Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of Surgery logoLink to Annals of Surgery
. 1996 Oct;224(4):440–452. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199610000-00003

Equivalent success of simultaneous pancreas kidney and solitary pancreas transplantation. A prospective trial of tacrolimus immunosuppression with percutaneous biopsy.

S T Bartlett 1, E J Schweitzer 1, L B Johnson 1, P C Kuo 1, J C Papadimitriou 1, C B Drachenberg 1, D K Klassen 1, E W Hoehn-Saric 1, M R Weir 1, A L Imbembo 1
PMCID: PMC1235402  PMID: 8857849

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the results of solitary pancreas transplantation in a protocol that uses the new immunosuppressant tacrolimus (FK) and liberally applies ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreas biopsy to diagnose rejection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pancreas graft survival in patients who simultaneously receive a kidney transplant (SPK) historically has been 75% to 90% at 1 year, approaching that of cadaveric kidney transplantations. In sharp contrast, graft survival rates in patients who receive a pancreas atone (PA) have remained static over the past decade, with approximately 50% functional at 1 year. It was hypothesized that the results of PA transplantations would improve with newer maintenance immunosuppressants and biopsy techniques. METHODS: Twenty-seven PA recipients prospectively were treated with FK-based immunosuppression (PA-FK). Percutaneous biopsy was performed for hyperamylasemia, hyperlipasemia, hypoamylasuria, or unexplained fever. One year pancreas graft survival in these patients was compared to 15 cyclosporine treated PA cases (PA-CsA) and 113 SPK recipients. RESULTS: The 1-year pancreas graft survival rate of 90.1% in technically successful PA-FK patients was significantly better than the 53.4% rate in PA-CsA recipients (p = 0.002) and no different than the 87.4% rate in SPK recipients. The only graft lost to acute rejection in the PA-FK group was because of acknowledged patient noncompliance. Percutaneous biopsy substantially improved the diagnostic certainty in cases of suspected rejection and was associated with a low complication rate (3/178 = 1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Modern immunosuppression and biopsy techniques have improved the success of solitary pancreas transplantations to the point where outcome is now equivalent to that of SPKs.

Full text

PDF
440

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression in liver transplantation. The U.S. Multicenter FK506 Liver Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 27;331(17):1110–1115. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199410273311702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedetti E., Najarian J. S., Gruessner A. C., Nakhleh R. E., Troppmann C., Hakim N. S., Pirenne J., Sutherland D. E., Gruessner R. W. Correlation between cystoscopic biopsy results and hypoamylasuria in bladder-drained pancreas transplants. Surgery. 1995 Nov;118(5):864–872. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6060(05)80277-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Drachenberg C., Klassen D., Bartlett S., Hoehn-Saric E., Schweitzer E., Johnson L., Weir M., Papadimitriou J. Histologic grading of pancreas acute allograft rejection in percutaneous needle biopsies. Transplant Proc. 1996 Feb;28(1):512–513. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gaber A. O., Gaber L. W., Shokouh-Amiri M. H., Hathaway D. Percutaneous biopsy of pancreas transplants. Transplantation. 1992 Sep;54(3):548–550. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199209000-00030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gaber A. O., Shokouh-Amiri M. H., Hathaway D. K., Hammontree L., Kitabchi A. E., Gaber L. W., Saad M. F., Britt L. G. Results of pancreas transplantation with portal venous and enteric drainage. Ann Surg. 1995 Jun;221(6):613–624. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199506000-00001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gruessner A., Sutherland D. E. Pancreas transplant results in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) United States of America (USA) Registry compared with non-USA data in the International Registry. Clin Transpl. 1994:47–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gruessner R. W., Burke G. W., Stratta R., Sollinger H., Benedetti E., Marsh C., Stock P., Boudreaux J. P., Martin M., Drangstveit M. B. A multicenter analysis of the first experience with FK506 for induction and rescue therapy after pancreas transplantation. Transplantation. 1996 Jan 27;61(2):261–273. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199601270-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gruessner R. W., Nakhleh R., Tzardis P., Platt J. L., Schechner R., Gruessner A., Tomadze G., Matas A., Najarian J. S., Sutherland D. E. Rejection in single versus combined pancreas and kidney transplantation in pigs. Transplantation. 1993 Nov;56(5):1053–1062. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199311000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gruessner R. W., Nakhleh R., Tzardis P., Schechner R., Gruessner A. C., Matas A. J., Najarian J. S., Sutherland D. E. Rejection patterns after simultaneous pancreaticoduodenal-kidney transplants in pigs. Transplantation. 1994 Mar 15;57(5):756–760. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gruessner R. W., Nakhleh R., Tzardis P., Schechner R., Platt J. L., Gruessner A., Tomadze G., Najarian J. S., Sutherland D. E. Differences in rejection grading after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation in pigs. Transplantation. 1994 Apr 15;57(7):1021–1028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jordan M. L., Shapiro R., Vivas C. A., Scantlebury V. P., Rhandhawa P., Carrieri G., McCauley J., Demetris A. J., Tzakis A., Fung J. J. FK506 "rescue" for resistant rejection of renal allografts under primary cyclosporine immunosuppression. Transplantation. 1994 Mar 27;57(6):860–865. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199403270-00016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Klassen D. K., Hoen-Saric E. W., Weir M. R., Papadimitriou J. C., Drachenberg C. B., Johnson L., Schweitzer E. J., Bartlett S. T. Isolated pancreas rejection in combined kidney pancreas tranplantation. Transplantation. 1996 Mar 27;61(6):974–977. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199603270-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kuhr C. S., Davis C. L., Barr D., McVicar J. P., Perkins J. D., Bachi C. E., Alpers C. E., Marsh C. L. Use of ultrasound and cystoscopically guided pancreatic allograft biopsies and transabdominal renal allograft biopsies: safety and efficacy in kidney-pancreas transplant recipients. J Urol. 1995 Feb;153(2):316–321. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199502000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lowell J. A., Bynon J. S., Nelson N., Hapke M. R., Morton J. J., Brennan D. C., Radio S. J., Stratta R. J., Taylor R. J. Improved technique for transduodenal pancreas transplant biopsy. Transplantation. 1994 Mar 15;57(5):752–753. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199403150-00022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nakhleh R. E., Benedetti E., Gruessner A., Troppmann C., Goswitz J. J., Sutherland D. E., Gruessner R. W. Cystoscopic biopsies in pancreaticoduodenal transplantation. Are duodenal biopsies indicative of pancreas dysfunction? Transplantation. 1995 Sep 27;60(6):541–546. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199509270-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nakhleh R. E., Gruessner R. W., Swanson P. E., Tzardis P. J., Brayman K., Dunn D. L., Sutherland D. E. Pancreas transplant pathology. A morphologic, immunohistochemical, and electron microscopic comparison of allogeneic grafts with rejection, syngeneic grafts, and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991 Mar;15(3):246–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nakhleh R. E., Sutherland D. E. Pancreas rejection. Significance of histopathologic findings with implications for classification of rejection. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992 Nov;16(11):1098–1107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nakhleh R. E., Sutherland D. E., Tzardis P., Schechner R., Gruessner R. W. Correlation of rejection of the duodenum with rejection of the pancreas in a pig model of pancreaticoduodenal transplantation. Transplantation. 1993 Dec;56(6):1353–1356. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199312000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Perkal M., Marks C., Lorber M. I., Marks W. H. A three-year experience with serum anodal trypsinogen as a biochemical marker for rejection in pancreatic allografts. False positives, tissue biopsy, comparison with other markers, and diagnostic strategies. Transplantation. 1992 Feb;53(2):415–419. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199202010-00028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Prieto M., Sutherland D. E., Fernandez-Cruz L., Heil J., Najarian J. S. Urinary amylase monitoring for early diagnosis of pancreas allograft rejection in dogs. J Surg Res. 1986 Jun;40(6):597–604. doi: 10.1016/0022-4804(86)90103-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Radio S. J., Stratta R. J., Taylor R. J., Linder J. The utility of urine cytology in the diagnosis of allograft rejection after combined pancreas-kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 1993 Mar;55(3):509–516. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199303000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Solez K., Axelsen R. A., Benediktsson H., Burdick J. F., Cohen A. H., Colvin R. B., Croker B. P., Droz D., Dunnill M. S., Halloran P. F. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int. 1993 Aug;44(2):411–422. doi: 10.1038/ki.1993.259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sollinger H. W. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation. 1995 Aug 15;60(3):225–232. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199508000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stratta R. J., Taylor R. J., Bynon J. S., Lowell J. A., Sindhi R., Wahl T. O., Knight T. F., Weide L. G., Duckworth W. C. Surgical treatment of diabetes mellitus with pancreas transplantation. Ann Surg. 1994 Dec;220(6):809–817. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199412000-00015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Troppmann C., Gruessner A. C., Benedetti E., Papalois B. E., Dunn D. L., Najarian J. S., Sutherland D. E., Gruessner R. W. Vascular graft thrombosis after pancreatic transplantation: univariate and multivariate operative and nonoperative risk factor analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 1996 Apr;182(4):285–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wong J. J., Krebs T. L., Klassen D. K., Daly B., Simon E. M., Bartlett S. T., Grumbach K., Drachenberg C. B. Sonographic evaluation of acute pancreatic transplant rejection: morphology-Doppler analysis versus guided percutaneous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Apr;166(4):803–807. doi: 10.2214/ajr.166.4.8610554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Surgery are provided here courtesy of Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins

RESOURCES