Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (4)
The wide range of immunosuppressive therapies and protocols permits tailored planning of the initial regimen according to the immunological risk status of individual patients. Pre-transplant risk assessment can include many factors, but there is no clear consensus on which parameters to take into account, and their relative importance. In general younger patients are known to be at higher risk for acute rejection, compounded by higher rates of non-adherence in adolescents. Donor age and recipient gender do not appear to exert a meaningful effect on risk of rejection per se, but black recipient ethnicity remains a well-established risk factor even under modern immunosuppression regimens. Little difference in risk is now observed between deceased- and living-donor recipients. Immunological risk assessment has developed substantially in recent years. Cross-match testing with cytotoxic analysis has long been supplemented by flow cytometry, but development of solid-phase single-bead antigen testing of solubilized human leukocyte antigens (HLA) to detect donor-specific antibodies (DSA) permits a far more nuanced stratification of immunological risk status, including the different classes and intensities of HLA antibodies Class I and/or II, including HLA-DSA. Immunologic risk evaluation is now often based on a combination of these tests, but other assessments are becoming more widely introduced, such as measurement of non-HLA antibodies against angiotensin type 1 (AT1) receptors or T-cell ELISPOT assay of alloantigen-specific donor. Targeted densensitization protocols can improve immunological risk, notably for DSA-positive patients with negative cytotoxicity and flow cross-match. HLA mismatch remains an important and undisputed risk factor for rejection. Delayed graft function also increases the risk of subsequent acute rejection, and the early regimen can be modified in such cases. Overall, there is a shift towards planning the immunosuppressive regimen based on pre-transplant immunology testing although certain conventional risk factors retain their importance.
Improving long-term patient and graft survival after liver transplantation (LT) remains a major challenge. Compared to the early phase after LT, long-term morbidity and mortality of the recipients not only depends on complications immediately related to the graft function, infections, or rejection, but also on medical factors such as de novo malignancies, metabolic disorders (e.g., new-onset diabetes, osteoporosis), psychiatric conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression), renal failure, and cardiovascular diseases. While a comprehensive post-transplant care at the LT center and the connected regional networks may improve outcome, there is currently no generally accepted standard to the post-transplant management of LT recipients in Germany. We therefore described the structure and standards of post-LT care by conducting a survey at 12 German LT centers including transplant hepatologists and surgeons. Aftercare structures and form of cost reimbursement considerably varied between LT centers across Germany. Further discussions and studies are required to define optimal structure and content of post-LT care systems, aiming at improving the long-term outcomes of LT recipients.
Consensus on definition and severity grading of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation
(2020)
Background: The incidence of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation varies considerably in the literature. This is partly because a universally accepted definition has not been established. This study aimed to propose an acceptable definition and severity grading system for lymphatic complications based on their management strategy.
Methods: Relevant literature published in MEDLINE and Web of Science was searched systematically. A consensus for definition and a severity grading was then sought between 20 high-volume transplant centres.
Results: Lymphorrhoea/lymphocele was defined in 32 of 87 included studies. Sixty-three articles explained how lymphatic complications were managed, but none graded their severity. The proposed definition of lymphorrhoea was leakage of more than 50 ml fluid (not urine, blood or pus) per day from the drain, or the drain site after removal of the drain, for more than 1 week after kidney transplantation. The proposed definition of lymphocele was a fluid collection of any size near to the transplanted kidney, after urinoma, haematoma and abscess have been excluded. Grade A lymphatic complications have a minor and/or non-invasive impact on the clinical management of the patient; grade B complications require non-surgical intervention; and grade C complications require invasive surgical intervention.
Conclusion: A clear definition and severity grading for lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation was agreed. The proposed definitions should allow better comparisons between studies.
Selection and prioritization of patients with HCC for LT are based on pretransplant imaging diagnostic, taking the risk of incorrect diagnosis. According to the German waitlist guidelines, imaging has to be reported to the allocation organization (Eurotransplant) and pathology reports have to be submitted thereafter. In order to assess current procedures we performed a retrospective multicenter analysis in all German transplant centers with focus on accuracy of imaging diagnostic and tumor classification. 1168 primary LT for HCC were conducted between 2007 and 2013 in Germany. Patients inside the Milan, UCSF, and up-to-seven criteria were misclassified with definitive histologic results in 18%, 15%, and 11%, respectively. Patients pretransplant outside the Milan, UCSF, and up-to-seven criteria were otherwise misclassified in 34%, 43%, and 41%. Recurrence-free survival correlated with classification by posttransplant histological report, but not pretransplant imaging diagnostic. Univariate analysis revealed tumor size, vascular invasion, and grading as significant parameters for outcome, while tumor grading was the only parameter persisting by multivariate testing. Conclusion. There was a relevant percentage (15-40%) of patients misclassified by imaging diagnosis at a time prior to LI-RADS and guidelines to improve imaging of HCC. Outcome analysis showed a good correlation to histological, in contrast poor correlation to imaging diagnosis, suggesting an adjustment of the LT selection and prioritization criteria.
