MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066943913 · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181ff143d

Pancreas Transplantation After Combined Heart-Kidney Transplantation

2011· letter· en· W2066943913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Minh‐Tri Nguyen, Nadia Giannetti, Marcelo Cantarovich, Renzo Cecere, Prosanto Chaudhury, Steven Paraskevas

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationHeart failureSurgeryEjection fractionHeart transplantationAnginaPancreas transplantationRenal functionKidney transplantationInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the first reported case of pancreas transplantation after combined heart-kidney transplantation for type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1) complicated by end-stage cardiac and renal failure. The patient is a 32-year-old single mother. She had a 20-year history of poorly controlled DM1 (hemoglobin A1c=14.4%, C-peptide negative) complicated by retinopathy, polyneuropathy, gastroparesis, peripheral vascular disease, and nephropathy. She had ischemic cardiomyopathy (class IV angina), for which surgical therapy with coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous stentings of occluded bypass grafts failed. She progressed to end-stage ischemic cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction=35%), requiring multiple hospitalizations for acute heart failure during the past 3 months. Her renal function also deteriorated to a glomerular filtration rate of 28 mL/min/1.73 m2. Therefore, she had evidence of triple organ failure. Because of poor renal function, she was not eligible for a heart transplant alone. Therefore, she first underwent combined heart-kidney transplantation (Table 1). Postoperatively, she remained hospitalized for 1 month because of Clostridium difficile colitis and wound infection. Follow-up heart biopsies were grade 0R/1R, not requiring additional immunosuppression, and serum creatinine remained stable (0.6–0.8 mg/dL).TABLE 1: Donor characteristics and immunosuppressionBecause of poor quality of life from DM1 and its risk to endanger the stable heart-kidney allografts, she subsequently underwent pancreas transplantation with portal venous and enteric exocrine drainage 6 months later (Table 1). Insulin was discontinued on postoperative day 2, and glycemia remained stable thereafter. She was discharged on day 5 and remained without clinical evidence of rejection in all three allografts at 14 months follow-up. She did not require any further hospitalizations, and her quality of life greatly improved. She remains in excellent condition, normoglycemic without exogenous insulin (hemoglobin A1c=5.5%) and has normal serum creatinine and cardiac function, 20 months after heart-kidney and 14 months after pancreas transplantation. This is the first reported case of pancreas transplantation after combined heart-kidney transplantation performed for the rare triad of DM1, end-stage cardiac failure, and end-stage renal failure. The presence of this triad has been traditionally considered a contraindication for heart, kidney, or pancreas transplantation (1). Only one previous reported case of simultaneous heart-kidney-pancreas transplantation has successfully challenged this dogma (1). We decided to perform a combined heart-kidney transplantation followed by subsequent pancreas transplantation instead of the triple organ transplantation for the following reasons. First, our patient absolutely needed heart and kidney transplantation for survival. Although her DM1 was poorly controlled, it was not immediately endangering her life, and we considered delaying pancreas transplantation to minimize risks of early pancreas-related complications threatening graft and patient survival. Simultaneous pancreas transplantation could, in fact, put all grafts at risk from prolonged operative time and reperfusion injury, particularly when heart transplantation by itself already disturbs hemodynamic stability (2). This would increase the chance of pancreas graft failure within the first year and potentially decrease patient survival (3). Also, rate of relaparotomy because of graft thrombosis, duodenal stump leak, severe pancreatitis, or intraabdominal abscess after pancreas transplantation has been reported to be as high as 32% (4). Moreover, starting with a combined heart-kidney transplantation is likely safer because it has been documented to be of equivalent success as solitary heart transplantation in a multicenter trial (5). We believe the previous advantages outweigh the disadvantages of repeat surgical procedure, repeat induction of immunosuppression, and repeat exposure to alloantigens. Despite shared human leukocyte antigen mismatches between the heart-kidney and the pancreas donors, our patient did not experience any episodes of clinical rejection in any of her three allografts at 14 months follow-up. A possible explanation would be a state of tolerance to these antigens. Certain characteristics of multiple or sequential organ transplantations may also play a role in reduction of immunologic risk. It has been theorized that a large burden of transplanted tissue may lead to a state of anergy (6), strength of immune response could be diverted among multiple organs (6), and patients with previous stable grafts are immunologically favored (7). In conclusion, pancreas transplantation after combined heart-kidney transplantation is a viable option for selected patients with severe DM1 complicated by end-stage cardiac and renal failure. Although additional cases need to be reported and long-term immunologic outcomes remain unknown, this approach might confer an advantage to simultaneous heart-kidney-pancreas transplantation with respect to safety and early severe complications and potentially offer a further advantage compared with heart-kidney transplantation alone, with respect to improved diabetic control and quality of life. Staged pancreas transplantation should, however, only be attempted once the combined heart-kidney allografts are stable, and all organs should be followed up individually for evidence of rejection. Minh-Tri J.P. Nguyen1 Nadia Giannetti2 Marcelo Cantarovich2 Renzo Cecere1 Prosanto Chaudhury1 Steven Paraskevas1 1 Multi-Organ Transplant Program Department of Surgery McGill University Health Centre Montreal, QC, Canada 2 Multi-Organ Transplant Program Department of Medicine McGill University Health Centre Montreal, QC, Canada

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207