			Home About us Contact

Deceased Donor Transplantation (deceased + donor_transplantation)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Graft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantation

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2004
Paul J. Thuluvath
Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become increasingly common in the United States and around the world. In this study, we compared the outcome of 764 patients who received LDLT in the United States and compared the results with a matched population that received deceased donor transplantation (DDLT) using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. For each LDLT recipient (n = 764), two DDLT recipients (n = 1,470), matched for age, gender, race, diagnosis, and year of transplantation, were selected from the UNOS data after excluding multiple organ transplantation or retransplantation, children, and those with incomplete data. Despite our matching, recipients of LDLT had more stable liver disease, as shown by fewer patients with UNOS status 1 or 2A, in an intensive care unit, or on life support. Creatinine and cold ischemia time were also lower in the LDLT group. Primary graft nonfunction, hyperacute rejection rates, and patient survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis were similar in both groups (2-year survival was 79.0% in LDLT vs. 80.7% in case-controls; P = .5), but graft survival was significantly lower in LDLT (2-year graft survival was 64.4% vs. 73.3%; P < .001). Cox regression (after adjusting for confounding variables) analysis showed that LDLT recipients were 60% more likely to lose their graft compared to DDLT recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval 1.1-2.5). Among hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, LDLT recipients showed lower graft survival when compared to those who received DDLT. In conclusion, short-term patient survival in LDLT is similar to that in the DDLT group, but graft survival is significantly lower in LDLT recipients. LDLT is a reasonable option for patients who are unlikely to receive DDLT in a timely fashion. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:1263,1268.) [source]

Peritransplant Immunoadsorption for Positive Crossmatch Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2010
G. Bartel
Various desensitization protocols were shown to enable successful living donor kidney transplantation across a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDCXM). Positive crossmatch transplantation, however, is less well established for deceased donor transplantation. We report a cohort of 68 deceased donor renal allograft recipients who, on the basis of broad sensitization (lymphocytotoxic panel reactivity ,40%), were subjected to a protocol of peritransplant immunoadsorption (IA). Treatment consisted of a single session of immediate pretransplant IA (protein A) followed by posttransplant IA and antilymphocyte antibody therapy. Twenty-one patients had a positive CDCXM, which could be rendered negative by pretransplant apheresis. Solid phase HLA antibody detection revealed preformed donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in all 21 CDCXM-positive and in 30 CDCXM-negative recipients. At 5 years, overall graft survival, death-censored graft survival and patient survival were 63%, 76% and 87%, respectively, without any differences between CDCXM-positive, CDCXM-negative/DSA-positive and CDCXM-negative/DSA-negative recipients. Furthermore, groups did not differ regarding rates of antibody-mediated rejection (24% vs. 30% vs. 24%, p = 0.84), cellular rejection (14% vs. 23% vs. 18%, p = 0.7) or allograft function (median 5-year serum creatinine: 1.3 vs. 1.8 vs. 1.7 mg/dL, p = 0.62). Our results suggest that peritransplant IA is an effective strategy for rapid desensitization in deceased donor transplantation. [source]

Clinical Outcomes for Saudi and Egyptian Patients Receiving Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation in China

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2010
N. Allam
Long waiting list times in liver transplant programs in Saudi Arabia and unavailability of deceased donor transplantation in Egypt have led several patients to seek transplantation in China. All patients who received transplants in China and followed in three centers from January 2003,January 2007 were included. All patients' charts were reviewed. Mortality and morbidity were compared to those transplanted in King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (KFSH&RC) during the same period. Seventy-four adult patients were included (46 Saudi nationals; 28 Egyptians). One-year and 3-year cumulative patient survival rates were 83% and 62%, respectively compared to 92% and 84% in KFSH&RC. One-year and 3-year cumulative graft survival rates were 81% and 59%, respectively compared to 90% and 84% in KFSH&RC. Compared to KFSH&RC, the incidence of complications was significantly higher especially biliary complications, sepsis, metastasis and acquired HBV infection posttransplant. Requirements of postoperative interventions and hospital admissions were also significantly greater. Our data show high mortality and morbidity rates in Saudi and Egyptian patients receiving transplants in China. This could be related to more liberal selection criteria, use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors or possibly more limited posttransplant care. [source]