Joanna Yeh1, Khiet D Ngo, Laura J Wozniak, Jorge H Vargas, Elizabeth A Marcus, Sue V McDiarmid, Douglas G Farmer, Robert S Venick. 1. *Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of California, Los Angeles †Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA ‡Division of Liver and Pancreas Transplantation, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Biopsies remain the criterion standard in the diagnosis of intestinal transplant (ITx) rejection, and gastrointestinal endoscopy plays a pivotal role in patient management. Herein, we describe a single-center 23-year endoscopic experience in pediatric ITx recipients. METHODS: A retrospective review of endoscopy and pathology reports of all ITx recipients <18 years old transplanted between 1991 and 2013 was performed with the aim of describing the procedural indications, findings, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 1770 endoscopic procedures within 1014 sessions were performed. A combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileoscopy was the most common procedure (36%). Increased stool output (35%) and surveillance endoscopy (32%) were the most common indications. A total of 162 episodes of biopsy-proven rejection were diagnosed. The first episode of rejection occurred at a median of 1 month after ITx. Of histology-proven rejections, 45% had normal-appearing endoscopies. The rate of procedural complications, including but not limited to bleeding and perforation, was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy with biopsy plays a significant role in the care of ITx recipients. Multiple procedures are required for graft surveillance, diagnosis of rejection, subsequent treatment, and follow-up of therapy. The gross endoscopic appearance, particularly in mild to moderate acute cellular rejection, does not correlate well with histology. Complex anatomy, complication rates that are higher than patients with non-ITx pediatric endoscopy, and timely histologic interpretation by experienced pathologists are reasons that these procedures should be performed at centers accustomed to caring for ITx recipients. The field would benefit from the development of a noninvasive biomarker to reliably and efficiently detect rejection.
OBJECTIVES: Biopsies remain the criterion standard in the diagnosis of intestinal transplant (ITx) rejection, and gastrointestinal endoscopy plays a pivotal role in patient management. Herein, we describe a single-center 23-year endoscopic experience in pediatric ITx recipients. METHODS: A retrospective review of endoscopy and pathology reports of all ITx recipients <18 years old transplanted between 1991 and 2013 was performed with the aim of describing the procedural indications, findings, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 1770 endoscopic procedures within 1014 sessions were performed. A combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileoscopy was the most common procedure (36%). Increased stool output (35%) and surveillance endoscopy (32%) were the most common indications. A total of 162 episodes of biopsy-proven rejection were diagnosed. The first episode of rejection occurred at a median of 1 month after ITx. Of histology-proven rejections, 45% had normal-appearing endoscopies. The rate of procedural complications, including but not limited to bleeding and perforation, was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy with biopsy plays a significant role in the care of ITx recipients. Multiple procedures are required for graft surveillance, diagnosis of rejection, subsequent treatment, and follow-up of therapy. The gross endoscopic appearance, particularly in mild to moderate acute cellular rejection, does not correlate well with histology. Complex anatomy, complication rates that are higher than patients with non-ITx pediatric endoscopy, and timely histologic interpretation by experienced pathologists are reasons that these procedures should be performed at centers accustomed to caring for ITx recipients. The field would benefit from the development of a noninvasive biomarker to reliably and efficiently detect rejection.
Authors: J Tabasco-Minguillán; W Hutson; K Weber; R G Lee; A J Demetris; H Furukawa; K Abu-Elmagd; S Todo; J Rakela Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: L Sigurdsson; J Reyes; P E Putnam; J F del Rosario; C Di Lorenzo; S R Orenstein; S Todo; S A Kocoshis Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: David Ziring; Robert Tran; Susan Edelstein; Sue V McDiarmid; Nupoor Gajjar; Galen Cortina; Jorge Vargas; John F Renz; James D Cherry; Paul Krogstad; Marjorie Miller; Ronald W Busuttil; Douglas G Farmer Journal: Transplantation Date: 2005-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: D G Farmer; S V McDiarmid; S Edelstein; H Yersiz; J Vargas; G Cortina; J F Renz; C Fondevila; G Hisatake; L Reyen; M Correa; S Rhodes; A Zafar; Y Chavez; R W Busuttil Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: T Kato; J J Gaynor; S Nishida; N Mittal; G Selvaggi; D Levi; J Moon; J Thompson; P Ruiz; J Madariaga; A G Tzakis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Marjorie-Anne R Guerra; Maura Rossetti; Zhenyu Zhang; Xinkai Zhou; Emily C Whang; Robert S Venick; Elizabeth A Marcus; Suzanne V McDiarmid; Douglas G Farmer; Elaine F Reed; Laura J Wozniak Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: Pavni Mehrotra; Joanna Yeh; Theodore R Hall; Vatche G Agopian; Douglas G Farmer; Elizabeth A Marcus; Robert S Venick; Laura J Wozniak Journal: ACG Case Rep J Date: 2016-09-14