Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Kent T. Perry*, Amnon Zisman, H. Albin Gritsch, Allan Pantuck, Peter G. Schulam

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Our aim was to evaluate the necessity of heparin and protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Methods. Data from 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of California Los Angeles between August 1999 and August 2001 were used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the patients were divided into three cohorts: group A received both heparin and protamine; group B received heparin only; and group C received neither. Intraoperative blood loss, length of admission, recipient creatinine at follow-up, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t test. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to patient age and gender. Intraoperative blood loss did not differ between group B (99±73 mL) and group C (82±54 mL) (P=0.4). None of the patients required blood transfusion. No graft loss occurred in any group. Length of hospital stay, excluding any preoperative days, was similar (2.8±0.7, 2.9±1.6, and 2.5±0.8 days, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, (P>0.05). No systemic thromboembolic complications were noted in any of the groups. One patient in group B was converted to an open procedure because of a difficult dissection unrelated to heparin administration. The mean recipient creatinine levels at follow-up in the recipients of kidneys from groups A, B, and C were not significantly different (1.1, 1.3, and 1.3; P>0.05) through the extended follow-up period of 691, 286, and 97 days, respectively. Conclusions. According to our experience, there is no apparent benefit in the administration of heparin alone or in the administration of protamine sulfate to reverse heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given. This is not only in terms of bleeding complications but is also true in regard to recipient renal function through the follow-up period. It is important to note that our warm ischemic times were less than 2 minutes, because longer warm ischemic times may make the use of heparin a more important consideration. This is the first time that these questions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1700-1702
Number of pages3
JournalTransplantation
Volume74
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 27 2002

Fingerprint

Protamines
Nephrectomy
Heparin
Tissue Donors
Warm Ischemia
Length of Stay
Creatinine
Kidney
Los Angeles
Intraoperative Complications
Blood Transfusion
Dissection
Hemorrhage
Transplants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this

Perry, Kent T. ; Zisman, Amnon ; Albin Gritsch, H. ; Pantuck, Allan ; Schulam, Peter G. / Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. In: Transplantation. 2002 ; Vol. 74, No. 12. pp. 1700-1702.
@article{9e6cbe54452448ce82417bd256c9ca4c,
title = "Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy",
abstract = "Background. Our aim was to evaluate the necessity of heparin and protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Methods. Data from 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of California Los Angeles between August 1999 and August 2001 were used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the patients were divided into three cohorts: group A received both heparin and protamine; group B received heparin only; and group C received neither. Intraoperative blood loss, length of admission, recipient creatinine at follow-up, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t test. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to patient age and gender. Intraoperative blood loss did not differ between group B (99±73 mL) and group C (82±54 mL) (P=0.4). None of the patients required blood transfusion. No graft loss occurred in any group. Length of hospital stay, excluding any preoperative days, was similar (2.8±0.7, 2.9±1.6, and 2.5±0.8 days, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, (P>0.05). No systemic thromboembolic complications were noted in any of the groups. One patient in group B was converted to an open procedure because of a difficult dissection unrelated to heparin administration. The mean recipient creatinine levels at follow-up in the recipients of kidneys from groups A, B, and C were not significantly different (1.1, 1.3, and 1.3; P>0.05) through the extended follow-up period of 691, 286, and 97 days, respectively. Conclusions. According to our experience, there is no apparent benefit in the administration of heparin alone or in the administration of protamine sulfate to reverse heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given. This is not only in terms of bleeding complications but is also true in regard to recipient renal function through the follow-up period. It is important to note that our warm ischemic times were less than 2 minutes, because longer warm ischemic times may make the use of heparin a more important consideration. This is the first time that these questions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.",
author = "Perry, {Kent T.} and Amnon Zisman and {Albin Gritsch}, H. and Allan Pantuck and Schulam, {Peter G.}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1097/00007890-200212270-00010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "1700--1702",
journal = "Transplantation",
issn = "0041-1337",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "12",

}

Perry, KT, Zisman, A, Albin Gritsch, H, Pantuck, A & Schulam, PG 2002, 'Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy', Transplantation, vol. 74, no. 12, pp. 1700-1702. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-200212270-00010

Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. / Perry, Kent T.; Zisman, Amnon; Albin Gritsch, H.; Pantuck, Allan; Schulam, Peter G.

In: Transplantation, Vol. 74, No. 12, 27.12.2002, p. 1700-1702.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

AU - Perry, Kent T.

AU - Zisman, Amnon

AU - Albin Gritsch, H.

AU - Pantuck, Allan

AU - Schulam, Peter G.

PY - 2002/12/27

Y1 - 2002/12/27

N2 - Background. Our aim was to evaluate the necessity of heparin and protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Methods. Data from 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of California Los Angeles between August 1999 and August 2001 were used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the patients were divided into three cohorts: group A received both heparin and protamine; group B received heparin only; and group C received neither. Intraoperative blood loss, length of admission, recipient creatinine at follow-up, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t test. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to patient age and gender. Intraoperative blood loss did not differ between group B (99±73 mL) and group C (82±54 mL) (P=0.4). None of the patients required blood transfusion. No graft loss occurred in any group. Length of hospital stay, excluding any preoperative days, was similar (2.8±0.7, 2.9±1.6, and 2.5±0.8 days, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, (P>0.05). No systemic thromboembolic complications were noted in any of the groups. One patient in group B was converted to an open procedure because of a difficult dissection unrelated to heparin administration. The mean recipient creatinine levels at follow-up in the recipients of kidneys from groups A, B, and C were not significantly different (1.1, 1.3, and 1.3; P>0.05) through the extended follow-up period of 691, 286, and 97 days, respectively. Conclusions. According to our experience, there is no apparent benefit in the administration of heparin alone or in the administration of protamine sulfate to reverse heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given. This is not only in terms of bleeding complications but is also true in regard to recipient renal function through the follow-up period. It is important to note that our warm ischemic times were less than 2 minutes, because longer warm ischemic times may make the use of heparin a more important consideration. This is the first time that these questions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.

AB - Background. Our aim was to evaluate the necessity of heparin and protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Methods. Data from 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of California Los Angeles between August 1999 and August 2001 were used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the patients were divided into three cohorts: group A received both heparin and protamine; group B received heparin only; and group C received neither. Intraoperative blood loss, length of admission, recipient creatinine at follow-up, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t test. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to patient age and gender. Intraoperative blood loss did not differ between group B (99±73 mL) and group C (82±54 mL) (P=0.4). None of the patients required blood transfusion. No graft loss occurred in any group. Length of hospital stay, excluding any preoperative days, was similar (2.8±0.7, 2.9±1.6, and 2.5±0.8 days, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, (P>0.05). No systemic thromboembolic complications were noted in any of the groups. One patient in group B was converted to an open procedure because of a difficult dissection unrelated to heparin administration. The mean recipient creatinine levels at follow-up in the recipients of kidneys from groups A, B, and C were not significantly different (1.1, 1.3, and 1.3; P>0.05) through the extended follow-up period of 691, 286, and 97 days, respectively. Conclusions. According to our experience, there is no apparent benefit in the administration of heparin alone or in the administration of protamine sulfate to reverse heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given. This is not only in terms of bleeding complications but is also true in regard to recipient renal function through the follow-up period. It is important to note that our warm ischemic times were less than 2 minutes, because longer warm ischemic times may make the use of heparin a more important consideration. This is the first time that these questions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037184753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037184753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00007890-200212270-00010

DO - 10.1097/00007890-200212270-00010

M3 - Article

C2 - 12499884

AN - SCOPUS:0037184753

VL - 74

SP - 1700

EP - 1702

JO - Transplantation

JF - Transplantation

SN - 0041-1337

IS - 12

ER -