the deceased donor (DD) pool over 8 years. The mean age for effective DCD donors was 53.9 years (range, 3-79). Among the effective donors, 63.3% (n = 31) came from the transplant center and 36.7% (n = 18) were referred from collaborative hospitals. All donors were Maastricht III category. The number of kidney and liver transplants using DCD sources tended to increase. DCD kidney transplants represented 10.8% of the DD kidney pool and DCD liver transplants made up 13.9% of the DD liver pool over 8 years. The DBD program activity increased in the same time period. In 2009, 17 DCD and 33 DBD procurements were performed in a region with a little >1 million inhabitants.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe establishment of a DCD program in our institution enlarged the donor pool and did not compromise the development of the DBD program. In our experience, DCD are a valuable source for abdominal organ transplantation.

A More Than 20% Increase in Deceased-Donor Organ Procurement and Transplantation Activity After the Use of Donation After Circulatory Death

BACKGROUNDnOrgan procurement and transplant activity from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) was evaluated over an 11-year period to determine whether this program influenced the transplant and donation after brain death (DBD) activities.nnnMATERIAL AND METHODSnDeceased donor (DD) procurement and transplant data were prospectively collected in a local database for retrospective review.nnnRESULTSnThere was an increasing trend in the potential and actual DCD numbers over time. DCD accounted for 21.9% of the DD pool over 11 years, representing 23.7% and 24.2% of the DD kidney and liver pool, respectively. The DBD retrieval and transplant activity increased during the same time period. Mean conversion rate turning potential into effective DCD donors was 47.3%. Mean DCD donor age was 54.6 years (range, 3-83). Donors ≥60 years old made up 44.1% of the DCD pool. Among referred donors, reasons for nondonation were medical contraindications (33.7%) and family refusals (19%). Mean organ yield per DCD donor was 2.3 organs. Mean total procurement warm ischemia time was 19.5 minutes (range, 6-39). In 2012, 17 DCD and 37 DBD procurements were performed in the Liege region, which has slightly >1 million inhabitants.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis DCD program implementation enlarged the DD pool and did not compromise the development of DBD programs. The potential DCD pool might be underused and seems to be a valuable organ donor source.

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal peroperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) associated with curative surgery for locally advanced gastric carcinoma. An initial experience.

Abstract Aim of the study : After macroscopic radical (R0) surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma, 40 to 50% of the tumors recur in the abdomen as locoregional or peritoneal disease. We initiated a protocol in which patients with suspicion of macroscopic serosal, lymphatic or peritoneal invasion, treated with R0 resection, underwent adjuvant HIPEC. Methods : Between June 1998 and January 2003, 16 patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach were included in the study. Surgery consisted of a total gastrectomy with a D2 lymphadenectomy. Splenectomy (n = 1), splenopancreatectomy (n = 4), transverse colectomy (n = 3), left hepatectomy (n = 1), localized peritonectomy (n = 3) were associated to obtain a R0 resection. HIPEC protocol consisted of heated (42.5°C) intraperitoneal mitomycin C (15 mg/m2) for a planned duration of 90 minutes. Results : HIPEC median duration was limited to 73(20–90) min because of central hyperthermia recognition in half of the cases. One patient died in the postoperative period of sepsis secondary to a duodenal fistula. Postoperative morbidity included pancreatic fistula (n = 2), pulmonary oedema (n = 1), pulmonary embolus (n = 1) and transient renal failure (n = 1). UICC staging was IB (n = 2), II (n = 2), IIIA (n = 5), IIIB (n = 1), IV (n = 6). Nine of the 16 patients are alive without recurrence with a median follow-up of 52 months. Four patients developed a recurrence, intraperitoneal (n = 2), systemic (n = 1), or combined (n = 1). Two patients were lost to follow-up. Conclusions : Aggressive surgical therapy and HIPEC might represent the standard of care in a selected population with locoregional disease and for whom a r0 resection can be achieved. This protocol was associated in this study with a 75% 5-year survival with a low peritoneal recurrence rate and an acceptable morbidity.