A single center experience of combined liver kidney transplantation.

With advancements in the operative techniques, patient survival following liver transplantation (LTx) has increased substantially. This has led to the acceleration of pre-existing kidney disease because of immunosuppressive nephrotoxicity making additional kidney transplantation (KTx) inevitable. On the other hand, in a growing number of patients on the waiting list to receive liver, long waiting time has resulted in adverse effect of decompensated liver on the kidney function. During the last two decades, the transplant community has considered combined liver kidney transplantation (CLKTx) to overcome this problem. The aim of our study is to present an overview of our experience as well as a review of the literature in CLKTx and to discuss the controversy in this regard. All performed CLKTx (n = 22) at our institution as well as all available reported case series focusing on CLKTx are extracted. The references of the manuscripts were cross-checked to implement further articles into the review. The analyzed parameters include demographic data, indication for LTx and KTx, duration on the waiting list, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, immunosuppressive regimen, post-transplant complications, graft and patient survival, and cause of death. From 1988 to 2009, a total of 22 CLKTx were performed at our institution. The median age of the patients at the time of CLKTx was 44.8 (range: 4.5-58.3 yr). The indications for LTx were liver cirrhosis, hyperoxaluria type 1, polycystic liver disease, primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis, malignant hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, cystinosis, and congenital biliary fibrosis. The KTx indications were end-stage renal disease of various causes, hyperoxaluria type 1, polycystic kidney disease, and cystinosis. The mean follow-up duration for CLKTx patients were 4.6 +/- 3.5 yr (range: 0.5-12 yr). Overall, the most important encountered complications were sepsis (n = 8), liver failure leading to retransplantation (n = 4), liver rejection (n = 3), and kidney rejection (n = 1). The overall patient survival rate was 80%. Review of the literature showed that from 1984 to 2008, 3536 CLKTx cases were reported. The main indications for CLKTx were oxalosis of both organs, liver cirrhosis and chronic renal failure, polycystic liver and kidney disease, and liver cirrhosis along with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). The most common encountered complications following CLKTx were infection, bleeding, biliary complications, retransplantation of the liver, acute hepatic artery thrombosis, and retransplantation of the kidney. From the available data regarding the need for post-operative dialysis (n = 673), a total of 175 recipients (26%) required hemodialysis. During the follow-up period, 154 episodes of liver rejection (4.3%) and 113 episodes of kidney rejection (3.2%) occurred. The cumulative 1, 2, 3, and 5 yr survival of both organs were 78.2%, 74.4%, 62.4%, and 60.9%, respectively. Additionally, the cumulative 1, 2, 3, and 5 yr patient survival were 84.9%, 52.8%, 45.4%, and 42.6%, respectively. The total number of reported deaths was 181 of 2808 cases (6.4%), from them the cause of death in 99 (55%) cases was sepsis. It can be concluded that there is still no definitive evidence of better graft and patient survival in CLKTx recipients when compared with LTx alone because of the complexity of the exact definition of irreversible kidney function in LTx candidates. Additionally, CLKTx is better to be performed earlier than isolated LTx and KTx leading to the avoidance of deterioration of clinical status, high rate of graft loss, and mortality. Shorter graft ischemia time and more effective immunosuppressive regimens can reduce the incidence of graft malfunctioning in CLKTx patients. Providing a model to reliably determine the need for CLKTx seems necessary. Such a model can be shaped based upon new and precise markers of renal function, and modification of MELD system.

Thymoglobulin and ischemia reperfusion injury in kidney and liver transplantation.

Since the beginning of organ transplantation, graft preservation has been one of the most important concerns. Ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI), which plays an important role in the quality and function of the graft, is a major cause for increased length of hospitalization and decreased long term graft survival. Among numerous attempts which have been made to minimize graft damage associated with IRI, the use of Thymoglobulin (TG) seems to offer potential benefits. TG is a polyclonal antibody which blocks multiple antigens related to IRI, in addition to its better known T cell depleting effects. This review will focus on the use of TG in preventing IRI in kidney transplantation (KTx) and liver transplantation (LTx). Different studies in experimental and clinical transplantation have shown that TG protects renal and liver grafts from IRI. Improvement in early graft function and decreased delayed graft function (DGF) rates are some of the clinical benefits of TG. Additionally, it is used in patients with hepatorenal syndrome to support the recovery of kidney function after LTx, by allowing reduced exposure to nephrotoxic calcineurin inhibitors as well as improving liver graft function by minimizing IRI. TG can reduce acute rejection rates in kidney and liver transplant recipients, decrease the length of hospital stay, and hence reduce transplantation costs. TG can play an important role in expanding the donor pool in both KTx and LTx by improving long-term graft and patient survival rates which increases the possibility of using marginal donors. Although controversial, the development of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is a potential side effect of TG. No single optimal immunosuppressive regimen has given consistent results in decreasing the graft damage following IRI; however, TG usage in KTx and LTx appears to have some benefits in reducing IRI.

The role and value of sirolimus administration in kidney and liver transplantation.

Enormous advancements in visceral transplantation have led to significant improvements in the quality of life of patients. However, despite these developments, the average graft half-life after transplantation has remained almost unchanged and chronic rejection is still considered a major problem. In this regard, more concerns have shifted to factors influencing long-term graft survival, patient survival, and quality of life. To achieve this goal, detrimental effects of immunosuppressive (IS) agents, which have deleterious influence on the quality of life and/or patient survival, should be reduced. In the course of recent years, the transplant community has worked on reducing these side effects by developing new ISs, employing new combination regimens, or finding and adjusting optimal dosages and blood level concentrations. Among the IS agents, the antifungal, antitumoral and IS activity of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors without nephrotoxicity, have received special attention regarding this new class of IS. Sirolimus (SRL), as the first member of mTOR inhibitors, has been utilized in many clinical trials with respect to its benefit-risk assessment. In our review, the clinical evolution of SRL, as well as the evidence-based clinical benefits of SRL in kidney and liver transplantation (KTx, LTx), are summarized. Various studies of SRL in KTx and LTx have shown that combination therapy with SRL will enrich the variety of IS modalities. It also can be regarded as a safe base therapy to which other necessary drugs can be added. In addition to the enhanced acute rejection prophylaxis, and in contrast to the calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and steroids, this drug solely does not have common side effects such as nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Moreover, this agent might diminish vasculopathic processes that mediate chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). Therefore, by reducing the likelihood of CAN it can decrease the rate of long-term organ failure. One possibly desirable characteristic of SRL is its antiproliferative effect, which could provoke antitumoral or antiatherogenic activity following transplantation. Despite all promising impacts of SRL in organ transplantation, there are some concerns regarding the adverse effects of this drug, for instance dyslipidemia, pneumonitis and wound healing problems. However, the majority of these side effects can be reduced or ceased by careful dose adjustments and correct timing of use. In conclusion, after a decade of both in vivo and in vitro studies on SRL, it can be advocated that SRL is a promising, potent and effective IS agent as it reduces the rate of acute rejection episodes in de novo transplants. It could improve the quality of life, graft and patient survival rate, and achieve excellent outcomes with few adverse effects when wisely used in combination with other immunosuppressants.