-
Transplant International : Official... Nov 2021In donation after circulatory death (DCD), (thoraco)abdominal regional perfusion (RP) restores circulation to a region of the body following death declaration. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In donation after circulatory death (DCD), (thoraco)abdominal regional perfusion (RP) restores circulation to a region of the body following death declaration. We systematically reviewed outcomes of solid organ transplantation after RP by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Eighty-eight articles reporting on outcomes of liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, and lung transplants or donor/organ utilization were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Methodological quality was assessed using National Institutes of Health (NIH)-scoring tools. Case reports (13/88), case series (44/88), retrospective cohort studies (35/88), retrospective matched cohort studies (5/88), and case-control studies (2/88) were identified, with overall fair quality. As blood viscosity and rheology change below 20 °C, studies were grouped as hypothermic (HRP, ≤20 °C) or normothermic (NRP, >20 °C) regional perfusion. Data demonstrate that RP is a safe alternative to in situ cold preservation (ISP) in uncontrolled and controlled DCDs. The scarce HRP data are from before 2005. NRP appears to reduce post-transplant complications, especially biliary complications in controlled DCD livers, compared with ISP. Comparisons for kidney and pancreas with ISP are needed but there is no evidence that NRP is detrimental. Additional data on NRP in thoracic organs are needed. Whether RP increases donor or organ utilization needs further research.
Topics: Death; Graft Survival; Humans; Organ Preservation; Organ Transplantation; Perfusion; Retrospective Studies; Tissue Donors; Tissue and Organ Procurement
PubMed: 34570380
DOI: 10.1111/tri.14121 -
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease Apr 2019The risk of cervical cancer (CC) among women immunosuppressed for a variety of reasons is well documented in the literature. Although there is improved organ function,...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The risk of cervical cancer (CC) among women immunosuppressed for a variety of reasons is well documented in the literature. Although there is improved organ function, quality of life and life expectancy gained through use of immunosuppressant therapy, there may be increased long-term risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer and the need for more intense screening, surveillance, and management. Although guidance for CC screening among HIV-infected women (see Table 1) has been supported by evidence from retrospective and prospective studies, recommendations for CC screening among non-HIV immunosuppressed women remains limited because quality evidence is lacking. Moreover, CC screening guidelines for HIV-infected women have changed because better treatments evolved and resulted in longer life expectancy.The objective of this report was to summarize current knowledge of CC, squamous intraepithelial lesions, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in non-HIV immunocompromised women to determine best practices for CC surveillance in this population and provide recommendations for screening. We evaluated those with solid organ transplant, hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and a number of autoimmune diseases.A panel of health care professionals involved in CC research and care was assembled to review and discuss existing literature on the subject and come to conclusions about screening based on available evidence and expert opinion. Literature searches were performed using key words such as CC, cervical dysplasia/squamous intraepithelial lesion, HPV, and type of immunosuppression resulting in an initial group of 346 articles. Additional publications were identified from review of citations in these articles. All generated abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant articles. Articles published within 10 years were considered priority for review. Reviews of the literature were summarized with relevant statistical comparisons. Recommendations for screening generated from each group were largely based on expert opinion. Adherence to screening, health benefits and risks, and available clinical expertise were all considered in formulating the recommendations to the degree that information was available.
RESULTS
Solid Organ Transplant: Evidence specific for renal, heart/lung, liver, and pancreas transplants show a consistent increase in risk of cervical neoplasia and invasive CC, demonstrating the importance of long-term surveillance and treatment. Reports demonstrate continued risk long after transplantation, emphasizing the need for screening throughout a woman's lifetime.Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Although there is some evidence for an increase in CC in large cohort studies of these patients, conflicting results may reflect that many patients did not survive long enough to evaluate the incidence of slow-growing or delayed-onset cancers. Furthermore, history of cervical screening or previous hysterectomy was not included in registry study analysis, possibly leading to underestimation of CC incidence rates.Genital or chronic graft versus host disease is associated with an increase in high-grade cervical neoplasia and posttransplant HPV positivity.Inflammatory Bowel Disease: There is no strong evidence to support that inflammatory bowel disease alone increases cervical neoplasia or cancer risk. In contrast, immunosuppressant therapy does seem to increase the risk, although results of observational studies are conflicting regarding which type of immunosuppressant medication increases risk. Moreover, misclassification of cases may underestimate CC risk in this population. Recently published preventive care guidelines for women with inflammatory bowel disease taking immunosuppressive therapy recommend a need for continued long-term CC screening.Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis: The risk of cervical high-grade neoplasia and cancer was higher among women with systemic lupus erythematosus than those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), although studies were limited by size, inclusion of women with low-grade neoplasia in main outcomes, and variability of disease severity or exposure to immunosuppressants. In studies designed to look specifically at immunosuppressant use, however, there did seem to be an increase in risk, identified mostly in women with RA. Although the strength of the evidence is limited, the increase in risk is consistent across studies.Type 1 DM: There is a paucity of evidence-based reports associating type 1 DM with an increased risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel proposed that CC screening guidelines for non-HIV immunocompromised women follow either the (1) guidelines for the general population or (2) current center for disease control guidelines for HIV-infected women. The following are the summaries for each group reviewed, and more details are noted in accompanying table:Solid Organ Transplant: The transplant population reflects a greater risk of CC than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening and surveillance.Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: These women have a greater risk of CC than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening. A new diagnosis of genital or chronic graft versus host disease in a woman post-stem cell transplant results in a greater risk of CC than in the general population and should result in more intensive screening and surveillance.Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Women with inflammatory bowel disease being treated with immunosuppressive drugs are at greater risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer than the general population and guidelines for HIV-infected women are a reasonable approach for screening and surveillance. Those women with inflammatory bowel disease not on immunosuppressive therapy are not at an increased risk and should follow screening guidelines for the general population.Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis: All women with systemic lupus erythematosus, whether on immunosuppressant therapy or not and those women with RA on immunosuppressant therapy have a greater risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer than the general population and should follow CC screening guidelines for HIV-infected women. Women with RA not on immunosuppressant therapy should follow CC screening guidelines for the general population.Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Because of a lack of evidence of increased risk of cervical neoplasia and cancer among women with type 1 DM, these women should follow the screening guidelines for the general population.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Papillomavirus Infections; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Young Adult
PubMed: 30907775
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000468 -
Transplant International : Official... 2022This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies....
This guideline, from a European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) working group, concerns the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies. Sensitization should be defined using a virtual parameter such as calculated Reaction Frequency (cRF), which assesses HLA antibodies derived from the actual organ donor population. Highly sensitized patients should be prioritized in kidney allocation schemes and linking allocation schemes may increase opportunities. The use of the ENGAGE 5 ((Bestard et al., Transpl Int, 2021, 34: 1005-1018) system and online calculators for assessing risk is recommended. The Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program should be extended. If strategies for finding a compatible kidney are very unlikely to yield a transplant, desensitization may be considered and should be performed with plasma exchange or immunoadsorption, supplemented with IViG and/or anti-CD20 antibody. Newer therapies, such as imlifidase, may offer alternatives. Few studies compare HLA incompatible transplantation with remaining on the waiting list, and comparisons of morbidity or quality of life do not exist. Kidney paired exchange programs (KEP) should be more widely used and should include unspecified and deceased donors, as well as compatible living donor pairs. The use of a KEP is preferred to desensitization, but highly sensitized patients should not be left on a KEP list indefinitely if the option of a direct incompatible transplant exists.
Topics: Antibodies; HLA Antigens; Histocompatibility Testing; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Living Donors; Quality of Life; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 36033645
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10511 -
Transplant International : Official... 2023Thrombosis is a leading causes of pancreas graft loss after simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), and pancreas transplant alone (PTA). There... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thrombosis is a leading causes of pancreas graft loss after simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), and pancreas transplant alone (PTA). There remains no standardized thromboprophylaxis protocol. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of heparin thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of pancreas thrombosis, pancreas graft loss, bleeding, and secondary outcomes in SPK, PAK, and PTA. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched BIOSIS®, PubMed®, Cochrane Library®, EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, and Web of Science® on April 21, 2021. Primary peer-reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria were included. Two methods of quantitative synthesis were performed to account for comparative and non-comparative studies. We included 11 studies, comprising of 1,122 patients in the heparin group and 236 patients in the no-heparin group. When compared to the no-heparin control, prophylactic heparinization significantly decreased the risk of early pancreas thrombosis and pancreas loss for SPK, PAK and PTA without increasing the incidence of bleeding or acute return to the operating room. Heparin thromboprophylaxis yields an approximate two-fold reduction in both pancreas thrombosis and pancreas loss for SPK, PAK and PTA. We report the dosage, frequency, and duration of heparin administration to consolidate the available evidence.
Topics: Humans; Heparin; Anticoagulants; Kidney Transplantation; Venous Thromboembolism; Pancreas Transplantation; Pancreas; Thrombosis; Graft Survival
PubMed: 36819126
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.10442 -
Progres En Urologie : Journal de... Nov 2016To perform a State of The Art about the different aspects of pancreas transplantation such as indications, technical features, immunosuppressive strategies and outcomes... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To perform a State of The Art about the different aspects of pancreas transplantation such as indications, technical features, immunosuppressive strategies and outcomes of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An exhaustive systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in the Medline database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using different associations of the following keywords (MESH) : « pancreas transplantation; kidney transplantation; simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation; immunosuppression ». Publications obtained were selected based on methodology, language, date of publication (last 20 years) and relevance. Prospective and retrospective studies, in English or French, review articles; meta-analysis and guidelines were selected and analyzed. This search found 2736 articles. After reading titles and abstracts, 23 were included in the text, based on their relevance.
RESULTS
These last few years, considerable progresses were done in optimizing indication for pancreas transplantation, as well as surgical improvement and a better used of immunosuppression. In the first part of this article, demographics, indication and pre-transplant evaluation will be described. The different techniques of procurement, preparation and transplantation will then be discussed. Finally, the results and outcomes of pancreas transplantation will be reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite its morbidity, pancreas transplantation is the optimal treatment of end stage renal disease in diabetic patients under 55. Long-term results and quality of life improvement after pancreas transplantation are excellent.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Pancreas Transplantation; Preoperative Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27720628
DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2016.08.008 -
Journal of Ovarian Research Jun 2016Melatonin is an indolamine produced by the pineal gland and it can exert a potent antioxidant effect. Its free radical scavenger properties have been used to advantage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Melatonin is an indolamine produced by the pineal gland and it can exert a potent antioxidant effect. Its free radical scavenger properties have been used to advantage in different organ transplants in animal experiments. Several concentrations and administration pathways have been tested and melatonin has shown encouraging beneficial results in many transplants of organs such as the liver, lungs, heart, pancreas, and kidneys. The objective of the present study was to review the scientific literature regarding the use of melatonin in ovary transplantation. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was carried out using the Cochrane and Pubmed databases and employing the terms 'melatonin' AND 'ovary' AND 'transplantation.' After analysis, 5 articles were extracted addressing melatonin use in ovary transplants and involving 503 animals. Melatonin enhanced various graft aspects like morphology, apoptosis, immunological reaction, revascularization, oxidative stress, and survival rate. Melatonin's antioxidative and antiapoptotic properties seemingly produce positive effects on ovarian graft activity. Despite the promising results, further studies in humans need to be conducted to consolidate its use, as ovary transplantation for fertility preservation is gradually being moved from the experimental stage to a clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Antioxidants; Apoptosis; Female; Graft Survival; Humans; Melatonin; Neovascularization, Physiologic; Organ Transplantation; Ovary; Oxidative Stress
PubMed: 27287621
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-016-0245-8 -
Transplantation Oct 2022Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes...
Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, several studies have suggested similar outcomes between T2D and T1D, and the practice has become increasingly common. Despite this growing interest in pancreas transplantation in T2D, no study has systematically summarized the data to date. We systematically reviewed the literature on pancreas transplantation in T2D patients including patient and graft survival, glycemic control outcomes, and comparisons with outcomes in T2D kidney transplant alone and T1D pancreas transplant recipients. We searched biomedical databases from January 1, 2000, to January 14, 2021, and screened 3314 records, of which 22 full texts and 17 published abstracts met inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were predominantly single center (73%), whereas the remaining most often studied the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Methodological quality was mixed with frequent concern for selection bias and concern for inconsistent definitions of both T2D and pancreas graft survival across studies. Overall, studies generally reported favorable patient survival, graft survival, and glycemic control outcomes for pancreas transplantation in T2D and expressed a need to better characterize the T2D patients who would benefit most from pancreas transplantation. We suggest guidance for future studies, with the aim of supporting the safe and evidence-based treatment of end-stage T2D and judicious use of scarce resources.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Graft Survival; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 35576270
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004113 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Pancreas or kidney-pancreas transplantation improves survival and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and kidney failure. Immunosuppression after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreas or kidney-pancreas transplantation improves survival and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and kidney failure. Immunosuppression after transplantation is associated with complications. Steroids have adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperglycaemia or hyperlipidaemia, increase risk of infection, obesity, cataracts, myopathy, bone metabolism alterations, dermatologic problems and cushingoid appearance. Whether avoiding steroids changes outcomes is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of steroid early withdrawal (treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation), late withdrawal (after 14 days after transplantation) or steroid avoidance in patients receiving a pancreas (including a vascularized organ) alone (PTA), simultaneous with a kidney (SPK) or after kidney transplantation (PAK).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 18 June 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We handsearched: reference lists of nephrology textbooks, relevant studies, recent publications and clinical practice guidelines; abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings; and sent emails and letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to known investigators.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of steroid avoidance (including early withdrawal) versus steroid maintenance or versus late withdrawal in pancreas or pancreas with kidney transplant recipients. We defined steroid avoidance as complete avoidance of steroid immunosuppression, early steroid withdrawal as steroid treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation and late withdrawal as steroid withdrawal after 14 days after transplantation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and where necessary the full text reports to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Authors of included studies were contacted to obtain missing information. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cohort studies were not meta-analysed, but their findings summarised descriptively.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs enrolling 144 participants met our inclusion criteria. Two compared steroid avoidance versus late steroid withdrawal and one compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance. All studies included SPK and only one also included PTA. All studies had an overall moderate risk of bias and presented only short-term results (six to 12 months). Two studies (89 participants) compared steroid avoidance or early steroid withdrawal versus late steroid withdrawal. There was no clear evidence of an impact on mortality (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 12.75), risk of kidney loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.09), risk of pancreas loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04), or acute kidney rejection (1 study, 49 participants: RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.20 to 21.50), however results were uncertain and consistent with no difference or important benefit or harm of steroid avoidance/early steroid withdrawal. The study that compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance observed no deaths, no graft loss or acute kidney rejection at six months in either group and reported uncertain effects on acute pancreas rejection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.35). Of the possible adverse effects only infection was reported by one study. There were significantly more UTIs reported in the late withdrawal group compared to the steroid avoidance group (1 study, 25 patients: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.66).We also identified 13 cohort studies and one RCT which randomised tacrolimus versus cyclosporin. These studies in general showed that steroid-sparing and withdrawal strategies had benefits in lowering HbAc1 and risk of infections (BK virus and CMV disease) and improved blood pressure control without increasing the risk of rejection. However, two studies found an increased incidence of acute pancreas rejection (HR 2.8, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.81, P = 0.066 in one study and 43.3% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 9.3% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05 at three years in the other) and one study found an increased incidence of acute kidney rejection (18.7% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 2.8% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05) at three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence for the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal in pancreas transplantation in the three RCTs (144 patients) identified. The results showed uncertain results for short-term risk of rejection, mortality, or graft survival in steroid-sparing strategies in a very small number of patients over a short period of follow-up. Overall the data was sparse, so no firm conclusions are possible. Moreover, the 13 observational studies findings generally concur with the evidence found in the RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Cohort Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Living Donors; Middle Aged; Pancreas Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 25220222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007669.pub2 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2017This study aimed to identify the most effective solution for in situ perfusion/preservation of the pancreas in donation after brain death donors, in addition to optimal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to identify the most effective solution for in situ perfusion/preservation of the pancreas in donation after brain death donors, in addition to optimal in situ flush volume(s) and route(s) during pancreas procurement.
METHODS
Embase, Medline and Cochrane databases were utilized (1980-2017). Articles comparing graft outcomes between two or more different perfusion/preservation fluids (University of Wisconsin (UW), histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) and/or Celsior) were compared using random effects models where appropriate.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included (939 transplants). Confidence in available evidence was low. A higher serum peak lipase (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.71, I = 0) was observed in pancreatic grafts perfused/preserved with HTK compared to UW, but there were no differences in one-month pancreas allograft survivals or early thrombotic graft loss rates. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of graft pancreatitis, thrombosis and graft survival between UW and Celsior solutions, and between aortic-only and dual aorto-portal perfusion.
CONCLUSION
UW cold perfusion may reduce peak serum lipase, but no quality evidence suggested UW cold perfusion improves graft survival and reduces thrombosis rates. Further research is needed to establish longer-term graft outcomes, the comparative efficacy of Celsior, and ideal perfusion volumes.
Topics: Adult; Cold Temperature; Female; Graft Survival; Humans; Male; Organ Preservation; Organ Preservation Solutions; Pancreas Transplantation; Pancreatectomy; Perfusion; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28844527
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.07.012 -
PloS One 2020We aimed to systematically review published data on the effectiveness of Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) as a preservation solution for kidney and pancreas grafts. A...
We aimed to systematically review published data on the effectiveness of Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1) as a preservation solution for kidney and pancreas grafts. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed. Human studies evaluating the effects of IGL-1 preservation solution in kidney and/or pancreas transplantation were included. Outcome data on kidney and pancreas graft function were extracted. Of 1513 unique articles identified via the search strategy, four articles could be included in the systematic review. Of these, two retrospective studies reported on the outcome of IGL-1 compared to University of Wisconsin (UW) solution in kidney transplantation. These show kidneys preserved in IGL-1 had improved early function (2 weeks post-transplant) compared to UW. Follow-up was limited to 1 year and showed similar graft and patient survival rates when reported. Two case series described acceptable early outcomes (up to 1 month) of simultaneous kidney pancreas transplantation after storage in IGL-1. As only four clinical papers were identified, we widened our search to include four eligible large animal studies. Three compared IGL-1 with UW in pig kidney transplant models with inconclusive or mildly positive results. One pig pancreas transplant study suggested better early outcome with IGL-1 compared to UW. Too few published data are available to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of IGL-1 as a preservation solution of kidney and pancreas grafts. The limited available data show satisfactory early outcomes though no medium to long-term outcomes have been described. Further well-designed clinical studies are needed.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Transplantation; Organ Preservation; Organ Preservation Solutions; Pancreas; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 32240262
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231019