eMedicine Specialties > Transplantation > Surgery

Intestinal and Multivisceral Transplantation

Richard K Gilroy, MBBS, FRACP, Associate Professor, Medical Director of Liver Transplantation and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University Medical Center
Jean Frederick Botha, MBBCh, FCS(SA), Assistant Professor of Surgery, Transplant Surgeon, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center; Debra L Sudan, MD,, Chief, Abdominal Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine

Updated: Jun 15, 2009

Introduction

Until recently, parenteral nutrition was the standard of care for all patients with intestinal failure. The success of kidney, liver, and heart transplantation has increased with the advent and application of new antirejection medications coupled with improved surgical techniques. Advances in intestinal transplantation, by contrast, have been slow to develop until recently. At the turn of the 20th century, Alexis Carrel demonstrated the technical feasibility of intestinal transplantation; however, acute allograft rejection was an insurmountable obstacle in the absence of immunosuppressive medications.¹ In the 1960s, surgeons demonstrated renewed interest in intestinal transplantation following early successes with kidney transplantation. This interest rapidly waned as the inadequacy of the immunosuppressive medications available at the time became apparent.

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) became available in 1969, with a number of patients relying on it for complete support. At first, all patients on TPN required continuous hospitalization. Today, TPN is safely used in outpatient management. Pooled data from the North American Home Parental and Enteral Patient Registry show 1- and 4-year survival rates for patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) who received TPN at home to be 94% and 80%, respectively. Only 5-11% of deaths were directly attributed to TPN, with the vast majority of deaths related to progression of the underlying primary disease.

The success of TPN supplanted the then urgent need to find solutions for the problems with intestinal transplantation, and TPN became the standard of care. Recently, however, intestinal transplantation has been offered to that minority of the patients on long-term TPN who have severe and life-threatening complications related to this therapy.^2,3 This restricted indication is, however, likely to be broadened as a consequence of the improved patient and graft survival and cost-effectiveness data that have been seen in the last few years.
 
The complications of long-term TPN are listed below. Those marked (**) are also indications for intestinal transplantation:

• Infection
  • Catheter sepsis (recurrent**)
  • Exit-site infection
  • Tunnel infection
• Catheter occlusion
  • Thrombosis (>2 access sites**)
  • Dislodgment or breakage
  • Mineral or lipid precipitate
• Hepatic disease (15-40% after 3 y)
  • Hepatic steatosis (most common finding)
  • Cholestasis
  • Phospholipidosis
  • Progressive fibrosis**
  • Cirrhosis**
• Renal disease
  • Electrolyte disturbance
  • Decreased glomerular filtration rate**
  • Recurrent acute renal failure**
  • Tubular dysfunction
• Gastrointestinal disease
  • Gastroparesis
  • Bacterial overgrowth
  • Disuse enteritis
  • Intestinal hypoplasia
• Metabolic bone disease
  • Osteomalacia
  • Osteoporosis
• Biliary disease (up to 100% after 6 wk)
  • Biliary sludge (almost universal)
  • Gallstones

History of the Procedure

Intestinal transplantation achieved a clear recognition in the management of complicated total parenteral nutrition (TPN) with Medicare approval (see below). The relatively brief history of this procedure before this included dismal outcomes prior to 1990 and a moratorium during 1994 as a consequence of the high morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. However, in 1995, rapid improvements in outcomes were seen as results of technical and immunosuppression development.

On the immunosuppression side, the introduction of tacrolimus was one of the cornerstones to success.⁴ On the technical side, programs were guided by the recommendations developed by the American College of Surgeons in 1995. Growth since then has been exponential, as is well illustrated in the 2007 report of the Intestinal Transplant Registry.

Intestinal transplants by year. Image courtesy of the Intestinal Transplantation Registry (ITR).

On October 4, 2000, the US Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) approved coverage by Medicare for intestinal transplantation. Medicare agreed to cover all types of intestinal transplants for patients with irreversible intestinal failure who have specific life-threatening complications (noted with ** above) from long-term intravenous nutrition and TPN. Medicare's criteria for approved centers include an annual volume of at least 10 intestinal transplants and a 1-year actuarial survival of at least 65%. The decision was important because most state Medicaid and other third-party payers in the United States followed suit and provided reimbursement for intestinal transplantation.

Problem

Intestinal failure is a term applied to individuals who are unable to maintain adequate nutrition with an enteric diet. These patients require TPN to maintain energy (caloric) intake. The causes of intestinal failure include anatomic and functional abnormalities and, along with the population affected, are listed as follows:

• General population
  • Short bowel syndrome
  • Motility disorder
  • Other causes
• Pediatric patients
  • Midgut volvulus
  • Pseudo-obstruction
  • Gastroschisis
  • Aganglionosis or Hirschsprung disease
  • Necrotizing enterocolitis
  • Microvillous inclusion disease
  • Intestinal atresia
• Adult patients
  • Ischemia (venous or arterial infarction)
  • Pseudoobstruction
  • Crohn disease
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Trauma
  • Radiation enteritis
  • Desmoid tumor
  • Other causes (eg, tumor [neuroendocrine], Gardner syndrome [familial polyposis], midgut volvulus)

Patients with SBS have insufficient small bowel length to support energy (caloric) needs; this typically occurs when at least 80% of the small intestine has been resected. Resection of less than 80% of the length of the bowel is generally accompanied by intestinal adaptation and subsequent enteral tolerance. Considerable interindividual variability occurs among patients. Some individuals may require TPN despite having less than 80% of their small intestine resected, while others may not require TPN after more extensive resections. This fact emphasizes the importance of trials of enteral tolerance and nutritional rehabilitation while assessing an individual with SBS (see Intestinal rehabilitation).

Additional factors that may help predict those likely to achieve enteral tolerance include younger age, the presence of an ileocecal valve, and the presence of an ileum. The functional causes of intestinal failure in those with normal bowel length include intestinal aganglionosis, chronic idiopathic intestinal pseudoobstruction, and congenital mucosal abnormalities such as microvillous inclusion disease.

Indications

Indications for transplantation

The most common cause of death for individuals permanently dependent on TPN is liver failure. Steatohepatitis and cholelithiasis with or without associated cholecystitis are common in patients on TPN and warrant exclusion before the physician makes a diagnosis of TPN-induced liver disease. Advanced TPN-induced liver disease is irreversible; however, when it is identified early it is often reversible with discontinuation of TPN.

Progressive liver disease is more common in young children on TPN and is often associated with a history of multiple resections and recurrent infection. Progressive and irreversible liver disease develops in 2-42% of children and adults with intestinal failure due to SBS.^6,7,8,9,10 The development of liver disease may be related to enteric stasis, the ability to establish some degree of enteral tolerance, catheter-related sepsis, age, a history of prematurity, the extent of bowel resection, the presence of an underlying inflammatory condition, or the length of time on TPN.^{11,12,13,14,8,10} The mediators and pathways responsible for the progression of TPN-associated liver disease to end-stage liver disease remain undefined.

Two other causes of life-threatening complications in patients with intestinal failure include recurring sepsis and loss of vascular access due to venous thrombosis.^15,14 These problems are often concomitant. Sepsis associated with indwelling catheters is more common in children; in some patients, recurrent sepsis is related to gastrointestinal stasis and bacterial overgrowth. Overall, the mortality rate associated with catheter-related sepsis has progressively diminished with the introduction of flexible, silastic, silicone rubber catheters; tunneled, cuffed catheters; and improved line care.^16,17,18

Less common indications for intestinal transplantation include locally invasive desmoid tumors, premalignant conditions (Gardener syndrome), and fluid and electrolyte losses unmanageable with TPN.¹⁹

In summary, intestinal transplantation is a salvage procedure applied to patients who have either anatomic or functional diseases that preclude enteral tolerance (eg, intestinal failure) and have life-threatening complications of TPN such as progressive liver disease, a history of catheter-related sepsis, or loss of vascular access.^20,19 It cannot be overemphasized that measures to augment intestinal function and minimize the risk of complications of parenteral nutrition (PN) must be explored in every patient on PN to avoid the need for this procedure.

To illustrate the problems faced in the setting of intestinal transplantation, an illustration of the variables and the impact of these upon the patient need to be presented.

• Patients who are admitted from home for their transplant procedure have better survival rates than those who are inpatients at the time they are taken to the transplant procedure. Some vascular access to the central system is required for the procedure. Loss of access potentially complicates the procedure by limiting alternative sites for central access at the time of transplantation and posttransplantation. This central access is important for the provision of perioperative PN and is essential for resuscitation and the fluid and medication maintenance required for transplantation. At some centers, clinicians have decided that the transplantation cannot be performed if all upper and lower central access is lost, which illustrates the necessity for referral if vascular access loss develops. Access loss of 2 major access sites is generally an indication for intestinal transplantation.
• Patients with a significant loss to central vascular access may lose eligibility for transplantation. This illustrates the necessity of referral if vascular access loss begins to develop.
• Advanced liver disease may not preclude isolated intestinal transplantation; however, in the presence of advanced liver disease, isolated intestinal transplantation may not be possible.
• Waiting list mortality is higher in those awaiting LSBT than in those awaiting isolated liver transplantation or isolated bowel transplantation.

Patient evaluation

The goals of patient evaluation for intestinal transplantation are as follows:

• Establish the primary diagnosis.
• Evaluate and document TPN complications experienced by the patient.
• Establish the length and function of the remnant native intestine.
• Assess the function of the remnant intestine and potential for establishing enteral tolerance.
• Determine the degree of liver dysfunction and the potential for reversibility.
• Identify any comorbid conditions that may impact upon the outcome of intestinal transplantation, and identify potential problems (eg, thrombosis of major vessels).
• Assess candidate suitability (including families) for the rigors of intestinal transplantation and the ability to comply with the often complex posttransplant regimens.²¹

One critical aspect of the evaluation process is to determine whether the patient's intestinal failure is potentially reversible. Most information regarding nutritional assessment comes from a carefully obtained patient history. Particular attention is given to TPN regimens, prior attempts to achieve enteral tolerance, current enteral feeding protocols, growth, development, and exclusion of nutritional deficiencies. Multidisciplinary consultation with experienced pediatric nutritionists, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists is invaluable before determining the presence or absence of nutritional deficiencies and complications from long-term TPN. Many routine screening studies are listed in Workup.

In addition to a thorough history and review of operative records, evaluation of the length and function of the remnant native bowel is further accomplished through radiographic contrast studies. These studies help delineate the length of the remaining small bowel, its anatomic location, the presence or absence of the ileocecal valve, the caliber of the remaining small and large intestine, and the transit time from the proximal to distal bowel. These studies also may help define surgically correctable diseases that permit enteral tolerance without transplantation. Occasionally, additional motility studies are necessary.

The medical and surgical team must be rigorous when establishing the presence of intestinal failure and when defining its cause because Munchausen syndrome by proxy has been reported in an intestinal transplant recipient.²² For patients with functional disease, review of histopathologic findings following bowel biopsy is important to confirm the diagnosis and extent of bowel involvement.

During the assessment of TPN complications, the physician must decide whether a patient's TPN-related liver disease is reversible. This decision may be difficult, and considerations include liver biopsy findings and the likelihood of progression during the waiting period. The presence of dense, bridging fibrosis may prompt consideration of LSB transplantation. Minor amounts of fibrosis associated with cholestasis may allow ISB transplantation. However, if rapid progression of the disease is observed and a long waiting period is anticipated (eg, small infants), combined listing for LSB transplantation may be indicated.

An assessment for manifestations of portal hypertension is important, although diminished mesenteric blood flow secondary to the short remnant intestinal length provides protection against varices. Increasing splenomegaly, cytopenia, dilated superficial abdominal veins, and bleeding from gastrostomy sites or stomata provide clues to the presence of portal hypertension. The bilirubin level alone is not a good indicator of whether ISB or LSB transplantation is indicated. ISB transplantation in jaundiced patients has been shown to reverse liver disease, even in patients with a total bilirubin level of 20 mg/dL at the time of transplantation.²³

Doppler ultrasonography is used to assess venous access and to determine the patency of the central veins. Intestinal transplantation is considered when the patient has lost 2 or more common venous access sites, such as the subclavian or internal jugular veins, or when unconventional sites such as the right atrial, transhepatic, or direct inferior vena caval catheters are required.

Patient history and previous records should reveal the number and type of organisms responsible for previous central venous line infections. Fungal infections requiring mechanical ventilation or vasopressor support are most worrisome.^24,15 Furthermore, a history of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms should raise concern for future mortality and should be considered in the overall assessment.

Comorbid conditions can greatly increase the likelihood of complications in the posttransplant period. Specific evaluations of other organ systems are dictated by patient history and are further directed by any abnormalities identified from the results of baseline studies. For example, intestinal failure as a consequence of necrotizing enterocolitis may be associated with a history of prolonged neonatal ventilation and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. These conditions are associated with repeated hospitalizations and a propensity for prematurity in infants, which may give rise to behavioral and developmental problems that should be identified and addressed as early as possible. However, controlled trials to support this are lacking. The authors strongly believe that early intervention facilitates posttransplant recovery and that such interventions are important. Portions of these evaluations are incorporated into the psychosocial assessment of the patient and the patient's support system.

Relevant Anatomy

Relevant donor anatomy

For isolated intestinal transplantation, en bloc removal of the donor intestine commences at the pylorus and proceeds as far as the terminal ileum.

Anatomy of the donor operation, with procurement of the liver, small bowel, pancreas, and spleen en bloc (AO, thoracic aorta; HA, hepatic artery; PV, portal vein; CBD, common bile duct; D₁, first part of the duodenum; TI, terminal ileum).

When performing a combined LSB transplantation, the duodenum and head of the pancreas are retained in the allograft. In preparation for multivisceral transplantation, other abdominal organs are obtained at the time of intestinal procurement, most commonly the entire donor pancreas.

The allograft is prepared in the operating room before implantation.

The recipient's requirements dictate which technique should be performed; these requirements are described later. For all recipients, bowel continuity is the ultimate goal, and proximal and distal enteric anastomoses are performed at the time of allograft implantation.

A more comprehensive outline of these procedures is available in the 1999 article by DeRoover and Langnas.²⁵

Contraindications

Although not absolute contraindications to transplantation, the following is a list of conditions and situations in which transplantation may be contraindicated:

• Profound disabilities that are not likely to be corrected by transplantation
• Severe extraintestinal illnesses that are not likely to be corrected by transplantation
• Uncontrolled sepsis
• Immunodeficiency (with the possible exception of immunodeficiency associated with multiple intestinal atresia)
• Nonresectable or disseminated malignancy (including large hepatoma)
• Complete loss of vascular access or insufficient central access sites (lack of central access during transplantation and during the early posttransplantation period)
• Absence of psychosocial support or willingness to comply with posttransplant regimens

Workup

Laboratory Studies

• Complete blood cell count
• Prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time
• Electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine
• Total and direct bilirubin
• Aspartate transaminase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma glutamyl transferase
• Serum albumin
• Phosphorous and magnesium
• Cholesterol and triglycerides
• Zinc and selenium
• Free and total carnitine
• Vitamins A, D, and E
• Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and human immunodeficiency virus
• Alpha-fetoprotein
• Cytotoxic antibody screen

Imaging Studies

• Chest radiography
• Abdominal ultrasonography
• Doppler study of upper extremity veins
• Bone age study
• Echocardiography

Other Tests

• Electrocardiography
• Motility studies (as indicated)
• Liver biopsy (as indicated)
• Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Histologic Findings

• TPN cholestasis without significant fibrosis (This is a reversible pathology at this point.)
  
  

  

  PN cholestasis. (This is a reversible pathology at this point as an absence of fibrosis.)

  
  

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Therapeutic options

At the completion of the evaluation, the physician should recommend one of the following therapies: continued medical therapy with TPN, ISB transplantation, LSB transplantation, multivisceral transplantation, or isolated liver transplantation.

If intestinal failure is not confirmed during the evaluation, intestinal transplantation is not indicated. Likewise, if the patient does not exhibit evidence of life-threatening complications of TPN administration, risk-benefit and survival analyses support continued TPN administration. Isolated intestinal transplantation is the simplest surgical option and offers potential elimination of TPN and its complications. The results of ISB transplantation have not supplanted long-term TPN in the management of SBS in the absence of TPN-associated complications.^26,27,20,19 However, more recent reports, with 1-year survival rates exceeding 90%, suggest that ISB transplantation might soon challenge TPN as the primary therapy for TPN-dependent intestinal failure.²⁸

Importantly, if the patient shows evidence of potential to advance enteral nutrition, guidance is offered to such individuals to facilitate this. These patients should be enrolled in an intestinal rehabilitation clinic (see Intestinal rehabilitation). Periodically reevaluated, these specialized multidisciplinary clinics optimize TPN regimens, evaluate for complications of TPN, augment intestinal adaptation, and establish timely referral for surgery or transplantation, if needed. Transplantation for intestinal failure, at this point, might be best viewed as a salvage procedure for patients with progressive complications of TPN.

In 2008, the results of a multicenter trial examining teduglutide, a GLP-2 analogue, were presented by O'Keefe and Messing at Digestive Diseases Week in the United States and at the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.²⁹ The multicenter study examined the ability of teduglutide to reduce parenteral nutrition in patients on long-term TPN. This study demonstrated an ability to reduce parenteral nutrition, increase citrulline levels, and increase villus height in the active treatment arm. This therapy certainly shows promise in the treatment of patients on long-term parenteral nutrition.

Surgical Therapy

LSB transplantation is recommended for individuals with irreversible liver injury and intestinal failure. These patients have more severe disease than recipients who receive ISB grafts, and patients waiting for LSB transplantation constitute the majority of intestinal transplant candidates. Waiting list mortality rates are high, and patients are often in intensive care units at the time of transplantation.

Multivisceral transplantation includes transplantation of grafts of other abdominal viscera along with the liver and intestinal grafts. This may include the stomach, pancreas, kidney, and/or colon. This procedure is usually reserved for patients with additional organ system failure (eg, pancreatic insufficiency, diabetes, kidney failure), often on a background of a nonreconstructible gastrointestinal tract.

Multivisceral transplantation is also indicted for patients with duodenal fistulae or locally aggressive tumors that can only be treated with massive abdominal evisceration.¹⁵ The main drawback with including the stomach appears to be poor emptying, and authorities at some centers completely avoid this by performing a gastrojejunostomy between the allograft and a small native gastric remnant. Surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh have demonstrated that inclusion of the colon diminishes survival and is not recommended.

Although some researchers have demonstrated adequate stomach function after LSB transplantation in patients with motility disorders, Tzakis suggested that multivisceral transplantation with removal of the native stomach at the time of transplantation is indicated for these patients. However, other researchers are not necessarily in agreement with this approach.^24,25,26 Patients who receive multivisceral grafts have lower overall survival rates compared with patients who receive other types of intestinal allografts.¹⁵

In a small group of predominantly pediatric patients, liver dysfunction related to TPN progresses during the period in which enteral tolerance is being established after intestinal resections. This is usually during the initial evaluation period and, in a select few centers, has been noted to follow aggressive intestinal rehabilitation. If enteral tolerance is likely to be achieved following transplantation, isolated liver transplantation may be recommended.^27,28

To date, at the University of Nebraska, isolated liver transplantations have been performed in 11 children with TPN-associated liver disease; 8 children are currently alive and 7 have been successfully weaned from TPN. In this group, assessment of adequate bowel length is best accomplished by demonstrating enteral tolerance. A history of weight gain during the administration of 50% or more of the energy (caloric) requirements via the enteral route is encouraging. Surrogate markers for the potential of further adaptation include the remaining length of small bowel relative to the patient's age and the presence of the ileocecal valve.²⁹ The high waiting list mortality rate for LSB transplant candidates makes this is an attractive option for carefully selected patients.

The goal of intestinal transplantation is to eliminate the need for TPN and to reverse or prevent TPN-associated liver disease. The clear disadvantage of intestinal transplantation is the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure and with the subsequent long-term immunosuppression.

Preoperative Details

Waiting list mortality

The waiting list mortality rate is nearly 50% for LSB candidates and approximately 10% for ISB candidates. The lower mortality rate for ISB candidates is principally related to a lesser degree of liver disease. However, the mortality rate for ISB transplantation is underestimated because patients whose disease progresses may require the combined procedure and therefore are not included in ISB mortality figures. At the University of Nebraska, 30% of patients placed on the ISB waiting list develop progressive liver dysfunction and become LSB candidates; half of these patients die while waiting for a transplant.²³ The mean waiting time is more than twice as long for patients whose status has changed compared with those who undergo isolated intestinal transplantation.²³

Donor selection and organ procurement

Intestinal transplant donors typically include those donors who would be suitable for other forms of organ donation. The donor should be stable and have no evidence of significant metabolic acidosis, and the donor should be matched to the recipient by ABO blood type, size, and medical urgency according to United Network of Organ Sharing status. Approximately two thirds of intestinal transplant recipients have SBS and, as a consequence, have shrinkage of the peritoneal cavity or loss of peritoneal domain.¹⁹

In order to decrease the number and viability of passenger lymphocytes in the extensive lymphoid tissue of the gut, surgeons at the University of Nebraska typically administer both antithymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin) and muromonab-CD3 (Orthoclone OKT3) intraoperatively to cadaveric donors.²⁵ Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh recently presented data that support the use of allograft irradiation. In animal models, the large lymphocyte load of the donor organ has been shown to predispose the transplant recipient to graft versus host disease (GVHD); however, under current regimens the rate is 2-5%. The effect of either regimen on chimerism and long-term rejection is largely unknown and is an area for further investigation.

Primary or recurrent CMV enteritis appears to occur more frequently after intestinal transplantation than after other solid organ transplantation; CMV enteritis is associated with a higher risk of graft loss or patient death.^30,31 therefore, surgeons at the University of Nebraska select CMV-negative recipients, with the recognition that seropositivity in infants younger than 1 year may be the result of circulating maternal antibodies.³²

Intraoperative Details

As previously mentioned, the definition of the types of allografts are varied.

Detailed reviews of the surgical procedures involved in intestinal and multivisceral transplantation are beyond the scope of this article. Please refer to previously published descriptions of these techniques.^33,25,34,35 .

Media files 3-9 demonstrate some steps of the surgical procedures.

Back table operation with mesenteric vessels held within the forceps and the donor intestine within preservation solution.

Intestinal graft within the abdominal cavity of the recipient at the time of revascularization.

Revascularized bowel prior to closure. In the lower right corner the anastomosis between the donor small bowel and recipient remnant colon can be seen.

Picture of the liver and small bowel allograft. The liver is to the left of the picture, and the spleen can be seen lying within the loops of the small bowel (spleen is removed later).

Removal of the native liver. Left behind is the cavity into which the liver and small bowel allograft will be placed.

Postrevascularization image of the liver and small bowel allograft.

The allograft, prior to closure, positioned within the recipient's abdomen. The wedge-shaped excision (biopsy site) seen on the donor organ was performed at organ procurement. These biopsies are selectively performed to review the suitability of organs in instances where issues of suitability are raised.

Postoperative Details

After the operation, the patient is returned to the intensive care unit, where hemodynamic monitoring and mechanical ventilation are performed as needed. Doppler ultrasonography is routinely performed on postoperative day 1 to assess vessel patency or as clinically indicated.

The standard immunosuppression drugs following intestinal transplantation are tacrolimus and steroids. Tacrolimus is administered orally in a dose sufficient to provide a blood level of approximately 20-25 ng/mL by the end of the first postoperative week. Steroids are administered at a dose of approximately 20 mg/d for adults and 0.3 mg/kg for children. No evidence indicates that the routine addition of azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, or antilymphocyte therapy decreases the frequency or severity of acute rejection, but the addition of these agents may lead to an increased risk for infection and other immunosuppression-related complications.^36,37

Some benefit may be achieved with the simultaneous administration of either sirolimus or mycophenolate in patients who receive reduced doses of tacrolimus because of renal toxicity or in patients who experience refractory acute and/or chronic rejection.³⁸ The protocol at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is to routinely administer basiliximab, an interleukin 2 receptor antagonist, on the day of surgery and on postoperative day 4 to reduce the chance of rejection. This has decreased the rate of rejection from 85% to 35%.

Because of the high rate of infectious complications, broad-spectrum antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis is administered for 1-2 weeks after transplantation, and prophylactic ganciclovir has been recommended. Other prophylactic regimens target prevention of herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, EBV infection, and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.²³

The appearance of allograft ostomy and the amount of ostomy output are useful clinical signs of graft dysfunction. Ostomy losses of up to 100 mL/kg/d are acceptable and can be compensated for with supplemental intravenous fluids. Because no serological or biochemical tests are diagnostic for small bowel rejection, the routine protocol is endoscopy with biopsy. A high index of suspicion for rejection and abdominal perforation is warranted in any intestinal transplant recipient with unexplained fever, diarrhea, or gastrointestinal bleeding.

Enteral nutrition is provided as soon as intestinal function returns. In the absence of other clinical complications, enteral feedings are started on the third-to-fifth postoperative day. The concentration and type of enteral nourishment are tailored to the patient's clinical response. A low-fat diet is used in the early posttransplant period. On average, recipients of ISB allografts are successfully weaned from parenteral nutrition by the third or fourth week posttransplant. After 4-6 weeks, an unrestricted diet is allowed.

Occasionally, the recipient does not establish enteral feeding; this is sometimes referred to as food aversion. Ancillary services, including speech therapy, may be helpful in these patients. Enteral feeding can be withdrawn as oral feeding approaches energy (calorie) requirements. The administration of loperamide, often in high doses, may be helpful for reducing ostomy losses and is often used early after transplantation, although no controlled trials support this.

Medications

Drug Category: Immunosuppressants -- Inhibit key factors that mediate immune reactions, which, in turn, decrease inflammatory responses.
 
Drug Name: Tacrolimus (Prograf)
Suppresses humoral immunity (T-lymphocyte) activity.
 
Adult Dose
300-500 mcg/kg/d PO/NG divided bid
Dosages are subsequently directed by target levels for immunosuppression needed at various times posttransplant; different centers have different protocols (see Table below)
 
Pediatric Dose
Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
levels may increase with diltiazem, nicardipine, clotrimazole, verapamil, erythromycin, ketoconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, bromocriptine, grapefruit juice, metoclopramide, methylprednisolone, danazol, cyclosporine, cimetidine, and clarithromycin; levels may decrease with rifabutin, rifampin, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
Do not administer simultaneously with cyclosporine; tonic clonic seizures may occur
 
 
Drug Name: Methylprednisolone (Adlone, Medrol, Solu-Medrol)
Decreases inflammation by suppressing migration of polymorphonuclear leukocytes and reversing increased capillary permeability.
 
Adult Dose
Intraoperative bolus followed by 200 mg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 160 mg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 120 mg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 80 mg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 40 mg/d IV divided q12h for 2 doses, then switch to prednisolone 20 mg PO qd
 
Pediatric Dose
<20 kg: 20 mg/kg intraoperatively followed by 10 mg/kg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 8 mg/kg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 6 mg/kg/d IV divided q6h for 4 doses, then 4 mg/kg/d IV divided q12h for 2 doses, then 2 mg/kg/d IV divided q12h for 2 doses, then 1 mg/kg/d for 1 dose, then switch to prednisolone 0.3 mg/kg/d PO qd
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; viral, fungal, or tubercular skin infection
 
Interactions
Coadministration with digoxin may increase digitalis toxicity secondary to hypokalemia; estrogens may increase levels; phenobarbital, phenytoin, and rifampin may decrease levels (adjust dose); monitor patients for hypokalemia when taking concurrently with diuretics
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
-Hyperglycemia, edema, osteonecrosis, peptic ulcer disease, hypokalemia, osteoporosis, euphoria, psychosis, growth suppression, myopathy, and infections are possible complications of glucocorticoid use
-Depo-Medrol contains benzyl alcohol which is potentially toxic when administered locally to neural tissue; administration of Depo-Medrol by other than indicated routes, including the epidural route, has been associated with reports of serious medical events including arachnoiditis, meningitis, paraparesis/paraplegia, sensory disturbances, bowel/bladder dysfunction, seizures, visual impairment including blindness, ocular and periocular inflammation, and residue or slough at injection site
 
 
Drug Name: Basiliximab (Simulect)
Chimeric monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to and blocks the interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor on the surface of activated T cells.
 
Adult Dose
<20 kg: 10 mg on days 0 and 4
>20 kg: 20 mg on days 0 and 4
 
Pediatric Dose
<2 years: Not established
2-15 years: 12 mg/m2 IV; not to exceed 20 mg
>15 years: Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
None reported
 
Pregnancy
B - Fetal risk not confirmed in studies in humans but has been shown in some studies in animals
 
Precautions
Long-term effect on ability of immune system to respond to antigens unknown
 
 
Drug Name: Alemtuzumab (Campath)
Monoclonal antibody against CD52, an antigen found on B-cells, T-cells, and almost all CLL cells. Binds to the CD52 receptor of the lymphocytes, which slows the proliferation of leukocytes.
 
Adult Dose
0.3 mg/kg IV preoperatively and then repeated postoperatively; administer an additional dose on each of postoperative days 3 and 7
 
Pediatric Dose
Not established
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; active systemic infections; underlying immunodeficiency (eg, AIDS)
 
Interactions
May increase virulence of live viral vaccine
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
May cause pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, and serious infusion reactions (premedicate with acetaminophen, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and gradually increase dose); fatal bacterial, viral, fungal, and protozoan infections reported; hypotension may occur with IV administration (can control by discontinuing or slowing rate of infusion); antibody is not selective for cancerous B- and T-cells and may eradicate all normal lymphocytes of B- and T-cell lineage (resulting lymphopenia and risk of infection can be profound and long-lasting); posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders, nausea, and diarrhea may occur
 
 
Drug Name: Sirolimus (Rapamune)
-Inhibits lymphocyte proliferation by interfering with signal transduction pathways. Binds to immunophilin FKBP to block action of mTOR. FDA-approved for prophylaxis of organ rejection in patients receiving allogeneic renal allografts.
-Dosages and levels should be adjust no more often than twice per wk initially, and monitoring of levels should be started 4 d after initiating medication unless specific indication exists for more frequent monitoring (eg, medication interacting with rapamycin metabolism)
 
Adult Dose
6 mg PO loading dose, then 2-5 mg PO qd; trough blood concentrations >8 ng/mL correlated with immunosuppressive activity
 
Pediatric Dose
Not established
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
Drug levels and toxicity may increase with diltiazem, nicardipine, clotrimazole, verapamil, erythromycin, ketoconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, bromocriptine, grapefruit juice, metoclopramide, methylprednisolone, danazol, cyclosporine, cimetidine, and clarithromycin; levels may decrease with rifabutin, rifampin, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine; administer sirolimus 4 h after cyclosporine
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
May exacerbate hyperlipidemia and thrombocytopenia; caution with hepatic impairment (decrease maintenance dose by one third); monitor blood sirolimus blood levels in pediatric patients, in patients with hepatic impairment, during coadministration of strong CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors, or if cyclosporine dosing is markedly reduced or discontinued
Not recommended for use in de novo liver or lung transplantation; coadministration with cyclosporine or tacrolimus in liver transplant patients recipients increases hepatic artery thrombosis risk; bronchial anastomotic dehiscence (fatal in most cases) has been reported in de novo lung transplantation when sirolimus has been part of immunosuppressive regimen; increased susceptibility to infection and possible lymphoma development may result from immunosuppression; risk for renal impairment increased when sirolimus and cyclosporine used concomitantly, compared to cyclosporine alone
 
 
Drug Name: Antithymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin)
-Purified concentrated gamma-globulin (primarily monomeric IgG) from hyperimmune horses immunized with human thymic lymphocytes. Mechanism of action is thought to be its effect on lymphocytes responsible in part for cell-mediated immunity and lymphocytes involved in cell immunity.
-Immunosuppressive action generally is similar to other antilymphocyte preparations. However, they may differ qualitatively and/or quantitatively in the extent to which they produce specific effects, in part because of factors such as source of antigenic material used, type of animal used to produce antiserum, and method of production.
-A hematologist or another physician with extensive experience must be involved in the administration and monitoring of antilymphocyte serum because of the many complications and adverse effects of this therapy. Dose and duration of therapy vary with different investigational protocols.
 
Adult Dose
1.5 mg/kg IV on days 1, 3, 5, 7
 
Pediatric Dose
Not established
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
None reported
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
Thymoglobulin is restricted to patients felt to be at high risk for ACR; to reduce risk of phlebitis, administer only via IV; medical emergency resources should be available immediately to manage rash, dyspnea, hypotension, or anaphylaxis if they develop 
 

Drug Category: Antibiotics -- Empiric antimicrobial therapy must be comprehensive and should cover all likely pathogens in the context of the clinical setting.
 
Drug Name: Piperacillin and tazobactam (Zosyn)
Antipseudomonal penicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. Inhibits biosynthesis of cell wall mucopeptide and is effective during stage of active multiplication.
 
Adult Dose
3.375 g IV q8h for 7 d
 
Pediatric Dose
200-300 mg/kg IV q8h for 7 d
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; severe pneumonia, bacteremia, pericarditis, emphysema, meningitis, and purulent or septic arthritis should not be treated with oral penicillin during acute stage
 
Interactions
-Tetracyclines may decrease effects of piperacillin; high concentrations of piperacillin may physically inactivate aminoglycosides if administered in same IV line; effects are synergistic when administered concurrently with aminoglycosides
-Probenecid may increase penicillin levels; high-dose parenteral penicillins may result in increased risk of bleeding
 
Pregnancy
B - Fetal risk not confirmed in studies in humans but has been shown in some studies in animals
 
Precautions
Perform CBC count prior to initiation of therapy and at least qwk during therapy; monitor for liver function abnormalities by measuring AST and ALT during therapy; exercise caution in patients diagnosed with hepatic insufficiencies; perform urinalysis, BUN, and creatinine determinations during therapy and adjust dose if values become elevated; monitor blood levels to avoid possible neurotoxic reactions
 
 
Drug Name: Trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra)
Inhibits bacterial growth by inhibiting synthesis of dihydrofolic acid. Antibacterial activity includes common urinary tract pathogens except Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
 
Adult Dose
80 mg TMP/400 mg SMZ PO bid every Monday and Tuesday
 
Pediatric Dose
<2 months: Do not administer
>2 months: 1 mL/kg/d suspension PO divided bid every Monday and Tuesday; not to exceed 10 mL/dose
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; megaloblastic anemia due to folate deficiency
 
Interactions
May increase PT when used with warfarin (perform coagulation tests and adjust dose accordingly); coadministration with dapsone may increase blood levels of both drugs; coadministration of diuretics increases incidence of thrombocytopenia purpura in elderly persons; phenytoin levels may increase with coadministration; may potentiate effects of methotrexate in bone marrow depression; hypoglycemic response to sulfonylureas may increase with coadministration; may increase levels of zidovudine
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
-Discontinue at first appearance of rash or sign of adverse reaction; obtain CBC counts frequently; discontinue therapy if significant hematologic changes occur; goiter, diuresis, and hypoglycemia may occur with sulfonamides; prolonged IV infusions or high doses may cause bone marrow depression (if signs occur, give 5-15 mg/d leucovorin)
-Caution in folate deficiency (eg, chronic alcoholism, elderly patients, anticonvulsant therapy, malabsorption syndrome); hemolysis may occur in persons with G-6-PD deficiency; AIDS patients may not tolerate or respond to TMP-SMZ; caution in renal or hepatic impairment (perform urinalyses and renal function tests during therapy); give fluids to prevent crystalluria and stone formation 
 

Drug Category: Antivirals -- Nucleoside analogs are initially phosphorylated by viral thymidine kinase to eventually form a nucleoside triphosphate. These molecules inhibit HSV polymerase with 30-50 times the potency of human alpha-DNA polymerase.
 
Drug Name: Ganciclovir (Cytovene)
Synthetic guanine derivative active against CMV. An acyclic nucleoside analog of 2'-deoxyguanosine that inhibits replication of herpes viruses both in vitro and in vivo. levels of ganciclovir-triphosphate are as much as 100-fold greater in CMV-infected cells than in uninfected cells, possibly due to preferential phosphorylation of ganciclovir in virus-infected cells.
 
Adult Dose
5 mg/kg IV bid for 14 d followed by treatment with acyclovir
 
Pediatric Dose
<3 months: Not established
>3 months: Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
-Serum creatinine may increase following concurrent use with either cyclosporine or amphotericin B; renal clearance is reduced in presence of probenecid
-Bioavailability may increase when didanosine is administered either 2 h prior to or simultaneously; bioavailability may decrease in presence of zidovudine, while bioavailability of zidovudine is increased in presence of ganciclovir
-Concomitant administration with cytotoxic drugs (eg, dapsone, vinblastine, doxorubicin, pentamidine, flucytosine, vincristine, amphotericin B, TMP-SMZ, or other nucleoside analogs) may result in additive toxicity in bone marrow, spermatogonia, and germinal layers of skin and GI mucosa (coadminister only if potential benefits outweigh risks)
-Coadministration with imipenem and cilastatin may cause generalized seizures (use only if potential benefits outweigh risks)
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
-Clinical toxicity includes granulocytopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia; because PO form is associated with higher rate of CMV retinitis progression compared with IV form, use only when benefits outweigh risks (eg, advanced HIV disease)
-Half-life and plasma/serum concentrations may be increased as a result of reduced renal clearance; doses > 6 mg/kg IV may result in increased toxicity; rapid infusion may result in increased toxicity; initially, reconstituted IV solutions have a high pH (11); phlebitis or pain may occur at site of IV infusion despite further dilution in IV fluids; administration should be accompanied by adequate hydration; photosensitization (photoallergy or phototoxicity) may occur
 
 
Drug Name: Acyclovir (Zovirax)
-Inhibits activity of both HSV-1 and HSV-2. Has affinity for viral thymidine kinase and, once phosphorylated, causes DNA chain termination when acted on by DNA polymerase. Patients experience less pain and faster resolution of cutaneous lesions when used within 48 h of rash onset. May prevent recurrent outbreaks. Early initiation of therapy is imperative.
 
Adult Dose
80 mg/kg/d PO divided qid for 1 y; not to exceed 800 mg/dose
 
Pediatric Dose
Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
Concomitant use of probenecid or zidovudine prolongs half-life and increases CNS toxicity
 
Pregnancy
B - Fetal risk not confirmed in studies in humans but has been shown in some studies in animals
 
Precautions
Caution in renal failure or when using nephrotoxic drugs 
 
 
Drug Category: Antifungals -- Mechanism of action may involve alteration of RNA and DNA metabolism or intracellular accumulation of peroxide that is toxic to fungal cells.
 
Drug Name: Fluconazole (Diflucan)
Fungistatic activity. Synthetic oral antifungal (broad-spectrum bistriazole) that selectively inhibits fungal cytochrome P-450 and sterol C-14 alpha-demethylation, which prevents conversion of lanosterol to ergosterol, thereby disrupting cellular membranes.
 
Adult Dose
400 mg PO/IV qd for 4 wk
 
Pediatric Dose
5 mg/kg PO/IV qd for 4 wk
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
levels may increase with hydrochlorothiazide; levels may decrease with long-term coadministration of rifampin; coadministration may decrease phenytoin concentrations; may increase concentrations of theophylline, tolbutamide, glyburide, and glipizide; effects of anticoagulants may increase with coadministration; increases in cyclosporine concentrations may occur when administered concurrently
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
Adjust dose for renal insufficiency; closely monitor if rashes develop, and discontinue drug if lesions progress; may cause clinical hepatitis, cholestasis, and fulminant hepatic failure (including death) when taken with underlying medical conditions (eg, AIDS, malignancy) or while taking multiple concomitant medications; not recommended for breastfeeding women 
 
 
Drug Category: Prostaglandins -- Alprostadil is identical to naturally occurring prostaglandin E1.
 
Drug Name: Alprostadil (Prostaglandin E1, PGE1)
Possesses various pharmacologic effects, including vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation.
 
Adult Dose
0.2-0.6 mcg/kg IV continuous infusion over 1 h for 7 d
 
Pediatric Dose
Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; hyaline membrane disease, respiratory distress syndrome
 
Interactions
None reported
 
Pregnancy
X - Contraindicated; benefit does not outweigh risk
 
Precautions
Long-term infusions may cause cortical proliferation of long bones in neonates; prostaglandins inhibit platelet aggregation (caution in neonates with bleeding tendencies) 
 
 
Drug Category: Proton pump inhibitors -- For patients who require complete acid suppression. Patients taking omeprazole via NG tube should have granules mixed with an acidic juice. Following administration, NG tube should be flushed to prevent blockage.
 
Drug Name: Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Decreases gastric acid secretion by inhibiting the parietal cell H+/K+ ATP pump.
 
Adult Dose
20 mg PO/NG bid
 
Pediatric Dose
0.5 mg/kg PO/NG q12h
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
 
Interactions
May decrease effects of itraconazole and ketoconazole; may increase toxicity of warfarin, digoxin, and phenytoin
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
Bioavailability may increase in elderly persons 
 
 
Drug Category: Salicylates -- Inhibit prostaglandin synthesis, which prevents formation of platelet-aggregating thromboxane A2.
 
Drug Name: Aspirin (Anacin, Ascriptin, Bayer Aspirin)
Treats mild to moderate pain. Low dose may be used to inhibit platelet aggregation and improve complications of venous stasis and thrombosis.
 
Adult Dose
80 mg PO/PR qd
 
Pediatric Dose
40 mg PO/PR qd
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; liver damage, hypoprothrombinemia, vitamin K deficiency, bleeding disorders, asthma; due to association of aspirin with Reye syndrome, do not use in children (<16 y) with influenza
 
Interactions
Effects may decrease with antacids and urinary alkalinizers; corticosteroids decrease salicylate serum levels; additive hypoprothrombinemic effects and increased bleeding time may occur with coadministration of anticoagulants; may antagonize uricosuric effects of probenecid and increase toxicity of phenytoin and valproic acid; doses >2 g/d may potentiate glucose-lowering effect of sulfonylurea drugs
 
Pregnancy
D - Fetal risk shown in humans; use only if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
May cause transient decrease in renal function and aggravate chronic kidney disease; avoid use in patients with severe anemia, with history of blood coagulation defects, or taking anticoagulants 
 

Drug Category: Immune globulins -- Neutralize circulating myelin antibodies through antiidiotypic antibodies. Immune globulins down-regulate proinflammatory cytokines, including INF-gamma. They also block Fc receptors on macrophages, suppress inducer T and B cells, and augment suppressor T cells. Immune globulins block complement cascade and promote remyelination. Administration may increase CSF IgG (10%).
 
Drug Name: CMV hyperimmune globulin (CytoGam)
Used to prevent CMV disease in immunosuppressed recipients of organ transplants.
 
Adult Dose
150 mg/kg IV postoperative day 3, then 100 mg/kg qowk IV for 4 wk, then 50 mg/kg/mo for 1 y
Pediatric Dose
Administer as in adults
 
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; IgA deficiency; anti-IgE/IgG antibodies
 
Interactions
Increases toxicity of live virus vaccine (MMR); do not administer within 3 mo of vaccine
 
Pregnancy
C - Fetal risk revealed in studies in animals but not established or not studied in humans; may use if benefits outweigh risk to fetus
 
Precautions
Check serum IgA before IVIG (use an IgA-depleted product such as Gammagard S/D); infusion may increase serum viscosity and thromboembolic events; infusion may increase risk of migraine attacks, aseptic meningitis (10%), urticaria, pruritus, and petechiae (2-5 to 30 d postinfusion); increases risk of renal tubular necrosis in elderly patients and in patients with diabetes, volume depletion, and preexisting kidney disease; associated laboratory result changes include elevated antiviral or antibacterial antibody titers for 1 mo, a 6-fold increase in ESR for 2-3 wk, and apparent hyponatremia

Table. Proposed Immunosuppression Targets

Complications

Rejection

Rejection episodes occur in 70-90% of recipients following intestinal transplantation, although hyperacute rejection is rare.^39,19,23,40 The median number of rejection episodes per patient is 2.5 and does not differ with the type of allograft.⁴⁰ Most episodes respond to steroid bolus therapy, and only 20% of patients require muromonab-CD3 or thymoglobulin for treatment of steroid-resistant rejection. With newer immunosuppressive protocols the incidence of rejection in intestinal transplant recipients has declined markedly in the last 5 years.²⁸

Concurrent liver transplantation has been proposed to offer protective benefits, but these effects have not been universal. Recent data, reported by Fishbein and others at the International Small Bowel Transplant Symposium in Stockholm, Sweden have provided optimism that newer immunosuppressive protocols, which include sirolimus and other agents (eg, alemtuzumab [Campath]), may lower the frequency of rejection and may reduce immunosuppression-related adverse effects while improving survival. A more recent review, published in 2008, looked again at the protective effect of a concurrent liver with intestine transplantation versus intestine transplantation alone.⁴¹ This review revealed a trend toward a protective effect and reduced incidence of acute rejection at one year; however, this trend did not reach significance.⁴¹

The development of moderate or severe acute intestinal graft rejection is a poor prognostic indicator and is associated with a mortality rate of 40%.²³ Graft enterectomy can be performed in ISB recipients with severe rejection; however, removal of the intestinal graft from recipients of composite grafts is technically more challenging and is generally not performed. High mortality occurs in this situation.

Infection and sepsis

Sepsis is the most frequent cause of death following intestinal transplantation.¹⁹ Frequently involved factors include intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bowel perforation, line infection, wound infection, pulmonary infection, urinary tract infection, and viral enteritis. Sepsis is not uncommon with acute rejection, and this should always be remembered when evaluating a septic patient. Approximately 40% of small bowel transplant recipients require further surgery during their original inpatient stay; additional surgery is usually the result of infectious complications.³⁷ Furthermore, these complications are primarily responsible for the prolonged hospitalizations of these patients; ISB recipients typically are hospitalized for 3 weeks to 3 months, and LSB recipients typically are hospitalized for 3-6 months.

Following small bowel transplantation, typical pathogens are enteric organisms, fungal species, or staphylococci (associated with central venous line infections). Bacterial infection appears to be far more common if the colon is included in the allograft; thus, inclusion of the colon is not the recommended protocol in many centers.⁴² Empiric antibiotic selection is based on the focus of infection and previous resistance patterns of positive isolates. The regimen should be modified based on culture results. In view of the high propensity for translocation of gut-derived bacteria, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh recommend surveillance stool cultures to direct empiric antibiotic selection at the onset of apparent infection.⁴³

Cytomegalovirus infection

CMV disease occurs more frequently after intestinal transplantation than after other types of solid organ transplantation. When present, involvement of the allograft occurs in more than 90% of cases.⁴² In the past, more than half of intestinal transplant recipients developed symptomatic CMV infection.⁴² Recipients of grafts from donors who are seropositive for CMV have a worse outcome than recipients of grafts from seronegative donors.^44,31 In light of this observation, a policy to avoid donor-positive/recipient-negative transplantations was adopted by the University of Nebraska, which has probably contributed to the reduced incidence of CMV disease observed at this center. Most infections are diagnosed following endoscopic biopsy; the remainder are identified during evaluations of febrile patients.

Lymphoproliferative disease

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) is a complication of over-immunosuppression. PTLD is a lymphoma that occurs after transplantation, and it is frequently associated with EBV infection.⁴⁵ PTLD occurs in 6-29% of intestinal transplant recipients, and children appear to have an increased frequency of PTLD compared with adults.^37,19,46,23 The peak incidence appears to be at 2 years. Ongoing graft monitoring is essential during therapy for PTLD because graft rejection may occur on a background of reduced immunosuppression, with the potential for graft loss. Recently improved outcomes for those diagnosed with this condition have been demonstrated with treatment with the anti-CD20 antibody, reituximab.^47,48,49

Graft versus host disease

GVHD following intestinal transplantation has been far less common than one might expect considering the substantial volume of lymphoid tissue present in both the mesentery and the Peyer patches of the intestinal allograft. The rate of GVHD after intestinal transplantation is 0-16%.^50,39,37,23 Transplantation programs with higher reported GVHD rates use simultaneous bone marrow infusion, which may contribute to the increased prevalence of GVHD.⁵⁰ Strategies to prevent GVHD include graft irradiation and the administration of antilymphocyte serum.⁵¹ All blood products should be irradiated. Treatment with pulse methylprednisolone generally is effective for controlling mild cases.⁵² Unfortunately, a nonspecific presentation and diagnostic delay appear to contribute to the high mortality associated with GVHD.

Chronic rejection

Chronic rejection is becoming more apparent over time. Patients present with failure to thrive, diarrhea, and, occasionally, sepsis. Routine small bowel biopsy results may show mucosal atrophy, although results also may demonstrate minimal, if any, change. This is because obliterative vasculitis and fibrosis, which are often factors involved in chronic rejection, are localized to layers of the small bowel deeper than the biopsy procedure can access. For this reason, biopsy results may be falsely reassuring. Often, at later stages, patients need to be explanted and may later become candidates for repeat intestinal transplantation. As with other forms of transplantation, repeated bouts of acute rejection are predictors of chronic rejection.

Renal dysfunction

As the long-term survival rates of intestinal recipients improve, more complications related to the immunosuppressive management will occur. Among the most serious of these complications is chronic renal disease. The frequency of chronic renal dysfunction among patients who underwent intestinal transplantation appears higher than among recipients of any other form of nonrenal solid organ transplant.⁵³ The renal dysfunction is multifactorial in origin; intestinal allograft dysfunction likely contributes to the high incidence, although this has never been studied. To reduce the incidence of renal dysfunction, close monitoring of hydration parameters is an important component of posttransplant health maintenance. In the face of chronic renal dysfunction, early nephrology referral and possible revisions to immunosuppression strategies might be considered.

Outcome and Prognosis

Quality of life

The International Transplant Registry and several large centers have shown that 77-93% of surviving recipients remain independent of parenteral nutrition beyond 6-12 months after transplantation.^39,19,23 Rovera and colleagues examined 10 adult recipients of successful intestinal transplantation and 10 adult patients who were stable on home parenteral nutrition. They reported that quality of life was similar between the groups. The major difference was that further improvement over time was observed in the group that received intestinal transplants.⁵⁴

Another study on quality of life examined 30 recipients in whom graft function was maintained beyond 1 year. Rehabilitation potential was excellent, and 92% of recipients returned to school or work.⁵⁵ On the other hand, the prolonged need for intense immunosuppression was associated with rehospitalization in 50% of patients during the preceding year, and poor linear growth in 25% of pediatric transplant recipients occurred despite seemingly adequate allograft function.⁵⁵

Patient and graft survival

The results of intestinal transplantation were reported at the Sixth International Small Bowel Transplant Symposium. Reports came from several single-center series, including Omaha, Paris, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Worldwide, pooled data through 1997 on the outcomes of intestinal transplantation are reported through the Intestinal Transplant Registry.¹⁹ A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the registry. Most patients were younger than 13 years, and only 35% of the patients were older than 16 years. Surgeries performed included ISB (45%), LSB (40%), and multivisceral (15%) transplantations.

The 1-year survival rate for patients undergoing intestinal transplantation after 1995 was approximately 65%, and the 1-year graft survival rate was 60%. Statistical analysis of the registry data revealed that the factors significant for determining outcome included center size and type of allograft. Transplantation programs wherein more than 10 intestinal transplantations were performed had significantly improved survival. A patient survival advantage was noted for those patients receiving either an ISB or LSB transplant compared with those receiving a multivisceral transplant; no apparent survival advantage was conferred by the use of living-related donors.¹⁹

The most common cause of death was sepsis (47%), followed by multiorgan failure (26%), graft thrombosis (10%), PTLD (10%), and graft rejection (4%).¹⁹ The most common reason for graft failure was refractory rejection.¹⁹ More recent data published from the Intestinal Transplant Registry in 2007 highlighted the improved survival rates, with 1-year survival rates after intestinal transplantation identified as approaching those of liver allograft recipients.⁵⁶

Survival figures 2007. Image courtesy of the Intestinal Transplantation Registry (ITR).

At the Second International Congress on Immunosuppression (Dec 2001, San Diego, Calif), some of the larger programs (including the University of Nebraska and the University of Pittsburgh) reported significant reductions in rejection. This will likely lead to improved long-term survival over time. Importantly, however, after 2000, the Intestinal Transplant Registry reported a rise in the 1-year survivals of both patients and grafts to about 75%. With this improvement, no significant differences between isolated small bowel (ISB), multivisceral, or combined liver-small bowel (LSB) transplantation were observed. Adding to this success, further improvement in survival rates were seen over the next 7 years.

One reason for improvements was a reduced rate of acute rejection amongst recipients. An increased use of induction therapy, in particular, basiliximab, may have accounted for some of this success. In addition, transplantation of a higher ratio of patients as outpatients rather than as inpatients and transplantations carried out in centers with increasing experience (>10 transplants) appears to have contributed to the improved outcomes. Data from the registries of most solid organs suggest that a critical volume needs to be achieved to support best outcomes.

In summary, program experience, refined surgical and programmatic techniques, and patients in better clinical health at the time of transplant have all contributed to improved outcomes. With regard to the proportion of patients waiting at home, earlier referral of patients to intestinal failure and transplant centers contributes to better patient outcomes.

Unfortunately, survival results must be viewed with reservation. The outcome of this procedure needs to be considered many years along. The Intestinal Transplant Registry indicates that long-term graft survival continues to decline and, importantly, chronic rejection is not an uncommon problem in allografts. As discussed above chronic rejection leads to recurrence of the primary pathology (ie, intestinal failure) and is most common in those who are not compliant with posttransplant regimens.^21,3 Intestinal transplantation is common in young children. This author is concerned that allograft loss from this pathology will become an increasing problem as the population of pediatric patients who have been transplanted enters into late adolescence. In addition, one particular morbidity accompanying this procedure is the frequency of endstage renal disease. This complication has been identified as decreasing long-term survival in intestinal transplant recipients.³⁸

A division exists in outcomes. Overall, the average the 1-year survival rate appears to be improving; however, the 5-year allograft survival rate has remained stable at approximately 60-65%.² These data may be interpreted in different ways; however, one of the most evident arguments is that long-term immunosuppression or failure of immunosuppression carries significant morbidity. In the long run, this is still a major area for attention.
 
Intestinal rehabilitation: the alternative

Intestinal rehabilitation is an emerging subspecialty. It focuses on measures to optimize enteral tolerance while concurrently assessing, preventing, or managing the complications of PN. Rehabilitation is most successful when undertaken by multidisciplinary teams with a coordinated approach. These groups use modifications to diet, in association with judicious use of medications, to optimize enteral tolerance of the bowel that is present. In some instances, surgical procedures are performed to remove areas of stasis or to lengthen the bowel. Pivotal to the success of intestinal rehabilitation is the patient's participation within the framework of a multidisciplinary team.⁵⁷

Intestinal failure is defined as a reduction of intestinal absorption so that macronutrient, water, electrolyte supplements, or a combination thereof are needed to maintain health or growth. Severe intestinal failure is when PN, fluid, or both are needed. Mild intestinal failure is when oral supplements or dietary modification suffice. Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is present when failure results from intestinal loss and failure to adapt by 1 month.

Approximately 10,000-20,000 patients with SBS are treated each year in the United States. The incidence is 1-2 cases per 100,000 persons per year, and this accounts for approximately one third of home PN users. The severity of the disease generally correlates with remnant bowel length and the loss of the ileocecal valve. Over the past decade, the severity of SBS has been better correlated with the absolute function of the intestine that remains, as enormous interindividual variability is present. Of those patients on home PN, the survival rate is 90% for instances in which PN was commenced for benign disease as compared with 15% 1-year survival rates in cases in which PN was commenced for intestinal failure that developed as a consequence of malignant disease.

Intestinal rehabilitation monitors for complications of PN. These complications include the following:

• Line infections
  • Sepsis 0.4-2 times per year (Catheters used for TPN have less catheter colonization than catheters used for other indications.)
  • Endocarditis, phlebitis
• Occlusion 0.1 times per year
• PN-related liver disease
• Iatrogenic effects (malposition, migration, leaks)
• Metabolic effects (osteopenia/osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus), electrolyte levels, fluid levels, vitamin deficiencies
• D-lactic acidosis
• Manganese and aluminium toxicity
• Stone disease (renal, biliary)
• PN nephropathy

• Iso-osmolar restriction to 500 cal/d initially, followed by graduated increases to caloric intake
• Encourage salt and carbohydrate combinations, especially in patients who have a jejunostomy (avoid simple concentrated carbohydrates in isolation)
• Liquid supplements (gluconate forms)
• Rice starch products
• Medium chain triglycerides
• Fat restriction
  • Restrict fat to around 30% of daily intake if colon is in continuity (combined with soluble fibers and complex starches).
  • If the patient has no colon, fat restriction may not be necessary, as fat is felt to be a good energy source in these patients.
• Glutamine
• Lactose avoidance
• Oxalate avoidance
• Jejunostomies isotonic high sodium (encouraged target is 90 mmol/L)
• Fiber
  • Clinical trial data suggest that fiber assists ostomy outputs by modifying the consistency of these outputs.
  • Soluble fiber metabolism is an important potential source of nutrition in some patients (fermented to short chain fatty acids [SFA]).^58,59

• Acid suppression (H2 blocker, proton pump inhibitor)
• Antidiarrheal medications (high dose)
• Vitamin supplements (high dose)
• Caution with Mg and K supplements (These supplements may be required to offset losses. However, the physician must recognize that both may contribute to ostomy losses at higher doses and that short transit times may reduce the efficacy of tablet forms.)
• Cholestyramine (with caution)

• Bacterial overgrowth management (generally applied as therapeutic trials of antibiotics with clinical responses the end point to be monitored for)
• Octreotide may be considered to treat refractory diarrhea, although tachyphylaxis develops and use in patients with in situ gallbladders increases the likelihood of cholelithiasis.
• Clonidine may assist by acting to reduce high outputs for the GI tract (Use caution, as the use of this drug may be associated with hypotension, particularly if initiated in a dehydrated patient.)
• Pancreatic enzymes (to be used, in particular, in patients with risk for deficiencies of pancreatic enzymes)
• Bisphosphonates⁶⁰
• Growth hormone⁶¹
• Glucagonlike peptide-2 (GLP-2)⁶²

• Tapering enteroplasty
• Bowel plication
• Reverse segments
• Creation of intestinal valves
• Kimura procedure
• Longitudinal intestinal lengthening⁶³
• Serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP)⁶⁴

Future and Controversies

Cost

The average cost of intestinal transplantation is $132,285 for ISB transplantation, $214,716 for LSB transplantation, and $219,098 for multivisceral transplantation.³⁹ As of 1992, the estimated average yearly cost of TPN administration—not including medical equipment, nursing care, or hospitalization—was approximately $150,000 per patient.⁶⁵

Living-related transplantation and reduced-size grafts

Reduced-size LSB grafts have been introduced in an effort to address the high mortality rate due to prolonged waiting times, especially for children younger than 1 year.^66,35 Living-related (live donor) small bowel transplantation has been performed, although long-term outcome data remain pending for both donor and recipient. Clearly, the number of potential donors would be dramatically increased if live donors or donors who are larger than recipients were routinely considered; however, the functional consequences of bowel reduction for transplantation in humans remain unknown.^67,55 Another option, which was suggested by researchers at King's College, is sequential transplantation of the liver and, later, the small bowel, in a separate procedure.⁶⁸

The use of reduced-size grafts may not greatly affect waiting list mortality. A shift to targeting prevention of liver disease associated with TPN along with intestinal adaptation measures may provide greater benefits.

Obstacles to general application

The primary obstacles to a general application of intestinal transplantation to all patients with benign and irreversible SBS are the consequences of both the procedure and the adverse long-term effects of immunosuppression. Further investigation into the immunology of the intestinal graft and targeted immunosuppression may enable surgeons to offer intestinal transplantation to any patient permanently dependent on TPN. Trials of a variety of immunosuppression regimens and the continued investigations into tolerance induction are being pursued in intestinal transplantation as for all forms of transplantation. The ultimate goal is a functional bowel free of rejection in a recipient without adverse effects of over-immunosuppression or specific medication-related complications. To minimize these complications, tailored regimens involving a variety of medications are being tested.

Although not currently a reality, future patients with uncomplicated intestinal failure may be considered for intestinal transplantation based on quality-of-life issues. Currently, the risks, benefits, and resources limit this procedure to people with complications of TPN, although this restriction is likely to change.

For excellent patient education resources, visit eMedicine's Procedures Center. Also, see eMedicine's patient education article Liver Transplant.

Guidelines for gastroenterologists

With recent improvements in the outcome of intestinal transplantation, this procedure may soon be more generally applied as treatment for uncomplicated TPN dependency. Comparisons have been made between the survival rates of patients receiving home TPN versus those who undergo intestinal transplantation. In the analysis, a comparison was made between published outcomes of the North American Registry of Home Parenteral Nutrition²⁴ and those of 141 consecutive intestinal transplantations at the University of Pittsburgh.⁶⁹ Although this comparison has limitations, it illustrates that the more general application of isolated bowel transplantation needs to be investigated and compared to long-term PN. This is unlikely to occur in a randomized fashion, and comparisons in the future will likely continue to be made to historic controls.

Information on the outcomes of those receiving home PN are limited. The exact number of people on TPN and the current frequency of complications of TPN in the US population are unknown. Most series in the literature are biased by the published data being generated from sources that have TPN expertise. By contrast, a sizable number of patients receiving HPN are not managed by these specialty groups. From this fact, one might assume that the complications of PN are higher and outcomes for long-term PN patients lower in those not managed by specialty groups. More important, however, is that timely referral for transplant evaluation improves outcomes.⁷⁰

The incidence of patients with SBS has increased over the years because of progress made in intensive care medicine and parenteral nutrition techniques. This has created an increasing role for the general gastroenterologist and general surgeon for the long-term management of patients who survive massive resections and the long-term control of their TPN.

Early referral to centers with experience in intestinal failure and transplantation provides patients with the benefits of the multidisciplinary team and is associated with better survival rates and socioeconomic outcomes. An early referral allows all medical and surgical options for SBS to be explored. As time passes and TPN-associated complications develop, the therapeutic alternatives available to eliminate TPN may become limited. The emerging paradigm appears to be that patients with what seems to be irreversible intestinal failure should be referred to one of the limited centers with experience in both intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation.

The mortality rate of patients with SBS who receive HPN is about 30% after 5 years, which is still lower than the 5-year survival rate of patients with intestinal grafts and is about equal to survival rates of patients who have undergone intestinal transplantation. However, because the overall costs of a successful intestinal transplantation are already lower after 2 years than the cost of a prolonged HPN program, the procedure can be an economic alternative.⁷¹

The gastroenterologist who refers a patient for intestinal transplantation assumes an important role in the patient's management and long-term outcome. This is a consequence of the dispersed geography of patients with intestinal failure, the limited number of approved intestinal transplant facilities within the United States, and the need to coordinate patient care with an interested and invested local practitioner. After the patient is discharged from the transplant facility, the referring physician may assume responsibility for assessing nutritional outcomes, monitoring for complications of immunosuppression, and initial evaluating of rejection or infectious complications. Close liaison with the transplant center is encouraged. In the intestinal transplant recipient, allograft rejection remains a constant problem, and common clinical problems may present in an atypical presentation as a consequence, in part, of immunosuppression.

Multimedia

Media file 1: Anatomy of the donor operation, with procurement of the liver, small bowel, pancreas, and spleen en bloc (AO, thoracic aorta; HA, hepatic artery; PV, portal vein; CBD, common bile duct; D₁, first part of the duodenum; TI, terminal ileum).

Media file 2: Small bowel recipient operation (AOI, interposition graft of aorta; AOII, Carrel patch bearing celiac trunk and superior mesenteric artery; AOIII, aortic end oversewn below superior mesenteric artery take-off; SV, native splenic vein; P, pancreas, with duct and parenchymal edge oversewn; PB, proximal bowel anastomosis; DB, distal ileocolonic anastomosis; LS, diverting loop ileostomy).

Media file 3: Back table operation with mesenteric vessels held within the forceps and the donor intestine within preservation solution.

Media file 4: Intestinal graft within the abdominal cavity of the recipient at the time of revascularization.

Media file 5: Revascularized bowel prior to closure. In the lower right corner the anastomosis between the donor small bowel and recipient remnant colon can be seen.

Picture of the liver and small bowel allograft. The liver is to the left of the picture, and the spleen can be seen lying within the loops of the small bowel (spleen is removed later).

Media file 7: Removal of the native liver. Left behind is the cavity into which the liver and small bowel allograft will be placed.

Media file 8: Postrevascularization image of the liver and small bowel allograft.

Media file 9: The allograft, prior to closure, positioned within the recipient's abdomen. The wedge-shaped excision (biopsy site) seen on the donor organ was performed at organ procurement. These biopsies are selectively performed to review the suitability of organs in instances where issues of suitability are raised.

Media file 10: Survival figures 2007. Image courtesy of the Intestinal Transplantation Registry (ITR).

Media file 11: PN cholestasis. (This is a reversible pathology at this point as an absence of fibrosis.)

Media file 12: Intestinal transplants by year. Image courtesy of the Intestinal Transplantation Registry (ITR).

References

1. Carrel A. The transplantation of organs. A preliminary communication. JAMA. 1905;45:1654.

2. Fryer JP. The current status of intestinal transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. Jun 2008;13(3):266-72. [Medline].

3. Sauvat F, Fusaro F, Lacaille F, et al. Is intestinal transplantation the future of children with definitive intestinal insufficiency?. Eur J Pediatr Surg. Dec 2008;18(6):368-71. [Medline].

4. Abu-Elmagd K, Reyes J, Bond G, et al. Clinical intestinal transplantation: a decade of experience at a single center. Ann Surg. Sep 2001;234(3):404-16; discussion 416-7. [Medline].

5. Selvaggi G, Tzakis AG. Small bowel transplantation: technical advances/updates. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. Jun 2009;14(3):262-6. [Medline].

6. Colomb V, Goulet O, De Potter S, Ricour C. Liver disease associated with long-term parenteral nutrition in children. Transplant Proc. Jun 1994;26(3):1467. [Medline].

7. Sondheimer JM, Asturias E, Cadnapaphornchai M. Infection and cholestasis in neonates with intestinal resection and long-term parenteral nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. Aug 1998;27(2):131-7. [Medline].

8. Chan S, McCowen KC, Bistrian BR, et al. Incidence, prognosis, and etiology of end-stage liver disease in patients receiving home total parenteral nutrition. Surgery. Jul 1999;126(1):28-34. [Medline].

9. Wasa M, Takagi Y, Sando K, et al. Long-term outcome of short bowel syndrome in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Sep-Oct 1999;23(5 Suppl):S110-2. [Medline].

10. Cavicchi M, Beau P, Crenn P, et al. Prevalence of liver disease and contributing factors in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition for permanent intestinal failure. Ann Intern Med. Apr 4 2000;132(7):525-32. [Medline].

11. Bowyer BA, Fleming CR, Ludwig J, et al. Does long-term home parenteral nutrition in adult patients cause chronic liver disease?. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Jan-Feb 1985;9(1):11-7. [Medline].

12. Stokes MA, Irving MH. Mortality in patients on home parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Mar-Apr 1989;13(2):172-5. [Medline].

13. Wolf A, Pohlandt F. Bacterial infection: the main cause of acute cholestasis in newborn infants receiving short-term parenteral nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. Apr 1989;8(3):297-303. [Medline].

14. Williams N, Scott NA, Irving MH. Catheter-related morbidity in patients on home parenteral nutrition: implications for small bowel transplantation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. Nov 1994;76(6):384-6. [Medline].

15. Burnes JU, O'Keefe SJ, Fleming CR, et al. Home parenteral nutrition--a 3-year analysis of clinical and laboratory monitoring. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Jul-Aug 1992;16(4):327-32. [Medline].

16. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH. A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Apr 1973;136(4):602-6. [Medline].

17. Flowers RH 3rd, Schwenzer KJ, Kopel RF, et al. Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection. A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA. Feb 10 1989;261(6):878-83. [Medline].

18. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med. Mar 7 2000;132(5):391-402. [Medline].

19. Grant D. Intestinal transplantation: 1997 report of the international registry. Intestinal Transplant Registry. Transplantation. Apr 15 1999;67(7):1061-4. [Medline].

20. Howard L, Hassan N. Home parenteral nutrition. 25 years later. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Jun 1998;27(2):481-512. [Medline].

21. Lacaille F, Vass N, Sauvat F, et al. Long-term outcome, growth and digestive function in children 2 to 18 years after intestinal transplantation. Gut. Apr 2008;57(4):455-61. [Medline].

22. Kosmach B, Tarbell S, Reyes J, Todo S. "Munchausen by proxy" syndrome in a small bowel transplant recipient. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2790-1. [Medline].

23. Sudan DL, Kaufman SS, Shaw BW Jr, et al. Isolated intestinal transplantation for intestinal failure. Am J Gastroenterol. Jun 2000;95(6):1506-15. [Medline].

24. Howard L, Heaphey L, Fleming CR, et al. Four years of North American registry home parenteral nutrition outcome data and their implications for patient management. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. Jul-Aug 1991;15(4):384-93. [Medline].

25. DeRoover A, Langnas A. Surgical methods of small bowel transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 1999;4(4):335-42.

26. Asfar S, Atkison P, Ghent C, et al. Small bowel transplantation. A life-saving option for selected patients with intestinal failure. Dig Dis Sci. May 1996;41(5):875-83. [Medline].

27. Quigley EM. Small intestinal transplantation: reflections on an evolving approach to intestinal failure. Gastroenterology. Jun 1996;110(6):2009-12. [Medline].

28. Fishbein TM, Florman S, Gondolesi G, et al. Intestinal transplantation before and after the introduction of sirolimus. Transplantation. 2002;73(10):1538-42. [Medline].

29. O'Keefe S, et al. Teduglutide, a Novel GLP-2 Analog, in the Management of Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS) Patients Dependent On Parenteral Nutrition: a Multicenter, Multinational Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Clinical Science Plenary Session, Digestive Diseases Week, 2008. Available at http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/phase-3-gattex-results-presented-annual-digestive-week-congress-highlight-potential-new-short-bowel-4346.html. Accessed June 12, 2009.

30. Todo S, Reyes J, Furukawa H, et al. Outcome analysis of 71 clinical intestinal transplantations. Ann Surg. Sep 1995;222(3):270-80; discussion 280-2. [Medline].

31. Furukawa H, Kusne S, Abu-Elmagd K, et al. Effect of CMV serology on outcome after clinical intestinal transplantation. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2780-1. [Medline].

32. Reynolds DW, Stagno S, Reynolds R, Alford CA Jr. Perinatal cytomegalovirus infection: influence of placentally transferred maternal antibody. J Infect Dis. May 1978;137(5):564-7. [Medline].

33. Cohen Z, Silverman RE, Wassef R, et al. Small intestinal transplantation using cyclosporine. Report of a case. Transplantation. Dec 1986;42(6):613-21. [Medline].

34. Masetti M, Rodriguez MM, Thompson JF, et al. Multivisceral transplantation for megacystis microcolon intestinal hypoperistalsis syndrome. Transplantation. Jul 27 1999;68(2):228-32. [Medline].

35. de Ville de Goyet J, Mitchell A, Mayer AD, et al. En block combined reduced-liver and small bowel transplants: from large donors to small children. Transplantation. Feb 27 2000;69(4):555-9. [Medline].

36. Karatzas T, Khan F, Tzakis AG. Clinical intestinal transplantation: experience in Miami. Transplant Proc. May 1997;29(3):1787-9. [Medline].

37. Reyes J, Bueno J, Kocoshis S, et al. Current status of intestinal transplantation in children. J Pediatr Surg. Feb 1998;33(2):243-54. [Medline].

38. Herlenius G, Fagerlind M, Krantz M, et al. Chronic kidney disease--a common and serious complication after intestinal transplantation. Transplantation. Jul 15 2008;86(1):108-13. [Medline].

39. Abu-Elmagd K, Reyes J, Todo S, et al. Clinical intestinal transplantation: new perspectives and immunologic considerations. J Am Coll Surg. May 1998;186(5):512-25; discussion 525-7. [Medline].

40. Sudan DL, Kaufman S, Horslen S, et al. Incidence, timing, and histologic grade of acute rejection in small bowel transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. Sep 2000;32(6):1199. [Medline].

41. Rana A, Robles S, Russo MJ, et al. The combined organ effect: protection against rejection?. Ann Surg. Nov 2008;248(5):871-9. [Medline].

42. Kusne S, Furukawa H, Abu-Elmagd K, et al. Infectious complications after small bowel transplantation in adults: an update. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2761-2. [Medline].

43. Green M, Reyes J, Nour B, et al. Early infectious complications of liver-intestinal transplantation in children: preliminary analysis. Transplant Proc. Jun 1994;26(3):1420-1. [Medline].

44. Manez R, Kusne S, Green M, et al. Incidence and risk factors associated with the development of cytomegalovirus disease after intestinal transplantation. Transplantation. Apr 15 1995;59(7):1010-4. [Medline].

45. Nalesnik MA, Jaffe R, Starzl TE, et al. The pathology of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders occurring in the setting of cyclosporine A-prednisone immunosuppression. Am J Pathol. Oct 1988;133(1):173-92. [Medline].

46. Nalesnik M, Reyes J, Mazieriegos G, et al. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) in small bowel allograft recipients. Presented at: Sixth International Small Bowel Transplant Symposium. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Pittsburgh, Pa:. 1999.

47. Elstrom RL, Andreadis C, Aqui NA, et al. Treatment of PTLD with rituximab or chemotherapy. Am J Transplant. Mar 2006;6(3):569-76. [Medline].

48. Lee JJ, Lam MS, Rosenberg A. Role of chemotherapy and rituximab for treatment of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder in solid organ transplantation. Ann Pharmacother. Oct 2007;41(10):1648-59. [Medline].

49. Vianna RM, Mangus RS, Fridell JA, Weigman S, Kazimi M, Tector J. Induction immunosuppression with thymoglobulin and rituximab in intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Transplantation. May 15 2008;85(9):1290-3. [Medline].

50. Pirenne J, Gruessner AC, Benedetti E, et al. Donor-specific unmodified bone marrow transfusion does not facilitate intestinal engraftment after bowel transplantation in a porcine model. Surgery. Jan 1997;121(1):79-88. [Medline].

51. Matsumoto S, Tanaka S, Orita K. Effect of donor pretreatment on graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after rat small-bowel transplantation (SBTX). Transplant Proc. Aug 1994;26(4):2306-8. [Medline].

52. Bacigalupo A, van Lint MT, Frassoni F, et al. High dose bolus methylprednisolone for the treatment of acute graft versus host disease. Blood. Mar 1983;46(3):125-32. [Medline].

53. Ojo AO, Held PJ, Port FK, et al. Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(10):931-40. [Medline].

54. Rovera GM, DiMartini A, Schoen RE, et al. Quality of life of patients after intestinal transplantation. Transplantation. Nov 15 1998;66(9):1141-5. [Medline].

55. Sudan DL, Iverson A, Weseman RA, et al. Assessment of function, growth and development, and long-term quality of life after small bowel transplantation. Transplant Proc. Sep 2000;32(6):1211-2. [Medline].

56. Grant D, Abu-Elmagd K, Reyes J, et al. 2003 report of the intestine transplant registry: a new era has dawned. Ann Surg. Apr 2005;241(4):607-13.

57. Fishbein TM, Schiano T, LeLeiko N, et al. An integrated approach to intestinal failure: results of a new program with total parenteral nutrition, bowel rehabilitation, and transplantation. J Gastrointest Surg. Jul-Aug 2002;6(4):554-62.

58. Matarese LE, Seidner DL, Steiger E, Fazio V. Practical guide to intestinal rehabilitation for postresection intestinal failure: a case study. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20(5):551-8. [Medline].

59. Higham SE, Read NW. Effect of ingestion of fat on ileostomy effluent. Gut. 1990;31(4):435-8. [Medline].

60. Haderslev KV, Tjellesen L, Sorensen HA, Staun M. Effect of cyclical intravenous clodronate therapy on bone mineral density and markers of bone turnover in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(2):482-8. [Medline].

61. [Best Evidence] Byrne TA, Wilmore DW, Iyer K. Growth hormone, glutamine, and an optimal diet reduces parenteral nutrition in patients with short bowel syndrome: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242(5):655-61. [Medline].

62. Jeppesen PB, Sanguinetti EL, Buchman A, et al. Teduglutide (ALX-0600), a dipeptidyl peptidase IV resistant glucagon-like peptide 2 analogue, improves intestinal function in short bowel syndrome patients. Gut. Sep 2005;54(9):1224-31.

63. Bianchi A. Autologous gastrointestinal reconstruction. Semin Pediatr Surg. Feb 1995;4(1):54-9.

64. Kim HB, Lee PW, Garza J, et al. Serial transverse enteroplasty for short bowel syndrome: a case report. J Pediatr Surg. Jun 2003;38(6):881-5.

65. Howard L, Ament M, Fleming CR, et al. Current use and clinical outcome of home parenteral and enteral nutrition therapies in the United States. Gastroenterology. Aug 1995;109(2):355-65. [Medline].

66. Reyes J, Fishbein T, Bueno J, et al. Reduced-size orthotopic composite liver-intestinal allograft. Transplantation. Aug 27 1998;66(4):489-92. [Medline].

67. Sigalet DL, Williams DC, Garola R, et al. Impact of FK506 and steroids on adaptation after intestinal resection or segmental transplantation. Pediatr Transplant. Feb 2000;4(1):12-20. [Medline].

68. Muiesan P, Dhawan A, Novelli M, et al. Isolated liver transplant and sequential small bowel transplantation for intestinal failure and related liver disease in children. Transplantation. Jun 15 2000;69(11):2323-6. [Medline].

69. Abu-Elmagd KM, Reyes J, Fung JJ, et al. Evolution of clinical intestinal transplantation: improved outcome and cost effectiveness. Transplant Proc. Feb-Mar 1999;31(1-2):582-4. [Medline].

70. Gupte GL, Beath SV, Protheroe S, et al. Improved outcome of referrals for intestinal transplantation in the UK. Arch Dis Child. 2007;92(2):147-52. [Medline].

71. Schalamon J, Mayr JM, Hollwarth ME. Mortality and economics in short bowel syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;17(6):931-42. [Medline].

72. Abu-Elmagd KM. Intestinal transplantation for short bowel syndrome and gastrointestinal failure: current consensus, rewarding outcomes, and practical guidelines. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S132-7.

73. Ahmed R, Segal I, Hassan H. Fermentation of dietary starch in humans. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(4):1017-20. [Medline].

74. Alican F, Hardy JD, Cayirli M, et al. Intestinal transplantation: laboratory experience and report of a clinical case. Am J Surg. Feb 1971;121(2):150-9. [Medline].

75. Broviac JW, Scribner BH. Prolonged parenteral nutrition in the home. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Jul 1974;139(1):24-8. [Medline].

76. Buchman AL. Etiology and initial management of short bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S5-S15.

77. Buchman AL, Iyer K, Fryer J. Parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease and the role for isolated intestine and intestine/liver transplantation. Hepatology. Jan 2006;43(1):9-19.

78. Buchman AL, Scolapio J, Fryer J. AGA technical review on short bowel syndrome and intestinal transplantation. Gastroenterology. Apr 2003;124(4):1111-34.

79. Carson KL, Hunt CM. Medical problems occurring after orthotopic liver transplantation. Dig Dis Sci. Aug 1997;42(8):1666-74. [Medline].

80. Colomb V, De Potter S, Goulet O, et al. Potential candidates for small bowel transplantation in pediatric patients on home parenteral nutrition. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2698. [Medline].

81. Connor FL, Di Lorenzo C. Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction: assessment and management. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S29-36.

82. Fishbein T, Schiano T, Jaffe D, et al. Isolated intestinal transplantation in adults with non-reconstructible GI tract. Presented at: Sixth International Small Bowel Transplant Symposium. New York, NY: The Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute; Mount Sinai Hospital; 1999.

83. Gambarara M, Goulet O, Bagolan P, et al. Long-term parenteral nutrition in the management of extremely short bowel syndrome. Transplant Proc. Sep 1998;30(6):2539-40. [Medline].

84. Garcia M, Weppler D, Mittal N, et al. Campath-1H immunosuppressive therapy reduces incidence and intensity of acute rejection in intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Transplant Proc. Mar 2004;36(2):323-4. [Medline].

85. Gondolesi G, Fishbein T, Chehade M, et al. Serum citrulline is a potential marker for rejection of intestinal allografts. Transplant Proc. May 2002;34(3):918-20.

86. Goulet OJ, Revillon Y, Cerf-Bensussan N, et al. Small intestinal transplantation in a child using cyclosporine. Transplant Proc. Jun 1988;20(3 Suppl 3):288-96. [Medline].

87. Grant D, Lamont D, Zhong R, et al. 51Cr-EDTA: a marker of early intestinal rejection in the rat. J Surg Res. May 1989;46(5):507-14. [Medline].

88. Grant D, Wall W, Mimeault R, et al. Successful small-bowel/liver transplantation. Lancet. Jan 27 1990;335(8683):181-4. [Medline].

89. Gross TG, Hinrichs SH, Winner J, et al. Treatment of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) following solid organ transplantation with low-dose chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. Mar 1998;9(3):339-40. [Medline].

90. Hanto DW, Fishbein TM, Pinson CW, et al. Liver and intestine transplantation: summary analysis, 1994-2003. Am J Transplant. Apr 2005;5(4 Pt 2):916-33.

91. Horslen SP, Kaufman SS, Sudan DL, et al. Isolated liver transplantation in infants with total parenteral nutrition-associated end-stage liver disease. Transplant Proc. Sep 2000;32(6):1241. [Medline].

92. Howard L, Malone M. Current status of home parenteral nutrition in the United States. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2691-5. [Medline].

93. Iyer K, Kaufman S, Sudan D, et al. Long-term results of intestinal transplantation for pseudo-obstruction in children. J Pediatr Surg. Jan 2001;36(1):174-7. [Medline].

94. Iyer KR, Horslen S, Torres C, et al. Functional liver recovery parallels autologous gut salvage in short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. Mar 2004;39(3):340-4; discussion 340-4.

95. Jeppesen PB. Glucagon-like peptide-2: update of the recent clinical trials. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S127-31.

96. Jeppesen PB, Hartmann B, Thulesen J, et al. Glucagon-like peptide 2 improves nutrient absorption and nutritional status in short-bowel patients with no colon. Gastroenterology. Mar 2001;120(4):806-15.

97. Kato T, O'Brien CB, Nishida S, et al. The first case report of the use of a zoom videoendoscope for the evaluation of small bowel graft mucosa in a human after intestinal transplantation. Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 1999;50(2):257-61. [Medline].

98. Lawrence JP, Dunn SP, Billmire DF, et al. Isolated liver transplantation for liver failure in patients with short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. Jun 1994;29(6):751-3. [Medline].

99. Lee RG, Nakamura K, Tsamandas AC, et al. Pathology of human intestinal transplantation. Gastroenterology. Jun 1996;110(6):1820-34. [Medline].

100. Lillehei RC, Idezuki Y, Feemster JA, et al. Transplantation of stomach, intestine, and pancreas: experimental and clinical observations. Surgery. Oct 1967;62(4):721-41. [Medline].

101. Matarese LE, O'Keefe SJ, Kandil HM, Bond G, Costa G, Abu-Elmagd K. Short bowel syndrome: clinical guidelines for nutrition management. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20(5):493-502. [Medline].

102. Mazariegos GV, Soltys K, Bond G, et al. Pediatric intestinal retransplantation: techniques, management, and outcomes. Transplantation. Dec 27 2008;86(12):1777-82. [Medline].

103. Messing B, Lemann M, Landais P, et al. Prognosis of patients with nonmalignant chronic intestinal failure receiving long-term home parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology. Apr 1995;108(4):1005-10. [Medline].

104. Murase N, Ye Q, Lee RG, et al. Immunomodulation of intestinal transplant with allograft irradiation and simultaneous donor bone marrow infusion. Transplant Proc. Feb-Mar 1999;31(1-2):565-6.

105. Nousia-Arvanitakis S, Angelopoulou-Sakadami N, Metroliou K. Complications associated with total parenteral nutrition in infants with short bowel syndrome. Hepatogastroenterology. Apr 1992;39(2):169-72. [Medline].

106. O'Keefe SJ, Buchman AL, Fishbein TM, et al. Short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure: consensus definitions and overview. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Jan 2006;4(1):6-10.

107. Octavio Ruiz J, Lillehei RC. Intestinal transplantation. Surg Clin North Am. Aug 1972;52(4):1075-91. [Medline].

108. Olivier G, Rettori R, Olivier C. Homotransplantation orthotopique de l'intestin grele et des colons droit et transverse chez l'homme. J Chir. 1969;98:331-40.

109. Reyes J, Green M, Bueno J, et al. Epstein Barr virus associated posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease after intestinal transplantation. Transplant Proc. Oct 1996;28(5):2768-9. [Medline].

110. Scolapio JS. Short bowel syndrome: recent clinical outcomes with growth hormone. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S122-6.

111. Scott NA, Irving MH. Intestinal failure--the clinical problem. Dig Dis. 1992;10(5):249-57. [Medline].

112. Seguy D, Vahedi K, Kapel N, et al. Low-dose growth hormone in adult home parenteral nutrition-dependent short bowel syndrome patients: a positive study. Gastroenterology. Feb 2003;124(2):293-302.

113. Shaffer D, Maki T, DeMichele SJ, et al. Studies in small bowel transplantation. Prevention of graft-versus-host disease with preservation of allograft function by donor pretreatment with antilymphocyte serum. Transplantation. Feb 1988;45(2):262-9. [Medline].

114. Shike M, Harrison JE, Sturtridge WC, et al. Metabolic bone disease in patients receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. Ann Intern Med. Mar 1980;92(3):343-50. [Medline].

115. Shils ME, Wright WL, Turnbull A, Brescia F. Long-term parenteral nutrition through an external arteriovenous shunt. N Engl J Med. Aug 13 1970;283(7):341-4. [Medline].

116. Sigalet DL, Kneteman NM, Fedorak RN, et al. Intestinal function following allogeneic small intestinal transplantation in the rat. Transplantation. Feb 1992;53(2):264-71. [Medline].

117. Sigurdsson L, Reyes J, Kocoshis SA, et al. Intestinal transplantation in children with chronic intestinal pseudo- obstruction. Gut. Oct 1999;45(4):570-4. [Medline].

118. Sindhi R, Fox IJ, Heffron T, et al. Procurement and preparation of human isolated small intestinal grafts for transplantation. Transplantation. Oct 27 1995;60(8):771-3. [Medline].

119. Sindhi R, Landmark J, Shaw BW Jr, et al. Combined liver/small bowel transplantation using a blood group compatible but nonidentical donor. Transplantation. Jun 27 1996;61(12):1782-3. [Medline].

120. Starzl TE, Rowe MI, Todo S, et al. Transplantation of multiple abdominal viscera. JAMA. Mar 10 1989;261(10):1449-57. [Medline].

121. Sudan D. Cost and quality of life after intestinal transplantation. Gastroenterology. Feb 2006;130(2 Suppl 1):S158-62.

122. Sudan D, DiBaise J, Torres C, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of intestinal failure. J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 2005;9(2):165-76; discussion 176-7.

123. Sudan DL, Iyer KR, DeRoover A, et al. A new technique for combined liver/small intestinal transplantation. Transplantation. Dec 15 2001;72(11):1846-8. [Medline].

124. Thompson JS, DiBaise JK, Iyer KR, et al. Postoperative short bowel syndrome. J Am Coll Surg. Jul 2005;201(1):85-9.

125. Timmermann W, Hoppe H, Gasser M, et al. Noninvasive videomicroscopic monitoring of rat small bowel rejection. Transplant Proc. Sep 1998;30(6):2660-1. [Medline].

126. Tzakis AG, Kato T, Nishida S, et al. Preliminary experience with campath 1H (C1H) in intestinal and liver transplantation. Transplantation. Apr 27 2003;75(8):1227-31.

127. Vanderhoof JA, Langnas AN. Short-bowel syndrome in children and adults. Gastroenterology. Nov 1997;113(5):1767-78. [Medline].

128. Williams JW, Sankary HN, Foster PF, et al. Splanchnic transplantation. An approach to the infant dependent on parenteral nutrition who develops irreversible liver disease. JAMA. Mar 10 1989;261(10):1458-62. [Medline].

129. Wilmore DW, Groff DB, Bishop HC, Dudrick SJ. Total parenteral nutrition in infants with catastrophic gastrointestinal anomalies. J Pediatr Surg. Apr 1969;4(2):181-9. [Medline].

130. Wisecarver JL, Cattral MS, Langnas AN, et al. Transfusion-induced graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation. Documentation using polymerase chain reaction with HLA- DR sequence-specific primers. Transplantation. Aug 15 1994;58(3):269-71. [Medline].

131. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. New Findings Demonstrate Potential Benefits of GATTEX (teduglutide) in Phase 3 Study of Patients with Short Bowel Syndrome. Press Release. Available at http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-Findings-Demonstrate-bw-15423422.html?. Accessed June 15, 2009.

Keywords

isolated small bowel transplantation, ISB transplantation, combined liver-small bowel transplantation, LSB transplantation, multivisceral transplantation, isolated liver transplantation, organ transplantation, liver/small bowel transplantation, small bowel transplant, liver transplant, multivisceral transplant, intestinal transplant, multi-visceral transplantation, multi-visceral transplant, LSB transplant, ISB transplant, total parenteral nutrition, TPN, complications of total parenteral nutrition, TPN complications, HPN, home parenteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, total parenteral nutrition liver disease, total parenteral nutrition hepatic disease, TPN liver disease, TPN-induced liver disease

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Richard K Gilroy, MBBS, FRACP, Associate Professor, Medical Director of Liver Transplantation and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University Medical Center
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Jean Frederick Botha, MBBCh, FCS(SA), Assistant Professor of Surgery, Transplant Surgeon, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Debra L Sudan, MD,, Chief, Abdominal Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine
Debra L Sudan, MD, is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Society of Transplant Surgeons, American Society of Transplantation, Association for Academic Surgery, Association of Women Surgeons, Association of Women Surgeons, International Liver Transplantation Society, Nebraska Medical Association, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and Society of University Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Ron Shapiro, MD, Professor of Surgery, Robert J Corry Chair in Transplantation Surgery, Director, Kidney, Pancreas, and Islet Transplantation, Thomas E Starzl Transplantation Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Ron Shapiro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Transplant Surgeons, Association for Academic Surgery, Central Surgical Association, and Society of University Surgeons
Disclosure: Astellas Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Brystol Meyer Squibb StemCell Data Monitoring Committee Consulting fee Review panel membership; Wyeth Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Stem Cells, Inc Consulting fee Review panel membership; Up To Date contracted Author; Medscape contracted Video Blogger

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: eMedicine Salary Employment

Managing Editor

Debra L Sudan, MD,, Chief, Abdominal Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine
Debra L Sudan, MD, is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Society of Transplant Surgeons, American Society of Transplantation, Association for Academic Surgery, Association of Women Surgeons, Association of Women Surgeons, International Liver Transplantation Society, Nebraska Medical Association, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and Society of University Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

Michael E Zevitz, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Finch University of the Health Sciences, The Chicago Medical School; Consulting Staff, Private Practice
Michael E Zevitz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, and Michigan State Medical Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA, Vice Chairman, Professor, Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Medicine and Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine; Director of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Yale-New Haven Hospital
John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA is a member of the following medical societies: American Gastroenterological Association, American Physiological Society, American Society of Nephrology, Association for Academic Surgery, International Society of Nephrology, New York Academy of Sciences, and Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
Disclosure: AMGEN Royalty Other

Dr. Wendy Grant, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Section of Transplantation, University of Nebraska Medical Center, for providing the multimedia images in this article.

The Intestinal Transplantation Registry (ITR) for providing the charts in this article.

The authors and editors of eMedicine gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author, Sandeep Mukherjee, MD, to the development and writing of this article.

© 1994- by Medscape.
All Rights Reserved
(http://www.medscape.com/public/copyright)