Retrospective study on detection, treatment, and clinical outcome of graft thrombosis following pancreas transplantation.

Complete graft thrombosis is the leading cause of early graft loss following pancreas transplantation. Partial thrombosis is usually subclinical and discovered on routine imaging. Treatment options may vary in such cases. We describe the incidence and relevance of partial graft thrombosis in a large transplant center. All consecutive pancreas transplantation at our center (2004-2015) were included in this study. Radiological follow-up, type and quantity of thrombosis prophylaxis, complications and, graft and patient survival were collected. Partial thrombosis and follow-up were also studied. All 230 pancreas transplantations were included in the analysis. Computed tomography was performed in most cases (89.1%). Early graft failure occurred in 23 patients (13/23 due to graft thrombosis, 3/23 bleeding, 1/23 anastomotic leakage, 6/23 secondary to antibody mediated rejection). There was evidence of partial thrombosis in 59 cases (26%), of which the majority was treated with heparin and a vitamin K antagonist with graft preservation in 57/59 patients (97%). Thrombosis is the leading cause of early graft loss following pancreas transplantation. Computed tomography allows for early detection of partial thrombosis, which is usually subclinical. Partial graft thrombosis occurs in about 25% of all cases. In this series, treatment with anticoagulant therapy (heparin and vitamin K antagonist) resulted in graft preservation in almost all cases.

Disparities in Eurotransplant liver transplantation wait-list outcome between patients with and without model for end-stage liver disease exceptions.

The sickest-first principle in donor-liver allocation can be implemented by allocating organs to patients with cirrhosis with the highest Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. For patients with other risk factors, standard exceptions (SEs) and nonstandard exceptions (NSEs) have been developed. We investigated whether this system of matched MELD scores achieves similar outcomes on the liver transplant waiting list for various diagnostic groups in Eurotransplant (ET) countries with MELD-based individual allocation (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany). A retrospective analysis of the ET wait-list outflow from December 2006 until December 2015 was conducted to investigate the relation of the unified MELD-based allocation to the risk of a negative wait-list outcome (death on the waiting list or delisting as too sick) as opposed to a positive wait-list outcome (transplantation or delisting as recovered). A total of 16,926 patients left the waiting list with a positive (11,580) or negative (5346) outcome; 3548 patients had a SE, and 330 had a NSE. A negative outcome was more common among patients without a SE or NSE (34.3%) than among patients with a SE (22.6%) or NSE (18.6%; P < 0.001). Analysis by model-based recursive partitioning detected 5 risk groups with different relations of matched MELD to a negative outcome. In Germany, we found the following: (1) no SE or NSE, SE for biliary sepsis (BS); (2) SE for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS), or portopulmonary hypertension (PPH); and (3) SE for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) or polycystic liver disease (PcLD). In Belgium and the Netherlands, we found the following: (4) SE or NSE, or SE for HPS or PPH; and (5) SE for BS, HCC, PcLD, or PSC. In conclusion, SEs and NSEs do not even out risks across different diagnostic groups. Patients with SEs or NSEs appear advantaged toward patients with cirrhosis without SEs or NSEs. Liver Transplantation 23 1256-1265 2017 AASLD.

Center Volume Is Associated With Outcome After Pancreas Transplantation Within the Eurotransplant Region.

BACKGROUND: Outcome after surgery depends on several factors, among these, the annual volume-outcome relationship. This might also be the case in a highly complex field as pancreas transplantation. No study has investigated this relationship in a European setting. METHODS: All consecutive pancreas transplantations from January 2008 until December 2013 were included. Donor-, recipient-, and transplant-related factors were analyzed for their association with patient and graft survivals. Centers were classified in equally sized groups as being low volume (<5 transplantations on average each year in the 5 preceding years), medium volume (5-13/year), or high volume (≥13/year). RESULTS: In the study period, 1276 pancreas transplantations were included. Unadjusted 1-year patient survival was associated with center volume and was best in high volume centers, compared with medium and low volume: 96.5%, 94% and 92.3%, respectively (P = 0.017). Pancreas donor risk index (PDRI) was highest in high volume centers: 1.38 versus 1.21 in medium and 1.25 in low volume centers (P < 0.001). Pancreas graft survival at 1 year did not differ significantly between volume categories: 86%, 83.2%, and 81.6%, respectively (P = 0.114). After multivariate Cox-regression analysis, higher PDRI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; P < 0.001), retransplantation (HR, 1.91; P = 0.002), and higher recipient body mass index (HR, 1.04; P = 0.024) were risk factors for pancreas graft failure. High center volume was protective for graft failure (HR, 0.70; P = 0.037) compared with low center volume. CONCLUSION: Patient and graft survival after pancreas transplantation are superior in higher volume centers. High volume centers have good results, even though they transplant organs with the highest PDRI.

Abdominal organ procurement in the Netherlands - an analysis of quality and clinical impact.

Between March 2012 and August 2013, 591 quality forms were filled out for abdominal organs in the Netherlands. In 133 cases (23%), there was a discrepancy between the evaluation from the procuring and transplanting surgeons. Injuries were seen in 148 (25%) organs of which 12 (2%) led to discarding of the organ: one of 133 (0.8%) livers, five of 38 (13%) pancreata and six of 420 (1.4%) kidneys (P < 0.001). Higher donor BMI was a risk factor for procurement-related injury in all organs (OR: 1.06, P = 0.011) and donor after cardiac death (DCD) donation in liver procurement (OR: 2.31, P = 0.034). DCD donation is also associated with more pancreata being discarded due to injury (OR: 10.333, P = 0.046). A higher procurement volume in a centre was associated with less injury in pancreata (OR = -0.95, P = 0.013) and kidneys (OR = -0.91, P = 0.012). The quality form system efficiently monitors the quality of organ procurement. Although there is a relatively high rate of organ injury, the discard rate is low and it does not significantly affect 1-year graft survival for any organ. We identified higher BMI as a risk factor for injury in abdominal organs and DCD as a risk factor in livers. A higher procurement volume is associated with fewer injuries.

Professionalization of surgical abdominal organ recovery leading to an increase in pancreatic allografts accepted for transplantation in the Netherlands: a serial analysis.

Professional abdominal organ recovery with certification has been mandatory in the Netherlands since 2010. This study analyses the effects of certification (January 2010-September 2015) on pancreas transplantation and compares it to an era before certification (February 2002-May 2008) for surgical injuries and the number of pancreases transplanted. A total of 264 cases were analysed. Eighty-four recovered pancreases (31.8%) with surgically injuries were encountered. Forty-six of those were surgically salvaged for transplantation, resulting in a total of 226 (85.6%) being transplanted. It was found that certified surgeons recovered grafts from older donors (36.8 vs. 33.3; P = 0.021), more often from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors (18% vs. 0%; P < 0.001) and had less surgical injuries (21.6% vs. 41.0%; P < 0.001). Certification (OR: 0.285; P < 0.001) and surgeons from a pancreas transplant centre (OR: 0.420; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for surgical organ injury. Predictors for proceeding to the actual pancreas transplantation were a recovering surgeon from a pancreas transplantation centre (OR: 3.230; P = 0.003), certification (OR: 3.750; P = 0.004), donation after brain death (DBD) (OR: 8.313; P = 0.002) and donor body mass index (BMI) (OR: 0.851; P = 0.023). It is concluded that certification in abdominal organ recovery will limit the number of surgical injuries in pancreas grafts which will translate in more pancreases available for transplantation.

Donor risk indices in pancreas allocation in the Eurotransplant region.

Pancreas donor selection and recognition are important to cope with increasing organ shortage. We aim to show that the PDRI is more useful than the P-PASS to predict acceptance and should thus be preferred over P-PASS. Eurotransplant donors from 2004 until 2014 were included in this study. PDRI logistical factors were set to reference to purely reflect donor quality (PDRI donor ). PDRI and P-PASS association with allocation outcome was studied using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Regional differences in donor quality were also investigated. Of the 10 444 pancreata that were reported, 6090 (58.3%) were accepted and 2947 (28.2%) were transplanted. We found that P-PASS was inferior to PDRIdonor in its ability to predict organ reporting, acceptance, and transplantation: AUC 0.63, 0.67 and 0.73 for P-PASS vs. 0.78, 0.79 and 0.84 for PDRIdonor , respectively. Furthermore, there were significant differences in donor quality among different Eurotransplant countries, both in reported donors and in transplanted organs. PDRI is a powerful predictor of allocation outcome and should be preferred over P-PASS. Proper donor selection and recognition, and possibly a more liberal approach toward inferior quality donors, may increase donation and transplant rates.

The Value of PDRI and P-PASS as Predictors of Outcome After Pancreas Transplantation in a Large European Pancreas Transplantation Center.

OBJECTIVE: In 2008, the preprocurement pancreas suitability score (P-PASS) was introduced within Eurotransplant to predict suitability of pancreas donors. A P-PASS of 17 or higher would have lower graft survival compared with pancreatic grafts from donors with a P-PASS lower than 17. In 2010, a continuous model, the pancreas donor risk index (PDRI), was designed. Before using this model in the European donor population, it has to be validated in the European setting. METHODS: In this study, P-PASS and PDRI were validated using the results of all pancreas transplants performed at our center. The P-PASS and PDRI were compared as both continuous and dichotomous values. The original cutoff point of 17 divided P-PASS groups. Median PDRI (1.24) divided PDRI groups. RESULTS: In total, 349 pancreas transplantations were performed. The P-PASS of 17 or higher was not associated with graft survival (P = 0.448). The PDRI of 1.24 or higher was associated with reduced graft survival in univariate analysis (P = 0.007) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.002). The PDRI concordance index was 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The P-PASS has no predictive value for pancreas graft survival and should not be used in clinical decision making. The PDRI is a significant predictor of pancreas graft survival but should be used carefully, because good results can be achieved with grafts from high-PDRI donors.

Thirty Years of Pancreas Transplantation at Leiden University Medical Center: Long-term Follow-up in a Large Eurotransplant Center.

BACKGROUND: An overview of 30 years of pancreas transplantation at a high volume center. Analysis of patient survival- and graft survival-associated risk factors. METHODS: All pancreas transplantations performed in our center from January 1, 1984, till December 31, 2012, were evaluated. Covariates influencing pancreas graft survival were analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In the study period, 349 pancreas transplantations were performed. With the introduction of modern induction therapy in 1999, 5-year patient survival improved to 92.0% (P = 0.003). Five-year pancreas graft survival improved to 80.3% (P = 0.026). Pancreas graft survival was influenced by left or right donor kidney, transplant type, local origin of procurement team, pancreas cold ischemia time, recipient cerebrovascular disease. Pancreas donor risk index increased to 1.39 over the years and pancreas donor risk index 1.24 or higher is a risk factor for graft survival (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown excellent results in patient and pancreas graft survivals after 30 years of pancreas transplantation in a high volume center. Different donor, transplant, and recipient related risk factors influence pancreas graft survival. Even with higher risk pancreas donors, good results can be achieved.