Rapid en bloc technique for liver and pancreas procurement

Effects of SP600125 and hypothermic machine perfusion on livers donated after cardiac death in a pig allograft transplantation model

BACKGROUND

Hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) improves the quality of donor livers for transplantation, both in animal models and in clinical practice. Treatment with SP600125, an inhibitor of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), can suppress the JNK signaling pathway to alleviate donor liver ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI). We performed the present study with the objective of exploring the protective effects exerted by a combination of HMP and SP600125 on liver xenograft viability for donation after cardiac death (DCD) in a porcine model.

METHODS

54 adult BAMA mini-pigs were randomly assigned to 5 groups, including sham, cold storage for 4 h (CS 4 h), CS 4 h + SP600125, CS 2 h + HMP 2 h, and CS 2 h + HMP 2 h + SP600125 groups. Donor livers in the CS 4 h and CS 4 h + SP600125 groups were conventionally cold preserved for 4 h, whereas donor livers in the CS 2 h + HMP 2 h and CS 2 h + HMP 2 h + SP600125 groups were cold preserved for 2 h and then treated with HMP for 2 h. The preservation and perfusion solutions contained SP600125 (20 µM). Follow-up was conducted for 5 days after liver transplantation to compare the surgical outcomes by means of serological examination, pathological results, and survival rate.

RESULTS

The most satisfactory outcome after liver transplantation was observed in the CS 2 h + HMP 2 h + SP600125 group, which presented with minimal damage of donor livers during 5 days' follow-up. Additionally, serological examination, pathological results, and survival rate concurred in showing better results in the CS 2 h + HMP 2 h ± SP600125 group than in the CS 4 h ± SP600125 group.

CONCLUSION

HMP in combination with SP600125 has hepatoprotective properties and improves the quality and viability of porcine livers collected after DCD, thus improving prognosis after liver transplantation.

Retrieval of the pancreas allograft for whole-organ transplantation

Proper pancreas retrieval during multi-organ recovery is one of the cornerstones of technically successful whole-organ pancreas transplantation. With evolving surgical approaches for organ retrieval and implantation, it has become standard to procure the pancreas in conjunction with other abdominal organs without compromising either vasculature, graft quality, or transplant outcomes. This review summarizes the major steps required for proper whole-organ retrieval of the pancreas allograft with suggestions and tips whenever alternative approaches are available.

Liver damage during organ donor procurement in donation after circulatory death compared with donation after brain death

Background

During the past decade the number of livers recovered and transplanted from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has increased significantly. As reported previously, injuries are more frequent during kidney procurement from DCD than from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. This aim of this study was to compare outcomes between DCD and DBD with respect to liver injuries.

Methods

Data on liver injuries in organs procured between 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the UK Transplant Registry.

Results

A total of 7146 livers were recovered from deceased donors during the study, 628 (8·8 per cent) from DCD donors. Injuries occurred in 1001 procedures (14·0 per cent). There were more arterial (1·6 versus 1·0 per cent), portal (0·5 versus 0·3 per cent) and caval (0·3 versus 0·2 per cent) injuries in the DBD group than in the DCD group, although none of these findings was statistically significant. Capsular injuries occurred more frequently in DCD than DBD (15·6 versus 11·4 per cent; P = 0·002). There was no significant difference between DCD and DBD groups in liver discard rates related to damage.

Conclusion

There were no differences in terms of vascular injuries between DCD and DBD livers, although capsular injuries occurred more frequently in DCD organs. Continuing the trend for increased frequency of DCD liver recovery, and ensuring that there is an adequately skilled surgical team available for procurement, is vital to improving the utilization of DCD livers.

Preparation of the pancreas allograft for transplantation

Meticulous preparation of the allograft on the back bench is one of the cornerstones of technically successful whole-organ pancreas transplantation. With evolving surgical approaches for organ retrieval and implantation, it has become routine to procure the pancreas in conjunction with other abdominal organs without sacrificing vasculature or graft quality and without compromising excellent outcomes. This review article summarizes the major steps required for proper back table preparation of the pancreas allograft with suggestions and tips whenever alternative approaches are presented.

Retrieval of abdominal organs for transplantation

BACKGROUND

Organ retrieval and donor management are not yet standardized. Different transplant centres apply various techniques, such as single or dual organ perfusion, dissection in the cold or warm, and single or en bloc organ removal. These different approaches may cause inconvenience, especially when more than one organ retrieval team is involved.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Medline and PubMed were searched for publications on multiorgan donor/donation, retrieval technique and procurement. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were evaluated based on current advice from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

Multiorgan donation itself does not compromise the outcome of individual organ transplants. Dissection of abdominal organs for transplantation is best performed after cold perfusion. Abdominal organs should be removed rapidly, en bloc, and separated during back-table dissection in the cold, particularly if pancreas or intestine is included. Perfusion itself should be carried out after single cannulation of the aorta with an increased pressure.

CONCLUSION

Although the literature on organ retrieval is extensive, the level of evidence provided is mainly low. Nevertheless, optimized donor treatment and organ retrieval should increase the number and quality of cadaveric donor organs and improve graft function and survival.

Simultaneous Liver and Pancreas Transplantation in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Improved survival in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) has led to an increased incidence of extrapulmonary complications of this disease. Of these, cirrhosis and pancreatic insufficiency, including CF-related diabetes (CFRD) and exocrine insufficiency, are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Liver transplantation is the treatment of choice for cirrhosis in this setting, but the addition of an isolated simultaneous pancreas transplant in patients with CFRD has not been reported.

METHODS

Two female patients with CF underwent simultaneous pancreas and liver transplantation. Both had pancreatic insufficiency, CFRD, cirrhosis, and preserved renal function. In each case, the liver and pancreas were procured from a single cadaveric donor. The liver transplant was performed first. A lower midline extension was added for improved exposure of the iliac vessels. The donor pancreas transplant was performed with systemic venous drainage and enteric exocrine drainage. Immunosuppression included rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and early steroid withdrawal.

RESULTS

Both patients recovered well with normal liver function, resolution of portal hypertension, and normal blood glucoses independent of insulin. As a result of the enteric exocrine drainage of the pancreas, they are now independent of supplemental pancreatic enzymes.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous liver and pancreas transplantation in CF patients provides the advantages of normalization of glucose and improved nutrition for patients requiring liver transplantation and should be considered in CF patients with CFRD who require liver transplants.

Personal experience with the procurement of 32 liver allografts

AIM: To introduce the American Pittsburgh’s method of rapid liver procurement under the condition of brain death and factors influencing the quality of donor liver.

METHODS: To analyze 32 cases of allograft liver procurement retrospectively and observe the clinical outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation.

RESULTS: Average age of donors was 38.24 ± 12.78 years, with a male:female ratio of 23:9. The causes of brain death included 21 cases of trauma (65.63%) and nine cases of cerebrovascular accident (28.13%). Fourteen grafts (43.75%) had hepatic arterial anomalies, seven cases only right hepatic arterial anomalies (21.88%), five cases only left hepatic arterial anomalies (15.63%) and two cases of both right and left hepatic arterial anomalies (6.25%) among them. Eight cases (57.14%) of hepatic arterial anomalies required arterial reconstruction prior to transplantation. Of the 32 grafts evaluated for early function, 27 (84.38%) functioned well, whereas three (9.38%) functioned poorly and two (6.25%) failed to function at all. Only one recipient died after transplantation and thirty-one recipients recovered. Four recipients needed retransplantation. The variables associated with less than optimal function of the graft consisted of donor age (35.6 ± 12.9 years vs 54.1 ± 4.3 years, P < 0.05), duration of donor’s stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) (3.5 ± 2.4 d vs 7.4 ± 2.1 d, P < 0.005), abnormal graft appearance (19.0% vs 100%, P < 0.05), and such recipient problems as vascular thromboses during or immediately following transplantation (89.3% vs 50.0%, P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION: During liver procurement, complete heparization, perfusion in situ with localized low temperature and standard technique procedures are the basis ensuring the quality of the graft. The hepatic arterial anomalies should be taken care of to avoid injury. The donor age, duration of donor’s staying in ICU, abnormal graft appearance and recipient problem are important factors influencing the quality of the liver graft.

A simplified technique for the en bloc procurement of abdominal organs that is suitable for pancreas and small-bowel transplantation

BACKGROUND

Graft shortage makes multiorgan procurement mandatory. We describe the results of a simplified method for the en bloc procurement of multiple organs, which permits isolated transplantation of all abdominal grafts, including the pancreas and the small bowel, to different recipients.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-three multiorgan procurements were done with a simplified en bloc technique.

RESULTS

None of the 1374 grafts that were procured sustained injuries that potentially precluded transplantation. Seventy-two grafts that were procured from 18 donors (5%) who were diagnosed with a neoplasm were discarded. Overall, 339 grafts that were procured from 325 donors were discarded because of specific contraindications, and 963 grafts (74%) were transplanted. Ninety-seven pancreata were transplanted. In 3 instances the pancreas and the small bowel were procured simultaneously and transplanted to different recipients. A total of 287 liver grafts were also transplanted at 13 different institutions. In 42 instances, the liver was not allocated to our center. Forty liver teams (95%) from 11 different institutions agreed to procure their grafts according to the simplified en bloc technique. Our team performed 18 procurements, and a surgeon from the liver transplantation team, who was assisted by one of the members of our team, performed 22 procurements. In all, 576 kidneys were transplanted, either alone or simultaneously, with other abdominal grafts at 15 different institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

This procurement method has high yields, allows pancreas and small-bowel procurement, and can be learned readily.

Logistics and technique for procurement of intestinal, pancreatic, and hepatic grafts from the same donor

OBJECTIVE

To assess a technique for simultaneous recovery of the intestine, pancreas, and liver from the same donor.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

With the more frequent use of pancreatic and intestinal transplantation, a procurement procedure is needed that permits retrieval of both organs as well as the liver from the same cadaveric donor for transplantation to different recipients. It is believed by many procurement officers and surgeons, however, that this objective is not technically feasible.

METHODS

A technique for simultaneous recovery of the intestine, pancreas, and liver was used in 13 multiorgan cadaver donors during a 26-month period, with transplantation of the organs to 33 recipients. The intestine was removed from 11 donors separately and in continuity with the pancreas in the other 2. Six additional pancreases were excised and transplanted separately. Thirteen livers were retrieved, one of which was discarded because of steatorrhea. Ten of the remaining 12 livers were transplanted intact; the other 2 were split in situ and used as reduced-size hepatic allografts in four recipients.

RESULTS

None of the 11 intestinal, 6 pancreatic, 2 intestinal-pancreatic, or 14 whole or partial liver allografts sustained serious ischemic injury or were lost as a result of technical complications. One liver recipient died 25 months after surgery of recurrent C virus hepatitis. The other 32 recipients had adequate allograft function with a mean follow-up of 8 months.

CONCLUSION

It was possible using the described technique to retrieve intestine, pancreas, and liver allografts safely from the same donor and to transplant these organs to different recipients.

Split-liver transplantation: a comparison of ex vivo and in situ techniques

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The expanding applicability of liver transplantation as treatment for end-stage liver disease has fostered a disproportionate increase in liver transplant candidates in the face of an unchanging pool of donor organs. This has resulted in disparities in pretransplant waiting times and deaths. The splitting of a liver allograft allows for the transplantation of 2 recipients, usually an adult and a child, thus providing a means to expand the cadaveric donor pool.

METHODS

The authors present their results on the performance of an ex vivo (back table) split and in situ (in a hemodynamically stable cadaveric donor) split to evaluate safety, applicability, and effectiveness. Between November 1989 through April 1998, 54 split-liver transplant recipient operations were performed (24 pediatric and 30 adult). Thirty donors were procured: the ex vivo splitting yielded 25 grafts from 13 donors (donor age, 24.6+/-11 years), and the in-situ technique yielded 29 grafts from 17 donors (mean donor age of 25.5+/-10.4 years). Five donors involved interinstitutional sharing for which the left side of the graft was kept at the host hospital and the right side grafts were utilized at our center.

RESULTS

Overall 1-year patient survival was 85%, with a graft survival of 72%. Patient survival was similar with ex vivo (74%) as compared with the in situ splitting group (96%; P = .06), as was graft survival in ex vivo (61 %) versus in situ (81%) splitting (P = .15). The pediatric population benefited most from the in situ technique, with a 1-year patient survival rate of 100% with the in situ technique versus the ex vivo technique survival rate of 64% at 1 year (P = .02). The 1-year graft survival comparing these 2 techniques was 83% for the in situ group versus 45% for the ex vivo group. Analysis of the program evolution of split-liver transplantation suggested a time-dependent learning curve, which was applicable to surgical splitting technique, implantation, and recipient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The principle of splitting livers from cadaveric donors is fundamentally sound and technically feasible. The authors' outcomes analysis using 2 different procurement techniques suggests that the in situ technique is clinically efficacious, can be used alternatively with the ex vivo technique, and is comparable to whole-liver allograft transplantation.

Simultaneous administration of adjuvant donor bone marrow in pancreas transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

The effect of donor bone marrow was evaluated for its potentially favorable effect in the authors' simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplant program.

METHODS

From July 1994 to January 1999, 177 pancreas transplants were performed, 151 of which were simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplants. All patients received tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids for immunosuppression (azathioprine was used in the first year of the program). Fifty-three simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplant recipients received perioperative unmodified donor bone marrow, 3 to 6 x 10(8) cells/kg.

RESULTS

Overall actuarial survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 98% and 95% (patient), 95% and 87% (kidney), and 86% and 80% (pancreas), respectively. In the adjuvant bone marrow group, 1- and 3-year survival rates were 96% and 91 % (patient), 95% and 87% (kidney), and 83% and 83% (pancreas), respectively. For 98 recipients who did not receive bone marrow, survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 100% and 98% (patient), 96% and 86% (kidney), and 87% and 79% (pancreas), respectively. No pancreas allografts were lost after 3 months in bone marrow recipients, and seven in the non-bone marrow recipients were lost to rejection at 0.7, 6.7, 8.8, 14.6, 24.1, 24.3, and 25.5 months. Twenty-two percent of bone marrow patients were steroid-free at 1 year, 45% at 2 years, and 67% at 3 years. Nineteen percent of the non-bone marrow recipients were steroid-free at 1 year, 38% at 2 years, and 45% (p = 0.02) at 3 years. The mean acute cellular rejection rate was 0.94+/-1.1 in the bone marrow group and 1.57+/-1.3 (p = 0.003) in the non-bone marrow group (includes borderline rejection and multiple rejections). The level of donor cell chimerism in the peripheral blood of bone marrow patients was at least two logs higher than in controls.

CONCLUSION

In this series, which represents the largest experience with adjuvant bone marrow infusion in pancreas recipients, there was a higher steroid withdrawal rate (p = 0.02), fewer rejection episodes, and no pancreas graft loss after 3 months in bone marrow recipients compared with contemporaneous controls. All pancreas allografts lost to chronic rejection (n = 6) were in the non-bone marrow group. Donor bone marrow administered around the time of surgery may have a protective effect in pancreas transplantation.