Steroid and azathioprine versus steroid, cyclosporine, and azathioprine therapies in primary haplo-identical living donor kidney transplantation Twenty-year experience

Achievements in short-term graft survival since the introduction of cyclosporine has not been matched by improvement in long-term graft function, and chronic allograft nephropathy remains the second commonest cause of graft attrition over time. We aimed to evaluate the long-term results of conventional immunosuppression by steroid and azathioprine in comparison with cyclosporine-based triple therapy in living donor kidney transplants. We evaluated the long-term follow-up data of 369 living related kidney transplant recipients that were on prednisolone-azathioprine immunosuppressive therapy [group 1] or triple therapy by prednisolone, cyclosporine, and azathioprine [group 2]. All recipients were followed-up for more than 10 years [mean, 240 +/- 12 months]. Comparative analyses included patient and graft survival rates, condition at last follow-up, graft rejection, and graft function. There were 130 patients in group 1 and 239 in group 2. The overall frequency of acute rejection episodes was not significantly different between the two groups. However, the proportion of patients with chronic allograft nephropathy was significantly higher in group 2 [21% versus 35%, P = .001]. Graft survival rates were 85.3% versus 92.4% at 1 year, 69.9% versus 71.9% at 5 years, and 52.5% versus 50.8% at 10 years in groups 1 and 2, respectively [P = .03]. The two groups were comparable regarding posttransplant malignancies, diabetes mellitus, serious bacterial infections, and hepatic diseases. However, hypertensive patients were significantly more frequent in group 2. Chronic allograft nephropathy was significantly higher in patients receiving cyclosporine, possibly due to the risk of drug-induced nephrotoxicity, glomerular disease recurrence, and hypertension. Nowadays, it is possible to achieve excellent calcineurin inhibitors-free regimen using newer maintenance immunosuppressive agents

Coronary artery bypass grafting on beating heart. does it provide superior myocardial preservation than conventional technique?

To compare myocardial injury caused by 3 commonly used methods for coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]. A prospective randomized study conducted at King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study started in February 2003 and concluded in April 2004 after including 45 patients [15 patients in each of 3 sub-groups] who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subgroups included coronary artery bypass surgery performed by: a] conventional technique, b] off-pump technique, and c] on-pump beating-heart techniques. All patients had similar operative risk profiles. Their ages were 70 years or less with an ejection fraction of 30-50%. The creatine kinase, myocardial band [CKMB] levels were determined 2 hours after arrival from the operating room then, at 4 hours, 6 hours, and 12 hours. The comparison of creatine phosphokinase and CKMB levels was carried out using analysis of variance with repeated measures. The p-values were used to evaluate the significance of differences. The pre-operative characteristics including age, gender, ethnic origin, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and left ventricular function, were similar in the 3 groups. All groups had a median number of 3 bypass grafts. The stay in the intensive care unit and the duration of inotropes were shortest in the off-pump group, but the difference was not significant. There was a peak of CKMB levels at 6 hours in all groups. The trend of CKMB level showed significantly higher values in the conventional CABG group as compared with the other 2 groups. This study indicates that the off-pump technique provides better myocardial preservation than other methods