Use of Dextran 40 After Pancreas Transplant May Reduce Early Inflammation and Significant Bleeding Compared to a Heparin-Based Protocol

Intravenous Injection of Na Ions Aggravates Ang II-Induced Hypertension-Related Vascular Endothelial Injury by Increasing Transmembrane Osmotic Pressure

Introduction

Extracellular protein nanoparticles (PNs) and ions perform synergistical functions in the control of transmembrane osmotic pressure (OP) under isotonic conditions. Intravenous injection may disrupt the ion balance and alter PN levels in blood plasma, changing transmembrane OP and damaging vascular endothelial cells.

Methods

Na ions were injected into AngII-induced HUVECs to simulate cell injury in vitro, and tail vein infusion of Na ions into hypertensive rats was performed to assess vascular damage. Optical measurements using an intermediate filament (IF) tension probe were conducted to detect indicators related to transmembrane OP. Immunofluorescence, Western blotting and small interfering RNA (siRNA) transfection were employed to investigate inflammasomes and the relationship between Abl2 and inflammation.

Results

Electrolyte injections with sodium ions (but not glucose and hydroxyethyl starch) induced the production of ASC and NLRP3 inflammasomes in Ang II-induced HUVECs; this in turn resulted in the disorder of calcium signals, and changes in transmembrane OP and cell permeability. Moreover, injection of Na ions into Ang II-induced HUVECs activated the mechanosensitive protein Abl2, involved in inflammation-induced transmembrane OP changes. A drug combination was identified that could induce OP recovery and block hyperpermeability induced by cytoplasmic inflammatory corpuscles in vivo and in vitro.

Conclusion

Changes in extracellular PNs and ions following chemical stimuli (Ang II) participate in the regulation of transmembrane OP. Furthermore, injection of Na ions causes vascular endothelial injury in Ang II-induced cells in vitro and hypertension rats in vivo, suggesting it is not safe for hypertensive patients, and we propose a new drug combination as a solution.

Thromboinflammatory response is increased in pancreas transplant alone versus simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and early pancreas graft thrombosis is associated with complement activation

Background

Pancreas transplant alone (PTA) recipients are more affected by pancreas graft thrombosis, and graft loss compared to simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) recipients. The pathophysiology is unknown, but an increased immune response has been suggested in the PTA recipients. In this observational study, we compared perioperative thromboinflammation between PTA (n=32) and SPK (n=35) recipients, and between PTA recipients with (n=14) versus without (n=18) early graft thrombosis.

Methods

We measured C-reactive protein (CRP), plasma markers of activated coagulation and complement, and cytokines preoperatively and daily during the first postoperative week.

Results

Preoperatively, coagulation and complement activation markers were comparable between PTA and SPK recipients, while cytokine concentrations were higher in SPK recipients (TNF, IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, MIP-1α; all p<0.05). On the first postoperative day, PTA recipients had higher coagulation activation, measured as thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), than SPK recipients (p=0.008). In the first postoperative week, PTA recipients showed higher relative cytokine release (IL-6, IL-8, G-CSF, IP-10, MCP-1, and MIP-1α; all p<0.05) while SPK recipients showed higher absolute cytokine concentrations (TNF, IL-1ra, IL-8, MIP-1α, and IL-4; all p<0.05). PTA and SPK recipients showed similar terminal complement complex (TCC, sC5b-9) activation. On the first postoperative day, TCC (OR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0-1.5] for 0.1 CAU/ml increase, p=0.02) and CRP (OR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0-1.3] for 10 mg/L increase, p=0.04) were associated with an increased risk of early graft thrombosis. TCC was specific for graft thrombosis, while CRP increased with several complications. PTA recipients with compared to those without graft thrombosis had higher TCC pre- (p=0.04) and postoperatively (p=0.03).

Conclusion

The relative increase in postoperative thromboinflammatory response was more pronounced in PTA recipients. Complement activation was associated with an increased risk of graft thrombosis. This study indicates that innate immune activation rather than elevated levels may affect early postoperative pancreas graft thrombosis.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01957696, identifier NCT01957696

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.