BACKGROUND:

The role of culturing the graft preservation fluid (PF) is controversial and its impact on graft arteritis development remains unclear.

METHODS:

Systematic literature search retrieving observational studies comparing solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with culture-positive PF versus culture-negative PF. The quality of included studies was independently assessed according to the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenszel random-effect models. Graft site arteritis within 180 days from transplant was selected as the primary outcome.

RESULTS:

Twenty-one observational studies (N = 2208 positive PF vs. 4458 negative) were included. Among positive PF, 857 (38.8%) were classified as high-risk group pathogens and 1351 (61.2%) as low-risk pathogens. Low-risk and negative PF showed similar odds ratios. A significant higher risk of graft arteritis was found in SOT recipients with a PF yielding a high-risk pathogen (odds ratio [OR] 18.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.83-43.40) compared to low-risk and negative PF, with low heterogeneity (I2 = 2.24%). Similar results were found considering separately high-risk bacteria (OR 12.02, 95%CI 4.88-29.60) and fungi (OR 71.00, 95%CI 28.07-179.56), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), and in the subgroup analyses of the liver (OR 16.78, 95%CI 2.95-95.47) and kidney (OR 19.90, 95%CI 4.78-82.79) recipients. However, data about diagnostic features of graft arteritis were very limited, indeed for only 11 of the 93 events histological or microbiological results were reported.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results may support the performance of PF culturing and a preemptive diagnostic or therapeutic management upon isolation of high-risk pathogens. Further studies based on a reliable diagnosis of graft arteritis are needed.

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this study is to report a systematic review and meta-analysis of solid organ transplant (SOT) patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty to compare functional and radiographic outcomes, demographics, and complications with non-transplant patients.

METHODS:

Studies were included if they examined patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of prior solid organ transplantation and included post operative range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, complications, or revisions. Studies were excluded if they were national database analyses or lacked clinical data. Pubmed, MEDLine, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried using relevant search terms in July 2022. Data was pooled, weighted, and a paired t-test and chi-square analysis was performed.

RESULTS:

There were 71 SOT and 159 non-SOT shoulders included in the study. The most common indication for surgery was avascular necrosis (n = 26) in the solid organ transplant group and osteoarthritis (n = 60) in the non-SOT group. Forward elevation, external rotation, ASES, and VAS pain scores improved significantly in both cohorts following surgery. There was no significant difference in age at surgery (p-value = 0.20), postoperative forward elevation (p-value = 0.08), postoperative external rotation (0.84), and postoperative ASES scores (p-value = 0.11) between the two cohorts. VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the SOT cohort (p-value<0.01). The risk of death was significantly higher in the SOT group (p-value<0.01). but the rate of overall complications (p = 0.47), surgical complication (p-value = 0.79), or revision surgery (p-value = 1.00) was not significantly different between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION:

Shoulder arthroplasty is a safe, effective option in patients following solid organ transplant. There is not an increased risk of adverse outcomes, and SOT patients had comparable range of motion and patient-reported outcomes when compared to their non-SOT peers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

III.

OBJECTIVES:

The management of incidentally discovered pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) with surveillance or resection often requires shared decision-making. Patients with cirrhosis are more likely to have PCLs discovered due to increased imaging, and those undergoing liver transplantations (LTs) may be at increased risk of carcinogenesis due to immunosuppressive medications. Our study aimed to characterize the outcomes and risk of malignant progression of PCLs in post-LT patients.

METHODS:

Multiple databases were searched for studies looking at PCLs in post-LT patients from inception until February 2022. Primary outcomes were the incidence of PCLs in LT recipients and progression to malignancy. Secondary outcomes included development of worrisome features, outcomes of surgical resection for progression, and change in size.

RESULTS:

A total of 12 studies with 17,862 patients with 1411 PCLs were included. The pooled proportion of new PCL development in post-LT patients was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42-86; I2 = 94%) over the follow-up of 3.7 (standard deviation, 1.5) years. The pooled progression of malignancy and worrisome features was 1% (95% CI, 0-2; I2 = 0%) and 4% (95% CI, 1-11; I2 = 89%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared with nontransplant patients, incidental PCLs do not carry a higher risk of malignancy.

Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, several studies have suggested similar outcomes between T2D and T1D, and the practice has become increasingly common. Despite this growing interest in pancreas transplantation in T2D, no study has systematically summarized the data to date. We systematically reviewed the literature on pancreas transplantation in T2D patients including patient and graft survival, glycemic control outcomes, and comparisons with outcomes in T2D kidney transplant alone and T1D pancreas transplant recipients. We searched biomedical databases from January 1, 2000, to January 14, 2021, and screened 3314 records, of which 22 full texts and 17 published abstracts met inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were predominantly single center (73%), whereas the remaining most often studied the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Methodological quality was mixed with frequent concern for selection bias and concern for inconsistent definitions of both T2D and pancreas graft survival across studies. Overall, studies generally reported favorable patient survival, graft survival, and glycemic control outcomes for pancreas transplantation in T2D and expressed a need to better characterize the T2D patients who would benefit most from pancreas transplantation. We suggest guidance for future studies, with the aim of supporting the safe and evidence-based treatment of end-stage T2D and judicious use of scarce resources.

BACKGROUND:

Solid organ transplantation has seen improvements in both surgical techniques and immunosuppression, achieving prolonged survival. Essential to graft acceptance and post-transplant recovery, immunosuppressive medications are often accompanied by a high prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and side effects. Apart from GI side effects, long-term exposure to immunosuppressive medications has seen an increase in drug-related morbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, and malignancy. Non-adherence to immunosuppression can lead to an increased risk of graft failure. Recent research has indicated that any microbial imbalances (otherwise known as gut dysbiosis or leaky gut) may be associated with cardiometabolic diseases in the long term. Current evidence suggests a link between the gut microbiome and the production of putative uraemic toxins, increased gut permeability, and transmural movement of bacteria and endotoxins and inflammation. Early observational and intervention studies have been investigating food-intake patterns, various synbiotic interventions (antibiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics), and faecal transplants to measure their effects on microbiota in treating cardiometabolic diseases. It is believed high doses of synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics are able to modify and improve dysbiosis of gut micro-organisms by altering the population of the micro-organisms. With the right balance in the gut flora, a primary benefit is believed to be the suppression of pathogens through immunostimulation and gut barrier enhancement (less permeability of the gut).

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the benefits and harms of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics for recipients of solid organ transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 9 March 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials measuring and reporting the effects of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics, in any combination and any formulation given to solid organ transplant recipients (any age and setting). Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS:

Five studies (250 participants) were included in this review. Study participants were adults with a kidney (one study) or liver (four studies) transplant. One study compared a synbiotic to placebo, two studies compared a probiotic to placebo, and two studies compared a synbiotic to a prebiotic. Overall, the quality of the evidence is poor. Most studies were judged to have unclear (or high) risk of bias across most domains. Of the available evidence, meta-analyses undertaken were of limited data from small studies. Across all comparisons, GRADE evaluations for all outcomes were judged to be very low certainty evidence. Very low certainty evidence implies that we are very uncertain about results (not estimable due to lack of data or poor quality). Synbiotics had uncertain effects on the change in microbiota composition (total plasma p-cresol), faecal characteristics, adverse events, kidney function or albumin concentration (1 study, 34 participants) compared to placebo. Probiotics had uncertain effects on GI side effects, infection rates immediately post-transplant, liver function, blood pressure, change in fatty liver, and lipids (1 study, 30 participants) compared to placebo. Synbiotics had uncertain effects on graft health (acute liver rejection) (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25; 2 studies, 129 participants; I² = 0%), the use of immunosuppression, infection (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17; I² = 66%), GI function (time to first bowel movement), adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.59; I² = 20%), serious adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.36; I² = 81%), death (2 studies, 129 participants), and organ function measures (2 studies; 129 participants) compared to prebiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

This review highlights the severe lack of high-quality RCTs testing the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. We have identified significant gaps in the evidence. Despite GI symptoms and postoperative infection being the most common reasons for high antibiotic use in this patient population, along with increased morbidity and the growing antimicrobial resistance, we found very few studies that adequately tested these as alternative treatments. There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients, and findings should be viewed with caution. We have identified an area of significant uncertainty about the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics separately and with placebo measuring a standard set of core transplant outcomes. Six studies are currently ongoing (822 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with their inclusion in future updates.

BACKGROUND:

Non-adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a significant concern following a solid organ transplant, given its association with graft failure. Adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a modifiable patient behaviour, and different approaches to increasing adherence have emerged, including multi-component interventions. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy.

OBJECTIVES:

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of using interventions for increasing adherence to immunosuppressant therapies in solid organ transplant recipients, including adults and children with a heart, lung, kidney, liver and pancreas transplant.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 14 October 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs examining interventions to increase immunosuppressant adherence following a solid organ transplant (heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas) were included. There were no restrictions on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified records, evaluated study quality and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The ABC taxonomy for measuring medication adherence provided the analysis framework, and the primary outcomes were immunosuppressant medication initiation, implementation (taking adherence, dosing adherence, timing adherence, drug holidays) and persistence. Secondary outcomes were surrogate markers of adherence, including self-reported adherence, trough concentration levels of immunosuppressant medication, acute graft rejection, graft loss, death, hospital readmission and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Meta-analysis was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was carried out for the remainder of the results.

MAIN RESULTS:

Forty studies involving 3896 randomised participants (3718 adults and 178 adolescents) were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of intervention and outcomes assessed. The majority of studies (80%) were conducted in kidney transplant recipients. Two studies examined paediatric solid organ transplant recipients. The risk of bias was generally high or unclear, leading to lower certainty in the results. Initiation of immunosuppression was not measured by the included studies. There is uncertain evidence of an association between immunosuppressant medication adherence interventions and the proportion of participants classified as adherent to taking immunosuppressant medication (4 studies, 445 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20; I² = 78%). There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the four studies evaluating taking adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. There was evidence of increasing dosing adherence in the intervention group (8 studies, 713 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26, I² = 61%).  There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the eight studies evaluating dosing adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. It was uncertain if an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on timing adherence or drug holidays. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on persistence. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on secondary outcomes. For self-reported adherence, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants classified as medically adherent to immunosuppressant therapy (9 studies, 755 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49; I² = 74%; very low certainty evidence). Similarly, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the mean adherence score on self-reported adherence measures (5 studies, 471 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI -0.31 to 1.60; I² = 96%; very low certainty evidence). For immunosuppressant trough concentration levels, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants who reach target immunosuppressant trough concentration levels (4 studies, 348 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; I² = 40%; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication may reduce hospitalisations (5 studies, 460 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; I² = 64%; low certainty evidence). There were limited, low certainty effects on patient-reported health outcomes such as HRQoL. There was no clear evidence to determine the effect of interventions on secondary outcomes, including acute graft rejection, graft loss and death. No harms from intervention participation were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Interventions to increase taking and dosing adherence to immunosuppressant therapy may be effective; however, our findings suggest that current evidence in support of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is overall of low methodological quality, attributable to small sample sizes, and heterogeneity identified for the types of interventions. Twenty-four studies are currently ongoing or awaiting assessment (3248 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with the inclusion of these large ongoing studies in future updates.

There is still controversy regarding clinical outcomes following primary hip arthroplasty after solid organ transplantation (SOT). The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical outcomes after hip arthroplasty differ between previous SOT recipients and control subjects with no history of undergoing SOT. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing the clinical outcomes after hip arthroplasty following SOT published up to January 5, 2022. A comparison of medical and surgery-related complications, as well as the readmission rate and 90-day mortality rate between previous SOT recipients and control subjects was performed. Subgroup analyses of the SOT types, liver transplantation (LT) and kidney transplantation (KT), were also performed. Ten studies that included 3,631,861 cases of primary hip arthroplasty were included; among these, 14,996 patients had previously undergone SOT and 3,616,865 patients had not. Significantly higher incidences of cardiac complications, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were observed in the SOT group compared with the control group. Regarding surgical complications, a higher transfusion rate was observed in the SOT group. The readmission rate and 90-day mortality rate were also significantly higher in the SOT group. A significantly higher incidence of deep vein thrombosis was observed in the KT subgroup compared with the control group. A higher risk of medical and surgical complications, as well as higher readmission and mortality rates after hip arthroplasty was observed for previous SOT recipients compared to patients with no history of SOT.

INTRODUCTION:

The demand for transplanted organs outweighs the supply and intensifies the need to improve care for donor families. Studies have shown inadequate care by hospital staff can increase posttraumatic stress disorder and complicated grief in these families but putting solutions into practice remains slow.

OBJECTIVE:

This systematic review identified factors that relieve or contribute to distress for deceased organ donor families in the time since the decision to donate. Additionally, it provides insights into potential improvements at public health, educational, and health system levels to address these deficiencies.

METHODS:

Search terms included organ don*, famil* or relati*, family-centered, grief, and experience*. The search covered original research articles, published in English, from 2014 to July 2021.

RESULTS:

Four key themes emerged among the studies. (a) Understanding factors that affect the emotional aftermath can help staff prevent posttraumatic stress disorder and complicated grief. (b) Improving communication by hospital staff includes: avoiding medical jargon, providing adequate audio and visual explanations, and understanding that the next of kin is struggling to comprehend the tragedy and the information they are being told. (c) End-of-life care such as memory making, bringing in palliative care resources, and parting ceremonies can assist with familial coping as well as staff interactions. (d) Families want more support in the months and years after the donation decision.

DISCUSSION:

Changes at multiple levels can improve the quality of care for families whose relative gave the gift of life, but more research and translation into practice are needed.

PURPOSE:

The indications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) combined with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undertaking simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPK) remain an unresolved issue. This study aimed to systematically review the survival outcomes of SPK among T2DM-ESKD patients.

METHODS:

Online databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL Library, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wan-Fang database were used to locate the studies of ESKD patients with T2DM undertaking SPK up to May 2021. A third reviewer was consulted if there were disagreements. Data were analyzed with STATA (15.0).

RESULTS:

Nine cohort studies were identified. The pooled 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year patient survival rates of patients with T2DM and ESKD after SPK were 98%, 95%, and 91% respectively. Comparing the treatment effect of SPK between type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and T2DM, the survival estimates were comparable. For T2DM patients, SPK had a survival advantage compared with KTA.

CONCLUSIONS:

The synthesized clinical outcomes of T2DM patients with ESKD after SPK were relatively better than KTA, but a subset of T2DM-ESKD patients who would benefit the most from SPK was to be defined. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019118321. Date of registration: 14 Jan 2019 (retrospectively registered).