Tracy Steinberg
University of Colorado Denver
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Tracy Steinberg.
Transplantation | 1997
Mark D. Stegall; Michael Wachs; Gregory T. Everson; Tracy Steinberg; Bahri M. Bilir; Roshan Shrestha; Frederick M. Karrer; Igal Kam
BACKGROUND The long-term complications of immunosuppressive therapy such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension are a major source of morbidity in liver transplant recipients. In this prospective, randomized, open-label study we completely withdrew prednisone (PRED) 14 days after liver transplantation in an effort to decrease these metabolic complications. Patients were maintained on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in combination with either cyclosporine (CsA; Neoral formulation) or tacrolimus (TAC). Thus, we also were able to compare CsA to TAC in patients not receiving PRED with respect to efficacy, toxicity, and effect on posttransplant metabolic complications. METHODS A total of 71 patients were randomized to receive either TAC-MMF (n=35) or CsA-MMF (n=36) after liver transplantation and were analyzed for patient and graft survival. Fifty-eight patients continued the immunosuppressive protocol for at least 6 months after transplantation and were analyzed for the incidence of acute rejection and the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia. RESULTS The 6-month patient survival rates were 94.4% for CsA-MMF and 88.6% for TAC-MMF. Corresponding 6-month graft survival rates were 88.7% and 85.71% with no immunologic graft losses in either group. The incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection was 46% for CsA-MMF and 42.3% for TAC-MMF. Six patients were converted from CsA to TAC (four for recurrent rejection) and seven patients were converted from TAC to CsA (four for neurotoxicity). Only one patient (in the TAC-MMF group) developed new-onset posttransplant diabetes. In contrast, four of eight patients in the CsA-MMF group who were diabetic before transplant became nondiabetic in the first 3 months after transplant. The mean serum cholesterol level was significantly lower in the TAC-MMF group than in the CsA-MMF group (145.2+/-41.8 mg/dl and 190.3+/-62.2, respectively; P<0.001) and the incidence of hypertension was lower in the TAC-MMF group (12% vs. 30.3% in the CsA-MMF group, P<0.01). Both groups had a lower incidence of metabolic complications compared with a historical group (n=100) maintained on CsA and PRED (10 mg/day at 6 months). CONCLUSIONS MMF in combination with either TAC or CsA allows withdrawal of PRED 14 days after liver transplantation with a moderate rejection rate and no immunologic graft losses. Early PRED withdrawal decreases posttransplant diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension, but patients maintained on TAC have lower serum cholesterol levels and a lower incidence of hypertension than CsA-treated patients.
Transplantation | 2003
James F. Trotter; Scott Mackenzie; Michael Wachs; Thomas Bak; Tracy Steinberg; Patty Polsky; Igal Kam; Gregory T. Everson
Background. An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care must be included in a cost analysis for LDLT. In this study, we compare the comprehensive cost of LDLT with that of cadaveric-liver transplantation. Methods. All costs for medical services provided at our institution were recorded for 24 LDLT and 43 cadaveric recipients with greater than 1 year follow-up transplanted between August 1997 and April 2000. The donor costs include donors evaluated and rejected, donors evaluated and accepted, donor right hepatectomy costs, and donor follow-up costs (365 days postdonation). LDLT and cadaveric recipient costs include medical care 90 days pre-LDLT, recipient transplant costs, and recipient follow-up costs (365 days posttransplant) including retransplantation. Cost is expressed as an arbitrary cost unit (CU) that is a value between
Liver Transplantation | 2001
Thomas Bak; Michael Wachs; James F. Trotter; Gregory T. Everson; Thomas Trouillot; Marcelo Kugelmas; Tracy Steinberg; Igal Kam
500 to
Liver Transplantation | 1997
Gregory T. Everson; G Bharadhwaj; R House; M Talamantes; Bahri M. Bilir; Roshan Shrestha; Igal Kam; Michael Wachs; Frederick M. Karrer; B Fey; C Ray; Tracy Steinberg; C Morgan; T P Beresford
1,500. Results. Total LDLT costs (evaluations of rejected donors+evaluations of accepted donors+donor hepatectomy+donor follow-up care for 1 year+pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 162.7 CU. Total mean cadaveric transplant costs (pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation [including organ acquisition cost]+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 134.5 CU, (P =ns). Conclusions. The total comprehensive cost of LDLT is 21% higher than cadaveric transplantation, although this difference is not significant.
Liver Transplantation | 1999
Everson Gt; T Trouillot; Michael Wachs; Tom Bak; Tracy Steinberg; Igal Kam; Roshan Shrestha; Mark D. Stegall
Transplantation | 2000
James F. Trotter; Michael Wachs; Kathryn Nold; Thomas Trouillot; Thomas Bak; Tracy Steinberg; Gregory T. Everson; Igal Kam
Transplantation | 2000
Thomas Bak; Michael Wachs; James F. Trotter; Tom Trouillot; G T Everson; Tracy Steinberg; Igal Kam
Transplantation | 1998
G T Everson; Roshan Shrestha; T Trouillot; Bahri M. Bilir; A Amponsah; Michael Wachs; Mark D. Stegall; S Mandell; J Katz; Tracy Steinberg; C Morgan; B Fey; C Ray; Igal Kam
Transplantation | 2000
James F. Trotter; Michael Wachs; Thomas Trouillot; Tracy Steinberg; Thomas Bak; Gregory T. Everson; Igal Kam
Transplantation | 1998
M Talamantes; G T Everson; Roshan Shrestha; T Trouillot; Bahri M. Bilir; Michael Wachs; Igal Kam; Tracy Steinberg; C Morgan; R House; S Mandell; J Katz; B Fey; C Ray