Acute Cellular Rejection Monitoring After Intestinal Transplant: Utility of Serologic Markers and Zoom Videoendoscopy as Support of Conventional Biopsy and Clinical Findings

Should a Stoma Be Used After Intestinal Transplant

As we all acknowledge benefits of ostomies, they can come with significant morbidity, quality of life issues, and major complications, especially during reversal procedures. In recent years, we have started to observe that similar graft and patient survival can be achieved without ostomies in certain cases. This observation and practice adopted in a few large-volume transplant centers opened a new discussion about the necessity of ostomies in intestinal transplantation. There is still more time and randomized studies will be needed to better understand and analyze the risk/benefits of "No-ostomy" approach in intestinal transplantation.

Evaluating the diagnostic value of zoom endoscopic surveillance compared to routine biopsy after intestinal transplantation

BACKGROUND

After intestinal transplantation, close allograft monitoring especially during the early postoperative period is crucial since the intestine is a highly immunogenic organ. Current protocols are based on endoscopic and histologic examination with the latter one being linked to the risk of bleeding and perforation.

AIMS

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of endoscopy utilizing magnification to predict acute cellular rejection compared to routine allograft biopsies.

METHODS

Fourteen patients underwent the protocol with longitudinal zoom endoscopic and histological graft monitoring during the first year after transplantation. The intestinal mucosa was analyzed during endoscopy utilizing the SASAKI score while a minimum of two biopsies were taken during each examination. A new graduation of severity for acute cellular rejection based on the findings of the SASAKI score is established.

RESULTS

Endoscopic findings of 385 examinations and more than 1000 intestinal allograft biopsies were analyzed. A total of 7 acute cellular rejection episodes in 6/14 patients occurred. Allograft endoscopy was able to diagnose ACR with a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results will be critical for refining protocols for allograft monitoring after intestinal transplantation thus paving the way towards less invasive measures.

Long-term endoscopic follow-up in small bowel transplant recipients: single-center series

BACKGROUND

The reliability of endoscopic findings after adult intestinal transplantation on short-term follow-up has been shown. The aim of this study was to evaluate in a long-term follow-up the diagnostic value of endoscopies compared with the biopsy value.

METHODS

We evaluated 52 endoscopies over a period of 2 years (2 in each patient in 2010 and 1 in each patient in 2011, plus 1 endoscopy for suspected post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease [PTLD]) on 17 recipients transplanted between the years 2000 and 2006 (more than 5 years of follow-up).

RESULTS

All the 52 endoscopic findings were comparable to biopsy definitive results: only 1 case of mild enteritis and 1 case of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) chronic infection at biopsy were not diagnosed by endoscopy. One case of rectal PTLD and 1 of EBV-related enteritis were diagnosed by use of both procedures. Specificity was 98%: we did not calculate sensitivity because no episodes of rejection were diagnosed because recipients were stable in long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy is a reliable procedure even on a long-term follow-up after intestinal transplantation, allowing a support to biopsy for diagnosis on adult recipients, especially for EBV infections and PTLD surveillance.

Intestinal and multivisceral retransplantation results: literature review

BACKGROUND

Intestinal/multivisceral transplantation (IT/MVT) is the gold standard treatment for patients with intestinal failure and complications related to total parenteral nutrition, gastrointestinal inoperable indolent tumors, or diffuse portal trombosis. Currently, the reported 1-year patient survival rate is around 80%, similar to other solid organ abdominal transplantations. Unfortunately, the patient survival decreases after the first year with the 5-year rate not close to 70% yet. Acute cellular rejection is the main cause of graft loss. Its early diagnosis may make it possible to improve survival of retransplantations.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the reported results published in the last 5 years by leading transplant centers to evaluate IT/MVT retransplantation results.

METHODS

We performed a literature review using PubMed focusing on multivisceral and intestinal retransplantation in articles published between 2006 and 2012. In relation to the first transplantation, we analyzed demographics, imunosuppression, rejection, infection as well as graft and patient survival rates.

RESULTS

Two centers reported results on intestinal and multivisceral retransplantations. Mazariegos et al reported their experience with 15 intestinal retransplantations in 14 pediatric recipients. Four patients died from posttransplant lymphoperliferative disease, severe acute cellular rejection, fungal sepsis, or bleeding from a pseudoaneurysm at a mean time of 5.7 months post-transplantation. Total parenteral nutrition was weaned at a median time of 32 days. Abu-Elmaged et al reported 47 cases with a 5-year survival of 47% for all retransplant modalities. Retransplantation with liver-contained visceral allograft achieved a 5-year survival rate of 61% compared with 16% for liver-free visceral grafts.

CONCLUSION

Despite those huge improvements, some transplanted patients develop severe acute cellular rejection, culminating in graft loss and retransplantation. Repots on multivisceral and intestinal retransplantation outcomes suggest that it is a viable procedure with appropriate patient survival after primary graft loss.