Key result
Venovenous bypass during liver transplantation in FAP patients resulted in significantly longer total ischemia and surgery times compared to vena cava preservation (P<=0.05), with similar outcomes.
Why the study?
Does venovenous bypass compared to vena cava preservation improve hemodynamic management and outcomes in FAP patients undergoing domino liver transplantation?
Observational (n=36)
Does venovenous bypass compared to vena cava preservation improve hemodynamic management and outcomes in FAP patients undergoing domino liver transplantation?
Either preservation of the vena cava or the standard technique with venovenous bypass can be safely used in FAP patients during liver transplantation without significant differences in postoperative cardiovascular or renal outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports vena cava preservation to shorten ischemia time with equivalent outcomes in FAP transplant; leaves open randomized confirmation of hemodynamic effects.
Familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy (FAP) patients present adrenergic cardiac input blockade secondary to amyloid deposits and sympathetic neuropathy. Consequently, their capacity to compensate for hemodynamic changes is limited. To avoid hemodynamic disturbances in sequential liver transplants, a standard procedure with venovenous bypass or inferior vena cava preservation is contemplated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of both techniques on the hemodynamic management and outcome of patients affected by FAP and scheduled for a domino liver transplantation program. We evaluated 36 FAP patients. Venovenous bypass was performed for 20 patients (the venovenous bypass group), whereas the vena cava preservation technique was used for the remaining 16 patients (the cava preservation group). The time that elapsed from FAP diagnosis to liver transplantation was 3.2 +/- 2.7 years. Peripheral neuropathy was present in all patients, autonomic dysfunction was present in 71%, and cardiac involvement was present in 69%. Renal and gastrointestinal manifestations were reported in 19% and 53% of patients, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 97%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Intraoperative hemodynamic and cardiac disorders, need for vasoactive drugs, blood loss, and transfusion requirements were recorded. Postoperative outcome and cardiac and renal complications were also recorded. No significant differences in disease severity or demographic characteristics were observed. Among all the variables studied, only the total ischemia time and time in surgery were significantly longer in the venovenous bypass group patients (P < or = 0.05). During the postoperative period, the incidence of minor cardiovascular events, incidence of acute renal dysfunction, and outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, either preservation of the vena cava or the standard technique with venovenous bypass can be safely used in FAP patients during liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 15:869-875, 2009.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Escobar et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy (FAP) (n=36). Venovenous bypass vs. Vena cava preservation was evaluated on Total ischemia time and time in surgery (p=<=0.05). Venovenous bypass during liver transplantation in FAP patients resulted in significantly longer total ischemia and surgery times compared to vena cava preservation (P<=0.05), with similar outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: