Donation after cardiac death in the US: history and use.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Death↗
Biomedical subjects
Peter L Abt
Publications and source records attributed to Peter L Abt.
Elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation for portal decompression in the immediate pretransplantation period in adult living related liver transplant recipient candidates: preliminary results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate (i) the efficacy of purposeful creation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) before transplantation to optimize potential living related liver transplantation (LRLTx) and (ii) the efficacy of TIPS creation in this setting in reducing perioperative resource utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of the records of patients who underwent adult LRLTx with or without preoperative TIPS creation from October 2003 through April 2005. Patients were evaluated for preoperative parameters (Child-Pugh class, Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, and coagulation parameters), intraoperative parameters (blood transfusion requirements and operative time), and postoperative parameters (intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and 30-day repeat operation and mortality rates). Comparison between the two treatment groups was made with the Mann-Whitney U test. Within the TIPS group, comparison of blood transfusion requirements was performed by one-way analysis of variance based on the degree of portosystemic gradient reduction after TIPS creation. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included in the TIPS group, and 12 patients were included in the group without TIPS. Median time between TIPS and transplantation was 2 days. There was no statistical difference in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters between groups except for the APACHE II score (P<.002), which was higher in the TIPS group. Despite this, the outcome and postoperative hospital resource utilization were similar between groups. Intraoperative blood transfusion based on the degree of portosystemic gradient reduction after TIPS creation was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Newly created TIPS do not interfere with the intraoperative technical and perioperative clinical aspects of adult LRLTx. Preoperative TIPS creation before transplantation may reduce the postoperative morbidity and mortality seen in liver transplant recipients who have a greater APACHE II score at the outset of treatment.
APACHE↗
Appendicitis among liver transplant recipients.
Appendicitis among liver transplant recipients has not been described in the current literature. We report 8 recipients who experienced appendicitis three weeks to 181 months after liver transplantation (LT). Initial presenting findings differed from the nonimmunosuppressed population in that a majority of the patients did not have leukocytosis (>10,000 cells/mm3). Four patients experienced perforation, three of whom presented three days after the development of abdominal pain. All patients recovered after surgery without untoward sequela.
Abdominal Pain↗
Early kidney dysfunction post liver transplantation predicts late chronic kidney disease.
BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic renal dysfunction (ARD, CRD) are common complications after liver transplantation and are associated with poor outcome. METHODS: We reviewed the results of 181 liver transplants performed in our institution between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000 in which the recipients were alive with good liver function at the end of the follow-up period (mean 2.7 years). Renal dysfunction was defined as a serum creatinine (Cr) greater than or equal to 2 mg/dL in both acute and chronic settings. RESULTS: The incidence of ARD during the first posttransplant week was 39.2% (n=71), whereas late CRD occurred in 6.0% (n=11) of the patients by the end of the follow-up period. Among the variables we examined for association with CRD, five factors were found to be statistically significant in univariate analysis: pretransplant diabetes (PRTDM) (0.000), Cr greater than or equal to 2 during the first postoperative week (0.003), posttransplant diabetes (POTDM) (0.014), age greater than 50 (0.025), and tacrolimus level greater than 15 ng/mL at postoperative day 15 (0.058). In binary logistic regression analysis, PRTDM (odds ratio [OR]=5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and early postoperative ARD (OR=10.2 95% CI) remained consistently significant. Nine of 11 patients with CRD also had a history of ARD during the first postoperative week. These patients progressed to CRD despite the fact that seven of nine had normalized their renal function by day 90 posttransplant. CONCLUSION: We suggest that a combination of events during the first postoperative week after liver transplant serve as a physiologic "stress test" for the kidneys. Patients who fail the test (peak Cr >/=2 mg/dL during the first postoperative week) as well as the patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of CRD. In such cases, conversion to a less nephrotoxic regimen may be beneficial.
Acute Disease↗
Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function.
BACKGROUND: The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been found to accurately predict pretransplant mortality and is a valuable system for ranking patients in greatest need of liver transplantation. It is unknown whether a higher MELD score also predicts decreased posttransplant survival. METHODS: We examined a cohort of patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database for whom the critical pretransplant recipient values needed to calculate the MELD score were available (international normalized ratio of prothrombin time, total bilirubin, and creatinine). In these 2,565 patients, we analyzed whether the MELD score predicted graft and patient survival and length of posttransplant hospitalization. RESULTS: In contrast with its ability to predict survival in patients with chronic liver disease awaiting liver transplant, the MELD score was found to be poor at predicting posttransplant outcome except for patients with the highest 20% of MELD scores. We developed a model with four variables not included in MELD that had greater ability to predict 3-month posttransplant patient survival, with a c-statistic of 0.65, compared with 0.54 for the pretransplant MELD score. These pretransplant variables were recipient age, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and retransplantation. Recipients with any two of the three latter variables showed a markedly diminished posttransplant survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: The MELD score is a relatively poor predictor of posttransplant outcome. In contrast, a model based on four pretransplant variables (recipient age, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and retransplantation) had a better ability to predict outcome. Our results support the use of MELD for liver allocation and indicate that statistical modeling, such as reported in this article, can be used to identify futile cases in which expected outcome is too poor to justify transplantation.
Adult↗
Survival among pediatric liver transplant recipients: impact of segmental grafts.
Segmental liver transplantation with living donor (LD), reduced cadaveric (Reduced), and split cadaveric (Split) allografts has expanded the availability of size-appropriate organs for pediatric recipients. The relevance of recipient age to the selection of graft type has not been fully explored, but could offer the potential to maximize recipient outcome and donor utilization. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among children 12 years of age or less utilizing the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Cox proportional-hazards analysis was used to explore the association of recipient age and graft type to graft and patient survival. Among children <1 year of age and those 1 to 2 years of age, 3-year LD graft survival was superior to whole cadaveric (CAD) organs, Split grafts, and Reduced grafts (for children <1 year of age: 79.4 vs. 61.5, 66.0, and 61.1%, respectively, P = .0003; and for children 1-2 years of age: 79.2 vs 66.9, 57.1, and 63.9%, respectively, P = .02). However, in children 3 to 12 years of age, after controlling for multiple donor and recipient factors, LD grafts failed to offer a survival advantage (hazard ratio = .61; 95% confidence interval = .37-1.02) compared to CAD organs. In an adjusted analysis examining patient survival, there appeared to be minimal association between recipient age and graft type. Much of the difference in graft survival could be attributed to events in the perioperative period. In conclusion, LD liver transplantation provides improved graft survival in children 2 years of age or less.
Cadaver↗
Survival following liver transplantation from non-heart-beating donors.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient and graft survival following transplantation with non-heart-beating donor (NHBD) hepatic allografts is equivalent to heart-beating-donor (HBD) allografts. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: With the growing disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation and a limited supply of cadaveric organs, there is renewed interest in the use of hepatic allografts from NHBDs. Limited outcome data addressing this issue exist. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of graft and patient survival among adult recipients of NHBD hepatic allografts compared with recipients of HBD livers between 1993 and 2001 using the United Network of Organ Sharing database. RESULTS: NHBD (N = 144) graft survival was significantly shorter than HBD grafts (N = 26856). One- and 3-year graft survival was 70.2% and 63.3% for NHBD recipients versus 80.4% and 72.1% (P = 0.003 and P = 0.012) for HBD recipients. Recipients of an NHBD graft had a greater incidence of primary nonfunction (11.8 vs. 6.4%, P = 0.008) and retransplantation (13.9% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.04) compared with HBD recipients. Prolonged cold ischemic time and recipient life support were predictors of early graft failure among recipients of NHBD livers. Although differences in patient survival following NHBD versus HBD transplant did not meet statistical significance, a strong trend was evident that likely has relevant clinical implications. CONCLUSIONS: Graft and patient survival is inferior among recipients of NHBD livers. NHBD donors remain an important source of hepatic grafts; however, judicious use is warranted, including minimization of cold ischemia and use in stable recipients.
Adult↗
Allograft survival following adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation.
Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) is emerging as a method to treat patients with end-stage liver disease. The aims of this study were to identify donor and recipient characteristics of AALDLT, to determine variables that affect allograft survival, and to examine outcomes compared with those achieved following cadaveric transplantation. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine characteristics associated with the survival of AALDLT. Survival of AALDLT was then compared with cadaveric allografts in multivariable Cox models. Older donor age (>44 years), female-to-male donor to recipient relationship, recipient race, and the recipient medical condition before transplant were factors related to allograft failure among 731 AALDLT. Despite favorable donor and recipient characteristics, the rate of allograft failure, specifically the need for retransplantation, was increased among AALDLT (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% C.I. = 1.30-2.11) compared with cadaveric recipients. In conclusion, among AALDLT recipients, selecting younger donors, placing the allografts in recipients who have not had a prior transplant and are not in the ICU, may enhance allograft survival. Analysis of this early experience with AALDLT suggests that allograft failure may be higher than among recipients of a cadaveric liver.
Adult↗