Studies have found similar outcomes of Simultaneous Pancreas‐Kidney transplantation (SPKT) in patients with Type 2 (T2D) and Type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, there are scarce data evaluating the association of recipient factors such as age, BMI, or pretransplant insulin requirements with outcomes, thus the criteria for the optimal recipient selection remains unclear. In this study, 284 T1D and 39 T2D patients, who underwent SPKT between 2006 and 2017 with 1 year of follow‐up at minimum, were assessed for potential relationship of pretransplant BMI and insulin requirements with posttransplant diabetes and pancreatic graft failure. Kaplan‐Meier analysis showed similar rates of freedom from posttransplant diabetes (94.7% T2D vs. 92.3% T1D at 1 yr, and 88.1% T2D vs. 81.1% T1D at 5 yrs) and graft survival (89.7% T2D vs. 90.4% T1D at 1 yr, and 89.7% T2D vs. 81.2% T1D at 5 yrs). There was no significant association between BMI or pretransplant insulin requirements with posttransplant diabetes occurrence in either T1D (p = .10, .43, respectively) or T2D (p = .12, .63) patients in the cohort; or with graft failure (T1D: p = .40, .09; T2D: p = .71, .28). These observations suggest a less restricted approach to selective use of SPKT in patients with T2D.
Background: The optimal treatment strategy for complex aortic arch and proximal descending aortic pathologies remains controversial. Despite the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique's increasing popularity, its use over the conventional elephant trunk (CET) remains a matter of physician preference and outcomes are varied.Methods: This meta-analysis of available comparative studies of FET versus CET sought to examine differences in survival, reintervention, and adverse events. The following databases were searched from inception-May 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Studies retrieved were then screened for eligibility against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria with a protocol registered on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/hrfze/. Results:The search identified 1911 citations, with five studies included. The resultant meta-analysis included 313 CET and 292 FET cases. FET had lower perioperative mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.42; 0.60], p < .001) and improved 1-year survival compared to CET (hazard ratio: 0.63, 95% CI: [0.42; 0.95], p = .03). There were no significant differences in rates of overall or open reinterventions following FET versus CET, but FET did yield a significantly higher rate of endovascular reintervention (RR: 2.32, 95% CI: [1.17; 4.61], p = .03). No significant differences were observed in the incidences of postoperative stroke, spinal cord injury, or renal failure between groups. Conclusions:The FET technique yields superior rates of perioperative and mediumterm survival with no significant increase in overall reinterventions. There was no significant difference in the rate of spinal cord injury between groups, providing further large-scale evidence that the FET is an acceptable, safe alternative to the CET.
Deep partial thickness burns are clinically prevalent and difficult to diagnose. In order to develop methods to assess burn depth and therapies to treat deep partial thickness burns, reliable, accurate animal models are needed. The variety of animal models in the literature and the lack of precise details reported for the experimental procedures makes comparison of research between investigators challenging, and ultimately impacts translation to patients. We sought to compare deep partial thickness porcine burn models from five well-established laboratories. In doing so, we uncovered a lack of consistency in approaches to the evaluation of burn injury depth that was present within and among various models. We then used an iterative process to develop a scoring rubric with an educational component to facilitate burn injury depth evaluation that improved reliability of the scoring. Using the developed rubric to re-score the five burn models, we found that all models created a deep partial thickness injury and that agreement about specific characteristics identified on histologic staining was improved. Finally, we present consensus statements on the evaluation and interpretation of the microanatomy of deep partial thickness burns in pigs.
Background: Primary cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in high-risk (D+/R-) abdominal solid organ transplant recipients (aSOTRs) is well described, however, little is known of primary CMV disease in low-risk (D-/R-) patients.
Enteric drainage in pancreas transplantation is complicated by an enteric leak in 5%–8%, frequently necessitating pancreatectomy. Pancreatic salvage outcomes are not well studied. Risk factors for enteric leak were examined and outcomes of attempted graft salvage were compared to immediate pancreatectomy. Pancreas transplants performed between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed. Donor, recipient, and organ variables including demographics, donor type, ischemic time, kidney donor profile index, and pancreas donor risk index were analyzed. Among 1153 patients, 33 experienced enteric leaks (2.9%). Donors of allografts that developed leak were older (37.9y vs. 29.0y, p = .001), had higher KDPI (37% vs. 24%, p < .001), higher pancreas donor risk index (1.83 vs. 1.32, p < .001), and longer cold ischemic time (16.5 vs. 14.8 h, p = .03). Intra‐abdominal abscess and higher blood loss decreased the chance of successful salvage. Enteric leak increased 6‐month graft loss risk (HR 13.9[CI 8.5–22.9], p < .001). However, 50% (n = 12) of allografts undergoing attempted salvage survived long‐term. After 6 months of pancreas graft survival, salvage and non‐leak groups had similar 5‐year graft survival (82.5% vs. 81.5%) and mortality (90.9% vs. 93.5%). Enteric leaks remain a challenging complication. Pancreatic allograft salvage can be attempted in suitable patients and accomplished in 50% of cases without significantly increased graft failure or mortality risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.