Trends in the Perioperative Practices for Immunological Assessment and Immunosuppression Strategies for Patients Undergoing Intestinal Transplantation at American Transplant Centers

IF 0.8 4区医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation proceedings Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2025.01.002

Mohammed Abusuliman , Syed-Mohammed Jafri , Bryant B. Summers , Thiago Beduschi , Justin Boike , Douglas G. Farmer , Simon Horslen , Kishore Lyer , Alan N. Langnas , Richard S. Mangus , Cal S. Matsumoto , Alisha M. Mavis , George V. Mazariegos , Shunji Nagai , Jacqueline O'Leary , Thomas D. Schiano , Debra L. Sudan , Amr Abusuliman , Nimisha Sulejmani , Maria Cristina Segovia

{"title":"Trends in the Perioperative Practices for Immunological Assessment and Immunosuppression Strategies for Patients Undergoing Intestinal Transplantation at American Transplant Centers","authors":"Mohammed Abusuliman , Syed-Mohammed Jafri , Bryant B. Summers , Thiago Beduschi , Justin Boike , Douglas G. Farmer , Simon Horslen , Kishore Lyer , Alan N. Langnas , Richard S. Mangus , Cal S. Matsumoto , Alisha M. Mavis , George V. Mazariegos , Shunji Nagai , Jacqueline O'Leary , Thomas D. Schiano , Debra L. Sudan , Amr Abusuliman , Nimisha Sulejmani , Maria Cristina Segovia","doi":"10.1016/j.transproceed.2025.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intestinal transplantation (IT) is a complex procedure that requires nuanced immunosuppressive strategies to optimize patient outcomes. Despite advancements, significant variability remains in immunosuppressive protocols across transplant centers due to a lack of consensus on the optimal approaches for induction, maintenance, and clinical testing. This variability complicates standardization and identification of best practices for IT recipients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A descriptive survey study was conducted to characterize immunosuppressive and testing strategies in IT at major transplant centers in the United States. Ten centers known to have performed over 10 ITs since 2015 were selected from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. A 22-question survey was distributed to surgical directors, collecting data on pre-, peri-, and post-transplant immunological testing, desensitization strategies, immunosuppressive regimens, and management of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Nine centers (90%) responded. All centers conducted pretransplant human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and donor-specific antibody (DSA) testing, with varying frequencies and methodologies. Desensitization was reported by 44% of centers for isolated IT and by 22% for multivisceral transplants. Induction therapy predominantly involved antithymocyte globulin (89%) and rituximab (44%). Tacrolimus was universally used for maintenance, with varying trough level targets across centers. Post-transplant DSA testing was performed by all centers, and protocol-driven endoscopic bowel biopsies were routine at 67% of centers. AMR was diagnosed at 89% of centers, with plasmapheresis and IVIG being the most common treatments. Variability was noted in desensitization practices and AMR management.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This survey highlights considerable consistency in pre- and post-transplant testing and immunosuppressive regimens for IT recipients, while significant variability exists in desensitization strategies and AMR management. Further research is needed to standardize these practices to improve patient outcomes across transplant centers</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23246,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation proceedings","volume":"57 2","pages":"Pages 380-389"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041134525000053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Intestinal transplantation (IT) is a complex procedure that requires nuanced immunosuppressive strategies to optimize patient outcomes. Despite advancements, significant variability remains in immunosuppressive protocols across transplant centers due to a lack of consensus on the optimal approaches for induction, maintenance, and clinical testing. This variability complicates standardization and identification of best practices for IT recipients.

Methods

A descriptive survey study was conducted to characterize immunosuppressive and testing strategies in IT at major transplant centers in the United States. Ten centers known to have performed over 10 ITs since 2015 were selected from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. A 22-question survey was distributed to surgical directors, collecting data on pre-, peri-, and post-transplant immunological testing, desensitization strategies, immunosuppressive regimens, and management of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR).

Results

Nine centers (90%) responded. All centers conducted pretransplant human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and donor-specific antibody (DSA) testing, with varying frequencies and methodologies. Desensitization was reported by 44% of centers for isolated IT and by 22% for multivisceral transplants. Induction therapy predominantly involved antithymocyte globulin (89%) and rituximab (44%). Tacrolimus was universally used for maintenance, with varying trough level targets across centers. Post-transplant DSA testing was performed by all centers, and protocol-driven endoscopic bowel biopsies were routine at 67% of centers. AMR was diagnosed at 89% of centers, with plasmapheresis and IVIG being the most common treatments. Variability was noted in desensitization practices and AMR management.

Conclusion

This survey highlights considerable consistency in pre- and post-transplant testing and immunosuppressive regimens for IT recipients, while significant variability exists in desensitization strategies and AMR management. Further research is needed to standardize these practices to improve patient outcomes across transplant centers

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Transplantation proceedings 医学-免疫学

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

502

审稿时长

60 days

期刊介绍： Transplantation Proceedings publishes several different categories of manuscripts, all of which undergo extensive peer review by recognized authorities in the field prior to their acceptance for publication. The first type of manuscripts consists of sets of papers providing an in-depth expression of the current state of the art in various rapidly developing components of world transplantation biology and medicine. These manuscripts emanate from congresses of the affiliated transplantation societies, from Symposia sponsored by the Societies, as well as special Conferences and Workshops covering related topics. Transplantation Proceedings also publishes several special sections including publication of Clinical Transplantation Proceedings, being rapid original contributions of preclinical and clinical experiences. These manuscripts undergo review by members of the Editorial Board. Original basic or clinical science articles, clinical trials and case studies can be submitted to the journal?s open access companion title Transplantation Reports.

期刊最新文献

Author Index Editorial Board Contents Uncommon Etiology for a Rare Post-Transplant Esophago-Lymphatic Fistula Recurrence of Myopathy After Liver Transplantation for Patients With End-Stage GSD Type IIIa