Israel Medical Association Journal

Objective: To present our algorithm of urgent and elective donor selection.

Methods: Urgent selection is expeditious and protocol‑based. Elective selection permits a comprehensive process. Both include medical, psychosocial and surgical-anatomic evaluations. Liver volumes and vascular anatomy are evaluated with computerized tomographic angiography. Informed consent is obtained after painstaking explanations. Independent institutional committees review and approve all cases.

Results: Between July 2003 and June 2004 we evaluated 43 potential live donors for 12 potential recipients (fulminant hepatic failure, n=5; chronic end-stage liver disease, n=6); primary graft non-function, n=1). Thirty-three candidates (76%) were excluded due to blood type incompatibility (n=14, 42%), incompatible anatomy (n=8, 24%) – including problematic volume distribution (n=2) or vascular anatomy (n=6) – psychosocial issues (n=4, 12%), or medical co-morbidity (n=7, 22%). Five recipients (FHF[1], n=4; chronic ESLD[2], n=1) were successfully transplanted from living donors. In the acute setting, two patients (FHF, PGNF[3]) died in the absence of an appropriate donor (cadaveric or living donor). In the elective group, one patient died of unexpected variceal bleeding and one received a cadaveric graft just before the planned living donor transplantation was performed. One candidate was transplanted overseas and two cases are scheduled. The ratio of compatibility for donation was 34% (10/29) for blood type-compatible candidates.

Conclusions: Donor selection for living donor liver transplantation is a complex, labor-intensive multidisciplinary process. Most exclusions are due to blood type incompatibility or anatomic details. Psychosocial aspects of these donations warrant special attention.

___________

[1] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

[2] ESLD = chronic end-stage liver disease

[3] PGNF = primary graft non-function

Background: Involvement of the liver by lymphoma is almost always secondary. A definite diagnosis can be made only after histologic examination. Recently, there has been a trend to replace surgical biopsies with percutaneous core-needle biopsies for the diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorders.

Objectives: To describe our experience with percutaneous image-guided needle biopsies of the liver in 15 cases of primary and secondary hepatic lymphoma.

Methods: Between 1997 and 2002, 15 of all the percutaneous computerized tomography-guided core-needle liver biopsies performed at our institution yielded the diagnosis of lymphoma. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of these patients.

Results: Seven patients had primary hepatic lymphoma (all non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), and eight had secondary (three Hodgkin`s disease and five non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma). No major complications were caused by the percutaneous biopsies, and all biopsies were diagnostic. The imaging findings were non-specific but were characteristic and similar to previously described series. Imaging demonstrated hypodense lesions by CT, or hypoechoic or anechoic lesions by ultrasound in all but two cases in which hilar lesions resulted in biliary dilatation, both demonstrated by ultrasound

Conclusions: Review of our primary cases indicated no association with cirrhosis or AIDS in contradistinction to the worldwide experience. There were no significant complications in the 15 patients in the study, and a definite diagnosis of lymphoma was made in all the cases with no need to proceed to surgical biopsy. We highly recommend image-guided core-needle biopsy of the liver as a reliable and useful tool for the diagnosis of hepatic lymphoma.

Background: The prognosis of patients with fulminant hepatic failure without timely liver transplantation is dismal. Given the limited availability of cadaveric organs for urgent transplantation in Israel, adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation may be the only alternative.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with urgent lifesaving LDLT[1] in this unique scenario.

Methods: Three adult patients with FHF[2] (two of unknown etiology, one with paracetamol intoxication) were transferred from other institutions and admitted to our intensive care unit. Initial treatment and monitoring included intracranial pressure monitoring and hepatic dialysis using the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System. Expeditious potential donor selection included medical, psychosocial and surgical evaluation. Liver volume and vascular anatomic compatibility were assessed with computed tomography angiography.

Results: Between July and October 2003 we performed three procedures of urgent adult-to-adult LDLT. The donors (two uncles, one sister) underwent hepatic resection (two right lobes, one left lateral segment) and recovered well. The recipients underwent total hepatectomy with caval preservation, followed by lobar grafting. All recipients recovered and are alive with good liver function and without any neurologic complications.

Conclusions: Urgent adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation can be performed safely and timely as a lifesaving procedure in the setting of comatose patients with FHF.

The Israel Health Ministry is preparing legislation that would allow a person to receive monetary compensation in exchange for donating a kidney for a lifesaving transplant. Such a bill would be the first of its kind, and would seem to establish a policy that is in contrast with both existing international professional ethics and major Christian and Islamic religious ethics. In an attempt to investigate the extent to which such a bill would be consistent with traditional Jewish ethics, we reviewed the opinions of major traditional Jewish ethicists/halakhists, with emphasis on contemporary opinions, and found that compensating an organ donor for his or her time, discomfort, inconvenience, and recovery is fully consistent with traditional Jewish law and ethics.  While non-altruistic sale of kidneys might be theoretically ethical from a Jewish perspective, ultimately its ethical status is inextricably connected to solving a series of pragmatic issues, such as creating a system that insures that potential vendors/donors are properly informed and not exploited; controlling and supervising medical screening and support of the donors to insure that their health is not permanently endangered; protecting minors and incompetents; and regulating payments so that they reasonably reflect compensation for pain and suffering.

Background: In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, with both organs coming from the same donor, the addition of a pancreas to the kidney transplant does not jeopardize the kidney allograft outcome despite higher postoperative SPK morbidity. Pancreas allograft outcome has recently improved due to better organ selection and more accurate surgical techniques.

Objective: To demonstrate the positive impact of SPK on kidney allograft outcome versus kidney transplantation alone in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with end-stage renal failure.

Methods: We performed 39 consecutive SPKs in 14 female and 25 male IDDM patients with renal failure after an average waiting time of 9 months. Multi-organ donor age was 30 years (range 12-53). The kidneys were transplanted in the left retroperitoneal iliac fossa following completion of the pancreas transplantation; kidney cold ischemia time was 16±4 hours. Induction anti-rejection therapy was achieved with polyclonal antithymocytic globulin and methylprednisolone, and maintenance immunosuppression by triple drug therapy (prednisone, cyclosporine or tacrolimus, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil). Infection and rejection were closely monitored.

Results: All kidney allografts produced immediate urinary output following SPK. Two renal grafts had mild function impairment due to acute tubular damage but recovered after a short delay. Three patients died from myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event and abdominal sepsis on days 1, 32 and 45 respectively (1 year patient survival 92%). An additional kidney allograft was lost due to a renal artery pseudo-aneurysm requiring nephrectomy on day 26. Nineteen patients (49%) had an early rejection of the kidney that was resistant to pulse-steroid therapy in 6. No kidney graft was lost due to rejection. Patients with acute kidney-pancreas rejection episodes suffered from severe infection, which was the main cause of morbidity with a 55% re-admission rate. Complications of the pancreas allograft included graft pancreatitis and sepsis, leading to a poor kidney outcome with sub-optimal kidney function at 1 year. Kidney graft survival at one year was 89% or 95% after censoring the data for patients who died with functioning grafts.

Conclusions: Eligible IDDM patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy should choose SPK over kidney transplantation alone from either a cadaver or a living source.

__________________________________

SPK= simutaneous pancreas-kidney transplatation

IDDM= insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Background: Over a 12 month period, the Israel Transplant Center doubled the number of donors by assigning a nurse coordinator to each of 22 hospitals around the country and by using kidneys from elderly donors.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of our "marginal donors" policy on the results immediately following transplantation.

Methods: Between October 1997 and September 1998, 140 cadaveric kidney transplantations from 72 donors were performed in Israel. We defined two groups of recipients: patients with immediate graft function and patients with either delayed graft function requiring >1 week of dialysis post-transplant or with primary graft non-function. We compared the following parameters between groups: donor and recipient age and gender, cause of donor’s death, length of stay in the intensive care unit, vasopressor dosage and creatinine levels before harvesting, cold ischemic time, and the number of recipient grafts.

Results: There were 102 recipients (72.8%) with immediate graft function and 38 with either PNF (n=13, 9.3%) or DGF (n=25, 17.9%). On regression analysis, donor age >50 year and retransplantation were significant risk factors for PNF or DGF (odds ratio 4.4 and 2.8, respectively). Of the 56 kidneys from donors >50 years old, 21 (37.5%) developed either PNF (n=9) or DGF (n=12).

Conclusions: We conclude that kidneys from donors over age 50 are at increased risk for graft non-function or delayed function. Better assessment of functional capacity of kidneys from “aged” donors may help to choose appropriate donors from that pool.

________________________________

PNF = primary graft non-function

DGF = delayed graft function