Association Safety of Liver Preservation Solutions at the State University of Campinas From 2010 to 2014.

The probable reason for mixing solutions during the harvesting procedure is due to the presence of multiple transplant teams that have their own solution usage tradition. Despite numerous studies comparing the efficacy of different preservation solutions, there is no study addressing the associating solution and if there is any impact on liver graft and patient survival. The aim was to evaluate the effect of the association of preservation solutions during the harvesting procedure on liver transplantation outcomes, especially in relation to the degree of preservation injury in the postreperfusion period and patient survival. We analyzed 206 transplants that were distributed as follows: when there was association (89/206 = 43.2%) and when there was no association (117/206 = 56.8%). There was a statistically significant difference in relation to the degree of preservation injury correlated to cold ischemia time (P = .009, odds ratio 1.992; 95% confidence interval 1.185-3.347). Severe harvesting (grades III and IV) was 71.8% when the solution was not associated (P = .008). There was no difference regarding patient survival either. We found that the association of liver preservation solutions has no impact on patient survival, so it can be done safely. The best survival rate was associated with minimal harvesting.

Sirolimus as rescue therapy after liver transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Sirolimus has immunosuppressive properties and antitumor effects. It was prescribed in liver transplantation initially in association with calcineurin inhibitors because of its lower nephrotoxic and neurotoxic effects and its potential antitumor effects. The aim of this study was to analyze the use of sirolimus as rescue therapy for liver transplant patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all 15 patients treated with sirolimus from 2009 to 2011 among 150 liver transplantations. We analyzed pre- and postconversion data. With statistical analysis using the Student's t-test. RESULTS: Sirolimus was the immunosuppressant therapy in 15 of 150 (10%) patients. Their average age was 56.2 years (range, 42-69) including 9 men (60%). The mean time between liver transplantation and the introduction of sirolimus was 24.6 months (range, 1-120). Sirolimus remained as the sole medication for 4 patients (26.6%). The overall time of sirolimus thereby averaged 14.3 months (range, 1-18). The reasons for the introduction of sirolimus were acute rejection (n = 8; 53.3%), chronic rejection (n = 2; 13.3%), development of malignancy (n = 3; 20%) or prior hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 2; 13.3%). Among 9 patients who initiated sirolimus because of rejection, 7 (77.7%) showed improvement in serum liver enzymes. Among the 3 (33.3%) patients who displayed renal insufficiency before the introduction of sirolimus (creatinine level > 1.5 mg/dL) 1 showed improvement with a decrease of ≥50%. The average follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-36). The average sirolimus level during the first 3 months was 10.3 ng/mL (range, 6.1-19.3). All patients developed side effects such as anemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and infection. In conclusion, sirolimus was useful as rescue therapy.