2011 - ISBTS 2011 Symposium


Oral Communications 15: Indications

20.314 - The timing of intestinal transplantation – identifying patient subgroups for earlier transplantation

Presenter: Charlotte, Pither, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Authors: Charlotte Pither1,2, Simon Gabe1,3, Rajesh Sivaprakasam2, Samantha Duncan1,2, Helen Tincknell1,2, Myla Manaligod1,2, Beate Mengelkoch1,2, Jeremy Woodward1,2, Bridget Chukualim1,2, Neville Jamieson2, Andrew Butler2, Stephen Middleton1,2


314
The timing of intestinal transplantation – identifying patient subgroups for earlier transplantation

Charlotte Pither1,2, Simon Gabe1,3, Rajesh Sivaprakasam2, Samantha Duncan1,2, Helen Tincknell1,2, Myla Manaligod1,2, Beate Mengelkoch1,2, Jeremy Woodward1,2, Bridget Chukualim1,2, Neville Jamieson2, Andrew Butler2, Stephen Middleton1,2

1Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge University NHS Foundation Hospital, Cambridge, East Anglia, United Kingdom; 2Department of Transplantation, Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge University NHS Foundation Hospital, Cambridge, East Anglia, United Kingdom; 3Intestinal Failure, St Mark’s Intestinal Failure and Academic Unit, Harrow, London, United Kingdom

Introduction: Patient survival after intestinal transplantation has significantly improved over the last 10 years and is now much closer to that of liver, heart and lung at 5 years. Currently it is usually reserved for patients with life threatening complications of parenteral nutrition (PN). We investigated whether subgroups of PN patients might have a better prognosis from early transplantation even if they do not fulfil the usual stringent criteria.

Methods: The survival of a large cohort of patients with intestinal and multi-visceral transplants was compared to their preoperative Cambridge-Miami (CaMi) survival scores (as previously validated).

Patients receiving PN for intestinal failure were assessed retrospectively for factors that were associated with survival. These were evaluated to determine if subgroups with different survival rates could be identified.

These populations were then compared to determine if high risk subgroups of PN patients could be identified who might benefit from early transplantation.

Results: CaMi scores were found to accurately predict survival at 1,3 and 5 years with Receiver-Operator Characteristics (ROC) that gave a “C” statistic ( area under the ROC curve)  of 0.93, 0.95 and 0.84 respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significant increases in mortality with increased CaMi scores.

The primary disease diagnosis and mode of intestinal failure were found to identify subgroups of PN patients with markedly different survival rates.

Comparison of the subgroups in these two patient populations suggests that patients in the PN subgroups associated with poorer survival who have low CaMi scores may have an enhanced survival chance if offered early transplantation, even though they do not fulfil the usual indications for intestinal transplantation as published.

Conclusion: Using the combination of PN survival subgroups to predict prognosis and CaMi scores to predict survival of patients following transplantation it may be possible to identify the optimal time for intestinal transplantation in individual patients.


You must be logged in to view recordings

Important Disclaimer

By viewing the material on this site you understand and accept that:

  1. The opinions and statements expressed on this site reflect the views of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections.
  2. The hosting of material on The Transplantation Society site does not signify endorsement of this material by The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections.
  3. The material is solely for educational purposes for qualified health care professionals.
  4. The Transplantation Society and/or its Sections are not liable for any decision made or action taken based on the information contained in the material on this site.
  5. The information cannot be used as a substitute for professional care.
  6. The information does not represent a standard of care.
  7. No physician-patient relationship is being established.