Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Liver Transplantation Patients (liver + transplantation_patient)
Selected AbstractsA comparison of sirolimus vs. calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapies in liver transplantationALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 4 2006H. ZAGHLA Summary Background, Sirolimus is a potent immunosuppressive agent whose role in liver transplantation has not been well-described. Aim, To evaluate the efficacy and side-effects of sirolimus-based immunosuppression in liver transplant patients. Methods, Retrospective analysis of 185 patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation. Patients were divided into three groups: group SA, sirolimus alone (n = 28); group SC, sirolimus with calcineurin inhibitors (n =56) and group CNI, calcineurin inhibitors without sirolimus (n = 101). Results, One-year patient and graft survival rates were 86.5% and 82.1% in group SA, 94.6% and 92.9% in group SC, and 83.2% and 75.2% in group CNI (P = N.S.). The rates of acute cellular rejection at 12 months were comparable among the three groups. At the time of transplantation, serum creatinine levels were significantly higher in group SA, but mean creatinine among the three groups at 1 month was similar. More patients in group SA required dialysis before orthotopic liver transplantation (group SA, 25%; group SC, 9%; group CNI, 5%; P = 0.008), but at 1 year, post-orthotopic liver transplantation dialysis rates were similar. Conclusions, Sirolimus given alone or in conjunction with calcineurin inhibitors appears to be an effective primary immunosuppressant regimen for orthotopic liver transplantation patients. Further studies to evaluate the efficacy and side-effect profile of sirolimus in liver transplant patients are warranted. [source] Prevention and treatment of rethrombosis after liver transplantation with an implantable pump of the portal veinLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2010Zhengrong Shi Implantable pumps have been used to prevent deep vein thrombosis and other diseases. In this article, we report for the first time the prevention and treatment of rethrombosis of the portal vein in liver transplantation with an implantable pump of the portal vein. Four hundred four orthotopic liver transplantation cases were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 3 groups: portal vein thrombosis (PVT) patients with an implantable pump (n = 28), PVT patients without an implantable pump (n = 20), and patients without preexisting PVT (n = 356). The following parameters for the 3 groups of patients were calculated and compared: (1) preoperative parameters, including baseline data of the donors and recipients and times of graft ischemia; (2) intraoperative and postoperative parameters, including surgery time, red blood cell and plasma transfusion, platelet concentrate transfusion, bleeding and primary graft malfunction, and duration of the hospital and intensive care unit stays; and (3) follow-up information for the patency of the portal vein, rethrombosis rate, stenosis and reoperation (relaparotomy or retransplantation), in-hospital mortality, and actuarial 1-year survival rate. Among the 3 groups of recipients, no significant differences were detected in preoperative and intraoperative parameters. However, compared to PVT patients without an implantable pump, PVT patients with an implantable pump showed remarkable reductions in their postoperative hospital stay, rethrombosis, reoperation rate, and in-hospital mortality. An implantable pump of the portal vein in liver transplantation patients can prevent and facilitate the treatment of portal vein rethrombosis and is associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality. Liver Transpl 16:324,331, 2010. © 2010 AASLD. [source] Use of activated protein c in liver transplantation patients with septic shock,LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 11 2008Laura Rinaldi Recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) has been approved for use in patients with severe sepsis at high risk of death. Because of the high risk of bleeding, liver transplantation (LT) patients have been excluded from the randomized control trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of rhAPC and, thus, few data are available on the use of this drug in LT patients with severe sepsis. We describe our experience with 5 LT recipients treated for septic shock with the best conventional therapy and rhAPC. Before rhAPC therapy, all the patients showed septic shock, with ,3 organ dysfunctions and thrombocytopenia with impairment of coagulation. rhAPC therapy started within 30 hours after septic shock onset in all the patients who recovered from sepsis-induced circulatory failure, improved organ dysfunction, and completed the 96 hours of rhAPC therapy. During rhAPC infusion, 4 patients received fresh frozen plasma and/or platelet concentrates because of thrombocytopenia and severe hemostasis dysfunction. No major bleeding occurred and only 1 patient presented with minor bleeding events. Liver Transpl 14:1598,1602, 2008. © 2008 AASLD. [source] Conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression in maintenance liver transplantation patientsLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 5 2007Isabelle Morard Sirolimus (SRL) has been proposed to replace calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) in case of CNI-induced toxicity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conversion from CNI to SRL in maintenance liver transplantation (LT) patients. Between 2002 and 2006, conversion was performed in 48 patients (17 female, 31 male; mean age 57 ± 10 yr) after a median delay of 19.4 months (range 0.2,173 months) after LT. Indication for conversion was renal impairment (RI) (78%), CNI neurotoxicity (13%), or post-LT cancer (9%). Median follow-up was 22.6 ± 11 months. Median SRL dosage and trough levels were 2.4 ± 1.3 mg and 8.1 ± 2.7 ,g/L. Immunosuppression consisted of SRL alone (33%), or SRL + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (39%), SRL + prednisone (15%), SRL + CNI (4%), or SRL + MMF + prednisone (8%). Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) improved from 33 to 48 mL/minute in patients with severe RI (P = 0.022) and from 56 to 74 mL/minute in patients with moderate RI (P = 0.0001). After conversion, main complications were albuminuria (36%), hyperlipidemia (49%), dermatitis (14%), edema (14%), oral ulcers (12%), joint pain (4%), infection (2%), and pneumonia (2%). Acute rejection (AR) occurred in 17% of the patients. SRL was withdrawn in 17% of the patients. In conclusion, conversion from CNI to SRL is safe and is associated with significant renal function improvement. Liver Transpl 13:658,664, 2007. © 2007 AASLD. [source] Adefovir dipivoxil for wait-listed and post,liver transplantation patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B: Final long-term resultsLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2007Eugene Schiff Wait-listed (n = 226) or post,liver transplantation (n = 241) chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) were treated with adefovir dipivoxil for a median of 39 and 99 weeks, respectively. Among wait-listed patients, serum HBV DNA levels became undetectable (<1,000 copies/mL) in 59% and 65% at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. After 48 weeks, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), albumin, bilirubin, and prothrombin time normalized in 77%, 76%, 60%, and 84% of wait-listed patients, respectively. Among posttransplantation patients, serum HBV DNA levels became undetectable in 40% and 65% at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. After 48 weeks, ALT, albumin, bilirubin, and prothrombin time normalized in 51%, 81%, 76%, and 56% of posttransplantation patients, respectively. Among wait-listed patients who underwent on-study liver transplantation, protection from graft reinfection over a median of 35 weeks was similar among patients who did (n = 34) or did not (n = 23) receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIg). Hepatitis B surface antigen was detected on the first measurement only in 6% and 9% of patients who did or did not receive HBIg, respectively. Serum HBV DNA was detected on consecutive visits in 6% and 0% of patients who did or did not receive HBIg, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of adefovir dipivoxil in 4% of patients. Cumulative probabilities of resistance were 0%, 2%, and 2% at weeks 48, 96, and 144, respectively. In conclusion, adefovir dipivoxil is effective and safe in wait-listed or posttransplantation CHB patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV and prevents graft reinfection with or without HBIg. Liver Transpl 13:349-360, 2007. © 2007 AASLD. [source] Alternatives to the double vena cava method in partial liver transplantationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 1 2005Yoji Kishi Minimizing graft congestion in partial liver transplantation is important, especially when the graft weight is marginal for the recipient metabolic demand. We prefer the double vena cava technique for reconstructing middle hepatic vein tributaries with thick, short hepatic veins because the technique can reduce the warm ischemic time of the graft and make a wide anastomosis. This technique requires a cryopreserved superior or inferior vena cava. We devised an alternative double vena cava method using iliac or femoral vein grafts and applied it to two right liver transplantation patients. There was no postoperative hepatic venous outflow block in either patient. In conclusion, application of this technique, even in the absence of a suitable vena cava, can help to minimize graft congestion. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:101,103.) [source] Effect of coadministered lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra) on tacrolimus blood concentration in liver transplantation patientsLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 9 2003Ashokkumar B. Jain With the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV positivity is no longer a contraindication for liver transplantation. Some of the antiretroviral agents, particularly protease inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir, indinavir, and nelfinavir) have been described as potent inhibitors of the metabolism of certain immunosuppressive drugs. In this article we describe a profound interaction between tacrolimus and Kaletra (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) (a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir) in 3 liver transplantation patients. Patient 1, who was maintained on a 5 mg twice daily dose of tacrolimus with a trough blood concentration around 10.6 ng/mL, required only 0.5 mg of tacrolimus per week after addition of Kaletra to achieve similar tacrolimus blood concentrations, with a half-life of 10.6 days. In patient 2, the area under the blood concentration versus time curve for tacrolimus increased from 31 ng/mL/h to 301 ng/mL/h after addition of Kaletra, with a corresponding half-life of 20 days. When the patient was subsequently switched to nelfinavir, the half-life decreased to 10.3 days. Patient 3, who was maintained with 4 to 8 mg/d of tacrolimus and a corresponding blood concentration of 10 ng/mL before Kaletra, required a tacrolimus dose of 1 mg/wk and tacrolimus concentrations of 5 ng/mL with Kaletra. In conclusion, a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir led to a much more profound increase in tacrolimus blood concentrations than use of single protease inhibitor, nelfinavir. A tacrolimus dose of less than 1 mg/wk may be sufficient to maintain adequate blood tacrolimus concentrations in patients on Kaletra. Patients may not need a further dose of tacrolimus for 3 to 5 weeks depending on liver function when therapy with Kaletra is initiated. Great caution is required in the management of tacrolimus dosage when Kaletra is introduced or withdrawn in HIV-positive patients after liver transplantation, particularly in the presence of hepatic dysfunction. [source] | ||||||||||