Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H Yersiz

Publications and source records attributed to H Yersiz.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatitis C: outcome, effect of immunosuppression, and causes of retransplantation during an 8-year single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for end-stage liver disease caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: HCV has become the leading cause of cirrhosis and hepatic failure leading to OLT. Recurrent HCV after OLT is associated with significant complications and may lead to graft loss that requires retransplantation (re-OLT). The authors studied the outcome of transplantation for HCV, the effect of primary immunotherapy, and causes of retransplantation. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of their experience during an 8-year period (1990-1997), during which 374 patients underwent transplants for HCV (298 [79.6%] received one OLT; 76 [20.4%] required re-OLT). Median follow-up was 2 years (range 0 to 8.3). Immunosuppression was based on cyclosporine in 190 patients and tacrolimus in 132 patients. In a third group of patients, therapy was switched from cyclosporine to tacrolimus or from tacrolimus to cyclosporine (cyclosporine/tacrolimus group). RESULTS: Overall, 1-, 2-, and 5-year actuarial patient survival rates were 86%, 82%, and 76%, respectively. The 2-year patient survival rate was 81 % in the cyclosporine group, 85% in the tacrolimus group, and 82% in the cyclosporine/tacrolimus group. In patients receiving one OLT, overall 1-, 2-, and 5-year patient survival rates were 85%, 81%, and 75%, respectively. The 2-year patient survival rate was 79% in the cyclosporine group, 84% in the tacrolimus group, and 80% in the cyclosporine/tacrolimus group. The overall graft survival rates were 70%, 65%, and 60% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The graft survival rate at 2 years was similar under cyclosporine (68.5%), tacrolimus (64%), or cyclosporine/tacrolimus (60%) therapy. Re-OLT was required in 42 (11.2%) patients for graft dysfunction in the initial 30 days after OLT. Other causes for re-OLT included hepatic artery thrombosis in 10 (2.6%), chronic rejection in 8 (2.1%), and recurrent HCV in 13 (3.4%) patients. The overall survival rates after re-OLT were 63% and 58% at 1 and 2 years. The 1-year survival rate after re-OLT was 61 % for graft dysfunction, 50% for chronic rejection, 60% for hepatic artery thrombosis, and 60% for recurrent HCV. At re-OLT, 85.3% of the patients were critically ill (United Network for Organ Sharing [UNOS] status 1); only 14.7% of the patients were UNOS status 2 and 3. In re-OLT for chronic rejection and recurrent HCV, the 1-year survival rate of UNOS 1 patients was 38.4%, compared with 87.5% for UNOS 2 and 3 patients. In patients requiring re-OLT, there was no difference in the 1-year patient survival rate after re-OLT when cyclosporine (60%), tacrolimus (63%), or cyclosporine/tacrolimus (56%) was used for primary therapy. With cyclosporine, three patients (1.5%) required re-OLT for chronic rejection versus one patient (0.7%) with tacrolimus. Re-OLT for recurrent HCV was required in four (3%) and seven (3.6%) patients with tacrolimus and cyclosporine therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Orthotopic liver transplantation for HCV is performed with excellent results. There are no distinct advantages to the use of cyclosporine versus tacrolimus immunosuppression when patient and graft survival are considered. Re-OLT is an important option in the treatment of recurrent HCV and should be performed early in the course of recurrent disease. Survival after re-OLT is not distinctively affected by cyclosporine or tacrolimus primary immunotherapy. The incidence of re-OLT for recurrent HCV or chronic rejection is low after either tacrolimus or cyclosporine therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Liver transplantation for decompensated cirrhosis after jejunoileal bypass: a strategy for management.

BACKGROUND: Although jejunoileal bypass results in end-stage liver disease in up to 100% of patients, little is known about outcome after liver transplantation. METHODS: The clinical courses of six patients who underwent liver transplantation at UCLA for decompensated cirrhosis owing to a jejunoileal bypass were reviewed. Liver function, allograft pathology, renal function, and nutritional status were assessed. RESULTS: Of the four patients with an intact jejunoileal bypass, two of the three who were biopsied had recurrent steatotic liver disease. The two patients whose jejunoileal bypass was reversed at the time of liver transplantation had lower alkaline phosphatase, lower creatinine, higher albumin, and higher cholesterol, and were more obese than their counterparts with intact bypasses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver transplantation for jejunoileal bypass-associated liver disease should, if possible, have their bypass reversed at the time of transplantation; otherwise, they must be followed closely and be biopsied routinely. Recurrent liver disease should prompt reversal of the jejunoileal bypass.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Prophylaxis against hepatitis B recurrence following liver transplantation using combination lamivudine and hepatitis B immune globulin.

Patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatitis B-related liver disease are prone to recurrence. The mainstay of prophylaxis has been passive immunotherapy with hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG). Antiviral therapy with lamivudine has proven effective in lowering hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and improving histology in patients with hepatitis B infection; its role in prophylaxis against hepatitis B recurrence following liver transplantation is under investigation. Viral breakthrough and resistance, however, are a significant problem with monotherapy with either HBIG or lamivudine. The efficacy of combination lamivudine/HBIG prophylaxis has not been reported. Fourteen patients underwent transplantation for decompensated liver disease owing to hepatitis B. Lamivudine (150 mg p.o./d) was begun before transplantation in 10 patients, including 4 who were HBV DNA-positive. In addition, 1 patient was HBV DNA-positive when transplanted. HBIG was given perioperatively and continued thereafter; treatment with lamivudine was maintained or initiated at the time of transplantation and continued indefinitely. The median follow-up was 387 days. Actuarial 1-year patient and graft survival was 93% (1 patient died of unrelated causes). At a median interval of 28 days following lamivudine treatment, all 5 HBV DNA-positive patients cleared HBV DNA from the serum; 1 went on to clear hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), before transplantation, at day 148 of lamivudine treatment. By the highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at a median of 346 days (range, 130-525 days) following transplantation, all 13 surviving patients had no detectable serum HBV DNA. Lamivudine suppresses HBV replication in patients awaiting liver transplantation. At a median follow-up of 1.1 years, combination prophylaxis with lamivudine and HBIG prevented hepatitis B recurrence following liver transplantation.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

In situ splitting of the cadaveric liver for transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The shortage of cadaveric donor livers is the rate-limiting step in clinical liver transplantation. Split liver transplantation provides a means to expand the cadaveric donor pool. However, this concept has not reached its full potential because of inferior patient and graft survival and high complication rates when traditional ex vivo split techniques are used. Therefore we sought to evaluate the safety, applicability, and effectiveness of a new technique for split liver transplantation. METHODS: This study consists of 15 in situ split liver procurements, which resulted in 28 liver transplants. In situ splitting of selected livers from hemodynamically stable cadaveric donors was performed at the donor hospital without any additional work-up or equipment being needed. In situ liver splitting is accomplished in a manner identical to the living-donor procurement. This technique for liver splitting results in a left lateral segment graft (segments 2 and 3) and a right trisegmental graft (segments 1 and 4-8). This procedure required the use of the donor hospital operating room for an additional 1.5-2.5 hr and did not interfere with the procurement of 30 kidneys, 12 hearts, 7 lungs, and 9 pancreata from these same donors. RESULTS: The 6-month and 1-year actuarial patient survival rates were 92% and 92%, respectively, while the 6-month and 1-year actuarial graft survival rates were 86% and 86%, respectively. The 6-month and 1-year actuarial patient survival rate of patients who received a left lateral segment graft was 100% and 100%, respectively, while those who received a right trisegmental graft had 6-month and 1-year rates of 86% and 86%, respectively. The actuarial death-censored graft survival rates at 6 months and 1 year were 80% and 80%, respectively, for the left lateral segment grafts, and 93% and 93%, respectively, for the right trisegmental grafts. Alograft and patient survival was independent of United Network for Organ Sharing status at the time of liver transplantation. No patient developed a biliary stricture, required re-exploration for intra-abdominal hemorrhage, or suffered from portal vein, hepatic vein, or hepatic artery thrombosis CONCLUSIONS: In situ split liver transplantation can be accomplished without complications and provides results that are superior to those obtained previously with ex vivo methods. It abolishes ex vivo benching and prolonged ischemia times and provides two optimal grafts with hemostasis accomplished. This technique decreases pediatric waiting time and allows adult recipients to receive right-sided grafts safely. In situ splitting is the method of choice for expanding the cadaveric liver donor pool.

Actuarial Analysis↗
PubMed1997

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate flush and reperfusion techniques in liver transplantation.

To determine the impact of different flush and reperfusion techniques on postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) and postoperative graft function, 100 transplants were randomly assigned into four groups as follows: group 1 (n=31), portal vein flush, no vena caval venting; group 2 (n=21), hepatic arterial flush, no vena caval venting; group 3 (n=29), portal vein flush with vena caval venting; and group 4 (n=19), hepatic artery flush with vena caval venting. Donor and recipient characteristics were similar. Extensive intraoperative and postoperative monitoring was performed and measurements were documented immediately before reperfusion and at 1, 5, 15, and 30 min after reperfusion. PRS was defined by three criteria: mean arterial pressure (MAP) <60 mmHg at 1 min after reperfusion, MAP <60 mmHg at 5 min after reperfusion, and a decrease of 30% or more for the MAP percent area under the curve during the initial 5 min after reperfusion (%AUC). Using these definitions, the overall incidence of PRS was 21%, 8%, and 43%, respectively. Group 1 was the most hemodynamically stable; the incidence of PRS in group 1 was 2/31 (7%) at 1 min and 8/31 (25%) using %AUC criteria compared with 7/21 (33%) at 1 min and 12/21 (57%) using %AUC criteria for group 2 (P<0.05). The patients in groups 3 and 4 (vena caval venting) demonstrated smaller percentage increases in serum potassium levels (as determined by %AUC; 4.3+/-6.8 and 0.3+/-5.4, vs. 15.1+/-8.1 for group 1 and 22.9+/-8.2 for group 2). The difference between group 4 and group 2 was statistically significant (P<0.05). The increases in serum potassium did not translate into increased cardiac or hemodynamic instability. Combining all data obtained over the first 30 min after reperfusion, there was no statistically significant difference in hemodynamic or biochemical changes noted among the four groups. Postoperative liver function was similar among the four groups. We conclude that portal vein flush without vena caval venting provided a lower incidence of PRS than any other technique. Vena caval venting decreased the release of potassium into the circulation. Postoperative graft function was not significantly affected by flush and reperfusion techniques.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the long-term outcome of patients undergoing hepatic retransplantation at their institution. Donor, operative, and recipient factors impacting on outcome as well as parameters of patient resource utilization were examined. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hepatic retransplantation provides the only available option for liver transplant recipients in whom an existing graft has failed. However, such patients are known to exhibit patient and graft survival after retransplantation that is inferior to that expected using the same organs in naiive recipients. The critical shortage of donor organs and resultant prolonged patient waiting periods before transplantation prompted the authors to evaluate the results of a liberal policy of retransplantation and to examine the factors contributing to the inferior outcome observed in retransplanted patients. METHODS: A total of 2053 liver transplants were performed at the UCLA Medical Center during a 13-year period from February 1, 1984, to October 1, 1996. A total of 356 retransplants were performed in 299 patients (retransplant rate = 17%). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with survival. Additionally, a case-control comparison was performed between the last 150 retransplanted patients and 150 primarily transplanted patients who were matched for age and United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) status. Differences between these groups in donor, operative, and recipient variables were studied for their correlation with patient survival. Days of hospital and intensive care unit stay, and hospital charges incurred during the transplant admissions were compared for retransplanted patients and control patients. RESULTS: Survival of retransplanted patients at 1, 5, and 10 years was 62%, 47%, and 45%, respectively. This survival is significantly less than that seen in patients undergoing primary hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (83%, 74%, and 68%). A number of variables proved to have a significant impact on outcome including recipient age group, interval to retransplantation, total number of grafts, and recipient UNOS status. Recipient primary diagnosis, cause for retransplantation, and whether the patient was retransplanted before or after June 1, 1992, did not reach statistical significance as factors influencing survival. In the case-control comparison, the authors found that of the more than 25 variables studied, only preoperative ventilator status showed both a significant difference between control patients and retransplanted patients and also was a factor predictive of survival in retransplanted patients. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated total hospitalization charges more than 170% of those by control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic retransplantation, although life-saving in almost 50% of patients with a failing liver allograft, is costly and uses scarce donor organs inefficiently. The data presented define patient characteristics and preoperative variables that impact patient outcome and should assist in the rational application of retransplantation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

A prospective study on the reliability and cost effectiveness of preoperative ultrasound screening of the "marginal" liver donor.

With the growing shortage of available liver donors, many donors with risk factors that would have traditionally precluded liver procurement are now being considered. In this prospective study, we evaluated 50 "marginal" liver donors with pre-procurement abdominal ultrasounds and correlated results with findings at procurement and with subsequent allograft function. The results show that the ultrasounds have a specificity of 96% and a sensitivity of 68% in predicting abnormalities in donor livers that precluded transplantation. In addition, using ultrasound to screen marginal donors would result in significant savings in manpower and hospital resource utilization without "missing" any normal liver organs. Our results also show that, when properly selected, livers from donors with one or more high-risk factors function well with acceptable primary nonfunction rates.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed1996

Rapid en bloc technique for pancreas-liver procurement. Improved early liver function.

It is our experience that warm dissection in the porta hepatis as well as extensive organ mobilization during combined pancreas-liver procurements may cause posttransplant dysfunction of the liver. To avoid this, we recently utilized a rapid en bloc procurement technique with minimal warm dissection and division of the liver and pancreas ex vivo. Fifteen procurements were performed using this rapid en bloc technique; seventeen procurements involved extensive dissection followed by sequential in situ procurement of the liver and pancreas grafts. The control group consisted of 15 age-matched patients who received livers when no pancreas was harvested. Dissection time was 157 +/- 13 min (mean +/- SEM) in the in situ group, 78 +/- 3 min in the en bloc group (P<0.02), and 51 +/- 6 min in the liver only group (P<0.02). There was no difference in donor age, cold ischemia time, or recipient United Network for Organ Sharing status. Pancreata obtained using the en bloc technique all had immediate function and there were no episodes of acute pancreatitis. Early liver graft function, as assessed by lactate dehydrogenase, serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase, and total bilirubin levels, was significantly lower in the en bloc and liver only group when compared with the in situ group. The total hospital stay was also significantly lower in these groups. We conclude that the rapid en bloc technique decreases operative time during the donor operation. Procurement-related injury to the liver graft is minimized without compromising pancreas graft function.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Correlation between donor age and the pattern of liver graft recovery after transplantation.

We have observed an increased rate of delayed nonfunction (DNF) of liver grafts procured from older donors. The aim of this study was to correlate donor age and the patterns of graft failure after transplantation. Pattern of liver injury, synthetic function, and graft survival in recipients receiving liver grafts from donor older than age 50 (group I, n = 95) were compared with matched cohort of recipients transplanted with grafts from donors age 20-30 (group III, n = 50). Primary nonfunction (PNF) of the graft was defined as non-recoverable hepatocellular function necessitating emergency retransplantation within 72 hr. DNF was defined as marginal graft function necessitating retransplantation within one month. Recipient characteristics, including age and preoperative UNOS status, were similar between groups. Ischemic/reperfusion injury, reflected by SGOT and SGPT was more severe in older donors. PNF occurred at similar frequencies for all groups (7%). Normal liver function was regained in 76% of recipients in group I, and in 92% in group II. However, cholestatic pattern was observed in recipient of grafts from group I donors. Rapid rise in bilirubin, despite normalization of prothrombin time and liver transaminases, was the hallmark of DNF. DNF resulted in higher retransplantation rate in group I (24% vs. 8% in group II). Donor age did not affect patient survival. Liberalizing criteria for donor selection, and acceptance of older donors is a calculated risk. Over 75% of the recipients will regain normal liver function. However, a higher number of these grafts will exhibit slow recovery after transplantation, and a significant rate of DNF. Recognition of such pattern and early retransplantation should decrease mortality.

Adult↗