Donor Blood Tests do Not Predict Pancreas Graft Survival After Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplantation; a National Cohort Study.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation improves quality of life and limits progression of diabetic complications. There is reluctance to accept pancreata from donors with abnormal blood tests, due to concern of inferior outcomes. We investigated whether donor amylase and liver blood tests (markers of visceral ischaemic injury) predict pancreas graft outcome using the UK Transplant Registry (2016-2021). 857 SPK recipients were included (619 following brainstem death, 238 following circulatory death). Peak donor amylase ranged from 8 to 3300 U/L (median = 70), and this had no impact on pancreas graft survival when adjusting for multiple confounders (aHR = 0.944, 95% CI = 0.754-1.81). Peak alanine transaminases also did not influence pancreas graft survival in multivariable models (aHR = 0.967, 95% CI = 0.848-1.102). Restricted cubic splines were used to assess associations between donor blood tests and pancreas graft survival without assuming linear relationships; these confirmed neither amylase, nor transaminases, significantly impact pancreas transplant outcome. This is the largest, most statistically robust study evaluating donor blood tests and transplant outcome. Provided other factors are acceptable, pancreata from donors with mild or moderately raised amylase and transaminases can be accepted with confidence. The use of pancreas grafts from such donors is therefore a safe, immediate, and simple approach to expand the donor pool to reach increasing demands.

Does Time to Asystole in Donors After Circulatory Death Impact Recipient Outcome in Liver Transplantation?

BACKGROUND: The agonal phase can vary following treatment withdrawal in donor after circulatory death (DCD). There is little evidence to support when procurement teams should stand down in relation to donor time to death (TTD). We assessed what impact TTD had on outcomes following DCD liver transplantation. METHODS: Data were extracted from the UK Transplant Registry on DCD liver transplant recipients from 2006 to 2021. TTD was the time from withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to asystole, and functional warm ischemia time was the time from donor systolic blood pressure and/or oxygen saturation falling below 50 mm Hg and 70%, respectively, to aortic perfusion. The primary endpoint was 1-y graft survival. Potential predictors were fitted into Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted restricted cubic spline models were generated to further delineate the relationship between TTD and outcome. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred fifty-eight recipients of a DCD liver graft were included. Median TTD in the entire cohort was 13 min (interquartile range, 9-17 min). Restricted cubic splines revealed that the risk of graft loss was significantly greater when TTD ≤14 min. After 14 min, there was no impact on graft loss. Prolonged hepatectomy time was significantly associated with graft loss (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.83; P = 0.003); however, functional warm ischemia time had no impact (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-2.27; P > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: A very short TTD was associated with increased risk of graft loss, possibly because of such donors being more unstable and/or experiencing brain stem death as well as circulatory death. Expanding the stand down times may increase the utilization of donor livers without significantly impairing graft outcome.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

The impact of time to death in donors after circulatory death on recipient outcome in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

The time to arrest donors after circulatory death is unpredictable and can vary. This leads to variable periods of warm ischemic damage prior to pancreas transplantation. There is little evidence supporting procurement team stand-down times based on donor time to death (TTD). We examined what impact TTD had on pancreas graft outcomes following donors after circulatory death (DCD) simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Data were extracted from the UK transplant registry from 2014 to 2022. Predictors of graft loss were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjusted restricted cubic spline models were generated to further delineate the relationship between TTD and outcome. Three-hundred-and-seventy-five DCD simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients were included. Increasing TTD was not associated with graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.41, P = .901). Increasing asystolic time worsened graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16-5.43, P = .020). Restricted cubic spline modeling revealed a nonlinear relationship between asystolic time and graft survival and no relationship between TTD and graft survival. We found no evidence that TTD impacts pancreas graft survival after DCD simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation; however, increasing asystolic time was a significant predictor of graft loss. Procurement teams should attempt to minimize asystolic time to optimize pancreas graft survival rather than focus on the duration of TTD.

Is aggressive intravenous fluid prescription the answer to reduce mortality in severe pancreatitis? The FLIP study: Fluid resuscitation in pancreatitis.

Backgrounds/Aims: Acute pancreatitis is an emergency presentation, which can range from mild to life threatening. Intravenous fluids are the cornerstone of management. Although the WATERFALL trial described the optimal fluid rate in mild/moderate pancreatitis, this trial excluded patients with moderate-severe/severe pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to establish clinical practice regarding intravenous fluid administration in acute pancreatitis and assess its effect on mortality. Methods: Prospective multi-centre audit of patients with acute pancreatitis was conducted. Data were collected regarding intravenous fluid administration within 72 hours of admission. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. Results: Those with severe pancreatitis received more fluid; median 5.7 L versus 4 L in 72 hours (p = 0.003). Participants with severe pancreatitis who died within 30 days received a median of 2,750 mL in the first 24 hours, compared to 4,000 mL in those who survived. The following factors were significant predictors of 30-day mortality: age, Glasgow score, C-reactive protein, ischaemic heart disease, and pancreatitis aetiology. Overall, volume of intravenous fluid was not associated with mortality. However, the effect of intravenous fluid volume on mortality differed significantly depending on pancreatitis severity. In severe pancreatitis, increased volume of intravenous fluid was associated with significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio = 0.655; 0.459-0.936; p = 0.020). Conclusions: In severe pancreatitis, more aggressive fluid prescription was associated with decreased mortality; however, this was not the case in milder disease. Further prospective trials guiding fluid resuscitation in severe pancreatitis are needed, as the impact of fluid on this population appears to differ from that in those with milder disease.

Machine perfusion in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the only chance of cure for people with end-stage liver disease and some people with advanced liver cancers or acute liver failure. The increasing prevalence of these conditions drives demand and necessitates the increasing use of donated livers which have traditionally been considered suboptimal. Several novel machine perfusion preservation technologies have been developed, which attempt to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of ischaemia reperfusion injury. Machine perfusion technology aims to improve organ quality, thereby improving outcomes in recipients of suboptimal livers when compared to traditional static cold storage (SCS; ice box). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different methods of machine perfusion (including hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE), normothermic machine perfusion (NMP), controlled oxygenated rewarming, and normothermic regional perfusion) versus each other or versus static cold storage (SCS) in people undergoing liver transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 10 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials which compared different methods of machine perfusion, either with each other or with SCS. Studies comparing HOPE via both hepatic artery and portal vein, or via portal vein only, were grouped. The protocol detailed that we also planned to include quasi-randomised studies to assess treatment harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall participant survival, 2. quality of life, and 3. serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. graft survival, 5. ischaemic biliary complications, 6. primary non-function of the graft, 7. early allograft function, 8. non-serious adverse events, 9. transplant utilisation, and 10. transaminase release during the first week post-transplant. We assessed bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven randomised trials (1024 transplant recipients from 1301 randomised/included livers). All trials were parallel two-group trials; four compared HOPE versus SCS, and three compared NMP versus SCS. No trials used normothermic regional perfusion. When compared with SCS, it was uncertain whether overall participant survival was improved with either HOPE (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.98; P = 0.81, I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision because of low number of events) or NMP (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.80; P = 0.90; 1 trial, 222 recipients; very low-certainty evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias). No trials reported quality of life. When compared with SCS alone, HOPE was associated with improvement in the following clinically relevant outcomes: graft survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events in extended criteria DBD liver transplants (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.91; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinically significant ischaemic cholangiopathy in recipients of DCD livers (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.92; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 156 recipients; high-certainty evidence). In contrast, NMP was not associated with improvement in any of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP was associated with improved utilisation compared with SCS (one trial found a 50% lower rate of organ discard; P = 0.008), but the reasons underlying this effect are unknown. We identified 11 ongoing studies investigating machine perfusion technologies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In situations where the decision has been made to transplant a liver donated after circulatory death or donated following brain death, end-ischaemic HOPE will provide superior clinically relevant outcomes compared with SCS alone. Specifically, graft survival is improved (high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events are reduced (moderate-certainty evidence), and in donors after circulatory death, clinically relevant ischaemic biliary complications are reduced (high-certainty evidence). There is no good evidence that NMP has the same benefits over SCS in terms of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP does appear to improve utilisation of grafts that would otherwise be discarded with SCS; however, the reasons for this, and whether this effect is specific to NMP, is not clear. Further studies into NMP viability criteria and utilisation, as well as head-to-head trials with other perfusion technologies are needed. In the setting of donation following circulatory death transplantation, further trials are needed to assess the effect of these ex situ machine perfusion methods against, or in combination with, normothermic regional perfusion.

Fibrin-based haemostatic agents for reducing blood loss in adult liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non-FBHAs (e.g. collagen-based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin-based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non-FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non-serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non-FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus non-fibrin-based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non-FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non-FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.

Early versus late removal of urinary catheter after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation. During the operation, a catheter is introduced into the bladder and remains in place postoperatively to allow the bladder to drain. This decreases tension from the cysto-ureteric anastomosis and promotes healing. Unfortunately, urinary catheters can pose an infection risk to patients as they allow bacteria into the bladder, potentially resulting in a urinary tract infection (UTI). The longer the catheter remains in place, the greater the risk of developing a UTI. There is no consensus approach to the time a catheter should remain in place post-transplant. Furthermore, the different timings of catheter removal are thought to be associated with different incidences of UTI and postoperative complications, such as anastomotic breakdown. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to compare patients who had their catheter removed < 5 days post-transplant surgery to those patients who had their catheter removed ≥ 5 days following their kidney transplant. Primary outcome measures between the two groups included: the incidence of symptomatic UTIs, the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria and the incidence of major urological complications requiring intervention and treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 April 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing timing of catheter removal post-transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included, and all recipients were included regardless of age, demographics or type of urinary catheter used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results from the literature search were screened by two authors to identify if they met our inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a urinary catheter before five days (120 hours) as an 'early removal' and anything later than this as a 'late removal.' The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model, and results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (197 patients) were included in our analysis. One study comprised a full-text article, and the other was a conference abstract with very limited information. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally either high or unclear. It is uncertain whether early versus late removal of the urinary catheter made any difference to the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (RR 0.89, 95% Cl 0.17 to 4.57; participants = 197; I2 = 88%; very low certainty evidence). Data on other outcomes, such as the incidence of UTI and the incidence of major urological complications, were lacking. Furthermore, the follow-up of patients across the studies was short, with no patients being followed beyond one month. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A high-quality, well-designed RCT is required to compare the effectiveness of early catheter removal versus late catheter removal in patients following a kidney transplant. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to suggest any difference between early and late catheter removal post-transplant, and the studies investigating this were generally of poor quality.

Donor Liver Blood Tests and Liver Transplant Outcomes: UK Registry Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Safely increasing organ utilization is a global priority. Donor serum transaminase levels are often used to decline livers, despite minimal evidence to support such decisions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of donor "liver blood tests" on transplant outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National Health Service registry on adult liver transplantation (2016-2019); adjusted regressions models were used to assess the effect of donor "liver blood tests" on outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3299 adult liver transplant recipients were included (2530 following brain stem death, 769 following circulatory death). Peak alanine transaminase (ALT) ranged from 6 to 5927 U/L (median = 45). Donor cause of death significantly predicted donor ALT; 4.2-fold increase in peak ALT with hypoxic brain injury versus intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, adjusting for a wide range of factors, transaminase level (ALT or aspartate aminotransferase) failed to predict graft survival, primary nonfunction, 90-d graft loss, or mortality. This held true in all examined subgroups, that is, steatotic grafts, donation following circulatory death, hypoxic brain injury donors, and donors, in which ALT was still rising at the time of retrieval. Even grafts from donors with extremely deranged ALT (>1000 U/L) displayed excellent posttransplant outcomes. In contrast, donor peak alkaline phosphatase was a significant predictor of graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.808; 1.016-3.216; P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Donor transaminases do not predict posttransplant outcomes. When other factors are favorable, livers from donors with raised transaminases can be accepted and transplanted with confidence. Such knowledge should improve organ utilization decision-making and prevent future unnecessary organ discard. This provides a safe, simple, and immediate option to expand the donor pool.

Multi-Centre UK Analysis of Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney (SPK) Transplant in Recipients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

90% of the UK diabetic population are classified as T2DM. This study aims to compare outcomes after SPK transplant between recipients with T1DM or T2DM. Data on all UK SPK transplants from 2003-2019 were obtained from the NHSBT Registry (n = 2,236). Current SPK transplant selection criteria for T2DM requires insulin treatment and recipient BMI < 30 kg/m2. After exclusions (re-transplants/ambiguous type of diabetes) we had a cohort of n = 2,154. Graft (GS) and patient (PS) survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-regression models. Complications were compared using chi-squared analyses. 95.6% of SPK transplants were performed in recipients with T1DM (n = 2,060). Univariate analysis showed comparable outcomes for pancreas GS at 1 year (p = 0.120), 3 years (p = 0.237), and 10 years (p = 0.196) and kidney GS at 1 year (p = 0.438), 3 years (p = 0.548), and 10 years (p = 0.947). PS was comparable at 1 year (p = 0.886) and 3 years (p = 0.237) and at 10 years (p = 0.161). Multi-variate analysis showed comparable outcomes in pancreas GS (p = 0.564, HR 1.221, 95% CI 0.619, 2.406) and PS(p = 0.556, HR 1.280, 95% CI 0.563, 2.911). Comparable rates of common complications were demonstrated. This is the largest series outside of the US evaluating outcomes after SPK transplants and shows similar outcomes between T1DM and T2DM recipients. It is hoped dissemination of this data will lead to increased referral rates and assessment of T2DM patients who could benefit from SPK transplantation.

Pharmacological testing of therapeutics using normothermic machine perfusion: A pilot study of 2,4-dinitrophenol delivery to steatotic human livers.

INTRODUCTION: Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) provides a platform for drug-delivery. However, pharmacological considerations for therapeutics delivered during NMP are scarcely reported. We aimed to demonstrate the ability of NMP as a platform for pharmacological testing, using a drug which increases metabolism (2,4-dinitrophenol; DNP) as an example therapeutic. METHODS: We performed 25 h of NMP on human livers which had been declined for transplant due to steatosis (n = 7). Three livers received a DNP bolus, three were controls, and one received a DNP infusion. RESULTS: Toxicity studies revealed DNP delivery was safe, without hepatotoxic effects. The liver surface temperature was increased in the DNP group (p = 0.046), but no livers suffered hyperthermia-the mechanism of DNP toxicity in vivo. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed DNP elimination with first-order kinetics and 7.7 h half-life (95% CI = 5.1-15.9 hrs). The clearance of DNP in bile was negligible. As expected, DNP significantly increased oxygen consumption (p = 0.023); this increase was closely correlated with perfusate DNP concentration (r2  = 0.975; p = 0.002) and the effect was lost as DNP was eliminated by the liver. A DNP infusion rate, calculated using our pharmacokinetic data, successfully maintained perfusate DNP concentration. DISCUSSION: Detailed pharmacological testing can be performed during NMP. Our therapeutic (DNP) is rapidly eliminated by the ex vivo liver, meaning the drug effect of increased metabolism is only transient. This demonstrates the importance of assessing pharmacokinetics when delivering therapeutics during NMP, especially for prolonged perfusion of organs with established roles in drug elimination. Rigorous pharmacological testing is needed to unlock the potential of NMP as a clinical drug-delivery platform.

MicroRNA antagonist therapy during normothermic machine perfusion of donor kidneys.

Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) is a novel clinical approach to overcome the limitations of traditional hypothermic organ preservation. NMP can be used to assess and recondition organs prior to transplant and is the subject of clinical trials in solid organ transplantation. In addition, NMP provides an opportunity to deliver therapeutic agents directly to the organ, thus avoiding many limitations associated with systemic treatment of the recipient. We report the delivery of oligonucleotide-based therapy to human kidneys during NMP, in this case to target microRNA function (antagomir). An antagomir targeting mir-24-3p localized to the endothelium and proximal tubular epithelium. Endosomal uptake during NMP conditions facilitated antagomir co-localization with proteins involved in the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) and demonstrated engagement of the miRNA target. This pattern of uptake was not seen during cold perfusion. Targeting mir-24-3p action increased expression of genes controlled by this microRNA, including heme oxygenase-1 and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1. The expression of genes not under the control of mir-24-3p was unchanged, indicating specificity of the antagomir effect. In summary, this is the first report of ex vivo gymnotic delivery of oligonucleotide to the human kidney and demonstrates that NMP provides the platform to bind and block detrimental microRNAs in donor kidneys prior to transplantation.

Comparing outcomes in right versus left kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transplantation of right kidneys can pose technical challenges due to the short right renal vein. Whether this results in inferior outcomes remains controversial. METHOD: Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed each study. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as HR or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed in kidneys from deceased donors (DD) and living donors (LD). RESULTS: A total of 35 studies (257,429 participants) were identified. Both deceased and living donor right kidneys were at increased risk of delayed graft function (DGF; RR = 1.12[1.06-1.18] and RR = 1.33[1.21-1.46] respectively; both p < .0001). In absolute terms, for each 100 kidney pairs of DD kidneys transplanted there are 2.72 (1.67-3.78, p < .00001) excess episodes of DGF in right kidneys. Graft thromboses and graft loss due to technical failure was also significantly more likely in right kidneys, in both DD and LD settings. There was no evidence that laterality alters long term graft survival in LD or DD. CONCLUSION: Right kidneys have inferior early outcomes, with higher rates of DGF, technical failure and graft thrombosis. However, these differences are small in absolute terms, and long-term graft survival is equivalent.

MiR-126-3p Is Dynamically Regulated in Endothelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition during Fibrosis.

In fibrotic diseases, myofibroblasts derive from a range of cell types including endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT). Increasing evidence suggests that miRNAs are key regulators in biological processes but their profile is relatively understudied in EndMT. In human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), EndMT was induced by treatment with TGFß2 and IL1ß. A significant decrease in endothelial markers such as VE-cadherin, CD31 and an increase in mesenchymal markers such as fibronectin were observed. In parallel, miRNA profiling showed that miR-126-3p was down-regulated in HUVECs undergoing EndMT and over-expression of miR-126-3p prevented EndMT, maintaining CD31 and repressing fibronectin expression. EndMT was investigated using lineage tracing with transgenic Cdh5-Cre-ERT2; Rosa26R-stop-YFP mice in two established models of fibrosis: cardiac ischaemic injury and kidney ureteric occlusion. In both cardiac and kidney fibrosis, lineage tracing showed a significant subpopulation of endothelial-derived cells expressed mesenchymal markers, indicating they had undergone EndMT. In addition, miR-126-3p was restricted to endothelial cells and down-regulated in murine fibrotic kidney and heart tissue. These findings were confirmed in patient kidney biopsies. MiR-126-3p expression is restricted to endothelial cells and is down-regulated during EndMT. Over-expression of miR-126-3p reduces EndMT, therefore, it could be considered for miRNA-based therapeutics in fibrotic organs.

Hip aspiration culture: analysing data from a single operator series investigating periprosthetic joint infection.

Introduction: We undertook this study to know the sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities of hip aspiration when diagnosing periprosthetic hip infections. We also examined "dry tap" (injection with saline and aspiration) results and aspiration volumes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients aspirated for suspected periprosthetic joint infection between July 2012 and October 2016. All aspirations were carried out by one trained surgical care practitioner (SCP). All aspirations followed an aseptic technique and fluoroscopic guidance. Aspiration was compared to tissue biopsy taken at revision. Aspiration volumes were analysed for comparison. Results: Between January 2012 and September 2016, 461 hip aspirations were performed by our SCP. Of these 125 progressed to revision. We calculated sensitivity 59 % (confidence interval (CI) 35 %-82 %) and specificity 94 % (CI 89 %-98 %). Pre-test probability for our cohort was 0.14. Positive post-test probability was 0.59 and negative post-test probability 0.06. Aspiration volume for infected ( n = 17 ) and non-infected ( n = 108 ) joints was compared and showed no significant difference. Dry taps were experienced five times; in each instance the dry tap agreed with the biopsy result. Conclusions: Our data show that hip aspiration culture is a highly specific investigation for diagnosing infection but that it is not sensitive. Aspiration volume showed no significant difference between infected and non-infected groups. Each time a joint was infiltrated with saline to achieve a result, the result matched tissue sampling.

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE1 plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE1 plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.

Too Fat for Transplant? The Impact of Recipient BMI on Pancreas Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many transplant centers, a recipient body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 would be considered a contraindication for pancreas transplantation. This study aims to investigate the impact of recipient BMI on graft outcomes after pancreas transplantation. METHODS: Retrospective data on all UK solid organ pancreas transplants from 1994 to 2016 were obtained from the National Health Service Blood and Transplant UK Transplant Registry, n = 2618. Cases missing BMI data were excluded, resulting in a final cohort of n = 1452. Graft and patient survival analysis were conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models. RESULTS: The mean recipient BMI was 24.8 kg/m2 (±2.4). There were 507 overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and 146 obese (>30) recipients receiving pancreas transplants. Univariate analysis showed no statistically significant difference between overweight BMI categories compared with normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2). Multivariate analysis revealed increasing recipient BMI had a significant impact on graft survival (P = 0.03, hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.08). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed no value of BMI that provided both specific and sensitive discrimination between death and survival of both grafts or patients. Recipients on dialysis with a BMI >30 kg/m2 had a statistically significant decrease in both graft (P = 0.002) and patient survival (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of available UK Pancreas data has shown recipient BMI is an independent risk factor for patient survival after transplantation. However, we have been unable to define a specific cutoff value above which patients have poorer outcomes. Obese patients on hemodialysis had the poorest graft survival, and preemptive transplantation may be beneficial in this cohort.

Methaemoglobinaemia Can Complicate Normothermic Machine Perfusion of Human Livers.

Background: Although liver normothermic machine perfusion is increasingly used clinically, there are few reports of complications or adverse events. Many centers perform liver NMP to viability test suboptimal grafts, often for prolonged periods. In addition, several researchers are investigating NMP as a drug delivery platform, which usually necessitates prolonged perfusion of otherwise non-viable liver grafts. We describe two instances of methaemoglobinaemia during NMP of suboptimal livers. Methods: The NMP of eight human livers rejected for transplantation is described. Methaemoglobinaeima developed in two; one perfused using generic Medtronic™ perfusion equipment and one using the OrganOx Metra®. Results: The first liver (53 years DBD) developed methaemoglobinaemia (metHb = 2.4%) after 13 h of NMP, increasing to metHb = 19% at 16 h. Another liver (45 years DBD) developed methaemoglobinaemia at 25 h (metHb = 2.8%), which increased to metHb = 28.2% at 38 h. Development of methaemoglobinaemia was associated with large reductions in oxygen delivery and oxygen extraction. Both livers were steatotic and showed several suboptimal features on viability testing. Delivery of methylene blue failed to reverse the methaemoglobinaemia. Compared to a matched cohort of steatotic organs, livers which developed methaemoglobinaemia showed significantly higher levels of hemolysis at 12 h (prior to development of methaemoglobinaemia). Conclusions: Methaemglobinaemia is a complication of NMP of suboptimal liver grafts, not limited to a single machine or perfusion protocol. It can occur within 13 h (a timepoint frequently surpassed when NMP is used clinically) and renders further perfusion futile. Therefore, metHb should be monitored during NMP visually and using blood gas analysis.