Frank Adam, Deng Shaoping, Huang Xiaolun, Velidedeoglu Ergun, Bae Yong-Suk, Liu Chengyang, Abt Peter, Stephenson Robert, Mohiuddin Muhammad, Thambipillai Thav, Markmann Eileen, Palanjian Maral, Sellers Marty, Naji Ali, Barker Clyde F, Markmann James F
Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):631-40; discussion 640-3. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000140754.26575.2a.
We sought to compare the efficacy, risks, and costs of whole-organ pancreas transplantation (WOP) with the costs of isolated islet transplantation (IIT) in the treatment of patients with type I diabetes mellitus.
A striking improvement has taken place in the results of IIT with regard to attaining normoglycemia and insulin independence of type I diabetic recipients. Theoretically, this minimally invasive therapy should replace WOP because its risks and expense should be less. To date, however, no systematic comparisons of these 2 options have been reported.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of WOP and IIT performed at the University of Pennsylvania between September 2001 and February 2004. We compared a variety of parameters, including patient and graft survival, degree and duration of glucose homeostasis, procedural and immunosuppressive complications, and resources utilization.
Both WOP and IIT proved highly successful at establishing insulin independence in type I diabetic patients. Whole-organ pancreas recipients experienced longer lengths of stay, more readmissions, and more complications, but they exhibited a more durable state of normoglycemia with greater insulin reserves. Achieving insulin independence by IIT proved surprisingly more expensive, despite shorter initial hospital and readmission stays.
Despite recent improvement in the success of IIT, WOP provides a more reliable and durable restoration of normoglycemia. Although IIT was associated with less procedure-related morbidity and shorter hospital stays, we unexpectedly found IIT to be more costly than WOP. This was largely due to IIT requiring islets from multiple donors to gain insulin independence. Because donor pancreata that are unsuitable for WOP can often be used successfully for IIT, we suggest that as IIT evolves, it should continue to be evaluated as a complementary alternative to rather than as a replacement for the better-established method of WOP.
我们试图比较全胰腺移植(WOP)与胰岛移植(IIT)在治疗I型糖尿病患者时的疗效、风险和成本。
在实现I型糖尿病受者的血糖正常化和胰岛素自主性方面,胰岛移植的结果有了显著改善。从理论上讲,这种微创治疗应该取代全胰腺移植,因为其风险和费用应该更低。然而,迄今为止,尚未有对这两种选择进行系统比较的报道。
我们对2001年9月至2004年2月在宾夕法尼亚大学进行的一系列连续的全胰腺移植和胰岛移植进行了回顾性分析。我们比较了各种参数,包括患者和移植物存活率、血糖稳态的程度和持续时间、手术和免疫抑制并发症以及资源利用情况。
全胰腺移植和胰岛移植在使I型糖尿病患者实现胰岛素自主性方面均被证明非常成功。全胰腺移植受者住院时间更长、再次入院次数更多且并发症更多,但他们表现出更持久的血糖正常状态和更大的胰岛素储备。尽管最初住院和再次入院时间较短,但令人惊讶的是,通过胰岛移植实现胰岛素自主性的成本更高。
尽管最近胰岛移植的成功率有所提高,但全胰腺移植能更可靠、持久地恢复血糖正常。虽然胰岛移植与较少的手术相关发病率和较短的住院时间相关,但我们意外地发现胰岛移植比全胰腺移植成本更高。这主要是因为胰岛移植需要多个供体的胰岛才能实现胰岛素自主性。由于不适合全胰腺移植的供体胰腺通常可成功用于胰岛移植,我们建议随着胰岛移植的发展,应继续将其作为一种补充性替代方法进行评估,而非作为已确立的全胰腺移植方法的替代方法。