Outcomes of pancreas retransplantation. Transplantation. 2015;99:367-374. [PMID: 25594555 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000000566]

Medical and Surgical Management of the Failed Pancreas Transplant

Despite the continued improvements in pancreas transplant outcomes in recent decades, a subset of recipients experience graft failure and can experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Here, we summarize what is known about the failed pancreas allograft and what factors are important for consideration of retransplantation. The current definition of pancreas allograft failure and its challenges for the transplant community are explored. The impacts of a failed pancreas allograft are presented, including patient survival and resultant morbidities. The signs, symptoms, and medical and surgical management of a failed pancreas allograft are described, whereas the options and consequences of immunosuppression withdrawal are reviewed. Medical and surgical factors necessary for successful retransplant candidacy are detailed with emphasis on how well-selected patients may achieve excellent retransplant outcomes. To achieve substantial medical mitigation and even pancreas retransplantation, patients with a failed pancreas allograft warrant special attention to their residual renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary function. Future studies of the failed pancreas allograft will require improved reporting of graft failure from transplant centers and continued investigation from experienced centers.

Challenges Associated with Pancreas and Kidney Retransplantation-A Retrospective Analysis

Simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPK) is an accepted treatment for diabetic patients with renal failure, and is associated with increased survival and quality of life for recipients. There are only a few publications on the outcomes of simultaneous pancreas–kidney retransplantation (Re-SPK) after previous SPK and the loss of function of both grafts. A total of 55 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus underwent pancreas retransplantation at our center between January 1994 and March 2021. Twenty-four of these patients underwent Re-SPK after a previous SPK. All 24 operations were technically feasible. Patient survival rate after 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years was 79.2%, 75%, and 66.7%, respectively. The causes of death were septic arterial hemorrhage (n = 3), septic multiorgan failure (n = 2), and was unknown in one patient. Pancreas and kidney graft function after 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years were 70.8% and 66.7%, 66.7% and 62.5%, and 45.8% and 54.2%, respectively. Relaparotomy was performed in 13 out of 24 (54.2%) patients. The results of our study show that Re-SPK, after previously performed SPK, is a technical and immunological challenge, associated with a significantly increased mortality and complication rate; therefore, the indication for Re-SPK should be very strict. Careful preoperative diagnosis is indispensable.

Late complications of pancreas transplant

To summarize the long-term complications after pancreas transplantation that affect graft function, a literature search was carried out on the long-term complications of pancreatic transplantation, namely, complications from postoperative 3^rd mo onwards, in terms of loss of graft function, late infection and vascular complications as pseudoaneurysms. The most relevant reviews and studies were selected to obtain the current evidence on these topics. The definition of graft failure varies among different studies, so it is difficult to evaluate, a standardized definition is of utmost importance to know the magnitude of the problem in all worldwide series. Chronic rejection is the main cause of long-term graft failure, occurring in 10% of patients. From the 3rd mo of transplantation onwards, the main risk factor for late infections is immunosuppression, and patients have opportunistic infections like: Cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B and C viruses, Epstein-Barr virus and varicella-zoster virus; opportunistic bacteria, reactivation of latent infections as tuberculosis or fungal infections. Complete preoperative studies and serological tests should be made in all recipients to avoid these infections, adding perioperative prophylactic treatments when indicated. Pseudoaneurysm are uncommon, but one of the main causes of late bleeding, which can be fatal. The treatment should be performed with radiological endovascular approaches or open surgery in case of failure. Despite all therapeutic options for the complications mentioned above, transplantectomy is a necessary option in approximately 50% of relaparotomies, especially in life-threatening complications. Late complications in pancreatic transplantation threatens long-term graft function. An exhaustive follow-up as well as a correct immunosuppression protocol are necessary for prevention.

Pancreas Retransplant After Pancreas Graft Failure in Simultaneous Pancreas-kidney Transplants Is Associated With Better Kidney Graft Survival

Background.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant is usually the best option for the diabetic end-stage renal disease patient. There is limited information about kidney graft outcomes in SPK recipients with isolated pancreas graft failure who do versus do not undergo pancreas retransplantation.

Methods.

Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether they underwent pancreas retransplant (ReTx⁺) or not (ReTx⁻). Kidney graft function and survival were the primary endpoints.

Results.

One hundred and nine patients satisfied our selection criteria, 25 in ReTx⁺ and 84 in ReTx⁻. Mean interval from SPK to pancreas failure was significantly shorter in the ReTx⁺ compared with the ReTx⁻ group, 19.3 ± 36.7 versus 45.7 ± 47.0 months (P = 0.01), respectively. There was no significant difference in kidney graft follow-up post SPK between 2 groups (P = 0.48). At last follow-up, 15 of the 25 (60%) of the repeat pancreas graft had failed, with a mean graft survival among these failed pancreas graft of 2.6 ± 2.7 years, ranging from 0 to 8.1 years. Uncensored kidney graft failure was significantly lower in the ReTx⁺ group compared with the ReTx⁻ group, 44% versus 67% (P = 0.04). Death-censored kidney graft failure was also lower in the ReTx⁺ group, 24% versus 48% (P = 0.04). The difference in patient survival did not reach statistical significance. In adjusted Cox regression analysis, rejection as a cause of pancreas failure was associated with increased risk of death-censored kidney graft failure, and pancreas retransplantation was associated with decreased risk of kidney graft failure. A similar pattern was seen after 1:1 matching for the interval between SPK and pancreas graft failure.

Conclusions.

Even though ReTx⁺ patients accept the risks associated with repeat pancreas surgery, providers should consider this option in suitable otherwise healthy patients.

Outcomes after pancreas retransplantation: is the juice worth the squeeze?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pancreas retransplantations are rarely carried out, and their outcomes are still debatable because of a lack of studies and clinical series on this issue.

RECENT FINDINGS

In general, pancreas retransplantations achieve similar or even higher patient survival than primary transplantations; however, it should be noted that this finding may be biased, as only healthier patients are selected for retransplantation. Graft survival in retransplantations is usually lower than that in primary transplantation, but this comparison may also be biased, as most retransplantations are solitary pancreas transplantations (which are known to have lower graft survival), whereas primary transplantations are mostly simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations. Technical loss is similar between primary pancreas transplantations and pancreas retransplantations, but the occurrence of surgical complications is greater in the latter.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes the literature on pancreas retransplantations, comparing them with primary transplantations, and demonstrates that in selected patients in experienced centres, retransplantation can be a valid and effective option for returning the patient to an insulin-free state.

Maximizing Utilization in Pancreas Transplantation: Phenotypic Characteristics Differentiating Aggressive From Nonaggressive Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

Maximizing pancreas utilization requires a balance between judicious donor selection and transplant center aggressiveness. We sought to determine how such aggressiveness affects transplant outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 28 487 deceased-donor adult pancreas transplants. Donor and recipient demographic factors indicative of aggressiveness were used to score center aggressiveness. We compared outcomes of low (> 1 SD below mean), medium (± 1 SD from mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) aggressiveness centers using bivariate and multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient aggressiveness demonstrated a roughly linear relationship (R = 0.20). Center volume correlated moderately with donor (rs = 0.433) and recipient (rs = 0.270) aggressiveness. In bivariate analysis, there was little impact of donor selection aggressiveness on graft survival. Further, for simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants, centers with greater recipient aggressiveness selection had better graft survival. High-volume centers had better graft survival than low-volume centers. In multivariable analysis, donor aggressiveness did not have an effect on graft survival, whereas graft survival for medium (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.53-0.83) and high (HR, 0.67; CI, 0.51-0.86) recipient aggressiveness performed better than low-aggressiveness centers. There was a clear volume effect, with high-volume centers (>20 transplants/year; HR, 0.69; CI, 0.61-0.79) performing better than low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Center practice patterns using higher-risk donors and recipients did not negatively affect outcomes. This effect is likely mediated through efficiencies gained with the increased transplant volumes at these centers.

Outcomes of pancreas retransplantation in patients with pancreas graft failure

Background

Pancreas retransplantation is still a controversial option after loss of a pancreatic graft. This article describes the experience of pancreas retransplantation at a high‐volume centre.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study of all pancreas retransplantations performed in a single centre between 1997 and 2013. Pancreatic graft loss was defined by the return to insulin dependence. Risk factors for graft loss as well as patient and graft survival were analysed using logistic and time‐to‐event regression models.

Results

Of 409 pancreas transplantations undertaken, 52 (12·7 per cent) were identified as pancreas retransplantations. After a median follow‐up of 65·0 (range 0·8–174·3) months, 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival rates were 79 and 69 per cent respectively, and 1‐ and 5‐year patient survival rates were 96 and 89 per cent. During the entire follow‐up, 22 grafts (42 per cent) were lost. Patient survival was not associated with any of the donor‐ or recipient‐related factors investigated. Five‐year graft survival was better after simultaneous kidney–pancreas retransplantation than pancreas retransplantation alone: 80 per cent (16 of 20) versus 63 per cent (20 of 32) (P = 0·226). Acute rejection (odds ratio 4·49, 95 per cent c.i. 1·59 to 12·68; P = 0·005) and early surgical complications (OR 3·29, 1·09 to 9·99, P = 0·035) were identified as factors with an independent negative effect on graft survival.

Conclusion

Pancreas retransplantation may be considered for patients whose previous graft has failed.

Good outcome in selected patients

Techniques of pancreas graft salvage/indications for allograft pancreatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite improvements in pancreas allograft outcome, graft complications remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. This review analyses the issues involved in the management of conditions that may require graft pancreatectomy, including the indications and techniques for graft salvage.

RECENT FINDINGS

With early recognition of graft complications, liberal use of radiological interventions, improved infection control, access to critical care and innovative surgical techniques, graft salvage is now feasible in many circumstances where graft pancreatectomy would previously have been necessary.

SUMMARY

The outcome of pancreas transplantation continues to improve with advances in the management of graft-threatening complications.

Coming of age: the artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes

The artificial pancreas (closed-loop system) addresses the unmet clinical need for improved glucose control whilst reducing the burden of diabetes self-care in type 1 diabetes. Glucose-responsive insulin delivery above and below a preset insulin amount informed by sensor glucose readings differentiates closed-loop systems from conventional, threshold-suspend and predictive-suspend insulin pump therapy. Insulin requirements in type 1 diabetes can vary between one-third-threefold on a daily basis. Closed-loop systems accommodate these variations and mitigate the risk of hypoglycaemia associated with tight glucose control. In this review we focus on the progress being made in the development and evaluation of closed-loop systems in outpatient settings. Randomised transitional studies have shown feasibility and efficacy of closed-loop systems under supervision or remote monitoring. Closed-loop application during free-living, unsupervised conditions by children, adolescents and adults compared with sensor-augmented pumps have shown improved glucose outcomes, reduced hypoglycaemia and positive user acceptance. Innovative approaches to enhance closed-loop performance are discussed and we also present the outlook and strategies used to ease clinical adoption of closed-loop systems.

Allograft Pancreatectomy: Indications and Outcomes

This study evaluated the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes of allograft pancreatectomy based on a single center experience. Between 2003 and 2013, 47 patients developed pancreas allograft failure, excluding mortality with a functioning pancreas allograft. Early graft loss (within 14 days) occurred in 16, and late graft loss in 31. All patients with early graft loss eventually required allograft pancreatectomy. Nineteen of 31 patients (61%) with late graft loss underwent allograft pancreatectomy. The main indication for early allograft pancreatectomy included vascular thrombosis with or without severe pancreatitis, whereas one recipient required urgent allograft pancreatectomy for gastrointestinal hemorrhage secondary to an arterioenteric fistula. In cases of late allograft pancreatectomy, graft failure with clinical symptoms such as abdominal discomfort, pain, and nausea were the main indications (13/19 [68%]), simultaneous retransplantation without clinical symptoms in 3 (16%), and vascular catastrophes including pseudoaneurysm and enteric arterial fistula in 3 (16%). Postoperative morbidity included one case each of pulmonary embolism leading to mortality, formation of pseudoaneurysm requiring placement of covered stent, and postoperative bleeding requiring relaparotomy eventually leading to femoro-femoral bypass surgery 2 years after allograftectomy. Allograft pancreatectomy can be performed safely, does not preclude subsequent retransplantation, and may be lifesaving in certain instances.

Successful Combined Pancreas Fourth-Kidney Third and Pancreas Third-Kidney Second Transplantation: A Case Report

Extremely few reports have been published on experience with multiple combined pancreas-kidney re-transplantation including long-term results. We here analyze our experience with two patients following successful combined pancreas fourth-kidney third and pancreas third-kidney second transplantation.

METHODS

Patient and graft survival as well as graft function and major complications were recorded. Patient 1 (women, 47 years) underwent combined pancreas fourth-kidney third transplantation after previous removal of the first and second renal and the second pancreatic grafts. Patient 2 (men, 51 years) underwent combined pancreas third-kidney second transplantation after nephrectomy of the first renal graft. Immunosuppression consisted of induction with alemtuzumab and maintenance with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid and steroids.

RESULTS

After a follow-up of 44 and 49 months, respectively, both patients are doing well with stable graft function. Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, bacterial sepsis, and chronic hepatitis C as major complications were controllable.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple pancreas-retransplantations combined with simultaneous renal transplantation are feasible. Meticulous immunosuppression, careful monitoring, and excellent patient adherence are of crucial importance.

Islet-after-failed-pancreas and pancreas-after-failed islet transplantation: Two complementary rescue strategies to control diabetes

For selected patients with type 1 diabetes, β-cell replacement is the treatment of choice, either by islet transplantation (ITX) or whole pancreas transplantation (PTX). When either modality fails, current practice is to consider retransplantation, or return to exogenous insulin. We investigate outcomes with PTX after failed ITX (PAI), and ITX after failed PTX (IAP). All patients receiving PAI or IAP at a single institution were identified. Donor and recipient variables were documented, including transplant outcomes analyzed for insulin requirement and metabolic control. Five subjects were listed for PAI, and 2 received transplants. Of the 4 listed for IAP, 3 have received transplants. The mean waitlist time was 4.5 ± 4.1 y for PAI and 0.35 ±0 .4 y for IAP (p = 0.08). Metabolic control was excellent after PAI, with 2/2 insulin-independent. After IAP, 1/2 achieved insulin independence and good metabolic control after 2 islet infusions. The third could not receive 2(nd) infusion and presented c-peptide levels < 0.1 nmol/L. Both strategies are feasible. The outcomes after PAI in our center must be offset by much longer waitlist time due to the sensitization status of these patients. Data from multicentre experience will allow more robust comparative outcomes to be made, the current observations being restricted to a limited patient set.