Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Donor Death (donor + death)
Selected AbstractsLiving liver donor death related to complications of myelomaLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2009Emmanuel Melloul We report a donor death after right hepatectomy for living donor transplantation due to an undiagnosed myeloma. The 47-year-old donor, who was the 147th case performed in our department, was in excellent health without any abnormalities in the preoperative investigations. Despite an uneventful right hepatectomy without transfusion, the patient developed a partial thrombus of the inferior vena cava with a right proximal pulmonary trunk embolism on postoperative day 6. Subsequently, he developed multiorgan dysfunction leading to a coagulopathy, respiratory distress, and renal failure requiring hemodialysis and mechanical ventilation. This clinical scenario led us to suspect a hematological disorder. Immune electrophoresis showed a monoclonal peak of immunoglobulin G (8.7 g/L), a myelogram revealed an abnormally high level of dystrophic plasmocytes (more than 7%), and biopsies of salivary glands confirmed the diagnosis of immunoglobulin G kappa myeloma. The patient progressively deteriorated because of simultaneous hemorrhagic and infectious pulmonary complications resulting in septic shock. Despite an adequate combination of antimicrobial therapy and pleural drainage, the donor died on postoperative day 57 from multiple organ failure. This unusual cause of donor death after right hepatectomy reinforces the need for an extensive preoperative assessment. We advocate the addition of urinary protein loss and electrophoresis to the standard donor assessment protocol. Liver Transpl 15:326,329, 2009. © 2009 AASLD. [source] Right-lobe living donor liver transplantationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 6B 2000Amadeo Marcos M.D. Key Points 1. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is currently performed at about 30 centers in the United States. 2. Careful and critical evaluation of donor and recipient is required for optimal outcome. 3. Right lobe donation is preferred over left lobe donation in adult LDLT. 4. There has been 1 donor death (<0.3%) in the US experiences. Donor biliary complications occur in approximately 4% of the cases. 5. Recipient survival after adult LDLT in the United States is approximately 88%. Hepatic artery thrombosis occurs in 3% and biliary complications in 18%. [source] Impaired Left Ventricular Systolic Function Early After Heart Transplantation is Associated with Cardiac Allograft VasculopathyAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2006I.A. Bolad Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major cause of death more than 1 year after heart transplantation. We evaluated the role and possible predictive value of different etiological factors on development of CAV as diagnosed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). A total of 121 patients were studied with baseline QCA and 117 had a follow-up study at 1 year to assess the relationship of mean lumen diameter loss (MLDL) in main coronary arteries to immunological and non-immunological factors potentially affecting long-term survival. Out of them, 103 patients were males (85%), 114 (94%) patients were Caucasians and mean age was 48.5 ± 10 years. Univariate analysis showed that MLDL at 1 year was inversely related to echocardiographic fractional shortening (FS) measured within the first week after transplantation (p = 0.0098) and to intracranial hemorrhage as cause of donor death (p = 0.04) and was directly related to male donors (p = 0.0008), domino transplants (p = 0.037) and donor negative cytomegalovirus (CMV) status (p = 0.022). Multivariate analysis showed that initial FS (p = 0.006) and donor intracranial hemorrhage as a cause of death (p = 0.042) were inversely related to MLDL whereas donor male sex (p = 0.003) and prednisolone treatment throughout the first year (p = 0.012) were directly related. Thus, left ventricular systolic dysfunction early after heart transplantation was associated with subsequent development of CAV. [source] Pediatric living donor lobar lung transplantationPEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 7 2006Stuart C. Sweet Abstract:, Living donor lobar lung transplantation (LDLLT) was developed in order to mitigate the growing competition for deceased donor (DD) lungs and resultant increase in waiting list mortality. Because each of the two donor lobes serves as an entire lung for the recipient, donors who are taller than the recipient are preferred. Therefore LDLLT is particularly well suited for pediatric recipients for whom adults serve as donors. Although long-term outcomes after LDLLT reported by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) are worse compared with DD recipients, overall pediatric outcomes as well as single center reports from the most experienced programs are more promising. Particularly encouraging are the findings that bronchiolitis obliterans (OB) is less frequent or less severe in LDLLT recipients in comparison to DD recipients. Moreover, outcomes may be improved by careful selection of donors to ensure adequately sized donor lobes and minimization of infectious risks. Although no donor deaths have been reported, there is a moderate risk of significant short-term complications. Long-term follow-up has not been reported. The use of LDLLT has decreased in recent years, and the recent change by the OPTN to an urgency/benefit allocation system for DD lungs in patients 12 yr and older may further reduce the demand. Nonetheless, we anticipate that LDLLT will continue to be utilized in select circumstances, particularly in children under 12 where access to DD organs remains challenging. [source] Living Donor Adult Liver Transplantation: A Longitudinal Study of the Donor's Quality of LifeAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 11 2005Jennifer E. Verbesey We report the results of a prospective, longitudinal quality of life survey on our adult right lobe (RL) liver donors. A total of 47 donors were enrolled; a standard SF-36 form and 43 questions developed by our team were completed before donation, at 1 week, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after donation. There were no donor deaths. Twenty-nine complications occurred in 16 patients. Major complication rate was 12.8%. Employment status and personal finances were identified as major stressors. All donors who wished to return to work did so by 1 year (mean 3.4 months). Individuals reported between $0 and $25 000 in losses (wages, travel, lodging, etc.). Relationships with recipients and other family members were not altered significantly. Anticipated pain (predonation) was greater than actual pain reported. Donors indicated satisfaction with the donation process regardless of recipient outcome. Physical complaints were significant at 1 week and 1 month, but returned to baseline. Donor mental health remained stable. In conclusion, RL donors found the experience to be a positive one throughout the first postdonation year. The study identified areas (finances, employment and expected recipient outcomes) to be stressed as future donors are evaluated. [source] Tailoring the Type of Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver TransplantationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 7 2005Norihiro Kokudo Donor hepatectomies for adult living donor liver transplantations were performed in 200 consecutive donors to harvest a left liver (LL) graft (n = 5), a LL plus caudate lobe (LL + CL) graft (n = 63), a right liver (RL) graft (n = 86), a RL and middle hepatic vein (RL + MHV) graft (n = 28) or a right lateral sector (RLS) graft (n = 18). The graft type was selected so that at least 40% of the recipient's standard liver volume was harvested. No donor deaths occurred, and no significant differences in the morbidity rates among either donors or recipients were observed when the outcomes were stratified according to the graft type. Donors who donated RL exhibited higher values of serum total bilirubin and prothrombin time than those who donated non-RL (LL, LL + CL, RLS) grafts. The time taken for hilar dissection and parenchymal transection increased in the following order: RLS graft, LL graft and RL graft harvesting. In conclusion, non-RL grafting was more time consuming, but the hepatic functional loss in the donors was smaller. Our graft selection criteria were useful for reducing the use of RL grafts with acceptable morbidity in both donors and recipients. [source] | ||||||||||