Search

Well-selected patients with kidney disease and diabetes mellitus who undergo simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation often experience dramatic improvements in quality of life and long-term survival compared to those who remain on medical therapy. Over the past several years the importance of frailty in the pancreas transplant candidate and recipient populations has grown. More patients with advanced age have entered the waitlist, and complications from prolonged diabetes, even in younger patients, have created increased evidence of risk for frailty. Given these concerns, and the broad challenges facing pancreas transplantation volumes overall, we generated this review to help establish the impact and implications. We summarize the interplay of immunological factors, aging, environmental factors, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease that put these patients at risk for frailty. We discuss its measurement and recommend a combination of two instruments (both well validated and one entirely objective). We describe the outcomes for patients before and after pancreas transplantation who may have frailty, and what interventions can be taken to mitigate its effects. Broader investigation into frailty in the pancreas transplant population is needed to better understand how to select patients for pancreas transplantation and to how manage its consequences thereafter. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background Due to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs. Methods Surveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019. Results One hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low ( 20). High-volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program-specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs. Conclusions Overall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high-volume programs.

Redfield RR, Parsons RF, Rodriguez E, Mustafa M, Cassuto J, Vivek K, Noorchashm H, Naji A, Levine MH, Abt PL. Underutilization of A2 ABO incompatible kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01543.x. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: ABO compatibility creates a disadvantage for O and B renal allograft candidates. A2 ABO incompatible transplant may decrease waiting times and generate equivalent graft survival to an ABO compatible transplant. Methods: Death-censored graft survival was compared between A recipients and O, B, and AB recipients of an A2 allograft with multivariate Cox regression models utilizing data from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) between 1997 and 2007. Results: Eighty-five percent of A2 kidneys were transplanted into ABO compatible recipients vs. 15% into ABO incompatible recipients. Rates of A2 incompatible kidney transplants did not increase over the study period (14.8% to 14.6%). Mean wait time for A2→O kidneys was 337 vs. 684 d for O→O and for A2→B kidneys, 542 vs. 734 d for B→B. Adjusted relative risk of graft loss at five-yr was similar between O, B, and AB recipients compared to A recipients of an A2 allograft, corresponding to a five-yr graft survival of 84%, 86.2%, 86.1%, and 86.1%, respectively. Conclusion: A2 incompatible kidney transplantation is underutilized. Graft outcomes are similar among A2 compatible and incompatible recipients. Shorter waiting time and improved access might be achieved if A2 kidneys are considered in all blood groups.