Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic octreotide for preventing complications after pancreas transplantation. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1970 to January 2008), EMbase (1974 to January 2008) and CBM (1978 to January 2008). Six studies concerning prophylactic octreotide in preventing complications after pancreas transplantation were retrieved. Study selection and assessment, data collection and analyses were undertaken by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were done using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results Three RCTs, involving a total of 82 patients were included in the review. On the fifth postoperative day, the urinary amylase was significantly lower in patients in the octreotide group compared to the control group (SMD=–784.86, 95%CI –1464.24 to –105.49, P=0.02), and no significant difference was observed between the two groups in serum amylase (SMD=–12.26, 95%CI –56.53 to 32.06, P=0.59). No significant difference in the incidence of complications was noted between the two groups. The differences between the two groups in graft survival rate (90 days after operation) and patients’ 6-month survival rate were not statistically significant (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.11, P=0.56; RR=1.17, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.58, P=0.32, respectively). As for safety, there were no reports of adverse effects of octreotide on CsA or FK506 absorption and no reports of other adverse reactions. Conclusion The evidence currently available shows that prophylactic octreotide is not capable of reducing dramatically the occurrence of pancreatitis, fistula, thrombosis and rejection after pancreas transplantation. And there is no obvious influence on graft survival rate and patient survival rate. Because the RCTs available for this systematic review are too small, further high-quality large-scale RCTs with long-term follow up are required to provide more reliable evidence.
Objective To evaluate the impact of portal or systemic venous pancreas graft drainage on patient and graft outcomes following simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPK). Methods We searched The Cochrane Library (2008, Issue 1), PubMed (1970 to Feb 2008) and EMBASE (1974 to Feb 2008) to find studies concerning the effect of systemic versus portal venous pancreas graft drainage on patient and graft outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2 software. Results Three RCTs involving 401 simultaneous pancreas kidney transplants were included in our meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences were only observed in 3- and 5-year pancreas graft survival rates (P=0.03 and P=0.05). No significant difference was noted in patient or kidney graft survival rates. Conclusion Currently available evidences from RCTs does not support the effectiveness of portal drainage in preventing thrombosis, rejection or infection after SPK. Large-scale, long-term and appropriately designed RCTs are required to conclude whether portal and systemic drainage in pancreas transplantation are equivalent in terms of patient and graft survival.
Objective To investigate the research base and current understanding of the mechanism of ischemia-reperfusion injury (IR) to intrahepatic cholangiocytes after l iver transplantation, so as to identify the key points of the mechanism and provide references for cl inical practice. Methods We searched PubMed (1970 to 2007) and CBM(1979 to 2007). Qual ity assessment and data collection were performed by two reviewers independently. Since the baseline supplied and the measure were very different, we decided to provide a descriptive summary only. Results The earliest study on liver IR was publ ished in 1970. A total of 65 papers were included. There were 13 on cl inical studies, 35 on basic research studies; and 17 review articles. Most basic studies focus on injury mechanism: ① The physiology of bile ducts and Intrahepatic Bil iary Duct Cells(IBDC); ②the IR caused injury mechanism of IBDC during or after liver transplantation; ③ the basic injury mechanisms include: cold ischemia, warm ischemia, reperfusion, injury of bile and bile salts. Most clinical studies focused on preventive measures, including surgical and non-surgical approaches. Based on the evidence from basic research, changing the composition and perfusion methods of perfusate and protecting the specific blood supply to biliary ducts and cholangiocytes during the operation were important in preventing or reducing such an injury. Conclusion ① The heterogeneity of morphology, function, status and the special blood supply in large and small IBDC are important material base. ② Our own study indicated that simple IR or H/R was able to change the expression of MHC, MIC, DR4, DR5 and other adhesion molecules. ③ Compared to hepatic cells, hIBDC can’ t resist cold ischemia and even worse in tolerating reperfusion injury. ④ Hydrophobic bile salts will could increase the harm to bile ducts during organ preservation. ⑤ Due to the low quantity and limited quantities of clinical researches, the power of evidence was low. The evaluation indexes and baseline conditions are not unified. So the conclusions are for reference only.