Influence of dialysis on post-transplant events

INTRODUCTION: We examined the effect of haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) on acute rejection, delayed graft function (DGF), graft and patient survival after cadaveric renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 325 patients (cyclosporin [CyA]-based therapy) who had their first cadaver renal transplant between January 1991 and December 1996 and followed up for a mean of 61 +/- 26 months. They were divided into three groups: HD, PD and CD (where both PD and HD was used for at least 3 months). Delayed graft function was diagnosed if the patient needed dialysis in the first week post-transplant while primary non-function (PNF) was diagnosed if the kidney never achieved function. Graft rejection was confirmed by biopsy; early acute rejection (EAR) was defined as acute rejection occurring before 90 days and late acute rejection (LAR) as one after 90 d. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients had PD, 117 HD and 25 CD. The mean time period in which the patients were on dialysis for PD was 24 months, HD 34.5 months and CD 50.6 months (p < 0.01). The recipients were matched for age and gender. The donor variables (age, gender and cold ischaemia time) did not differ between the groups. The mean time for the development of first acute rejection following renal transplant in each group was as follows: PD group: 68.8 d, HD group: 81.3 d and CD group: 105 d (p = 0.08). The number of patients who developed EAR was 90 (49.2%) in PD group, 51 (43.6%) in HD group and 11 (56%) in CD group (p = 0.6); the number who developed LAR was nine in PD group (4.9%), six in HD group (5.1%) and one in CD group (4%) (p = 0.9). Fifty-six patients with PD had DGF compared with 58 with HD (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the number and severity of rejection episodes or DGF based on the duration of dialysis. The 5-yr survival of patients was 79% for PD, 81% HD and 78% CD groups (p = n.s), while the graft survival for PD group was 61%, HD group 63% and CD group 74% (p = n.s). SUMMARY: We could find no difference in the patient or graft survival between patients who had pre-transplant HD, PD or CD. There was no difference in the incidence of acute rejection episodes between the three groups of patients as well. However, we found a significantly higher rate of DGF in the HD versus PD patients.     

Posttransplant outcomes of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis patients

The impact of dialysis modality on posttransplant outcomes remains controversial. The authors have compared primary failure, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection episodes as well as patient and allograft survivals among patients undergoing renal transplantation between 2004 and 2009, according to the modality of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD). We studied 306 patients (268 HD and 38 PD) with a mean follow-up of 29 ± 16 months. The PD cohort included a predominance of females (68.4% vs 36.2%; P = .001), lower age at transplantation (38 ± 14 vs 46 ± 12 years; P = .004), shorter time on dialysis (33 ± 49 vs 59 ± 157 months; P = .043), and higher rate of living donor grafts (PD 31.6% vs HD 13.1%; P = .003). Donor age (PD 43 ± 13 vs HD 45 ± 14 years; P = .30), human leukocyte antigen mismatch (P = .17), panel reactive antibody values (HD 11 ± 22 vs PD 13 ± 26; P = .55), and hyperimunized patients (HD 3.73%; PD 7.89%; P = .23) were not different. Primary graft failure (3.4% vs 0%; P = .025) and DGF (37.1% vs 13.1%; P = .037) were more frequent among HD patients, but incidences of acute rejection episodes were similar (HD 10.5% vs PD 5.3%; P = 0.19). Neither recipient survival at 1 (97% in PD and HD) or 3 years (HD 90% vs PD 94%; P = .657) nor allograft survival at 1 year (HD 94% vs PD 95%; P = .80) or 3 years: (HD 70%, vs PD 81%; P = .73) were different. Graft function was similar at 1 (HD 64.2 ± 25 vs PD 56.4 ± 24 mL/min; P = .17) and 3 years (HD 62.3 ± 21 vs PD 46 ± 23 mL/min; P = .16). In our study, HD patients showed an higher incidence of DGF and primary allograft failure, but there was no difference in acute rejection episodes, long-term survivals, or renal function.     

Pretransplant dialysis status and outcome of renal transplantation in North American children: a NAPRTCS Study. North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study

BACKGROUND: There are no large studies of the effect of pretransplant dialysis status on the outcome of renal transplantation (Tx) in children. This study evaluated the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS) registry data for the outcome of Tx in pediatric patients who either (1) received their transplants preemptively or (2) were maintained on dialysis before receiving their transplants. METHODS: We compared graft survival and patient survival rates, incidence of acute tubular necrosis (ATN), acute rejection episodes, and causes of graft failure in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients with those maintained on hemodialysis (HD) and those undergoing preemptive Tx (PTx). RESULTS: Primary Tx was performed in 2495 children (59% male; 61% Caucasian; 1090 PD, 780 HD, 625 PTx) between 1/1/1992 and 12/31/1996. The overall graft survival rates of the PD and HD groups were similar, but were less than that of the PTx group (3-year: 82% PD and HD, 89% PTx, overall P = 0.0003). Improved graft survival in the PTx group was present only in recipients of grafts from living donors. There was no difference in the overall patient survival rate at 3 years, or in time to first acute-rejection episodes in the three groups. The incidence of ATN in the first 7 days post-Tx was higher in PD and HD patients than in PTx patients (11% PD and 12% HD vs. 2% PTx, P<0.001; HD vs. PD, P = NS). The major single cause of graft failure in each group was: PD, vascular thrombosis (200%); HD, chronic rejection (27%); PTx, acute and chronic rejection (21% each). CONCLUSION: NAPRTCS data show that graft survival is improved in patients receiving PTx, compared with those receiving PD and HD. Graft loss resulting from vascular thrombosis is more common in children who receive PD than in those receiving HD.     

Dialysis as bridge therapy for renal transplantation: single center experience, a comparison of hemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the most ideal treatment in renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. However, the prevalence of transplantation is extremely low and most patients with ESRD should continue dialysis for their whole life. Recently, high transposition rate of renal transplantation from peritoneal dialysis (PD) was reported, however, it was unclear whether a difference in dialytic modality can influence the outcome. Therefore, we evaluated the influence of dialytic modality on the rate of kidney transplantation and outcome in our single center. METHODS: Forty-two kidney transplants were carried among 1,573 dialysis patients from the years 1986 to 2004 in our center. Transposition rates from two modalities (HD and PD) and graft survival were compared. The incidence of acute rejection episode, complications after receiving transplantations, and coexisting diseases were also evaluated between the two modalities prior to transplantation. RESULT: The number of patients who received HD was larger than PD (HD 77.1%, PD 22.9%, respectively). Forty-two patients undergoing dialytic therapy received a living-donor kidney transplantation. Overall graft survival was 92% at 5 years and 75% at 10 years. Among these cases, dialytic modality prior to transplantation was 57.1% in HD, and 42.9% in PD. The transfer rate from PD to transplantation was significantly (p = 0.0036) higher (4.7%) than that of HD (1.9%). The reason for the high transfer rate of PD patients might be cooperation with their family and the provision of relevant information by nephrologists during PD. There were no differences between the two modalities prior to transplantation in the graft survival rate, incidence of acute rejection, and complications before and after transplantation. CONCLUSION: Difference in pretransplant dialysis modality did not affect the outcomes, however, the transfer rate from PD was significantly higher than from HD. Accordingly, PD is useful compared to HD as bridge therapy for kidney transplantation from the high feasibility of living-donor kidney transplantation.     

Elderly donor kidney transplant: factors involved in graft survival

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether control of risk factors associated with worse results has improved graft survival, with respect of renal function quality and other factors influencing graft survival: recipient age, immunosuppressive therapy, cold ischemia time, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), acute rejection episodes (ARE) and 1-month creatinine levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 147 patients who underwent kidney transplant between 1995 and 2001. Inclusion criteria were donor and recipient age older than 60 years, first renal transplant, follow-up period longer than 12 months, donor creatinine clearance higher than 75 mL/min, and less than 20% glomerulosclerosis observed in donor renal biopsy. RESULTS: Graft survivals were 87%, 83%, 78%, and 70% at first, second, third, and fifth year after transplantation, respectively. Mean serum creatinine levels were 2.3 mg/dL and mean follow-up time, 46 months. Multivariate analysis using a Cox regression model identified donor age, ARE, and serum creatinine levels 1 month after surgery as independent variables affecting graft survival. Recipient age, immunosuppressive therapy, and serum creatinine levels at 1 month after surgery were predictive variables of recipient survival. DISCUSSION: Renal transplantation is an accepted therapeutic option in elderly patients with chronic renal insufficiency, if both donor and recipient are carefully selected.     

血液透析和腹膜透析对肾移植术后并发症和预后的影响

目的 探讨血液透析(HD)与腹膜透析(PD)对肾移植术后并发症和预后的影响。 方法 回顾分析402例术前维持性透析超过3个月的同种异体尸体肾移植术患者的临床资料。按透析方式将患者分为HD组（303例）和PD组（99例），并对345例随访（30.2±15.2）月。比较术前HD和PD对肾移植术后受者和移植肾存活率以及肾移植术后并发症，包括急性排斥、移植肾功能延迟恢复（DGF）、感染、慢性排斥等的影响。 结果 除了术前平均透析时间PD组长于HD组，乙型肝炎（乙肝）感染率HD组明显高于PD组外，在原发病、年龄、性别、血压、血红蛋白、HLA配型、冷热缺血时间、丙型肝炎感染等方面两组间差异无统计学意义。移植术后两组在DGF、急性排斥、慢性排斥、巨细胞病毒（CMV）感染和其他感染的发生率等方面差异无统计学意义。HD组术前透析时间>12个月的患者急性排斥的发生率显著高于<12个月的患者（P ＜ 0.05）。乙肝患者比非乙肝患者更易发生移植肾丧失功能（19.23% 比 8.86％，P = 0.021）。PD组乙肝病毒阴性的患者术后感染发生率较低。术后患者1年和5年存活率在两组间差异无统计学意义（1年：HD 94.34%，PD 91.25%；5年：HD 92.83%，PD 90%）；同样移植肾1年和5年存活率两组间差异也无统计学意义（1年：HD 93.21%，PD 96.25%；5年：HD 87.17%，PD 91.25%）。 结论 HD和PD对肾移植术后并发症、患者及移植肾1年和5年存活率的影响相似，均可作为慢性肾衰竭患者肾移植术前替代治疗。HD患者的急性排斥发生率随着透析时间的延长而增加，因此，缩短肾移植前透析时间将有助减少肾移植术后并发症。     

Preliminary report on impact of pretransplant dialysis on early graft function: peritoneal versus hemodialysis

Delayed graft function and acute renal failure after kidney transplant negatively influence graft outcome. It has been reported that pretransplantation peritoneal dialysis (PD) instead of hemodialysis (HD) correlated with better short-term graft outcome in adult kidney recipients. In this study the impact of PD versus HD was evaluated among pediatric kidney recipients. This study suggested that different forms of dialysis pretransplantation did not affect early graft function among pediatric kidney recipients.     

Third and Fourth Kidney Transplant: Still a Reasonable Option

Introduction

At present, a second kidney transplant is considered an established therapeutic option for patients who have lost a previous graft. Second transplants show similar graft survival as first transplants. A debate exists about the benefit of submitting the patient to a third or fourth renal transplant, or to maintain dialysis.

Objective

We sought to analyze graft and patient survivals as well as associated variables and surgical complications of third and fourth transplantations.

Material and Methods

From July 1985 to December 2008, we performed 74 third and 8 fourth transplantations among 2763 cases. We prospectively collected the variables of age, gender, graft origin, hyperimmunization, time on dialysis, location, bench surgery, acute rejection episodes, graft survival, and operative complications.

Results

Third and fourth trasplantations were performed in 49 men and 33 women, with an overall mean age of 40.26 years who were on dialysis for an average of 126.89 months before transplantation. Mean graft survivals of their first and second grafts were 35.6 and 50.1 months, respectively. Acute or chronic rejection was reason for renal failure in 71% and 75% of cases, respectively. Patient survivals at 1 and 5 years were 92.7% and 90.6%, for third and both 85.7% for the fourth transplantation. The third and fourth transplantations showed 1- and 5-year graft survivals of 88% and 76.4% and 71.4% and 42.9%, respectively. Sixty-eight cases underwent cadaveric donor and 14 living donor (mean age, 42.1 years) transplantations. Nine patients were hyperimmunized.In 60 cases, we used the left kidney. Orthotopic kidney transplantation was performed in 15 cases; heterotopic transplant to the right iliac fossa in 40 and in the left iliac fossa in 17 cases. Arterial bench surgery was necessary in 6 cases and venous in 3. We performed 3 hepatorenal and 1 cardiorenal transplantation. The complications included 29 cases (35.4%) of postoperative acute tubular necrosis, 14 of acute rejection episodes (17.1%); 12 of perirenal hematoma (14.6%); 1 urinary fistula (1.2%); 4 lymphocele (4.9%); 2 ureteral stenosis (2.4%); variables arterial kink requiring surgery (1.2%), and 1 venous thrombosis with graft loss (1.2%). The 4 patients who died in the perioperative period succumbed to intravascular disseminated coagulation (n = 1) cardiac failure (n = 2), and septic shock (n = 1). Induction antibody therapy, hyperimmunized status, or operative complications were not independent prognostic factors for patient or graft survival.

Conclusions

Third or fourth renal transplantations constitute a valid therapeutic option with reasonable short- and long-term patient and graft survivals. Although orthotopic kidney transplantation was used in selected patients, we preferred an iliac fossa approach for most.     

Renal allograft rupture caused by acute tubular necrosis

Renal allograft rupture is a rare but potentially lethal complication of kidney transplantation. A renal allograft recipient receiving quadruple immunosuppressive therapy developed a spontaneous allograft rupture 13 days after kidney transplantation. Warm ischaemia time during the transplant was 80 minutes. The ruptured kidney graft could not be salvaged because of the patient's haemodynamic instability. The histopathological examination showed interstitial oedema with severe acute tubular necrosis with no signs of acute rejection. The most common causes of renal graft rupture are acute rejection and vein thrombosis, while acute tubular necrosis may only rarely be responsible for this complication. Renal graft rupture may be the result of interstitial damage attributed both to the prolonged warm ischaemia time during the transplant and to post-transplant acute tubular necrosis in the absence of graft rejection. In those patients whose haemodynamic status cannot be stabilized by appropriate aggressive haemodynamic support therapy, graft nephrectomy should be considered the only definitive treatment.     

Effects of Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Kidney Transplantation: Risk Factors and Early and Long-Term Outcomes in a Single Center

Introduction

Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) causes a high rate of delayed graft function (DGF), the most frequent complication in the immediate postoperative period after cadaveric donor kidney transplantation. Herein we evaluated the impact of donor and recipient characteristics on DGF development in terms of the incidence of acute rejection episodes, hospital stay, renal function, and long-term graft and patient survivals.

Materials and Methods

Between February 1998 and July 2011, 761 patients underwent cadaveric donor kidney transplantations. DGF was defined as the need for dialysis in the first week. Patients were subdivided according to initial graft function as immediate graft function (IGF) or DGF.

Results

DGF observed in 241 patients (31.6%) was associated independently with expanded criteria donors, extended cold ischemia time, Karpinsky histological score, and prior dialysis duration both univariate and multivariate analysis. The incidence of acute rejection episodes was 18.1% among the DGF group versus 1.3% in the IGF group (P < .01). DGF significantly reduced both graft and patient survivals at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months.

Conclusion

DGF was responsible for a longer hospital stay, worse early and long-term renal function, a higher incidence of acute rejection episodes as well as reduced graft and patient survivals.     

Preemptive Living-Donor Renal Transplantation: Outcome and Clinical Advantages

Introduction

Kidney transplant recipients have a higher quality of life and consume fewer health care resources compared with patients on dialysis. However, optimal timing of transplantation has been controversial. Recent studies have clearly demonstrated that preemptive renal transplantation is associated with better graft survival, lower complications, and better cost-effective outcomes. We evaluated differential effects on long-term outcomes according to dialysis type/duration versus no dialysis.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 499 cases of first living-donor kidney transplantations performed in our center from January 1990 to January 2007. We compared 3 groups according to graft survival, acute and chronic rejection, postoperative complication, and delayed graft function rates. The mean duration of follow-up was 119.1 ± 47.2 months.

Results

Among 499 cases, 81 cases were preemptive renal transplantations with 418 cases hemodialysis [HD], 343 cases, peritoneal dialysis [PD] 75 cases) performed after dialysis. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival rates were 98.8%, 89.5%, 79.4% among the preemptive renal transplantation group and 92.4%, 78.2%, and 69.2% and 85.3%, 74.5%, and 68.2% (P = .03) in the dialysis groups (HD, PD), respectively. The differential effect of pretransplantation HD or PD was not significant. However, the graft survival rates in the HD group were not significantly higher than the PD group (P = .61). The duration of dialysis was not associated with graft survival.

Conclusion

We suggest that preemptive renal transplantation should be the first choice of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Peritoneal dialysis favorably influences early graft function after renal transplantation compared to hemodialysis

BACKGROUND: Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute renal failure (ARF) after renal transplantation negatively influence short- and long-term graft outcome. Peritoneal dialysis as pretransplantation dialysis modality was reported to influence favorably the recovery of renal function immediately after kidney transplantation. It has been hypothesized that fluid status was the factor explaining this better outcome. This hypothesis was tested in this study by multivariate analysis, also including other factors related to DGF and ARF. METHODS: The records of peritoneal dialysis (PD; n=40) and hemodialysis (HD; n=79) patients receiving a first cadaveric kidney transplantation at the University Hospital Gent were analyzed. RESULTS: DGF and ARF were observed in 33 (27 HD and 6 PD, P=0.03) and 14 (14 HD and 0 PD, P=0.01) patients, respectively. The number of days needed to reach a serum creatinine 50% below that before transplantation (T1/2(SCr)), was correlated with cold ischemia time (CIT) (P<0.001) and body weight gain (BWG) (P<0.01) and was inversely correlated with urinary output in the first 24 hr (P<0.001), fluid load (P<0.001), and central venous pressure (P<0.001). A multivariate model with CIT (P<0.001), PD as pretransplantation dialysis mode (P=0.01), urinary output in the first 24 hr (P=0.001), BWG (P=0.05), and fluid load (P=0.01) resulted in an R2 of 0.32 (P<0.001). Using Cox regression analysis, the relative risk for a prolonged T1/2(SCr) increased with 4%/hr CIT (P=0.01) and with 1%/kg BWG (P=0.02). Fluid load decreased the relative risk with 5%/liter (P<0.001) and PD as pretransplantation modality favorably modified the relative risk by a factor of 1.6 (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: PD as pretransplantation dialysis modality can reduce the incidence and the severity of delayed recovery of renal function after renal transplantation. This protective effect was independent from CIT, and fluid status, two other major influencing factors.     

Influence of Dialysis Duration and Modality on Kidney Transplant Outcomes

Background

The influence of pretransplantation dialysis on kidney transplant outcomes has been the subject of longstanding interest. Although increased time on dialysis prior to kidney transplantation is associated with decreased graft and patient survivals, analyses of the impact of dialysis modality on kidney allograft outcome have produced conflicting results.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of dialysis duration and modality on the function and survival of renal allografts.

Patients

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 421 adults who received first kidney transplantations from cadaveric heart-beating donors performed in our unit from May 1989 to May 2007. Three hundred seventy-four patients (88.8%) were on hemodialysis (HD) prior to kidney transplantation, including 247 patients (58.7%) on treatment for at least 24 months.

Results

Patients with a dialysis duration ≥24 months were significantly older (45.9 vs 42.8 years; P = .013). Renal function at 3, 12, 60, and 96 months was similar between the 2 groups. Longer duration on dialysis was associated with poorer overall graft and patient survivals. No differences were observed in renal function or graft and patient survivals comparing HD or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Multivariate analysis confirmed the lack of correlation between dialysis duration or modality and allograft failure.

Conclusion

Longer dialysis duration influenced overall graft and patient survival. However, dialysis modality showed no influence on graft function or survival.     

Venous graft thrombosis in patients on peritoneal dialysis before transplantation

BACKGROUND: It has been described that patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) suffer from thrombotic events (vascular access, deep venous thrombosis, and graft thrombosis) more frequently after transplantation than other recipients. We analyzed the incidence of allograft thrombosis among patients transplanted in a 6-year period (January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2005) to identify etiological factors, such as inherited thrombophilia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed 197 renal transplants in 189 patients, including 115 who had been on hemodialysis (HD), 44 on PD, and 30 preemptive. We recorded immunological and demographic data, studied graft and patient survivals, and evaluated the hypercoagulable state of those who experienced graft thrombosis. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at transplantation was 49 years. There were no demographic or immunological differences between the three groups of patients, except for the number of previous blood transfusions and panel reactive antibodies (PRA) levels. Forty-seven grafts were lost in the first year; 14 suffered venous thrombosis, and there were 10 acute rejection epidoses (ARE), 7 death-censored graft failures, 3 chronic allograft nephropathies (CAN), 6 primary nonfunctions, 5 removed due to infection, 1 primary disease relapse, and 1 hemolytic-uremic syndrome. Of the 14 cases of thrombosis in 12 patients, 10 had been on PD and 4 on HD immediately before transplant. One-year graft and patient survivals were similar: 74% HD, 68% PD, 86% preemptive, and 93% HD, 95% PD, and 96% preemptive, respectively. The hypercoagulable state showed inherited thrombophilia patterns in some cases, but most of them were normal. CONCLUSION: Renal graft thrombosis was responsible for graft lost in PD patients within the first year, while in the HD group it was ARE and in the preemptive cohort, death with a functioning graft. The hypercoagulable state pretransplant should be more accurately studied to identify thrombotic factors other than those which are inherited.     

Increased incidence of postoperative infections associated with peritoneal dialysis in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Infection is a frequent postoperative complication in renal transplant recipients. However, little information is available concerning the effect of pretransplantation dialysis modality on posttransplantation complications including infection. We therefore evaluated the effect of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) on the incidence of postoperative infection as well as several other posttransplantation outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records covering the period 30 days after transplantation of 156 dialysis patients who underwent renal transplantation at a single center during a 22-month period. Of these patients, 103 received only HD, 32 received only PD, 13 received PD in the past and HD immediately before transplantation (PH/HD), and 8 received HD in the past and PD immediately before transplantation (HD/PD). The presence of culture-proven infection, types of infecting organisms, length of initial hospital stay, and incidence of rejection during the first 30 days after transplantation were determined for each patient. RESULTS: All groups were similar with regard to age, race, gender, underlying disease, donor type, incidence of delayed graft function, and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. There were more infectious complications within 30 days after transplantation in patients on PD just prior to transplantation (PD and HD/PD) than in HD patients (67.5% vs. 25.9%, P<0.00001). When types of infectious organisms were assessed, PD patients were found to have a greater incidence of infections with microorganisms that colonize human skin (P<0.0001). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days longer for PD patients and 6.5 days longer for HD/PD patients than for patients receiving HD (P=0.01 and 0.04), and PD and HD/PD patients were more likely to have an episode of rejection than HD patients (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Renal replacement therapy with PD immediately before transplantation negatively affects outcome as compared with HD, predisposing patients to a greater incidence of postoperative infections and rejection and a longer hospital stay. Further study in a randomized controlled trial may help determine how adjustment of the dialysis method can optimize transplantation outcome.     

Bologna transplant center results in double kidney transplantation: update

INTRODUCTION: Double-kidney transplantation is performed using organs from marginal donors with a histological score not suitable for single kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to verify the results obtained with double-kidney transplantation in terms of graft/patient survivals and complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 2001 and September 2006. 26 double-kidney transplantations were performed in our center. Indications for surgery were: chronic glomerulonephritis (n = 17), polycystic disease (n = 4), reflux nephropathy (n = 1), hypertensive nephroangiosclerosis (n = 4). The kidneys were all perfused with Celsior solution and mean cold ischemia time was 16.7 +/- 2.5 hours. In all cases, a pretransplant kidney biopsy was performed to evaluate the damage (mean score: 4.3). Immunosuppression was tacrolimus-based for all patients. RESULTS: Eighteen patients had good renal postoperative function, while the other eight displayed acute tubular necrosis. Two of the patients who had severe acute tubular necrosis never recovered renal function. There was only one episode of acute rejection, while the incidence of urinary complications was 31%. There were two surgical reoperations for intestinal perforation. Graft and recipient survivals were 82.7% and 100%, and 78.9% and 94% at 3 and 36 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Double-kidney transplantation is a safe strategy to face the organ shortage. The score used in this study is useful to determine whether a kidney should be refused or suitable for single- or dual-kidney transplantation. The results of our experience are encouraging, but the series is too small to allow a conclusion.     

Malformative uropathies and kidney transplantation

Introduction

Malformative uropathies are a frequent cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). Medical management of urinary tract infections and advances in surgical reconstruction procedures resulted in good outcomes of kidney transplantation among these patients. The aim of this article was to describe the epidemiological profiles and outcomes of patients who underwent transplantation for ESRD related to malformative uropathies.

Patients and Methods

Among 493 kidney recipients at our center from 1986 to 2009, 47 had malformative uropathies as the cause of ESRD. We retrospectively studied the incidence of acute rejection episodes, acute tubular necrosis, as well as patient and graft survivals, comparing these results to those observed in patients without malformative uropathies using chi-square tests for qualitative parameters and nonpaired Student t tests for continuous variables. Log-rank tests were used for comparisons of survival curves.

Results

The 47 patients, representing 9.53% of our kidney transplant recipients, included 27 men and 20 women (sex ratio = 1.35) with an overall mean age of 27.6 ± 9.1 years (range, 10-49). The common etiology was vesico-ureteral reflux (78.7%). Hemodialysis was the main RRT modality (68%) with a median duration of 41 months. Also, 82.9% of patients received transplants from living donors. Acute tubular necrosis occurred in 4 of these (8.5%) versus 22.06% of the other patients (P = .03). Acute rejection episodes were observed in 13 of these patients (27.6%) versus 23.1% of the other patients (P = not significant [NS]). After a cumulative follow-up period of 3744 months (median, 41.8 months), 5 patients had died (1.6 death/y/100 patients) and 5 had lost their allografts and returned to dialysis (1.6 case/y/100 patients). Graft survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 97.8%, 93.2%, and 79.9%, which were comparable with 95.9%, 87.6%, and 78.9% among the other patients, respectively (P = NS). Patient survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 100%, 88.5%, and 82.6% versus 96%, 87.6%, and 79.6%, respectively (P = NS).

Conclusion

Kidney transplantation in patients with malformative uropathies is increasingly frequent. The incidence of acute rejection episodes as well as patient and graft survivals were comparable with those of subjects without malformative uropathies.     

Influence of acute tubular necrosis on first cadaver kidney transplant function

Prolonged cold storage following intracellular electrolyte flushing increases the probability of significant acute tubular necrosis after cadaver kidney transplantation. The renal function of primary cadaver kidney grafts was compared in 68 recipients who required dialysis and 92 who did not require dialysis during the first week after transplantation. All kidneys were retrieved from beating-heart cadaver donors by our center, flushed with ice-cold intracellular electrolyte solution and cold-stored until transplantation at our hospital. Recipients requiring dialysis during the first week after transplantation received kidneys with a significantly longer cold storage time (27.4 plus or minus 10.2 versus 23.2 plus or minus 7.6 hours) and had significantly higher 1-month serum creatinine nadirs (2.1 plus or minus 1.3 versus 1.5 plus or minus 0.6 mg./dl.). Actuarial kidney graft survivals and serum creatinine levels 1 to 5 years after grafting were not significantly different. Acute tubular necrosis following primary cadaver kidney transplantation does not adversely affect long-term function of kidney grafts flushed with intracellular electrolyte solution and cold-stored until transplantation.     

Influence of pretransplant dialysis modality on the change of lymphocyte subset populations and acute rejection rates after renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: The influence of dialysis modality on the acute rejection (AR) rate after renal transplantation is controversial. We investigated whether the pretransplant dialysis modality correlated with the lymphocyte subset populations and the incidence of AR after renal transplantation. METHODS: Thirty-eight first living renal transplant recipients, consisting of 22 patients on pretransplant hemodialysis (HD) and 16 patients on pretransplant peritoneal dialysis (PD), were studied. Peripheral blood samples were taken on days -1 through 28 after transplantation, and the lymphocyte fractions were exposed to the monoclonal antibodies anti-CD3, CD19, CD4, CD8 and CD28 for a flow cytometer analysis. Biopsy specimens were obtained at the time of presumed AR episodes and on day 28 after transplantation. RESULTS: The PD patients had a higher frequency of AR (37.5% in PD vs 9.1% in HD patients, P = 0.034). In contrast, two HD patients showed graft loss at 18 and 30 months after transplantation. The increases of CD3, CD19, CD4 and CD4+ CD28+ cells in the PD patients occurred earlier than in the HD patients and the numbers of these cells in the PD group were higher than those in the HD between days 3-28 after transplantation, most significantly on day 7. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the PD patients with similar clinical characteristics could potentially have a higher immunocompetence and immune responsiveness associated with a higher rate of AR in the early stage of renal transplantation when compared with the HD patients.     

The use of fine-needle intrarenal manometry in the management of renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine

The pressure inside a renal transplant can be measured by means of a fine (25-G) needle passed into the kidney, and we have shown previously that a rise in pressure to more than 40 mmHg commonly occurs during rejection episodes. A rise was not observed in patients with cyclosporine nephrotoxicity or acute tubular necrosis, so we have now used this test prospectively as part of our management of 37 patients undergoing renal transplantation. Fine needle intrarenal pressure was recorded weekly during the first three weeks after transplantation, with more frequent measures taken in patients with deteriorating or absent renal function. Treatment was dictated by the result of these tests. Deteriorating function in a kidney registering a normal pressure was diagnosed as cyclosporine nephrotoxicity and the dose of cyclosporine was reduced appropriately. A pressure reading in excess of 40 mmHg was regarded as rejection--and, after obtaining a conventional needle biopsy of the kidney, antirejection treatment was commenced immediately. Nineteen episodes of nephrotoxicity were confirmed and there was only one false-positive result. Twenty-eight of twenty-nine rejection episodes (observed in twenty-three patients) were associated with a significant rise in intrarenal pressure and were treated appropriately. In six patients who were oliguric at the time, as a result of posttransplant acute tubular necrosis, this rise in pressure was the first indication of rejection. A high pressure was recorded on the first day that the creatinine rose in two-thirds of the cases. In the remainder the pressure was seen to rise more slowly, particularly when the rejection was of the chronic vascular type and was occurring two months or more after transplantation. Fine-needle intrarenal manometry accurately identified rejection episodes in newly transplanted patients--and, because the results were unaffected by cyclosporine nephrotoxicity and acute tubular necrosis, the test was of most value in monitoring patients with these conditions.