Search

Background: Pancreas transplant recipient obesity has been associated with increased risk of perioperative complications, graft failure, and death. The imperative to maximize organ utility must be balanced against the need to maintain equity of access, including for the increasing number of obese diabetic patients., Methods: We compared the outcomes of pancreas transplant recipients with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m(2) (n=60, mean ± SD BMI 32.1 ± 1.7 kg/m(2)) to those with BMI less than 30 kg/m(2) (n=308, mean ± SD BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)) between 1996 and 2013., Results: There were no differences in the pretransplant recipient or donor characteristics apart from BMI. The BMI greater than 30 group were more likely to suffer a rejection episode (43% vs. 29%; P = 0.03). The median time to first rejection was shorter (1 vs. 6 months; P = 0.04), and wound infection was more common in the BMI greater than 30 group (P = 0.03). There was no difference in the rate of patient, pancreas, or kidney graft survival or difference in graft function between the two groups., Conclusion: The obese recipients in this study were in the lower range of the obese category. Although there was an increased risk of rejection and wound infection in the obese group, there was no difference in patient or graft survival. This finding, when compared with previous reports, may be related to stringent recipient selection and posttransplant care particularly with respect to cardiovascular disease.

Background: There is a paucity of contemporary data describing the results of pancreas retransplantation (PRT). As a measure of utility, we wished to determine whether PRT could produce equivalent short-term and long-term recipient outcomes to primary pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation., Methods: Retrospective analysis of 96 consecutive pancreas only transplants performed from 2003 to May 2012. Primary PAK transplants (n = 78) were compared to PRT (n=18)., Results: Donor and recipient demographics were similar. Pancreas graft survival was similar for PAK and PRT at 1 year (88.2% vs. 100%) and 3 years (85.1% vs. 85.1%). Pancreas graft failure occurred in 14 PAK and two PRT patients with a mean follow-up of 61.6 ± 38.7 and 37.8 ± 26.1 months, respectively. There were no differences in postoperative length of stay (9.9 days vs. 8.7 days; P = 0.9) or postoperative complications in the first 3 months (47.4% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.6). At 3-year follow-up, both groups had comparable HBA1c (0.06 vs. 0.05; P = 0.8), serum creatinine (116.6 μmol/L v 131.7 μmol/L; P = 0.09), and oral glucose tolerance tests., Conclusion: Pancreas retransplantation is a safe and effective therapy for select recipients after graft loss. Pancreas retransplantation is associated with the same risk of postoperative complications and has similar intermediate-term graft survival compared to primary PAK transplantation.

Background: Controversy persists over the safety and efficacy of pancreas transplantation in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who have received a prior kidney transplant., Methods: We compared the outcomes of recipients who received either Synchronous-Pancreas Kidney-Transplantation (SPK, n=123) or Pancreas-After-Kidney-Transplants(n=49)at our institution between August 2002 to January 2010., Results: Donor and recipient demographics were similar. Time interval between kidney and pancreas transplantation was 5.9 ± 3.8 (4.8 [1.6-12.2]) years. The majority of kidney-recipients in PAK group were transplanted at outside institutions and referred to us for PAK. Most patients received thymoglobulin induction and were maintained on tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisone. For SPK versus PAK recipients, there was no difference in median of length of hospital stay or incidence of overall complications. All PAK recipients are alive with functioning kidney grafts, whereas the 1-, 3-, and 5-year SPK patient survival rates were 98%,96%,and 94%, P=0.09. The 1-,3-, and 5-yr uncensored pancreas survival rates for SPK versus PAK were 93% vs. 90%, 90% vs. 90%, and 82% versus 85%, respectively (P=0.4)., Conclusion: Glycemic control and intermediate survival outcomes were similar in both groups. Pancreas-graft outcomes in SPK and PAK were equivalent in our study, but our specific population entailed among other factors a long K to PAK time interval; PAK could be a comparable option to SPK for patients with access to kidney grafts.

Background: Thymoglobulin (ATG) and basiliximab induction therapies are used by the majority of centers for pancreas transplantation today. Although both strategies have different mechanisms, there is a paucity of studies comparing them. We compared the efficacy and side effects of both methods in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation., Methods: We analyzed 128 SPKs at our institution between January 2001 and August 2008. Forty-nine patients received basiliximab (40 mg), whereas 79 patients had ATG (5 mg/kg). Graft function, complications, rejection, and survival rates were analyzed., Results: ATG versus basiliximab therapy was associated with decreased 3-month (6% vs. 21%; P=0.01) and 1-year (14% vs. 27%; P=0.049) rejection rate. Steroid-resistant rejections were decreased with ATG (3%) vs. basiliximab (14%) (P=0.01). In a univariate regression analysis, basiliximab induction was a risk factor for rejection (HR, 7.1; CI, 3.8-13). No differences were observed regarding complications and graft function up to 5 years. ATG versus basiliximab therapy resulted in identical 1-year (90% vs. 93%), 3-year (87% vs. 89%), and 5-year (78% vs. 83%) pancreas survival (P=0.7). No difference was observed in kidney survival after 1 year (99% vs. 98%), 3 years (97% vs. 98%), and 5 years (95% vs. 95%) (P=0.4)., Conclusions: ATG versus basiliximab induction therapy results in decreased acute cellular rejection in the first year after SPK with similar side effects. Long-term graft function and survival are not affected by induction regimen.