Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Donor Transplantation (donor + transplantation)
Kinds of Donor Transplantation Selected AbstractsDirection of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing Regarding the Oversight of Live Donor Transplantation and Solicitation for OrgansAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2006F. L. Delmonico The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) operated by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has taken recent steps to address public solicitation for organ donors and its oversight of live donor transplantation. This report provides the direction of the OPTN regarding deceased donor solicitation. The OPTN has authority under federal law to equitably allocate deceased donor organs within a single national network based upon medical criteria, not upon one's social or economic ability to utilize resources not available to all on the waiting list. The OPTN makes a distinction between solicitations for a live donor organ versus solicitations for directed donation of deceased organs. As to live donor solicitation, the OPTN cannot regulate or restrict ways relationships are developed in our society, nor does it seek to do so. OPTN members have a responsibility of helping protect potential recipients from hazards that can arise from public appeals for live donor organs. Oversight and support of the OPTN for live donor transplantation is now detailed by improving the reporting of live donor follow-up, by providing a mechanism for facilitating anonymous live kidney donation, and by providing information for potential live kidney donors via the UNOS Transplant LivingSM website. [source] Major adverse events, pretransplant assessment and outcome predictionJOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 11 2009Hui-Chun Huang Abstract Liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension pose enormous loss of lives and resources throughout the world, especially in endemic areas of chronic viral hepatitis. Although the pathophysiology of cirrhosis is not completely understood, the accumulating evidence has paved the way for better control of the complications, including gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatopulmonary syndrome and portopulmonary hypertension. Modern pharmacological and interventional therapies have been designed to treat these complications. However, liver transplantation (LT) is the only definite treatment for patients with preterminal end-stage liver disease. To pursue successful LT, the meticulous evaluation of potential recipients and donors is pivotal, especially for living donor transplantation. The critical shortage of cadaveric donor livers is another concern. In many Asian countries, cultural and religious concerns further limit the number of the donors, which lags far behind that of the recipients. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scoring system has recently become the prevailing criterion for organ allocation. Initial results showed clear benefits of moving from the Child,Turcotte,Pugh-based system toward the MELD-based organ allocation system. In addition to the MELD, serum sodium is another important prognostic predictor in patients with advanced cirrhosis. The incorporation of serum sodium into the MELD could enhance the performance of the MELD and could become an indispensable strategy in refining the priority for LT. However, the feasibility of the MELD in combination with sodium in predicting the outcome for patients on transplant waiting list awaits actual outcome data before this becomes standard practice in the Asia,Pacific region. [source] Living 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] Death of a living liver donor from illicit drugsLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2007Burckhardt Ringe In children with acute hepatic failure, it has been suggested to offer living donor transplantation to all parents when a deceased donor organ can not be provided. Ethically, living related donation is coercive by its very nature, especially in emergencies. We report a 36-year-old woman who died from a drug overdose 57 days after living donor liver resection. The recipient was her 3-year-old son, who experienced acute hepatic failure as a result of acetaminophen intoxication. A deceased donor organ had not become available within 2 days after listing. Was the death of this living donor preventable or unpreventable? Certainly if the mother had decided not to take drugs, she would not have died from an overdose. One could argue that this was her personal choice, and beyond our influence. On the other hand, if we had not performed the surgery, the recipient might have died without receiving a liver transplant in time. Liver Transpl 13:1193,1194, 2007. © 2007 AASLD. [source] Graft and patient survival after adult live donor liver transplantation compared to a matched cohort who received a deceased donor transplantationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2004Paul 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] Role of adult living liver donation in patients with hepatocellular cancerLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10C 2003John Paul Roberts Key points 1. Transplantation represents the best therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as compared with resection. 2. On an intention-to-treat basis, living donor transplantation (LDLT) represents a better alternative to cadaveric transplantation (CLT). 3. Current criteria for transplantation for patients with HCC using cadaveric organs may be appropriate for living donor transplantation. [source] Transplantation of three adult patients with one cadaveric graft: Wait or innovateLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 2 2000Daniel Azoulay Graft shortage continues to prolong waiting times for adults requiring liver transplantation. Living related donor transplantation is possible for only a small minority of adults. The techniques for in situ splitting of the liver used for right and left hepatectomies in living donors were adapted to a combined split-liver,domino procedure to obtain right and left hemiliver grafts from a patient undergoing total hepatectomy with liver transplantation for a metabolic disorder. The two grafts were adequate in size and function for transplantation to two adults with low priority for regular cadaver grafts. More frequent use of split-liver techniques in cadaver donors could considerably reduce the graft shortage and waiting time for adult liver recipients. [source] Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, anti-thymocyteglobulin, and low-dose total body irradiation conditioning enables 1-HLA-locus-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for very severe aplastic anemia without affecting ovarian functionAMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY, Issue 3 2009Shinya Okuda Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for severe aplastic anemia from an alternative donor is associated with higher risks of graft rejection and severe graft-versus-host disease. We developed a conditioning regimen consisting of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and low-dose total body irradiation. Two adult female patients with transfusion-dependent very severe aplastic anemia underwent 1-locus mismatched transplantation using this regimen. Both patients achieved stable engraftment and the clinical course thereafter was uneventful with persistently normal ovarian function. This novel conditioning regimen may be suitable for alternative donor transplantation for severe aplastic anemia, especially in young female patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2009. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Peritransplant Immunoadsorption for Positive Crossmatch Deceased Donor Kidney TransplantationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2010G. 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 ChinaAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 8 2010N. 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] Organ Donation and Utilization in the United States, 1999,2008AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4p2 2010A. S. Klein Despite the Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative's work to engage the transplant community and the suggested positive impact from these efforts, availability of transplanted organs over the past 5 years has declined. Living kidney, liver and lung donations declined from 2004 to 2008. Living liver donors in 2008 dropped to less than 50% of the peak (524) in 2001. There were more living donors that were older and who were unrelated to the recipient. Percentages of living donors from racial minorities remained unchanged over the past 5 years, but percentages of Hispanic/Latino and Asian donors increased, and African American donors decreased. The OPTN/UNOS Living Donor Transplant Committee restructured to enfranchise organ donors and recipients, and to seek their perspectives on living donor transplantation. In 2008, for the first time in OPTN history, deceased donor organs decreased compared to the prior year. Except for lung donors, deceased organ donation fell from 2007 to 2008. Donation after cardiac death (DCD) has accounted for a nearly 10-fold increase in kidney donors from 1999 to 2008. Use of livers from DCD donors declined in 2008 to 2005 levels. Understanding health risks associated with the transplantation of organs from ,high-risk' donors has received increased scrutiny. [source] Predictors of Having a Potential Live Donor: A Prospective Cohort Study of Kidney Transplant CandidatesAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 12 2009P. P. Reese The barriers to live donor transplantation are poorly understood. We performed a prospective cohort study of individuals undergoing renal transplant evaluation. Participants completed a questionnaire that assessed clinical characteristics as well as knowledge and beliefs about transplantation. A participant satisfied the primary outcome if anyone contacted the transplant center to be considered as a live donor for that participant. The final cohort comprised 203 transplant candidates, among whom 80 (39.4%) had a potential donor contact the center and 19 (9.4%) underwent live donor transplantation. In multivariable logistic regression, younger candidates (OR 1.65 per 10 fewer years, p < 0.01) and those with annual income ,US$ 15 000 (OR 4.22, p = 0.03) were more likely to attract a potential live donor. Greater self-efficacy, a measure of the participant's belief in his or her ability to attract a donor, was a predictor of having a potential live donor contact the center (OR 2.73 per point, p < 0.01), while knowledge was not (p = 0.56). The lack of association between knowledge and having a potential donor suggests that more intensive education of transplant candidates will not increase live donor transplantation. On the other hand, self-efficacy may be an important target in designing interventions to help candidates find live donors. [source] Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States 1998,2007AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4p2 2009C. L. Berg Liver transplantation numbers in the United States remained constant from 2004 to 2007, while the number of waiting list candidates has trended down. In 2007, the waiting list was at its smallest since 1999, with adults ,50 years representing the majority of candidates. Noncholestatic cirrhosis was most commonly diagnosed. Most age groups had decreased waiting list death rates; however, children <1 year had the highest death rate. Use of liver allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors increased in 2007. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)/pediatric model for end-stage liver disease (PELD) scores have changed very little since 2002, with MELD/PELD <15 accounting for 75% of the waiting list. Over the same period, the number of transplants for MELD/PELD <15 decreased from 16.4% to 9.8%. Hepatocellular carcinoma exceptions increased slightly. The intestine transplantation waiting list decreased from 2006, with the majority of candidates being children <5 years old. Death rates improved, but remain unacceptably high. Policy changes have been implemented to improve allocation and recovery of intestine grafts to positively impact mortality. In addition to evaluating trends in liver and intestine transplantation, we review in depth, issues related to organ acceptance rates, DCD, living donor transplantation and MELD/PELD exceptions. [source] The Evolution and Direction of OPTN Oversight of Live Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United StatesAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2009R. S. Brown For more than 20 years, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) has developed policies and bylaws relating to equitable allocation of deceased donor organs for transplantation. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) operates the OPTN under contract with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Until recent years, the OPTN had little defined authority regarding living donor organ for transplantation except for the collection of data relating to living donor transplants. Beginning with the implementation of the OPTN Final Rule in 2000, and continuing with more recent announcements, the OPTN's role in living donation has grown. Its responsibilities now include monitoring of living donor outcomes, promoting equity in nondirected living donor transplantation and ensuring that transplant programs have expertise and established protocols to promote the safety of living donors and recipients. The purpose of this article is to describe the evolving mandates for the OPTN in living donation, as well as the network's recent activities and ongoing efforts. [source] Direction of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing Regarding the Oversight of Live Donor Transplantation and Solicitation for OrgansAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2006F. L. Delmonico The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) operated by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has taken recent steps to address public solicitation for organ donors and its oversight of live donor transplantation. This report provides the direction of the OPTN regarding deceased donor solicitation. The OPTN has authority under federal law to equitably allocate deceased donor organs within a single national network based upon medical criteria, not upon one's social or economic ability to utilize resources not available to all on the waiting list. The OPTN makes a distinction between solicitations for a live donor organ versus solicitations for directed donation of deceased organs. As to live donor solicitation, the OPTN cannot regulate or restrict ways relationships are developed in our society, nor does it seek to do so. OPTN members have a responsibility of helping protect potential recipients from hazards that can arise from public appeals for live donor organs. Oversight and support of the OPTN for live donor transplantation is now detailed by improving the reporting of live donor follow-up, by providing a mechanism for facilitating anonymous live kidney donation, and by providing information for potential live kidney donors via the UNOS Transplant LivingSM website. [source] Matched-related donor transplantation for sickle cell disease: report from the Center for International Blood and Transplant ResearchBRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 5 2007Julie A. Panepinto Summary We report outcomes after myeloablative haematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched sibling donors in 67 patients with sickle cell disease transplanted between 1989 and 2002. The most common indications for transplantation were stroke and recurrent vaso-occlusive crisis in 38% and 37% of patients respectively. The median age at transplantation was 10 years and 67% of patients had received >10 red blood cell transfusions before HCT. Twenty-seven percent of patients had a poor performance score at transplantation. Ninety-four percent received busulfan and cyclophosphamide-containing conditioning regimens and bone marrow was the predominant source of donor cells. Most patients achieved haematopoietic recovery and no deaths occurred during the early post-transplant period. Rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were 10% and 22% respectively. Sixty-four of 67 patients are alive with 5-year probabilities of disease-free and overall survival of 85% and 97% respectively. Nine patients had graft failure with recovery of sickle erythropoiesis, eight of who had recurrent sickle-related events. This report confirms and extends earlier reports that HCT from HLA-matched related donors offers a very high survival rate, with few transplant-related complications and the elimination of sickle-related complications in the majority of patients who undergo this therapy. [source] Disparity for the minor histocompatibility antigen HA-1 is associated with an increased risk of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) but it does not affect chronic GvHD incidence, disease-free survival or overall survival after allogeneic human leucocyte antigen-identical sibling donor transplantationBRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 4 2001David Gallardo Disparity for the minor histocompatibility antigen HA-1 between patient and donor has been associated with an increased risk of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after allogeneic human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling donor stem cell transplantation (SCT). However, no data concerning the impact of such disparity on chronic GvHD, relapse or overall survival are available. A retrospective multicentre study was performed on 215 HLA-A2-positive patients who received an HLA-identical sibling SCT, in order to determine the differences in acute and chronic GvHD incidence on the basis of the presence or absence of the HA-1 antigen mismatch. Disease-free survival and overall survival were also analysed. We detected 34 patient,donor pairs mismatched for HA-1 antigen (15·8%). Grades II,IV acute GvHD occurred in 51·6% of the HA-1-mismatched pairs compared with 37·1% of the non-mismatched. The multivariate logistic regression model showed statistical significance (P: 0·035, OR: 2·96, 95% CI: 1·07,8·14). No differences were observed between the two groups for grades III,IV acute GvHD, chronic GvHD, disease-free survival or overall survival. These results confirmed the association between HA-1 mismatch and risk of mild acute GvHD, but HA-1 mismatch was not associated with an increased incidence of chronic GvHD and did not affect relapse or overall survival. [source] Partial left lateral segment transplant from a living donorLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2000Eduardo de Santibañes A shortage of liver donors for low-weight transplant recipients has prompted the development of procedures for liver-reduction, split-liver, and living related donor transplantations. For pediatric recipients weighing less than 10 kg, the left lateral segment is often still too large. We describe the procedure of monosegmental transplantation using segment II after segment III was resected in situ from a living related donor. Successful monosegmental transplantation is technically feasible and is a valid alternative to be considered for cases of size discrepancy between the recipient's volume and the donor's left lateral segment. [source] Successful Expansion of the Living Donor Pool by Alternative Living Donation ProgramsAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2009J. I. Roodnat Between January 2000 and December 2007, 786 potential recipients and 1059 potential donors attended our pretransplant unit with the request for a living-donor renal transplant procedure. The recipients brought one potential donor in 77.2% and two or more donors in 22.8% of cases. In the regular living donor program, a compatible donor was found for 467 recipients. Without considering alternative donation, 579 donors would have been refused. Alternative living donation programs led to 114 compatible combinations: kidney-exchange program (35), ABO-incompatible donation (25), anonymous donation (37) and domino-paired anonymous donation (17). Together, the 114 alternative program donations and the 467 regular living donations led to 581 living donor transplantations (24.4% increase). Eventually for 54.9% (581/1059) of our donors, a compatible combination was found. Donor,recipient incompatibility comprised 19.4% (89/458) in the final refused population, which is 8.8% of the potential donor,recipient couples. Without considering alternative donation, 30.1% (174/579) of the refused donors would have been refused on incompatibility and 6.4% (37/579) because they were anonymous. This is 20% of the potential donor population (211/1059). The implementation of alternative living donation programs led to a significant increase in the number of transplantations, while transplantations via the direct donation program steadily increased. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||