Steroid Free Three Drug Maintenance Regimen for Pancreas Transplant Alone: Comparison of Induction with Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin +/- Rituximab

Graft survival following pancreas transplant alone (PTA) is inferior to other pancreas transplants. Steroid elimination is appealing, but a two drug maintenance strategy may be inadequate. Additionally, recipients tend to have diabetic nephropathy and do not tolerate nephrotoxic medications. A three‐drug maintenance strategy permits immunosuppression through different mechanisms as well as an opportunity to use lower doses of the individual medications. Induction consisted of five doses of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (1 mg/kg/dose). As of October 2007, a single dose of rituximab (150 mg/m2) was added. Maintenance consisted of tacrolimus, sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. From 2004 to 2017, 166 PTA were performed. Graft loss at 7‐ and 90‐ days were 4% and 5%, and one year patient and graft survival were 97% and 91%. Comparing induction without and with rituximab, there was no significant difference in 7 or 90 day graft loss, 1 year patient or graft survival or in the rate of rejection or infection. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction and steroid withdrawal followed by a three drug immunosuppression regimen is an excellent strategy for PTA recipients

Expanding the Donor Pool with Utilization of Extended Criteria DCD Livers

Utilization of donation after circulatory death donor (DCD) livers for transplantation has remained cautious in the U.S. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the expansion of DCD liver transplant (LT) program with the use of extended criteria DCD livers. After institutional review board approval, 135 consecutive DCD LTs were retrospectively studied. ECD DCD livers were defined as those with one of the followings: 1) donor age >50 years, 2) donor BMI >35 kg/m2, 3) donor functional warm ischemia time (fWIT) >30 minutes, and 4) donor liver macrosteatosis >30%. An optimization protocol was introduced in July 2011 to improve outcomes of DCD LT, which included thrombolytic donor flush, and efforts to minimize ischemic times. The impact of this protocol on outcomes was evaluated in terms of graft loss, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) and change in DCD LT volume. Of 135 consecutive DCD LT, 62 were ECD DCDs. 24 ECD DCD LT were performed before (Era I) and 38 after the institution of optimization protocol (Era II), accounting for an increase in the use of ECD DCD livers from 39% to 52%. Overall outcomes of ECD DCD LT improved in Era II, with a significantly lower incidence of IC (5% vs. 17% in Era I; P = 0.03) and better 1‐year graft survival (93% vs. 75% in Era I, P = 0.07). Survival outcomes for ECD DCD LT in Era II were comparable to matched deceased donor (DBD) LT. With the expansion of the DCD donor pool, the number of DCD LT performed at our center gradually increased in Era II to account for > 20% of the center's LT volume. In conclusion, with the optimization of perioperative conditions, ECD DCD livers can be successfully transplanted to expand the donor pool for LT