4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

ABO-Incompatible Liver Transplantation in Acute Liver Failure: A Single Portuguese Center Study

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 1110-1115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.02.012

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. ABO-incompatible liver transplantation (ABOi LT) is considered to be a rescue option in emergency transplantation. Herein, we have reported our experience with ABOi LT including long-term survival and major complications in these situations. Patient and Methods. ABOi LT was performed in cases of severe hepatic failure with imminent death. The standard immunosuppression consisted of basiliximab, corticosteroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. Pretransplantation patients with anti-ABO titers above 16 underwent plasmapheresis. If the titer was above 128, intravenous immunoglobulin (WIG) was added at the end of plasmapheresis. The therapeutic approach was based on the clinical situation, hepatic function, and titer evolution. A rapid increase in titer required five consecutive plasmapheresis sessions followed by administration of IVIG, and at the end of the fifth session, rituximab. Results. From January 2009 to July 2012, 10 patients, including 4 men and 6 women of mean age 47.8 years (range, 29 to 64 years), underwent ABOi LT. At a mean follow-up of 19.6 months (range, 2 days to 39 months), 5 patients are alive including 4 with their original grafts. One patient was retransplanted at 9 months. Major complications were infections, which were responsible for 3 deaths due to multiorgan septic failure (2 during the first month); rejection episodes (4 biopsy-proven of humoral rejections in 3 patients and 1 cellular rejection) and biliary. Conclusion. The use of ABOi LT as a life-saving procedure is justifiable in emergencies when no other donor is available. With careful recipient selection close monitoring of hemagglutinins and specific immunosuppression we have obtained acceptable outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据