Search

Despite the continued improvements in pancreas transplant outcomes in recent decades, a subset of recipients experience graft failure and can experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Here, we summarize what is known about the failed pancreas allograft and what factors are important for consideration of retransplantation. The current definition of pancreas allograft failure and its challenges for the transplant community are explored. The impacts of a failed pancreas allograft are presented, including patient survival and resultant morbidities. The signs, symptoms, and medical and surgical management of a failed pancreas allograft are described, whereas the options and consequences of immunosuppression withdrawal are reviewed. Medical and surgical factors necessary for successful retransplant candidacy are detailed with emphasis on how well-selected patients may achieve excellent retransplant outcomes. To achieve substantial medical mitigation and even pancreas retransplantation, patients with a failed pancreas allograft warrant special attention to their residual renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary function. Future studies of the failed pancreas allograft will require improved reporting of graft failure from transplant centers and continued investigation from experienced centers.

Background. The impact of functional status on survival among simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKT) candidates and recipients is not well described. Methods. We examined national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data for patients listed for SPKT in the United States (2006–2019). Functional status was categorized by center-reported Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS). We used Cox regression to quantify associations of KPS at listing and transplant with subsequent patient survival, adjusted for baseline patient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% LCLaHR95%UCL). We also explored time-dependent associations of SPKT with survival risk after listing compared with continued waiting in each functional status group. Results. KPS distributions among candidates (N = 16 822) and recipients (N = 10 316), respectively, were normal (KPS 80–100), 62.0% and 57.8%; capable of self-care (KPS 70), 23.5% and 24.7%; requires assistance (KPS 50–60), 12.4% and 14.2%; and disabled (KPS 10–40), 2.1% and 3.3%. There was a graded increase in mortality after listing and after transplant with lower functional levels. Compared with normal functioning, mortality after SPKT rose progressively for patients capable of self-care (aHR, 1.001.181.41), requiring assistance (aHR, 1.061.311.60), and disabled (aHR, 1.101.552.19). In time-dependent regression, compared with waiting, SPKT was associated with 2-fold mortality risk within 30 days of transplant. However, beyond 30 days, SPKT was associated with reduced mortality, from 52% for disabled patients (aHR, 0.260.480.88) to 70% for patients with normal functioning (aHR, 0.260.300.34). Conclusions. While lower functional status is associated with increased mortality risk among SPKT candidates and recipients, SPKT can provide long-term survival benefit across functional status levels in those selected for transplant.

Background. Variation in the use of immunosuppression regimens after liver transplant has not been well described. Methods. Immunosuppression regimens used after liver transplant were identified in a novel database integrating national transplant registry and pharmacy fill records for 24 238 recipients (2006-2014). Bilevel hierarchical models were developed to quantify the effects of transplant program, recipient, and donor characteristics on regimen choice. Results. In the first 6 months after transplant, triple immunosuppression (tacrolimus, antimetabolite, corticosteroids) was the most common regimen (42.9%). By months 7 to 12, immunosuppression regimens were more commonly antimetabolite sparing (33.7%) or steroid sparing (26.9%), followed by triple (14.4%), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi)-based (12.1%), or cyclosporine-based (9.2%). Based on intraclass correlation analysis, clinical characteristics explained less than 10% of the variation in immunosuppression choice, whereas program preference/practice explained 23% of steroid sparing, 26% of antimetabolite sparing, 28% of mTORi, and 21% of cyclosporine-based regimen use. Although case factors were not dominant practice drivers, triple immunosuppression in months 7 to 12 was more common among retransplant recipients and those with prior acute rejection. Hepatocellular carcinoma as cause of liver failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.15; P

Background. Several studies have shown that obese patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) have an increased risk of mortality regardless of Model of End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. The purpose of this study is to identify the range of body mass index (BMI) at LT associated with the lowest risks of posttransplant mortality by MELD category. Methods. A retrospective cohort of patients aged 18 years or older from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database undergoing LT between February 27, 2002, and December 31, 2013, was identified and followed up through March 14, 2014. Patients' MELD score at the time of transplantation was categorized into 10 or lower (MELD1), 11 to 18 (MELD2), 19 to 24 (MELD3), and 25 or higher (MELD4). Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses were conducted. Results. Among 48 226 patients in the analytic cohort (14.8% were in MELD1, 33.7% were in MELD2, 19.6% were in MELD3, and 32.0% were in MELD4), 25% died with mean follow-up of 1371 days. For MELD1, patient BMI ranging from 30 to 33 was associated with a better survival outcome than BMI less than 30 or 33 or greater; for MELD2, BMI ranging from 28 to 37 had a better survival outcome than BMI less than 28 or 37 or greater; for MELD3, the survival outcome improved with an increasing BMI; for MELD4, the survival outcome was not associated with patient BMI. Conclusions. This study provides evidence that obesity in LT patients is not necessarily associated with higher posttransplantation mortality and highlights the importance of the interaction between BMI and MELD category to determine their survival likelihood.