Coexisting or Underlying Risk Factors of Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients Receiving Prophylaxis
ABSTRACT To evaluate the characteristics of veno-occlusive disease in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, and their effect as a prophylactic regimen on severity and outcome.
This study included 204 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants performed on 187 children whose data retrospectively described the risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment modalities of veno-occlusive disease. A prophylactic regimen composed of enoxaparin versus ursodeoxycholic acid and vitamin E was given to 167 of 204 patients.
Veno-occlusive disease developed in 22 patients (10.8%). Nineteen patients experienced veno-occlusive disease despite this prophylactic regimen. The prophylaxis seemed ineffective in preventing veno-occlusive disease (P = .657). Regarding risk factors, oral busulphan use, liposomal amphotericin B vancomycin treatment, and total parenteral nutrition were associated with an increased risk of veno-occlusive disease. Conversely, renal impairment also was associated with increased mortality in patients with veno-occlusive disease. The mortality rate in the first 100 days after a hematopoietic stem cell transplant was higher in the patients with veno-occlusive disease than it was in those without the disease.
Our prophylactic regimen may have played a role in the fairly low incidence of veno-occlusive disease in a pediatric population with high-risk features.
SourceAvailable from: Roberto Miniero[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) is a common complication of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), with reported incidences of 5-40% in children. Recently, defibrotide (DF) has been successfully used as prophylaxis and treatment of VOD. This study reports data on 63 human leucocyte antigen-matched HSCT performed in 57 children affected by beta thalassemia at very high risk for developing VOD (liver fibrosis, iron overload, hepatitis C virus infections, busulphan-based conditioning, methotraexate + ciclosporine). All patients received a busulphan-based conditioning regimen, either orally (four HSCT) or intravenously (59 HSCT). All patients received oral DF (40 mg/kg per day, final dose) as VOD prophylaxis from median day -9 to median day +29. In order to overcome the lack of oral paediatric formulations, a galenic formulation was administered. DF was well tolerated. Only one patient fulfilled Seattle Criteria for VOD diagnosis. This patient had discontinued DF 6 d prior to VOD onset, due to high risk of haemorrhage. We concluded that oral defibrotide prophylaxis and i.v. busulphan safely abated VOD incidence in high-risk patients who had undergone HSCT. A galenic preparation of oral DF also permits this treatment in low-weight patients. Costs of DF prophylaxis are acceptable considering the reduced incidence of VOD.British Journal of Haematology 08/2009; 147(4):554-60. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07871.x · 4.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups' findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net) Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.Critical care (London, England) 09/2004; 8(4):R204-12. DOI:10.1186/cc2872 · 5.04 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The clinical syndrome of veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after hemopoietic cell transplantation is characterised by jaundice, painful liver enlargement, and fluid retention with weight gain. Cytoreductive therapy is presumably the primary cause of VOD, but several other agents (and a special susceptibility of the liver) can also play a role in its genesis. The risk of VOD can be predicted before BMT by analysing the presence or absence of the main risk factors. For the diagnosis of VOD most teams worldwide apply the clinical criteria developed by both the Seattle and Baltimore teams. Transjugular liver studies and some biological markers can help establish a correct differential diagnosis. In most cases clinical manifestations improve after several days, but 20-25% of patients could die of VOD. Data regarding whether or not pharmacological prophylactic measures are effective are contradictory. There a few therapeutical approaches directed towards the improvement of venular occlusion; recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and defibrotide can solve some cases of severe VOD.European Journal Of Haematology 06/2000; 64(5):281-91. DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0609.2000.9r200.x · 2.41 Impact Factor