Review Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Transplantation. Nov 30, 2018; 8(7): 237-251
Published online Nov 30, 2018. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v8.i7.237
Solid pancreas transplant: Pushing forward
Emmanouil Giorgakis, Amit K Mathur, Kunam S Reddy, Adyr A Moss, Andrew L Singer, Division of Transplant, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, United States
Emmanouil Giorgakis, Department of Transplant, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States
Harini A Chakkera, Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, United States
ORCID number: Emmanouil Giorgakis (0000-0002-5019-5497); Amit K Mathur (0000-0002-9215-2014); Harini A Chakkera (0000-0002-9456-0863); Kunam S Reddy (0000-0001-8912-2108); Adyr A Moss (0000-0002-5617-3037); Andrew L Singer (0000-0001-8679-4785).
Author contributions: Giorgakis E designed the study, performed data collection, and wrote the manuscript; Chakkera HA, Reddy KS, and Moss AA reviewed and edited the manuscript; Mathur AK and Singer AL contributed to conceptualization, study design, editing and final approval of the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author to: Emmanouil Giorgakis, MD, MSc, Surgeon, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Department of Transplant, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. egiorgakis@uams.edu
Telephone: +1-501-5266380
Received: June 9, 2018
Peer-review started: June 9, 2018
First decision: July 12, 2018
Revised: November 10, 2018
Accepted: November 15, 2018
Article in press: November 15, 2018
Published online: November 30, 2018

Abstract

Pancreas transplant has evolved significantly in recent years. It has now become a viable treatment option on type 1 diabetic patients with poorly controlled diabetes on conventional treatment, insulin intolerance, hypoglycaemia unawareness, brittle diabetes and/ or end-stage kidney disease. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of pancreas transplant historical origins and current barriers to broader utilization of pancreata for transplant, with a focus on areas for future improvement to better pancreas transplant care. Donor pancreata remain underutilized; pancreatic allograft discard rates remain close to 30% in the United States. Donations after cardiac death (DCD) pancreata are seldom procured. Study groups from Europe and the United Kingdom showed that procurement professionalization and standardization of technique, as well as development of independent regional procurement teams might increase organ procurement efficiency, decrease discards and increase pancreatic allograft utilization. Pancreas transplant programs should consider exploring pancreas procurement opportunities on DCD and obese donors. Selected type 2 diabetics should be considered for pancreas transplant. Longer follow-up studies need to be performed in order to ascertain the long-term cardiovascular and quality of life benefits following pancreas transplant; the outcomes of which might eventually spearhead advocacy towards broader application of pancreas transplant among diabetics.

Key Words: Pancreas transplant, Whole pancreas transplant, Donations after cardiac death pancreas transplant, Obese pancreas donors, Pancreas transplant for type 2 diabetes

Core tip: Pancreas transplant has become a viable treatment option on type 1 diabetics. The purpose of this review is to describe current barriers to broader pancreatic allograft utilization, and focus on areas for future improvement. Donor pancreata, especially Donations after cardiac death (DCD), remain underutilized. Procurement professionalization might decrease discards and increase pancreatic allograft utilization. Pancreas procurements should be extended to DCDs and suitable obese donors. C-peptide positive non-obese brittle diabetics may be suitable transplant candidates. Longer studies on pancreas transplant cardiovascular benefits are needed; this might eventually drive pancreas transplant advocacy among diabetics.



BACKGROUND

In 1894, Williams[1] reported the implantation of minced sheep’s pancreas to a 15-year-old diabetic boy for the treatment of his ketoacidosis. In 1922, Banting et al[2] reported the use of pancreatic extract to treat diabetes mellitus (DM) in human, seemingly heralding the end of this scourge for all time. The discovery of insulin detracted from pancreatic transplant until 1966, at which time Kelly and Lillehei performed the first simultaneous human kidney-pancreas allotransplant from a deceased donor into a 28-year-old woman at the University of Minnesota, 3 years after the first reported kidney allotransplant[3]. The first living donor pancreas transplant was performed at the University of Minnesota, in 1979[4].

Other early efforts included islet cell transplant. Ballinger and Lacy demonstrated islet of Langerhans’ isolation and subsequent in vivo post-transplant function in rats in 1972[5]. Najarian and Sutherland performed the first clinical islet transplant in 1974[6]. Further subsequent efforts culminated in the introduction of the Edmonton Protocol for islet cell transplant by Shapiro et al[7] in 2000.

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR), as of end of 2014, over 48000 pancreas transplants were reported internationally, with approximately 29000 transplants performed in the United States alone[8]. Nonetheless, pancreas transplant rates have declined in the United States by 33% from 2004 (approximately 1500) to 2014 (approximately 1000)[9]. Similar trends were identified in the Organ Donation and Transplant (ODT) report in the United Kingdom[10]: during 2015-2016, the total number of pancreas and kidney/pancreas transplants decreased by 37.9% and 3.5% respectively.

Paradoxically, this pancreas transplant decline has occurred despite of reported improvements in graft and patient survival outcomes. According to the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN)/ Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) 2014 Annual Data Report, graft and patient survival improved[8]. These positive outcomes were attributed to improvements in recipient and organ selection, introduction of T-cell depleting agents for immunosuppression induction, and combined use of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil for maintenance immunosuppression[11].

In an era of an increasingly aggressive approach in other solid organ transplant categories, the transplant community seems to have remained conservative with pancreas allograft utilisation, at least within the United States territory[9]. This is presumed to be multifactorial[12].

Aim of this review is to outline the current pancreas transplant status, address barriers in pancreas donation and transplant, and describe ways to optimise pancreatic allograft utilisation and transplant of previously considered as unconventional pancreas transplant candidates.

Indications and types of pancreas transplant

Pancreas transplant has become an accepted treatment modality for both uremic and non-uremic patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Pancreas transplant restores glucose homeostasis, relieving the patient from the need of ongoing glucose monitoring, insulin injections and the risk of life-threatening diabetic hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis. Nonetheless, considering the transplant-related morbidity and mortality plus the lifetime need for immunosuppression, not all T1DM patients should be considered for pancreas transplant.

Pancreas transplant has also become a viable option on T1DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes despite conventional treatment, insulin intolerance, hypoglycaemia unawareness, brittle diabetes or end-stage kidney disease. There are currently 7 types of pancreas transplant: (1) simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPK). As per UNOS guidelines, SPK is indicated for T1DM patients or those with detectable C-peptide levels [as a surrogate indicator of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)], who are insulin dependent, have a body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2, and end stage renal disease, who are currently on dialysis or expected to require dialysis within 6 mo[13]; (2) pancreas transplant alone (PTA), indicated primarily for T1DM with hypoglycaemia unawareness, non-compliance with insulin treatment and/or impaired quality of life and adequate glomerular filtration rate to render the need of kidney transplant unlikely[14,15]; (3) pancreas-after-kidney transplant (PAK), indicated for patients who would qualify for a PTA and already have a viable renal allograft[16,17]; (4) simultaneous deceased donor pancreas and live donor kidney transplant, indicated for patients who would qualify for SPK. This approach is expected to result in reduced waiting times, lower delayed graft function (DGF) rates and better outcomes[18]; (5) total pancreatectomy and islet cell autotransplant (TPIAT). According to the PancreasFest consensus, TPIAT is indicated in selected patients with intractable pain related to chronic pancreatitis despite other appropriate treatment modalities, and no psychosocial or medical contraindications[19]. In the United States, TPIAT is subject only to regulation of human cells and tissues (the tissue rules). The centers performing it should be registered with the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and follow the Current Good Tissue Practices, without being required to submit FDA drug application[20]; (6) laparoscopic donor distal pancreatectomy for living donor solid pancreas or islet allotransplant and pancreas-kidney transplant[21,22]; and (7) islet allotransplant. The implantation of deceased donor islets of Langerhans is a promising treatment for T1DM with labile diabetes, recurrent hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia unawareness[19]. In the United States, islet cell allotransplant is currently investigational and subject to both the FDA published guidelines on the tissue rules and the biologic and drug provisions.

SPK is by far the commonest pancreas transplant type. According to the SRTR data (United States), in 2014, 77% of pancreas transplants were SPKs, while PAK and PTA accounted for 13.6% and 9% of the transplants performed, respectively[8].

Outcomes

According to IPTR, in 2007, PTA, SPK and PAK 1-year unadjusted patient survival was 95%-97%; the 5-year survival was 91%, 87% and 83%, respectively. PTA recipients were by definition non-uremic. These findings raised the question whether T1DM patients benefit from a pancreas transplant over a kidney transplant alone. Gruessner et al[23] assessed mortality of pancreas transplant recipients over those on the waiting list (WL). Transplant recipients had elevated hazard ratios in the immediate post-transplant period up to 3 mo post-transplant[23]. However, 4 years’ follow-up showed SPK patient survival benefit compared to WL (90% vs 59%). PAK and PTA survival benefits were indeterminate in 4 years, possibly because WL mortality in these cohorts was lower due to their non-uremic status and younger age (PTA)[23].

On their mortality assessment, Gruessner et al[23] reported that, kidney allograft failure after SPK/PAK increases patient death risk by eleven-fold. The pertinent question remains whether these patients benefit from a functioning pancreas allograft. Most studies provided conflicting reports, partly due to insufficient follow-up and dependence on registry data[24-30]. Morath et al[31,32] (Heidelberg University, Germany) performed a very long term follow-up analysis based on the International Collaborative Transplant Study and observed that SPK graft and patient survival allograft outcomes were equivalent to living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) outcomes at 10 years; and, most importantly, that very long term survival (18-20 years) was superior among the SPK over the kidney transplant alone (on both LDKT and deceased donor kidney transplant recipients). The authors also noted decreased long-term cardiovascular events among the SPK patients[31,32]. These findings should trigger extension of follow-up analysis across more pancreas transplant centers.

It remains unclear if re-establishment of long-standing euglycemia can halt or reverse end-organ diabetic complications. Fioretto et al[33] estimated that a period of 10 years of euglycemia is a necessary interval to reverse diabetic nephropathy features.

DONOR PANCREATA
Current status

Across the United States, transplant surgeons often appear reluctant to consider pancreas allografts from donors considered as marginal for pancreas donation. As marginal are characterized older (> 50 years of age), obese, and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. According to OPTN/UNOS, between 2003 to 2014, there has been a decrease in donors aged over 50, with 83% of donors aged less than 35 years[8]; among the organs recovered, there were more recorded pancreatic discards from donors 50 years or older[8]. During the same period, obese pancreas donors decreased from 56.3% to 34.6%[8]. These findings may indicate diminished intent to use pancreata from marginal donors[8].

Expanding the pancreas donor pool

According to the OPTN/ SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report, since implementation of the new pancreas allocation system in October 2014, there has been an increase in the number of pancreas transplants for the first time over a decade[34]. At the same period, total active listings have also decreased, reaching a historic low[34]. Despite the above, the average WL times have remained largely unchanged, with 34.2% of patients waiting between 1 and 3 years[34]. Even though WL mortality has improved marginally over the recent years, there is still remarkable geographical variation across the United States, ranging from 0 to 15%[34]. At the same time, pancreas transplant programs have become more liberal with their candidates’ selection, as indicated by an increased proportion of T2DM patients (9.9% in 2016), of recipients aged over 50 years, and of candidates with higher BMI[34]. Unless the pancreas donor pool is expanded, this more aggressive approach is expected to attract increasing numbers of transplant candidates and stretch the WL times further. In order to restrain WL times, decrease WL mortality and eliminate regional disparities in pancreas transplant access, it is necessary to expand the pancreas donor pool and increase pancreas transplant rates.

Utilization of pancreatic allografts from obese donors: Steatosis is a primary concern in evaluating pancreas allograft quality[35]. The effect of steatosis on the pancreas allograft is presumably twofold: first, macrovesicular pancreatic steatosis may result in microvascular occlusion and thrombosis; second, adiponecrosis can potentially trigger inflammation and post-reperfusion graft pancreatitis[35,36]. Donor obesity, the latter defined as donors with BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater, is a surrogate indicator of pancreatic steatosis; as such, obesity has been associated with poor pancreas transplant outcomes. For this reason, transplant centers commonly decline pancreatic allografts from obese donors. An OPTN database analysis of 9916 SPKs performed during period 2000-2013 compared the effect of donor BMI on graft outcome. The donors were categorized into 4 BMI groups: 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, and > 35 kg/m2. BMI 20-25 kg/m2 donor outcomes were compared to the rest of the groups. Only BMI > 35 kg/m2 was associated with inferior kidney and pancreas allograft survival. BMI 30-35 kg/m2 did not affect 3 mo, 1-, 5-, and 10-year kidney and pancreas graft survival. The authors concluded that pancreata from donors with BMI 30-35 kg/m2 might be used safely for transplant[37]. Certainly, this retrospective analysis is skewed due to potential discards upon visual of organs with significant interacinar fat infiltration or evidence of acute or chronic inflammation.

DCD pancreas utilization: DCD allografts have been used successfully in liver and kidney transplant. The concept of DCD pancreas transplant is not new; it has become an increasingly common practice in several European countries and the United Kingdom[38,39]. In the latter, DCD pancreas transplant accounts for up to 19.5% of transplanted pancreatic allografts[38]. However, in the United States, DCD pancreatic donation has remained out of favor, accounting for as low as 1.5 % of transplanted pancreata over period 1996 to 2014[40].

Various studies have compared DCD vs DBD pancreas transplant outcomes (Table 1). The University of Wisconsin has been pioneering DCD pancreas utilization in the United States, reporting no difference in graft survival, function, complication or rejection rates between DBD and DCD pancreata; even though it did report longer renal DGF in the DCD cohort[41-43]. Similarly, an OPTN/UNOS registry analysis by Salvalaggio et al[44] reported comparable outcomes, even though DCD SPK recipients had longer hospital stay and, not unexpectedly, more protracted renal allograft DGF. The Oxford group performed a United Kingdom registry analysis which reported equivalent patient and graft survivals among 134 and 875 pancreas transplants performed between 2006 and 2010[45]. A systematic review and meta-analysis published by Shahrestani et al[46] in 2017 reported no difference in 10-year survival among the DCD and DBD cohorts. Kopp et al[39] (Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands) recently published a single-center cohort study, which indicated comparable outcomes among DCD and DBD pancreas transplants. The DCD donors were younger. The authors concluded that donor age was the most significant allograft survival prognosticator; therefore, younger DCD grafts might be a better option than DBD grafts from older donors[39].

Table 1 Studies comparing pancreas transplant outcomes between donations after cardiac death vs donation after brain death pancreas allograft recipients.
First author/ yrCountryType of studyNo. transplantsMean donor age (yr)Donor BMI [Median, IQR]Warm ischemia time (min)Cold ischemia time (hours)Follow-up (yr)Comments/conclusions
D’Alessandro et al[41], 2004United StatesCohort31 DCD; 455 DBDUnclearns15.3 (SD ns)15.9 (SD ns)5No difference in 5-yr graft survival in SPKs
Fernandez et al[43], 2005United StatesCohort37 DCD; 539 DBD31ns17.5 (SD = 9.9)15.8 (SD = 3.4)5Indistinguishable patient and graft 5-yr survival in SPKs. Elevated DGF rate on DCD kidneys, with no significant long-term impact.
Salvalaggio et al[44], 2006United StatesCohort; OPTN/UNOS Registry57 DCD; 3948 DBDDCD= 30.1; DBD = 29nsns15.75For SPK recipients, the wait for DCD organs was shorter. DCD SPK recipients had longer hospital stay. Renal DGF was higher with DCD organs. Higher thrombosis rates (12.8% vs 6.1%)
Bellingham et al[42], 2011United StatesCohort72 DCD; 903 DBDDCD= 30ns20.8 (SD = 9.4)ns10No difference in surgical complications, rejection or hemoglobin A1c levels.
Muthusamy et al[45], 2012United KingdomCohort134 DCD; 875 DBDDBD = 32; DCD= 28231212.51Similar patient and graft survival, with improved DCD pancreas graft survival if performed as an SPK. Early graft loss in the DCD cohort was mainly due to thrombosis (8% vs 4%)
Shahrestani et al[46], 2017AustraliaSystematic review and meta-analysis762 DCD; 23609 DBD (included 10 cohort studies and 8 case reports)DBD = 37 ns21-25 nsnsns0.3-15No significant difference in 10-yr graft or patient survival. Higher graft thrombosis risk with DCDs [95%CI: 1.04-2.67; P = 0.006]. Thrombosis risk not higher when DCD donors were given ante-mortem heparin (P = 0.62)
Kopp et al[39], 2018The NetherlandsCohort21 DCD; 83 DBDaa31 (median)11 (median)5Without the DCD factor, PDRI from DCD donors was lower. Donor age was the only donor-related risk factor associated with graft survival. Post-op bleeding and renal DGF were more common with DCDs. Graft survivals were comparable. DCD pancreata had lower thrombosis incidence. DCD donors yield similar outcomes for low PDRI. Most DCD donors were younger. DCD grafts may be a better option rather than older DBD donors.

Graft thrombosis has been the DCD pancreas transplant Achilles heel. DCD pancreatic allografts appear to be more vulnerable to ischemia-reperfusion injury due to sustained peri-procurement ischemic insult, which may predispose them to higher risk of graft thrombotic events, even though its impact on overall graft survival has not been demonstrated yet[39]. OPTN/UNOS registry analysis published in 2006 did demonstrate higher thrombosis risk in the DCD cohort (12.8 vs 6.1%)[43]. Shahrestani et al[46] meta-analysis has estimated that the odds of graft thrombosis were 1.67 times higher in DCD organs; however, that thrombosis risk was not significant if the donors had been given ante-mortem heparin[45]. Interestingly, Kopp et al[39] reported lower DCD graft thrombotic risk.

Professionalization and standardization of the pancreas procurement process: According to SRTR, 27.7% of pancreata were discarded after recovery[47], often due to pancreatic trauma occurring at the time of procurement. Ausania et al[48] performed a retrospective ODT Registry analysis, and demonstrated that pancreatic allografts are indeed more vulnerable to procurement damage. More than 50% of recovered allografts had at least one reported injury, most commonly a short portal vein[48]. Arterial and parenchymal damage were associated with higher graft loss risk[48]. DCD status was not related to graft damage; increased BMI, aberrant hepatic artery anatomy, concurrent liver donation, and non-pancreas transplant procurement team increased the risk of pancreatic injury[48]. The Dutch Transplant Foundation (DTF) developed a digital scoring system for abdominal organs donated and accepted in the Netherlands. According to DTF, pancreatic injury was reported in 25% of the recovered organs, of which only 2% led to organ discard[49]. The authors identified higher donor BMI and DCD status as risk factors associated with organ discard due to procurement-related injury (Table 2)[49].

Table 2 Studies on the effect of pancreas procurement professionalization and center volume on pancreas transplant outcomes.
First author, yrStudy aimRegion, countryStudy periodNo. casesResults/comments
Boer et al[49], 2017Analysis of abdominal organ procurement quality and clinical impact.Eurotransplant, The Netherlands2012-2013591 procurements13% surgical injuries on procured pancreata, leading to 3% pancreas discards. Higher BMI, DCD donation in liver procurement were risk factors for discard due to injury. High procurement volume centers were associated with less pancreatic injury.
Lam et al[50], 2017Analysis on the effect of the abdominal recovery team professionalization on the pancreatic procurement injury and acceptance for transplant.Eurotransplant, The Netherlands2002-2015264 procurements31.8% pancreatic surgical injuries. 85.6% of procured pancreata were eventually transplanted. Surgeons certified in abdominal organ procurements recovered more grafts from older donors, DCDs, and had less surgical injuries. Predictors to proceed with pancreas transplant were: certified procurement surgeons; surgeons from a pancreas transplant center; DBD donation; and lower donor BMI. Procurement certification results in less surgical damage and more pancreata transplanted.
Kopp et al[52], 2017Analysis of the effect of the transplant center volume on pancreas transplant outcomes.Eurotransplant, The Netherlands2008-20131276 pancreas transplantsCenters were classified into: low (< 5 transplants/yr); medium (5-13/yr); high volume (≥ 13/yr). Patient and graft survival were superior in higher volume centers. High center volumes were protective for graft failure, even though they transplanted organs with higher PDRI.
Alhamad et al[53], 2017Analysis of the effect of the transplant center volume on the pancreas allograft failure risk.UNOS, United States2000-201311568 SPKs and 4308 solitary pancreas transplantsCenters were categorized into low, medium, and high tertiles. Low volume centers were associated with higher pancreatic failure risk. High volume centers had better graft survival rates irrespective of PDRI.

The same research group (Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands) also reported that organ recovery from surgeons accredited on standardized abdominal organ procurement methods, who also performed pancreas transplants in high-volume centers, was associated with more frequent recovery of the pancreas from DCD donors, less discards due to organ damage, and higher overall pancreatic allograft utilization[50]. They developed a course named “Multi Organ Donor Procurement Surgery”, which has since been assimilated by the European Society for Organ Transplant[50]. Aim of this course is to standardize abdominal organ procurement surgery training, including a step-by-step e-learning module and hands-on training, with documented completion of a set number of procurements under supervision and examination before certification[50]. A same approach has been recently introduced and endorsed by the ODT in the United Kingdom.

The Netherlands is divided in 5 fully independent regional organ procurement teams, which procure all abdominal organs at their respective regions. Each of these teams consists of at least one certified surgeon, an assistant, two procurement scrub nurses and anesthesia team, and carries all necessary instruments to the donor hospital[49]. Similarly, procurements in the UK are performed by regional independent organ procurement teams, each manned by at least one certified procurement surgeon, procurement scrub nurses/perfusionists, carrying their own surgical equipment to the site of donation. This procurement model results in standardization of the procurement technique and eliminates the donor hospital-related hazards (such as lack of appropriate equipment or non-acquaintance of the local scrub team to the demands of a multi-organ, especially a DCD, procurement). It further mitigates the inter-surgeon variation on the procurement technique and therefore procurement quality, degree of organ damage, and derivation of organ description to the receiving transplant surgeons. It also results in better team coordination and time management and, therefore, more efficient execution of the procurement surgery, both of which are critical factors for a successful rapid DCD organ procurement[49,51]. Finally, this procurement model may lead to more experienced surgeons, and therefore, higher procurement quality and potentially less discards[49-51].

The outcomes of the Dutch (DTF) and United Kingdom (ODT) procurement models indicate that pancreatic allograft utilization may be optimized and pancreatic discards minimized with standardization of the procurement technique and development of independent organ procurement teams, which should be organ procurement organization rather than transplant center-based. In the United States, standardization of the procurement technique and formal credentialing of procurement surgeons may be achieved via institutional initiatives and through the American Society of Transplant Surgeons; based on the European and United Kingdom experience, this may result in higher procurement quality, less discard rates, and increased procurement and utilization of DCD pancreatic allografts for the purpose of whole organ or islet transplant (Table 2)[49-51].

Pancreas transplant centralization: A study published in 2017 by Kopp et al[52] on the outcomes of 1276 pancreas transplants in the Eurotransplant region, demonstrated that patient and graft survival after pancreas transplant are superior in higher volume centers; the outcomes remain superior even after using organs with the higher Pancreas Donor Risk Index (PDRI). An OPTN/ UNOS study published in the same year, indicated better pancreas survival rates at high-volume centers across all PDRI categories (Table 2)[53]. PDRI is a predictive model described by Axelrod et al[54] in 2010, that may be used at the time of organ offering, in order to better assess which allografts would be associated with good survival. Identified risk factors were increased donor age, DCD and black race[54]. In the United Kingdom, PDRI has been validated as a tool to predict survival in SPK transplant, but not in PTA or PAK transplant[55].

Living donor segmental pancreas transplant: SPK candidates are often advised to pursue LDKT, followed by PAK[56]. Inevitably, this exposes the recipient to two operations. The SPK option from a living kidney-pancreas donor has also been advocated[56-59]. This offers a pre-emptive kidney transplant, thus abolishing dialysis-related morbidity and mortality; allows the recipient to forego a second transplant operation (PAK); decreases the historically high early rejection risk-since the recipient will be exposed to a single donor rather than two.

Living donor pancreatectomy was the first extrarenal organ to be successfully transplanted[59]. The first living donor pancreas transplant was performed at the University of Minnesota, in 1979[4]. According to Kirchner et al[59] between 1994-2013, 46 living donor segmental pancreas transplants have been performed, with 0% mortality. 15% of donors developed post-donation DM requiring oral hypoglycemics, and 11% developed insulin-dependent DM. A risk stratification model for post-donation DM using 3 pre-donation risk factors (oral glucose tolerance, basal insulin and fasting glucose) and 1 post-donation risk factor (ΔBMI > 15) predicted 100% of donors who developed post-donation DM[59]. In conclusion, living donor segmental pancreas transplant is a viable option, after appropriate donor selection.

PANCREAS TRANSPLANT CANDIDATES

Conventionally, pancreas transplant is intended to restore function of the endocrine portion of the pancreas, in effect restoring normoglycemia in diabetic patients devoid of insulin producing capacity, i.e., T1DM patients, especially those with labile or brittle diabetes, poor response or low compliance to insulin therapy, hypoglycemia unawareness, and/or renal failure. According to the SRTR, in 2014, 9.2% of these transplants were performed on T2DM patients, increased from 7% in 2010[60]. In 2016, T2DM pancreas recipients increased further to 9.9%[34].

On this latter part of this review we will endeavor to explore the potential of pancreas transplant application to previously considered “unconventional” pancreas transplant candidates, such as T2DM (“C-peptide positive”) patients, overweight and mildly obese T1DM patients, and patients with chronic pancreatitis.

The C-peptide positive recipient

Pancreas transplant on T2DM contradicts traditional wisdom. T2DM has been attributed to insulin resistance rather than low or nil insulin production; in the presence of insulin resistance, pancreas transplant will arguably confer little or no benefit upon the recipient. There is also the potential to harm: pancreas transplant carries a high complication risk in a population with a multitude of inherent comorbidities; and, it places the transplant recipient under obligatory lifetime immunosuppression. Lastly, pancreas transplant on a T2DM may result in the waste of a precious commodity and the opportunity cost of its use on a T1DM patient.

Multiple studies have attempted to explore the effect of C-peptide presence on SPK outcomes (Table 3)[61,62,64-66]. Stratta et al[62], performed a single center retrospective analysis of 162 SPK patients, including 30 (18.5%) of C-peptide positive (C-peptide levels ≥ 2.0 ng/mL) vs 132 C-peptide negative patients. In a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of patient, pancreas and kidney graft survival, acute rejection, HbA1c, serum creatinine levels or estimated glomerular filtration rate. However, C-peptide positive patients had higher post-transplant C-peptide levels and T2DM phenotype (overweight or obese, hyperlipidemia, family history of diabetes, progressive insulin resistance)[63]. The authors concluded that positive C-peptide “should not be used exclusively to determine candidacy for SPK transplant”[62].

Table 3 Studies on Simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant outcomes of C-peptide positive vs C-peptide negative recipients.
First author, yrCountryNo. patientsStudy periodC-peptide positive (%)BMI (kg/m2) Mean (SD)Follow-up (yr)OutcomesConclusion
Chakkera et al[61], 2010United States802003-2008a15T1DM 24.8 (4.2); T2DM 27 (3)1No difference in graft (kidney and pancreas) or patient survival.SPK should be considered in selected patients with T2DM and ESRD. C-peptide measurements for ESRD patients can be misleading.
Light et al[64], 2013United States1731989-2008c33.5T2DM 26.1 (ns)d; T1DM 22.5 (ns)d (P < 0.0001)20T2DM were older at diabetes diagnosis, older at transplant, and heavier pre- and post-transplant, and had better graft survival. T1DM had better patient survivalThere was a difference in patient but not graft survival in 20 yr follow-up.
Stratta et al[62], 2015United States1622001-2013b18.5T2DM 26.1 (3.3); T1DM 24.4 (3.2)5.6 (median)No difference in patient and graft survival or surgical complications, rejections, serum creatinine, HbA1c, eGFR, C-peptide and weight gain were higher in the C-peptide positive group.C-peptide “positive” patients appear to have a T2DM phenotype. Outcomes were similar between the two groups, suggesting that C-peptide should not be used exclusively when assessing for SPK transplant candidacy.
Shin et al[65], 2017Republic of Korea2172004-2015ensT2DM 38 (9); T1DM 18 (7)5Similar post-operative HbA1c (< 6%), fasting insulin, HOMA of insulin resistance, and insulinogenic index. Higher post-transplant C-peptide in T2DM recipients.No significant difference in insulin resistance or β-cell function in 5 yr.

Light et al[64] performed a retrospective analysis of 173 SPK recipients, of whom 66.5% had negligible C-peptide (“C-peptide negative”, < 0.8 ng/mL). The elevated C-peptide group (“C-peptide positive”, ≥ 0.8 ng/mL) tended to have T2DM phenotype and C-peptide levels > 5 ng/mL. In long-term follow-up (up to 20 years), “C-peptide negative” patients had significantly improved survival (P = 0.019); “C-peptide positive” recipients showed a trend to better survival (P = 0.069). Similar to Stratta et al[62], this study indicates that “C-peptide positive” (T2DM phenotype) patients can have favorable outcomes post SPK transplant[64]. A more recent by Shin et al[65] compared 5-year outcomes among 151 T1DM and 42 T2DM pancreas transplant recipients. There was no difference in hemoglobin A1c levels, fasting insulin levels, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance or the insulinogenic index between the groups. Notably, insulin resistance decreased between both groups, even though T2DM recipients kept significantly higher C-peptide levels[65].

The overweight and obese T1DM recipient

C-peptide positive or not, overweight (BMI 25-30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) pancreas transplant candidates are becoming increasingly common[34]; possibly reflecting the global obesity epidemic[66]. T1DM patients may be overweight or obese and still benefit from pancreas transplant. That being said, such patients are not immune to the general obesity-linked surgical risk[68,71]. On a large scale SRTR analysis of 21000 pancreas transplant recipients, Bedat et al[72] showed that overweight and obesity are independent predictors of increased early mortality and graft loss, and obesity is associated with inferior long-term graft survival. In an earlier series, Sampaio et al[73] reached similar conclusions.

Is there a role for bariatric surgery?

Bariatric and metabolic surgery is an established method of treatment of T2DM and metabolic syndrome[74-76]. It is yet to be clarified whether a metabolic procedure, may it be sleeve gastrectomy or a more complex restrictive and malabsorptive procedure such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, would provide survival benefit on a patient with negligible insulin production.

T2DM patients with BMI ≥ 32 kg/m2, currently non-eligible for pancreas transplant in most United States centers, should be considered for metabolic surgery[74-76] ; if their post-bariatric surgery BMI drops to ≤ 30 kg/m2 but they remain insulin-dependent, suffer from brittle diabetes, insulin intolerance and/or hypoglycemia unawareness, they may be channeled towards pancreas transplant.

T1DM patients with BMI > 28 kg/m2, who are currently considered poor pancreas transplant candidates, may be reconsidered for transplant after adequate weight loss. Excess weight loss prior to pancreas transplant may improve pancreatic graft survival[72]; plus, it will probably temper the obesity-related cardiovascular morbidity and mortality[77]; even though its benefit on T1DM population post-pancreas transplant is yet to be described.

The chronic pancreatitis patient: Islet autotransplant after total pancreatectomy

Total pancreatectomy without pancreatic endocrine function replacement will result in brittle diabetes and life-threatening hypoglycemia due to vanished pancreatic α- and β-cell function. According to 2014 PancreasFest consensus and 2015 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, TPIAT is a potential treatment option for selected patients with impaired quality of life due to severe painful chronic pancreatitis, where conservative measures have failed[19,20]. TPIAT should not be performed in patients with active alcoholism or illicit substance use, T1DM, pancreatogenic diabetes, portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, significant liver disease, severe cardiopulmonary disease, pancreatic cancer, untreated or uncontrolled psychiatric disorder or history of poor compliance[78]. A retrospective review of 75 children undergoing TPIAT showed sustained pain relief and improved quality of life, whereas beta-cell function was dependent on islet yield[78]. Fan et al[79] from Johns Hopkins University recently published a smaller series of 32 patients who underwent laparoscopic TPIAT, resulting in sustained pain relief, earlier recovery and variable insulin dependence. There is vast potential for future research in this emerging field.

DISCUSSION

Pancreas transplant is a potentially curative option for T1DM, re-establishing euglycemia and, therefore, independence from the need of external insulin administration and glucose monitoring. The Heidelberg group analysis of > 20 year outcomes based on International Collaborative Transplant Study data, demonstrated that pancreas transplant benefits become obvious after 10 years, at which time it confers survival benefit superior to LDKT among uremic T1DM patients[31,32]. The group also reported diminished death rates from cardiovascular events beyond 10 years[31,32]. Despite these obvious benefits, the transplant community maintains a rather conservative approach. Donor pancreata remain underutilized[8]; the United States pancreatic discard rates are close to 30%[47]. DCD pancreata are seldom procured[40]; steatotic pancreatic allografts are commonly discarded; and obese donors are commonly considered poor pancreatic donation candidates[35,36]. European study groups showed that procurement professionalization is associated with increased pancreatic allograft utilization, and that high-volume pancreas transplant centers are associated with superior outcomes (Table 2)[49-53]. United Kingdom and OPTN registry analyses demonstrated that DCD and DBD SPKs could have indistinguishable outcomes (Table 1)[41,43-46]. OPTN registry analysis indicated that heavier donor (BMI 30-35 kg/m2) pancreata might provide comparable outcomes[37]. On the recipient end, pancreas transplant has been shown to be beneficial to selected C-peptide positive patients (Table 3)[64-66].

This study has several limitations. It is a narrative review; as such, it has strong vulnerability to article selection bias; and databases have not been searched in a systemic way. There is limited number of studies exploring the various topics discussed, with series of publications often reported by the same institutions. Another inherent limitation is that most studies included were prospective or retrospective OPTN/UNOS, United Kingdom or DTF cohort reports or case series, which were founded on skewed datasets, since surgeons had already balanced donor-recipient risk at the time of organ/recipient selection and transplant.

CONCLUSION

Pancreas donors remain underutilized. DCD and obese donors should be considered for pancreas donation; the pancreas procurement process should be audited, standardized and optimized. Selected T2DM patients should be considered for pancreas transplant.

More very long-term follow-up studies should be performed in order to delineate the long-term cardiovascular and quality-of-life benefits of pancreas transplant; the results of which might eventually ascertain the pancreas transplant role in the armamentarium of definitive diabetes treatment.

Footnotes

Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript

Specialty type: Transplantation

Country of origin: United States

Peer-review report classification

Grade A (Excellent): 0

Grade B (Very good): 0

Grade C (Good): C, C

Grade D (Fair): D

Grade E (Poor): 0

P- Reviewer: Boteon YL, Kim DY, Kin T S- Editor: Dou Y L- Editor: A E- Editor: Bian YN

References
1.  Williams PW. Notes on diabetes treated with extract and by grafts of sheep’s pancreas. Br Med J. 1894;1303-1304 Available from: URL: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10005565713.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
2.  Banting FG, Best CH, Collip JB, Campbell WR, Fletcher AA. Pancreatic extracts in the treatment of diabetes mellitus: preliminary report. 1922. CMAJ. 1991;145:1281-1286.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
3.  Kelly WD, Lillehei RC, Merkel FK, Idezuki Y, Goetz FC. Allotransplantation of the pancreas and duodenum along with the kidney in diabetic nephropathy. Surgery. 1967;61:827-837.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
4.  Sutherland DE, Goetz FC, Najarian JS. Living-related donor segmental pancreatectomy for transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1980;12:19-25.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Ballinger WF, Lacy PE. Transplantation of intact pancreatic islets in rats. Surgery. 1972;72:175-186.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  Najarian JS, Sutherland DE, Matas AJ, Steffes MW, Simmons RL, Goetz FC. Human islet transplantation: a preliminary report. Transplant Proc. 1977;9:233-236.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
7.  Shapiro AM, Lakey JR, Ryan EA, Korbutt GS, Toth E, Warnock GL, Kneteman NM, Rajotte RV. Islet transplantation in seven patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a glucocorticoid-free immunosuppressive regimen. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:230-238.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3996]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3720]  [Article Influence: 155.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, Gustafson SK, Stewart DE, Cherikh WS, Wainright JL, Boyle G, Snyder JJ, Kasiske BL. Kidney. Am J Transplant. 2016;16 Suppl 2:11-46.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 166]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 171]  [Article Influence: 21.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Gruessner AC, Gruessner RW. Declining numbers of pancreas transplantations but significant improvements in outcome. Transplant Proc. 2014;46:1936-1937.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 24]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  NHS Blood and Transplant, in collaboration with NHS England. Organ specific reports. Interim report on pancreas and islet transplant [cited 2018 September 12].  Available from: URL: https://www.odt.nhs.uk/statistics-and-reports/organ-specific-reports/.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
11.  Gruessner AC, Gruessner RW. Pancreas transplant outcomes for United States and non United States cases as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing and the International Pancreas Transplant Registry as of December 2011. Clin Transpl. 2012;23-40.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  Stratta RJ, Gruessner AC, Odorico JS, Fridell JA, Gruessner RW. Pancreas Transplantation: An Alarming Crisis in Confidence. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:2556-2562.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 64]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 62]  [Article Influence: 7.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Rayhill SC, D’Alessandro AM, Odorico JS, Knechtle SJ, Pirsch JD, Heisey DM, Kirk AD, Van der Werf W, Sollinger HW. Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and living related donor renal transplantation in patients with diabetes: is there a difference in survival? Ann Surg. 2000;231:417-423.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 107]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107]  [Article Influence: 4.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Odorico JS, Voss B, Munoz Del Rio A, Leverson G, Becker YT, Pirsch JD, Hoffman RM, Sollinger HW. Kidney function after solitary pancreas transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2008;40:513-515.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 20]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22]  [Article Influence: 1.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Scalea JR, Butler CC, Munivenkatappa RB, Nogueira JM, Campos L, Haririan A, Barth RN, Philosophe B, Bartlett ST, Cooper M. Pancreas transplant alone as an independent risk factor for the development of renal failure: a retrospective study. Transplantation. 2008;86:1789-1794.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 42]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 44]  [Article Influence: 2.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Gruessner AC, Sutherland DE, Dunn DL, Najarian JS, Humar A, Kandaswamy R, Gruessner RW. Pancreas after kidney transplants in posturemic patients with type I diabetes mellitus. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:2490-2499.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
17.  Dholakia S, Mittal S, Quiroga I, Gilbert J, Sharples EJ, Ploeg RJ, Friend PJ. Pancreas Transplantation: Past, Present, Future. Am J Med. 2016;129:667-673.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 37]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 33]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Farney AC, Cho E, Schweitzer EJ, Dunkin B, Philosophe B, Colonna J, Jacobs S, Jarrell B, Flowers JL, Bartlett ST. Simultaneous cadaver pancreas living-donor kidney transplantation: a new approach for the type 1 diabetic uremic patient. Ann Surg. 2000;232:696-703.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 84]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 82]  [Article Influence: 3.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Bellin MD, Freeman ML, Gelrud A, Slivka A, Clavel A, Humar A, Schwarzenberg SJ, Lowe ME, Rickels MR, Whitcomb DC. Total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation in chronic pancreatitis: recommendations from PancreasFest. Pancreatology. 2014;14:27-35.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 117]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 110]  [Article Influence: 11.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Bellin MD, Gelrud A, Arreaza-Rubin G, Dunn TB, Humar A, Morgan KA, Naziruddin B, Rastellini C, Rickels MR, Schwarzenberg SJ. Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation: summary of an NIDDK workshop. Ann Surg. 2015;261:21-29.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 70]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 65]  [Article Influence: 7.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Tan M, Kandaswamy R, Sutherland DE, Gruessner RW. Laparoscopic donor distal pancreatectomy for living donor pancreas and pancreas-kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:1966-1970.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 44]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 45]  [Article Influence: 2.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Matsumoto S, Okitsu T, Iwanaga Y, Noguchi H, Nagata H, Yonekawa Y, Yamada Y, Fukuda K, Tsukiyama K, Suzuki H. Insulin independence after living-donor distal pancreatectomy and islet allotransplantation. Lancet. 2005;365:1642-1644.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 180]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 139]  [Article Influence: 7.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Gruessner RW, Sutherland DE, Gruessner AC. Mortality assessment for pancreas transplants. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:2018-2026.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 242]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 203]  [Article Influence: 10.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Jukema JW, Smets YF, van der Pijl JW, Zwinderman AH, Vliegen HW, Ringers J, Reiber JH, Lemkes HH, van der Wall EE, de Fijter JW. Impact of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with end-stage renal failure due to type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:906-911.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 111]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 111]  [Article Influence: 5.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Reddy KS, Stablein D, Taranto S, Stratta RJ, Johnston TD, Waid TH, McKeown JW, Lucas BA, Ranjan D. Long-term survival following simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation versus kidney transplantation alone in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:464-470.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 167]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 140]  [Article Influence: 6.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  Tydén G, Bolinder J, Solders G, Brattström C, Tibell A, Groth CG. Improved survival in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and end-stage diabetic nephropathy 10 years after combined pancreas and kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 1999;67:645-648.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 190]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 198]  [Article Influence: 7.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, Leichtman A, Magee JC, Cibrik D, Wolfe RA, Port FK, Agodoa L, Kaufman DB. The impact of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation on long-term patient survival. Transplantation. 2001;71:82-90.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 272]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 225]  [Article Influence: 9.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Smets YF, Westendorp RG, van der Pijl JW, de Charro FT, Ringers J, de Fijter JW, Lemkes HH. Effect of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation on mortality of patients with type-1 diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal failure. Lancet. 1999;353:1915-1919.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 191]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 199]  [Article Influence: 8.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  Young BY, Gill J, Huang E, Takemoto SK, Anastasi B, Shah T, Bunnapradist S. Living donor kidney versus simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant in type I diabetics: an analysis of the OPTN/UNOS database. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:845-852.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 79]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 80]  [Article Influence: 5.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Weiss AS, Smits G, Wiseman AC. Twelve-month pancreas graft function significantly influences survival following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:988-995.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 80]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81]  [Article Influence: 5.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Morath C, Zeier M, Döhler B, Schmidt J, Nawroth PP, Schwenger V, Opelz G. Transplantation of the type 1 diabetic patient: the long-term benefit of a functioning pancreas allograft. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:549-552.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 49]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 51]  [Article Influence: 3.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  Morath C, Zeier M, Döhler B, Schmidt J, Nawroth PP, Opelz G. Metabolic control improves long-term renal allograft and patient survival in type 1 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:1557-1563.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 110]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 113]  [Article Influence: 7.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Fioretto P, Steffes MW, Sutherland DE, Goetz FC, Mauer M. Reversal of lesions of diabetic nephropathy after pancreas transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:69-75.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 839]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 729]  [Article Influence: 28.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
34.  Kandaswamy R, Stock PG, Gustafson SK, Skeans MA, Curry MA, Prentice MA, Fox A, Israni AK, Snyder JJ, Kasiske BL. OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Pancreas. Am J Transplant. 2018;18 Suppl 1:114-171.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 67]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70]  [Article Influence: 11.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Dholakia S, Sharples EJ, Ploeg RJ, Friend PJ. Significance of steatosis in pancreatic transplantation. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2017;31:225-231.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Verma AR, Papalois V. Evaluating steatosis in pancreatic transplant. Exp Clin Transplant. 2011;9:159-164.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
37.  Alhamad T, Malone AF, Lentine KL, Brennan DC, Wellen J, Chang SH, Chakkera HA. Selected Mildly Obese Donors Can Be Used Safely in Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation. Transplantation. 2017;101:1159-1166.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
38.  Mittal S, Gilbert J, Friend PJ. Donors after circulatory death pancreas transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2017;22:372-376.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 15]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17]  [Article Influence: 2.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
39.  Kopp WH, Lam HD, Schaapherder AFM, Huurman VAL, van der Boog PJM, de Koning EJP, de Fijter JW, Baranski AG, Braat AE. Pancreas Transplantation With Grafts From Donors Deceased After Circulatory Death: 5 Years Single-Center Experience. Transplantation. 2018;102:333-339.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 23]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23]  [Article Influence: 3.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
40.  Siskind E, Akerman M, Maloney C, Huntoon K, Alex A, Siskind T, Bhaskeran M, Ali N, Basu A, Molmenti E. Pancreas transplantation from donors after cardiac death: an update of the UNOS database. Pancreas. 2014;43:544-547.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 30]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 2.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
41.  D’Alessandro AM, Fernandez LA, Chin LT, Shames BD, Turgeon NA, Scott DL, Di Carlo A, Becker YT, Odorico JS, Knechtle SJ. Donation after cardiac death: the University of Wisconsin experience. Ann Transplant. 2004;9:68-71.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
42.  Bellingham JM, Santhanakrishnan C, Neidlinger N, Wai P, Kim J, Niederhaus S, Leverson GE, Fernandez LA, Foley DP, Mezrich JD. Donation after cardiac death: a 29-year experience. Surgery. 2011;150:692-702.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 137]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 141]  [Article Influence: 10.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
43.  Fernandez LA, Di Carlo A, Odorico JS, Leverson GE, Shames BD, Becker YT, Chin LT, Pirsch JD, Knechtle SJ, Foley DP. Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death: successful long-term outcomes. Ann Surg. 2005;242:716-723.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 77]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 83]  [Article Influence: 4.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
44.  Salvalaggio PR, Davies DB, Fernandez LA, Kaufman DB. Outcomes of pancreas transplantation in the United States using cardiac-death donors. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:1059-1065.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 70]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75]  [Article Influence: 4.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
45.  Muthusamy AS, Mumford L, Hudson A, Fuggle SV, Friend PJ. Pancreas transplantation from donors after circulatory death from the United Kingdom. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:824.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
46.  Shahrestani S, Webster AC, Lam VW, Yuen L, Ryan B, Pleass HC, Hawthorne WJ. Outcomes From Pancreatic Transplantation in Donation After Cardiac Death: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transplantation. 2017;101:122-130.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 50]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 52]  [Article Influence: 7.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
47.  Kandaswamy R, Skeans MA, Gustafson SK, Carrico RJ, Tyler KH, Israni AK, Snyder JJ, Kasiske BL. OPTN/SRTR 2013 Annual Data Report: pancreas. Am J Transplant. 2015;15 Suppl 2:1-20.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 85]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 85]  [Article Influence: 9.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
48.  Ausania F, Drage M, Manas D, Callaghan CJ. A registry analysis of damage to the deceased donor pancreas during procurement. Am J Transplant. 2015;15:2955-2962.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 27]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27]  [Article Influence: 3.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
49.  de Boer JD, Kopp WH, Ooms K, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Krikke C, de Jonge J, van Heurn LW, Baranski AG, van der Vliet JA, Braat AE. Abdominal organ procurement in the Netherlands - an analysis of quality and clinical impact. Transpl Int. 2017;30:288-294.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 12]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
50.  Lam HD, Schaapherder AF, Kopp WH, Putter H, Braat AE, Baranski AG. Professionalization of surgical abdominal organ recovery leading to an increase in pancreatic allografts accepted for transplantation in the Netherlands: a serial analysis. Transpl Int. 2017;30:117-123.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
51.  Andres A, Assalino M, Oldani G, Toso C, Berney T. Procurement professionalization: a mandatory step to improve the availability and quality of whole pancreas grafts. Transpl Int. 2017;30:115-116.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
52.  Kopp W, van Meel M, Putter H, Samuel U, Arbogast H, Schareck W, Ringers J, Braat A. Center Volume Is Associated With Outcome After Pancreas Transplantation Within the Eurotransplant Region. Transplantation. 2017;101:1247-1253.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 34]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35]  [Article Influence: 5.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
53.  Alhamad T, Malone AF, Brennan DC, Stratta RJ, Chang SH, Wellen JR, Horwedel TA, Lentine KL. Transplant Center Volume and the Risk of Pancreas Allograft Failure. Transplantation. 2017;101:2757-2764.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 36]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36]  [Article Influence: 5.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
54.  Axelrod DA, Sung RS, Meyer KH, Wolfe RA, Kaufman DB. Systematic evaluation of pancreas allograft quality, outcomes and geographic variation in utilization. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:837-845.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 206]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 189]  [Article Influence: 13.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
55.  Mittal S, Lee FJ, Bradbury L, Collett D, Reddy S, Sinha S, Sharples E, Ploeg RJ, Friend PJ, Vaidya A. Validation of the Pancreas Donor Risk Index for use in a UK population. Transpl Int. 2015;28:1028-1033.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 33]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
56.  Gruessner RWG, Sutherland D. Living Donor Pancreas Transplant. Transplant Rev-orlan. 2002;16:108-119.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
57.  Gruessner RW, Sutherland DE. Simultaneous kidney and segmental pancreas transplants from living related donors - the first two successful cases. Transplantation. 1996;61:1265-1268.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 53]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 54]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
58.  Benedetti E, Dunn T, Massad MG, Raofi V, Bartholomew A, Gruessner RW, Brecklin C. Successful living related simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant between identical twins. Transplantation. 1999;67:915-918.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 34]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34]  [Article Influence: 1.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
59.  Kirchner VA, Finger EB, Bellin MD, Dunn TB, Gruessner RW, Hering BJ, Humar A, Kukla AK, Matas AJ, Pruett TL. Long-term Outcomes for Living Pancreas Donors in the Modern Era. Transplantation. 2016;100:1322-1328.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 21]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
60.  Gruessner AC. 2011 update on pancreas transplantation: comprehensive trend analysis of 25,000 cases followed up over the course of twenty-four years at the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR). Rev Diabet Stud. 2011;8:6-16.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 252]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 215]  [Article Influence: 16.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
61.  Chakkera HA, Bodner JK, Heilman RL, Mulligan DC, Moss AA, Mekeel KL, Mazur MJ, Hamawi K, Ray RM, Beck GL. Outcomes after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation and the discriminative ability of the C-peptide measurement pretransplant among type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Transplant Proc. 2010;42:2650-2652.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 19]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
62.  Stratta RJ, Rogers J, Farney AC, Orlando G, El-Hennawy H, Gautreaux MD, Reeves-Daniel A, Palanisamy A, Iskandar SS, Bodner JK. Pancreas transplantation in C-peptide positive patients: does “type” of diabetes really matter? J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:716-727.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 28]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32]  [Article Influence: 3.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
63.  American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39 Suppl 1:S13-S22.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 677]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 671]  [Article Influence: 83.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
64.  Light J, Tucker M. Simultaneous pancreas kidney transplants in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease: the 20-yr experience. Clin Transplant. 2013;27:E256-E263.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37]  [Article Influence: 3.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
65.  Shin S, Jung CH, Choi JY, Kwon HW, Jung JH, Kim YH, Han DJ. Long-term Metabolic Outcomes of Functioning Pancreas Transplants in Type 2 Diabetic Recipients. Transplantation. 2017;101:1254-1260.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 19]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22]  [Article Influence: 3.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
66.  Lo DJ, Sayed BA, Turgeon NA. Pancreas transplantation in unconventional recipients. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2016;21:393-398.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Article Influence: 1.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
67.  World Health Organization. Prevalence of obesity, ages 18+, 2010-2014. Geneva, Switzerland. [ Accessed June 5 2016.].  Available from: URL: http://www.who.int/gho/ncd/risk_factors/overweight_obesity/obesity_adults/en/.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
68.  Nair S, Verma S, Thuluvath PJ. Obesity and its effect on survival in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation in the United States. Hepatology. 2002;35:105-109.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 316]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 322]  [Article Influence: 14.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
69.  Hakeem AR, Cockbain AJ, Raza SS, Pollard SG, Toogood GJ, Attia MA, Ahmad N, Hidalgo EL, Prasad KR, Menon KV. Increased morbidity in overweight and obese liver transplant recipients: a single-center experience of 1325 patients from the United Kingdom. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:551-562.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 91]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 90]  [Article Influence: 8.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
70.  Hillingsø JG, Wettergren A, Hyoudo M, Kirkegaard P. Obesity increases mortality in liver transplantation--the Danish experience. Transpl Int. 2005;18:1231-1235.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 50]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 52]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
71.  Flancbaum L, Choban PS. Surgical implications of obesity. Annu Rev Med. 1998;49:215-234.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 111]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 111]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
72.  Bédat B, Niclauss N, Jannot AS, Andres A, Toso C, Morel P, Berney T. Impact of recipient body mass index on short-term and long-term survival of pancreatic grafts. Transplantation. 2015;99:94-99.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 30]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31]  [Article Influence: 3.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
73.  Sampaio MS, Reddy PN, Kuo HT, Poommipanit N, Cho YW, Shah T, Bunnapradist S. Obesity was associated with inferior outcomes in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant. Transplantation. 2010;89:1117-1125.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 61]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 66]  [Article Influence: 4.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
74.  Schauer PR, Nor Hanipah Z, Rubino F. Metabolic surgery for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus: Now supported by the world’s leading diabetes organizations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2017;84:S47-S56.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 27]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28]  [Article Influence: 4.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
75.  Rubino F, Nathan DM, Eckel RH, Schauer PR, Alberti KG, Zimmet PZ, Del Prato S, Ji L, Sadikot SM, Herman WH. Metabolic Surgery in the Treatment Algorithm for Type 2 Diabetes: a Joint Statement by International Diabetes Organizations. Obes Surg. 2017;27:2-21.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 94]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 83]  [Article Influence: 11.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
76.  Rubino F, Panagiotopoulos S. Surgery: Metabolic surgery: the cutting edge of diabetes care. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:389-390.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 5]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
77.  Abdelaal M, le Roux CW, Docherty NG. Morbidity and mortality associated with obesity. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5:161.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 379]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 488]  [Article Influence: 69.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
78.  Chinnakotla S, Bellin MD, Schwarzenberg SJ, Radosevich DM, Cook M, Dunn TB, Beilman GJ, Freeman ML, Balamurugan AN, Wilhelm J. Total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation in children for chronic pancreatitis: indication, surgical techniques, postoperative management, and long-term outcomes. Ann Surg. 2014;260:56-64.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 136]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 132]  [Article Influence: 13.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
79.  Fan CJ, Hirose K, Walsh CM, Quartuccio M, Desai NM, Singh VK, Kalyani RR, Warren DS, Sun Z, Hanna MN. Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation and Intraoperative Islet Separation as a Treatment for Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:550-556.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]