Dopamine in transplantation: Written off or comeback with novel indication?

Effect of Remimazolam on Induction and Maintenance of General Anesthesia in Kidney Transplant Patients

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the effect of remimazolam on induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in kidney transplant patients.

Methods

120 patients undergoing kidney transplant were divided into two groups: Propofol group (Group P) and Remimazolam group (Group R). Anesthesia induction: remimazolam had injected IV at a dose of 0.15-0.35 mg/kg in Group R, while propofol had injected IV at a dose of 2.0-2.5 mg/kg in Group P. Anesthesia maintenance: remimazolam was injected IV at a dose of 0.3-1.0 mg·kg-1·h-1 and propofol was injected IV at a dose of 1-12 mg·kg-1·h-1 in Group R, propofol was injected IV at a dose of 3-12 mg·kg-1·h-1 in Group P. All patients have the same remaining anesthesia durgs.

Results

Compared with Group P, in Group R the time of disappearance of the eyelash reflex and the time to drop to 60 in BIS was longer (P < 0.05), the time of awakening was shorted (P < 0.05), the MAP of T6 was fluctuated less (P < 0.05), the incidence of hypotension and injection pain during induction was reduced (P < 0.001), the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia during operation was reduced (P < 0.05), the dosages of sedatives drug during maintenance was reduced (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative renal function between the two groups of patients (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam can be safely and effectively used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in kidney transplant patients.

Hemodynamic management in brain dead donors

Donor management is the key in the complex donation process, since up to 20% of organs of brain death donors (DBD) are lost due to hemodynamic instability. This challenge is made more difficult due to the lack of strong recommendations on therapies for hemodynamic management in DBDs and more importantly to the epidemiologic changes in these donors who are becoming older and with more comorbidities (marginal donors). In the present manuscript we aimed at summarizing the available evidence on therapeutic strategies for hemodynamic management (focusing on vasoactive drugs) and monitoring (therapeutic goals). Evidence on management in elderly DBDs is also summarized. Donor management continues critical care but with different and specific therapeutic goals since the number of donor goals met is related to the number of organs retrieved and transplanted. Careful monitoring of selected parameters (possibly including serial echocardiography) is the clinical tool able to guarantee the achievement and maintaining of therapeutic goals. Despide worldwide differences, norepinephrine is the vasoactive of choice in most countries but, whenever higher doses (> 0.2 mcg/kg/min) are needed, a second vasoactive drug (vasopressin) is advisable. Hormonal therapy (desmopressin, corticosteroid and thyroid hormone) are suggested in all DBDs independently of hemodynamic instability. In the single patient, therapeutic regimen (imprimis vasoactive drugs) should be chosen also according to the potential organs retrievable (i.e. heart vs liver and kidneys).

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) before and after Kidney Transplantation: Causes, Medical Approach, and Implications for the Long-Term Outcomes

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common finding in kidney donors and recipients. AKI in kidney donor, which increases the risk of delayed graft function (DGF), may not by itself jeopardize the short- and long-term outcome of transplantation. However, some forms of AKI may induce graft rejection, fibrosis, and eventually graft dysfunction. Therefore, various strategies have been proposed to identify conditions at highest risk of AKI-induced DGF, that can be treated by targeting the donor, the recipient, or even the graft itself with the use of perfusion machines. AKI that occurs early post-transplant after a period of initial recovery of graft function may reflect serious and often occult systemic complications that may require prompt intervention to prevent graft loss. AKI that develops long after transplantation is often related to nephrotoxic drug reactions. In symptomatic patients, AKI is usually associated with various systemic medical complications and could represent a risk of mortality. Electronic systems have been developed to alert transplant physicians that AKI has occurred in a transplant recipient during long-term outpatient follow-up. Herein, we will review most recent understandings of pathophysiology, diagnosis, therapeutic approach, and short- and long-term consequences of AKI occurring in both the donor and in the kidney transplant recipient.

Optimisation of the organ donor and effects on transplanted organs: a narrative review on current practice and future directions

Mortality remains high for patients on the waiting list for organ transplantation. A marked imbalance between the number of available organs and recipients that need to be transplanted persists. Organs from deceased donors are often declined due to perceived and actual suboptimal quality. Adequate donor management offers an opportunity to reduce organ injury and maximise the number of organs than can be offered in order to respect the donor's altruistic gift. The cornerstones of management include: correction of hypovolaemia; maintenance of organ perfusion; prompt treatment of diabetes insipidus; corticosteroid therapy; and lung protective ventilation. The interventions used to deliver these goals are largely based on pathophysiological rationale or extrapolations from general critical care patients. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence that has assessed whether any interventions in the donor after brain death may actually improve immediate post-transplant function and long-term graft survival or recipient survival after transplantation. Improvements in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms following brain death, in particular the role of immunological and metabolic changes in donors, offer promising future therapeutic opportunities to increase organ utilisation. Establishing a UK donor management research programme involves consideration of ethical, logistical and legal issues that will benefit transplanted patients while respecting the wishes of donors and their families.

Perioperative considerations for kidney and pancreas-kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in patients with end-stage renal disease, as it improves survival and quality of life. Living donor kidney transplant prior to pancreas transplantation, or simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation are discussed. Patients usually present comorbidities and extensive preoperative workups are recommended, especially cardiac assessment, though type and frequency of surveillance is not established. Nephroprotective strategies include adequate fluid status and goal-directed therapy. The conventional use of diuretics has not demonstrated a real nephroprotective effect at follow-up. Thromboprophylaxis regimes, especially for the pancreatic graft outcome, are of importance. Notably, transplantation in the obese population has increased in recent decades. Strict preoperative evaluation and pulmonary considerations must be kept in mind. Finally, robotic kidney transplant is a recent approach that presents anesthetic challenges, mainly related to steep Trendelenburg position and fluid restriction.

Donor organ intervention before kidney transplantation: Head-to-head comparison of therapeutic hypothermia, machine perfusion, and donor dopamine pretreatment. What is the evidence?

Therapeutic hypothermia, hypothermic pulsatile machine perfusion (MP), and renal-dose dopamine administered to stable brain-dead donors have shown efficacy to reduce the dialysis requirement after kidney transplantation. In a head-to-head comparison of the three major randomized controlled trials in this field, we estimated the number-needed-to-treat for each method, evaluated costs and inquired into special features regarding long-term outcomes. The MP and hypothermia trials used any dialysis requirement during the first postoperative week, whereas the dopamine trial assessed >1 dialysis session as primary endpoint. Compared to controls, the respective rates declined by 5.7% with MP, 10.9% with hypothermia, and 10.7% with dopamine. Costs to prevent one endpoint in one recipient amount to approximately $17 000 with MP but are negligible with the donor interventions. MP resulted in a borderline significant difference of 4% in 3-year graft survival, but a point of interest is that the preservation method was switched in 25 donors (4.6%) for technical reasons. Graft survival was not improved with dopamine on intention-to-treat but suggested an exposure-response relationship with infusion time. MP was less efficacious and cost-effective to prevent posttransplant dialysis. Whether the benefit on early graft dysfunction achieved with any method will improve long-term graft survival remains to be established.

Donor Dopamine Does Not Affect Liver Graft Survival: Evidence of Safety From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Treatment of donation after brain death (DBD) donors with low-dose dopamine improves the outcomes after kidney and heart transplantation. This study investigates the course of liver allografts from multiorgan donors enrolled in the randomized dopamine trial between 2004 and 2007 (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00115115). There were 264 hemodynamically stable DBDs who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose dopamine. Dopamine was infused at 4 μg/kg/minute for a median duration of 6.0 hours (interquartile range, 4.4-7.5 hours). We assessed the outcomes of 212 liver transplantations (LTs) performed at 32 European centers. Donors and recipients of both groups were very similar in baseline characteristics. Pretransplant laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was not different in recipients of a dopamine-treated versus untreated graft (18 ± 8 versus 20 ± 8; P = 0.12). Mean cold ischemia time was 10.6 ± 2.9 versus 10.1 ± 2.8 hours (P = 0.24). No differences occurred in biopsy-proven rejection episodes (14.4% versus 15.7%; P = 0.85), requirement of hemofiltration (27.9% versus 31.5%; P = 0.65), the need for early retransplantation (5.8% versus 6.5%; P > 0.99), the incidence of primary nonfunction (7.7% versus 8.3%; P > 0.99), and in-hospital mortality (15.4% versus 14.8%; P > 0.99). Graft survival was 71.2% versus 73.2% and 59.6% versus 62.0% at 2 and 3 years (log-rank P = 0.71). Patient survival was 76.0% versus 78.7% and 65.4% versus 69.4% at 1 and 3 years (log-rank P = 0.50). In conclusion, donor pretreatment with dopamine has no short-term or longterm effects on outcome after LT. Therefore, low-dose dopamine pretreatment can safely be implemented as the standard of care in hemodynamically stable DBDs.