Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients

Comparing the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin versus normal saline after liver transplantation: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Venous thrombosis represents a significant complication after deceased-donor liver transplantation, yet there are currently no established protocols for thromboprophylaxis after deceased-donor liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic anticoagulation in patients undergoing deceased-donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

A dual-centre RCT of patients assigned to receive either enoxaparin or normal saline after liver transplantation was conducted. The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of venous thrombosis (portal vein thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis) and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 462 patients were recruited. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 89 patients (19.3%) experienced venous thrombosis and 141 patients (30.5%) experienced major bleeding within 90 days after transplantation. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of venous thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, or deep vein thrombosis between the two groups in the intention-to-treat cohort. The anticoagulant group demonstrated a markedly elevated incidence of major bleeding (35.5% versus 25.5%, P = 0.020). Subgroup analysis revealed that anticoagulation was associated with a lower risk of deep vein thrombosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients (HR 0.44 (95% c.i. 0.23 to 0.86), P = 0.016), without a significantly higher risk of major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Use of prophylactic anticoagulation with enoxaparin is associated with a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding in patients undergoing deceased-donor liver transplantation, rather than a lower likelihood of venous thrombosis.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000032441 (www.chictr.org.cn).

Characterizing coagulation responses in humans and nonhuman primates following kidney xenotransplantation-A narrative review

The recent report of the first pig kidney transplant in a living human brings hope to thousands of people with end-stage kidney failure. The scientific community views this early success with caution as kidney xenotransplantation exhibits many challenges and barriers. One of these is coagulation dysregulation. This includes (i) pig von Willebrand Factor (vWF) interaction with human platelets, which can induce abnormal clotting responses, heightening the risk of graft failure, (ii) the inefficiency of pig thrombomodulin in activating human protein C, which emphasizes the species-specific variations that aggravate coagulation challenges, and (iii) the development of thrombotic microangiopathy in the pig grafts and the occurrence of systemic consumptive coagulopathy in the recipients. Indeed, coagulation dysregulation largely results from differences in endothelial cell response and incompatibilities between pig and human coagulation-anticoagulation pathways. These barriers can be resolved by modifications to pig vWF and the expression of human thrombomodulin and endothelial protein C receptors in pig cells, serving as strategic interventions to align the coagulation systems of the two species more closely. These coagulation challenges have clinical implications in how they affect graft survival and patient outcome. Genetic engineering of the organ-source pig and the administration of various drugs have assisted in correcting this coagulation dysregulation. Hence, comprehending and controlling coagulation dysregulation is crucial for progress in xenotransplantation as a viable option for treating patients with terminal kidney disease.

Anticoagulation in Chronic Kidney Disease

The nuanced landscape of anticoagulation therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) presents a formidable challenge, intricately balancing the dual hazards of hemorrhage and thrombosis. These patients find themselves in a precarious position, teetering on the edge of these risks due to compromised platelet functionality and systemic disturbances within their coagulation frameworks. The management of such patients necessitates a meticulous approach to dosing adjustments and vigilant monitoring to navigate the perilous waters of anticoagulant therapy. This is especially critical considering the altered pharmacokinetics in CKD, where the clearance of drugs is significantly impeded, heightening the risk of accumulation and adverse effects. In the evolving narrative of anticoagulation therapy, the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has heralded a new era, offering a glimmer of hope for those navigating the complexities of CKD. These agents, with their promise of easier management and a reduced need for monitoring, have begun to reshape the contours of care, particularly for patients not yet on dialysis. However, this is not without its caveats. The application of DOACs in the context of advanced CKD remains a largely uncharted territory, necessitating a cautious exploration to unearth their true potential and limitations. Moreover, the advent of innovative strategies such as left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) underscores the dynamic nature of anticoagulation therapy, potentially offering a tailored solution for those at the intersection of CKD and elevated stroke risk. Yet the journey toward integrating such advancements into standard practice is laden with unanswered questions, demanding rigorous investigation to illuminate their efficacy and safety across the spectrum of kidney disease. In summary, the management of anticoagulation in CKD is a delicate dance, requiring a harmonious blend of precision, caution, and innovation. As we venture further into this complex domain, we must build upon our current understanding, embracing both emerging therapies and the need for ongoing research. Only then can we hope to offer our patients a path that navigates the narrow strait between bleeding and clotting, toward safer and more effective care.

Antithrombotic Management in Adult Kidney Transplantation - A European survey study

In kidney transplantation (KTx), renal graft thrombosis (RGT) is one of the main reasons for early graft loss. Although evidence-based guidance on prevention of RGT is lacking, thromboprophylaxis is widely used. The aim of this survey was to obtain a European view of the different thromboprophylactic strategies applied in KTx. An online 22-question survey, addressed to KTx professionals, was distributed by e-mail and via platforms of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. Seventy-five responses (21 countries, 51 centers) were received: 75% had over 10 years' clinical experience, 64% were surgeons, 29% nephrologists and 4% urologists. A written antithrombotic management protocol was available in 75% of centers. In 8 (16%) of centers respondents contradicted each other regarding the availability of a written protocol. Thromboprophylaxis is preferred by 78% of respondents, independent of existing antithrombotic management protocols. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that an anticipated bleeding risk is the main reason to discontinue chronic antithrombotic therapy preoperatively. Intraoperatively, 32% of respondents administer unfractionated heparin (400 - 10.000 international units with a median of 5000) in selected cases. Despite an overall preference for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in KTx, there is a high variation within Europe regarding type, timing and dosage, most likely due to the paucity of high-quality studies. Further research is warranted in order to develop better guidelines.

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 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 all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.