Liver transplantation for glycogen storage disease types I, III, and IV

Glycogen storage disease (GSD) types I, III, and IV can be associated with severe liver disease. The possible development of hepatocellular carcinoma and/or hepatic failure make these GSDs potential candidates for liver transplantation. Early diagnosis and initiation of effective dietary therapy have dramatically improved the outcome of GSD type I by reducing the incidence of liver adenoma and renal insufficiency. Nine type I and 3 type III patients have received liver transplants because of poor metabolic control, multiple liver adenomas, or progressive liver failure. Metabolic abnormalities were corrected in all GSD type I and type III patients, while catch-up growth was reported only in two patients. Whether liver transplantation results in reversal and/or prevention of renal disease remains unclear. Neutropenia persisted in both GSDIb patients post liver transplantation necessitating continuous granulocyte colony stimulating factor treatment. Thirteen GSD type IV patients were liver transplanted because of progressive liver cirrhosis and failure. All but one patient have not had neuromuscular or cardiac complications during follow-up periods for as long as 13 years. Four have died within a week and 5 years after transplantation. Caution should be taken in selecting GSD type IV candidates for liver transplantation because of the variable phenotype, which may include life-limiting extrahepatic manifestations. It remains to be evaluated, whether a genotype-phenotype correlation exists for GSD type IV, which may aid in the decision making. Conclusion Liver transplantation should be considered for patients with glycogen storage disease who have developed liver malignancy or hepatic failure, and for type IV patients with the classical and progressive hepatic form

Low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism

Background Low-molecular-weight heparin is known to be safe and effective for the initial Treatment of patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. However, its application to patients with pulmonary embolism or previous episodes of thromboembolism has not been studied. Methods We randomly assigned 1021 patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism to fixed-dose, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (reviparin sodium) or adjusted-dose, intravenous unfractionated heparin. Oral anticoagulant therapy with a coumarin derivative was started concomitantly and continued for 12 weeks, Approximately one third of the patients had associated pulmonary embolism, The outcome events studied over the 12 weeks were symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death. We sought to determine whether low-molecular-weight heparin is at least equivalent to unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism. Results Twenty-seven of the 510 patients assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (5.3 percent) had recurrent thromboembolic events, as compared with 25 of the 511 patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (4.9 percent). The difference of 0.4 percentage point indicates that the two therapies have equivalent value according to our predetermined definition of equivalence. Sixteen patients assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (3.1 percent) and 12 patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (2.3 percent) had episodes of major bleeding (P=0.63), and the mortality rates in the two groups were 7.1 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively (P=0.89). Conclusions Fixed-dose, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is as effective and safe as adjusted-dose, intravenous unfractionated heparin for the initial management of venous thromboembolism, regardless of whether the patient has pulmonary embolism or a history of venous thromboembolism. (C) 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society