Trends and Outcomes in Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Transplantation in Australia and New Zealand

AimRates of simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation (SLKT) have increased, but indications for SLKT remain poorly defined. Additional data are needed to determine which patients benefit from SLKT to best direct use of scarce donor kidneys.MethodsData were extracted from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) database for all SLKT performed until the end of 2017. Patients were divided by pretransplant dialysis status into no dialysis before SLKT (preemptive kidney transplant) and any dialysis before SLKT (nonpreemptive). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared.ResultsBetween 1989 and 2017, inclusive, 84 SLKT procedures were performed in Australia, of which 24% were preemptive. Preemptive and nonpreemptive SLKT recipients did not significantly differ in age (P = .267), sex (P = .526), or ethnicity (P = .870). Over a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, preemptively transplanted patients had a statistically equivalent risk of kidney graft failure (hazard ratio (HR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-12.86, P = .474) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.69, 95% CI: 0.51-5.6, P = .226) compared to nonpreemptive patients. Overall, 1- and 5-year survival rates for all SLKTs were 92% (95% CI: 86-96) and 60% (95% CI: 45-75), respectively.ConclusionKidney graft and overall patient survival were similar between patients with preemptive kidney transplant and those who were dialysis dependent.     

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: do the benefits extend to all recipients?

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplantation (prior to the institution of dialysis) avoids the morbidity and mortality of dialysis; however, detailed studies of high-risk patients are lacking. The aim of the current study was to compare recent outcomes of preemptive (P) versus nonpreemptive (NP) living donor kidney transplantation with an emphasis on high-risk recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 438 sequential solitary living donor kidney transplants at our institution between January 2000 and December 2002. In all, 44% were preemptive. NP recipients were dialyzed for 21+/-36 months (range 1-312 months). RESULTS: Overall, three-year patient survival was similar in the NP and P groups. When stratified by diabetes and age >65 years, P and NP recipients again showed similar survival. Death-censored three-year graft survival was better in the P group (97% vs. 90%, P=0.01), but was not significant by multivariate analysis. Delayed graft function was more frequent in NP vs. P (10% vs. 4%; P=0.01), but other early complications were similar including: acute rejection, 16% vs. 11% (P=0.11); primary nonfunction, 3% vs. 2% (P=0.38); and wound complications, 19% vs. 17% (P=0.54). Glomerular filtration rate at three years was similar in the two groups (53+/-23 preemptive vs. 52+/-20 ml/min nonpreemptive; P=0.37). CONCLUSION: With prompt referral and workup, preemptive kidney transplantation can be performed successfully in a large percentage of renal allograft recipients. Preemptive transplantation avoids unnecessary dialysis and should be emphasized as initial therapy for many patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: a paired donor kidney analysis

BACKGROUND: Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes after living and cadaveric transplantation. To validate and quantify end-stage renal disease (ESRD) time as an independent risk factor for kidney transplantation, we compared the outcome of paired donor kidneys, destined to patients who had ESRD more than 2 years compared to patients who had ESRD less than 6 months. METHODS: We analyzed data available from the U.S. Renal Data System database between 1988 and 1998 by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to quantify the effect of ESRD time on paired cadaveric kidneys and on all cadaveric kidneys compared to living-donated kidneys. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year unadjusted graft survival rates were significantly worse in paired kidney recipients who had undergone more than 24 months of dialysis (58% and 29%, respectively) compared to paired kidney recipients who had undergone less than 6 months of dialysis (78% and 63%, respectively; P<0.001 each). Ten-year overall adjusted graft survival for cadaveric transplants was 69% for preemptive transplants versus 39% for transplants after 24 months on dialysis. For living transplants, 10-year overall adjusted graft survival was 75% for preemptive transplants versus 49% for transplants after 24 month on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD time is arguably the strongest independent modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes. Part of the advantage of living-donor versus cadaveric-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time. This effect is dominant enough that a cadaveric renal transplant recipient with an ESRD time less than 6 months has the equivalent graft survival of living donor transplant recipients who wait on dialysis for more than 2 years.     

Preemptive transplantation and long-term outcome in living donor kidney transplantation, single-center experience

Although preemptive transplantation of kidneys from living donors without the previous initiation of dialysis is associated with longer allograft survival in a USRDS cohort, the effect of pretransplantation dialysis on graft outcome is still controversial in Korea. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differential effects on long-term outcomes of living donor kidney transplantation according to initiation of dialysis and its duration or no dialysis. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 494 patients who received a first kidney transplant from a living donor between 1990 and 2006. The mean duration for dialysis was 14.5+/-22.2 months. The 10-year patient survival of 98.0% in the preemptive group was not significantly higher than the dialysis group (91.2%, P>.05). However, 10-year graft survival was higher in the preemptive than the dialysis group (preemptive 94.4%, dialysis 76.5%; P<.05). The differential effect of pretransplant dialysis either by hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis was not significant, although peritoneal dialysis as a pretransplant treatment seemed to be beneficial on long-term graft survival (5-year graft survival; peritoneal 94.8% and hemodialysis 89.2%). The duration of dialysis did not affect graft survival in our study cohort. In conclusion, we suggest that preemptive transplantation should be applied to eligible patients.     

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.     

Preemptive Cadaveric Renal Transplantation: Fairness and Utility in the Case of High Donation Rate—Pilot Experience of Tuscany Region

Preemptive kidney transplantation is performed before the initiation of chronic dialysis. Preemptive transplantation is the best treatment modality for patients reaching end-stage renal disease. The Tuscany region has experienced, in the last years, a marked increase in donation rate. Starting from 2006, the first Italian cadaveric preemptive transplant program was activated. The aim of our study was to investigate the characteristics and preliminary results of this program. Among 163 patients entered on to the waiting list for renal transplantation from October 2006 to October 2008, 120 (73.6%) were on dialysis for 21.3 ± 17.8 months, whereas 43 patients (26.4%) had not yet been on dialysis (preemptive). Eighty two patients (50.3%) resided in Tuscany and 81 (49.7) outside Tuscany; 36.6% of Tuscany patients and 16% of extraregional patients (P = .003) were listed as preemptive. Fifty-eight of 163 (35.6%) patients were transplanted during the period after a mean waiting time of 10.3 ± 6.4 months. The estimated overall man waiting time was 17.5 months (confidence interval (CI) = 15.8-19.2). Upon Cox multivariate analysis, the probability of transplantation was similar for preemptive and dialysed patients (relative risk [RR] 1.02, P = NS). According to local allocation policy, only residents of Tuscany showed a significant advantage in both groups (RR = 0.43, CI = 0.24-0.75, P = .003). Two-year graft and patients survivals were similar, but delayed graft function was lower in the preemptive group (13% vs 42%, P = .007). The 1-year serum creatinine was 1.56 ± 0.43 in the preemptive group and 1.68 ± 0.92 in the dialysis group (P = NS). No differences were observed concerning rejection rate. The preemptive listing rate for cadaveric renal transplantation was more than 35% for Tuscany patients.     

Kidney Transplantation in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Matched Survival Analysis

BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) is the most prevalent cause of kidney failure. Some concerns have been raised about the kidney transplantation (KT) results in diabetic patients. Therefore, we compared outcomes between diabetic and non-diabetic KT patients.MethodsWe included all KT performed in type 2 diabetic patients in our center from July 1983 to December 2009 with graft survivals beyond 3 months. Nondiabetic controls were individually matched with diabetic patients with respect to gender, age, year of transplantation, number of donor HLA mismatches, and dialysis vintage. The two groups were compared concerning patient and graft survivals, delayed graft function (DGF), and prevalence of acute rejection episodes (ARE).ResultsThe 62 diabetic and 62 nondiabetic patients had a mean follow-up after KT of 102 ± 64 months. Diabetic patients and controls were similar for the matched variables. Death censored graft survivals of diabetics versus nondiabetics were 70% and 83% at 5 years and 54% and 71% at 10 years, respectively (P = .13). Patient survivals at 5 and 10 years were 69% and 50% for diabetic versus 96% and 84% for nondiabetic patients, respectively (P < .001). The prevalence of ARE and DGF did not differ (chi-squared test, P = .12). Multivariate Cox's proportional hazards analysis revealed DM (hazard ratio [HR] 7.72; P = .001) and viral hepatitis (HR = 4.18; P = .02) to correlate with reduced patient survival.ConclusionSurvival of diabetic patients after KT was reduced but death-censored graft outcomes were similar compared with matched nondiabetic patients. Concerns about graft survival should not prevent KT for diabetic patients with kidney failure.     

Preemptive kidney transplantation in systemic lupus erythematosus

Preemptive kidney transplantation is associated with superior outcomes. Patients who have kidney failure due to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may not receive a preemptive kidney transplant because of the concern for risk of disease recurrence with shortened graft and patient survival. We identified 8001 patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing dataset who underwent kidney transplantation between October 1987 and February 2009 with kidney failure due to SLE. Seven hundred thirty patients received a preemptive kidney transplant with 7271 patients who were on dialysis before transplantation; their mean ages were 40.0 ± 11.6 years and 36.9 ± 11.7 years, respectively, (P < .01). Women constituted 82.5% of preemptive and 81.4% of non-preemptive groups (P = .47). Preemptive transplant recipients were more likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.3–4.5; P < .01). In unadjusted analyses, preemptive transplantation was associated with lower risk of recipient death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.38–0.70; P < .01). The difference remained significant after adjustment fr covariates (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.36–0.84; P < .01). Graft survival was also superior among preemptive kidney transplant recipients in both unadjusted (HR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.49–0.68; P < .01), and adjustment analyses (HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.55–0.86; P < .01). We concluded that preemptive kidney transplantation among patients with SLE was associated with superior patient and graft outcomes and should be considered when feasible.     

Comparison of 1-year patient and graft survival rates between preemptive and dialysed simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant recipients

It is well known that the main decrease in graft and recipient survival rates is observed during the first 12 months after transplantation. Improving results during this period seems to be crucial for the late outcome. The aim of this study was to compare 1-year survival rates of dialyzed and preemptive pancreas and renal graft recipients and their graft function. From November 1999 to January 2005, 42 whole simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantations (spktx) were stratified into group I (n = 13): recipients who received a preemptive pancreas and kidney transplant versus group II (n = 29): previously dialyzed spktx recipients. The mean time of dialysis for group II was 39 +/- 16.5 months. We assessed 1-year cumulative survival rates for recipients and grafts for each group. The 1-year cumulative survival rate for preemptive graft recipients was significantly higher than that for dialyzed patients before spktx (100% vs 69%; P = .05). For groups I and II 1-year cumulative graft survival rates for kidney grafts were 100% and 89%, respectively, and for pancreatic grafts 84% and 65.5%, respectively. There was a significant improvement in the 1-year survival rate of preemptive spktx recipients compared with patients dialyzed before spktx. However, 1-year pancreas and kidney graft function did not differ significantly between the groups.     

Preemptive kidney transplantation: experience in two centers

Introduction

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a prevalent, important cause of death. Transplantation increases survival and improves the quality of life of patients with ESRD while long-term dialysis is related to poor outcomes even among patients who undergo subsequent transplantations.

Objectives

To compare the advantages of preemptive procedures with kidney transplants among patients on renal replacement therapy.

Methods

This retrospective study was performed in two Córdoba city transplantation centers. Patients were divided into three groups: preemptive kidney transplant (PKT), patients on hemodialysis who received living donor kidney transplants (LDT), and subjects who received grafts from deceased donors (DDT). Serum creatinine, delayed graft function (DGF), subclinical rejection, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) were evaluated at 6 months.

Results

Eighty patients were included: PKT (n = 28), LDT (n = 27), DDT (n = 25) mean age 29, 30, and 35 years, respectively. Women predominated among PKT and men in the other groups. In all groups, cyclosporine was the calcineurin inhibitor mostly used. Creatinine at 6 months was lower in the living donor groups (1.26 mg/dL PKT and 1.32 mg/dL LDT; P = NS) in relation to the deceased donor group (1.96 mg/dL; P < .05). DDT had the highest rate of DGF: 44% DDT versus 11.5% LDT vs 0% PKT (P < .05). Subclinical rejection was significantly lower among preemptive transplantations: PKT 7.6% versus LDT 18.5% versus DDT 24% (P < .05). IF/TA was higher in transplants from deceased donors: PKT 11.1%; LDT 11.5%; DDT 32%.

Conclusions

Preemptive kidney transplantation offered the advantages of a lower creatinine, no DGF, as well as a reduced incidence of subclinical rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy at 6 months posttransplantation.     

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.     

Can Preemptive Kidney Transplantation Guarantee Longer Graft Survival in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation? Single-Center Study

Introduction

The benefit of preemptive kidney transplantation (KTx) for graft survival compared with nonpreemptive KTx is controversial.

Objective

To analyze the influence of preemptive KTx on graft survival.

Patients and Methods

The study included 476 of 531 patients who had undergone living-donor KTx between January 2000 and June 2007. Pediatric patients and those who had previously undergone KTx were excluded. Recipients were divided into 2 groups; group 1 included 413 patients (86.8%) who received grafts after institution of maintenance dialysis, and group 2 included 63 patients (13.2%) who underwent preemptive KTx.

Results

Donor type and HLA mismatch demonstrated significant differences between the 2 groups. Group 1 had more living donors and fewer HLA mismatches. Warm ischemia time in group 2 was significantly shorter than in group 1. The serum creatinine concentration in group 1 on postoperative day 7 was significantly higher than in group 2. Five- and 10-year graft survival in groups 1 and 2, respectively, were 95.3% and 81.3% vs 92.9% and 92.9%. Graft survival was not significant insofar as duration and method of dialysis. At our institution, independent risk factors for graft survival in living-donor KTx are primary end-stage renal disease, acute cellular rejection episodes, and recipient age.

Conclusion

We observed no benefit on graft survival in recipients of living-donor KTx insofar as whether they had undergone previous dialysis.     

Preemptive kidney transplant from deceased donors: an advantage in relation to reduced waiting list

BACKGROUND: Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation is associated with better allograft and recipient survival. However, it remains unclear whether preemptive transplantation from deceased donors is beneficial too. An increased number of deceased donors has reduced the waiting list in our hospital in the last years allowing preemptive deceased donor kidney transplantation (PDDKT). AIM: We compared our experience with preemptive transplantation with patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three PDDKT, including 77.5% male patients of overall mean age of 48 +/- 14 years, were performed in our hospital between January 1999 and December 2004 (8% of transplantations). We compared the outcomes of these patients with those of renal transplants in subjects who had undergone dialysis. The donors for both groups had similar characteristic; they were paired donor kidneys in most cases. RESULTS: The types of donors in both groups were: non-heart-beating (49%), heart-beating deceased (27%) or en bloc pediatric (24%). The serum creatinine of the recipients was 6.9 +/- 1.8 mg/dL prior to transplantation, and the creatinine clearance was 14.6 +/- 3.6 mL/min (estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula). The Charlson comorbidity index adapted for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD) was 0.8 +/- 0.2 in the preemptive group versus 1.7 +/- 0.4 in the dialysis group (P < .05). Delayed graft function rates were 0% versus 25% in preemptive vs dialysis groups, respectively. No differences in 1-month or 1-year renal function as determined by serum creatinine were observed between the groups. We did not observe differences in the incidence of acute rejection or 1- and 2-year graft and patient survivals. CONCLUSION: PDDKT is the treatment of choice for ACKD. It is associated with less delayed graft function and similar 2-year graft and patient survivals than kidney transplantation after dialysis. The Charlson index reflected less comorbidity among patients with PDDKT, a finding that must influence long-term outcomes.     

Outcomes of renal transplantation after end-stage renal disease due to diabetic nephropathy: a single-center experience

Background

Diabetic nephropathy is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) worldwide. However, data on renal transplantation outcomes in diabetic nephropathy among Japanese remain inadequate. This retrospective study was conducted to summarize our renal transplantation experience in diabetic ESRD patients.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 462 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 1989 and 2011, including 23 with diabetic ESRD (DM group) and 439 with nondiabetic ESRD (NDM group). We compared demographic and clinical variables between these 2 groups.

Results

Mean age was higher in the DM group (48.0 vs 38.2 years; P < .001), and there was no significant difference in gender or donor source. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates in the DM and NDM groups were 100% vs 98.3% (ns), 82.4% vs 94.9% (P < .05), and 66.7% vs 90.3% (P < .01), respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates were 95.0% vs 96.5% (ns), 88.2% vs 95.2% (ns), and 84.6% vs 92.9% (ns), respectively. One patient (4.3%) in the DM group and 6 (1.4%) in the NDM group died from cardiovascular disease during the follow-up period (ns). The incidence of rejection did not differ between the DM and NDM groups. There were no significant differences in the total infection rate or the urinary tract infection rate.

Conclusions

Renal transplantation in diabetic ESRD patients yields good results in terms of patient survival and complications, suggesting that renal transplantation can be performed in these patients and should become a more established treatment option.     

Waiting time and outcome of kidney transplantation in adolescents

BACKGROUND: The major cause of late graft failure in adolescent kidney transplant recipients is thought to be nonadherence with medications. Delaying transplantation in adolescents may lead to improved adherence but at the cost of longer time on dialysis. To determine if waiting time on dialysis is a risk factor for graft survival in adolescents, we compared the outcomes of kidney transplants according to age and time on dialysis. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry on 2,739 primary kidney transplants performed between 1980 and 2004 in recipients less than 30 years old. Outcomes according to age at transplantation and waiting time were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard tests. RESULTS: Overall five- and 10-year graft survival rates were significantly worse in adolescents (65% and 50%, respectively) compared to recipients aged two to 10 years (74% and 58%) and 20 to 29 years (72% and 57%). Waiting time on dialysis was an independent risk factor for failure of living donor grafts in adolescents (hazard ratio 0.53, P = 0.03). Five- and 10-year graft survival of preemptive grafts in adolescents were 82% and 70%, respectively, which were similar to survival rates of preemptive grafts in other age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced graft survival rates in adolescent recipients are not seen after preemptive transplants. Preemptive grafts are associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of graft failure. Delaying transplantation in adolescents may expose them to increased risk of poorer outcomes.     

Preemptive renal transplantation in adults

Recent studies have clearly demonstrated that preemptive renal transplantation is associated with better graft and patient survival. It improves the quality of life and is a cost-effective option compared to conventional transplantation. We report our experience with this concept and review the literature. We retrospectively analyzed all adult kidney transplantations performed in our center between March 1986 and May 2004: among 463 renal transplantations 44 were preemptive (9.5%). Mean follow-up was 45.7 +/- 6 months in preemptive versus 62.3 +/- 2.6 months in the other group. At the end of the study, graft survivals were 93.2% and 77.1%, respectively (P = .02). Patient survival rates were similar in both groups. In the preemptive group, grafts were more likely to come from living donors (P < .001) and cold ischemia time was shorter (P = .02). A subgroup case-control study showed that cost saving for dialysis in the preemptive group was about 119,000 Euros per patient. More preemptive patients had professional activity before (P = .0002) and after transplantation (P = .02). Our results and data from the literature support the place of preemptive transplantation as the optimal mode of renal replacement therapy for medical and socioeconomic reasons.     

The Impact of Method on Kidney Graft and Patient Survival in Kidney-Pancreas Transplantations for Type I Diabetes Mellitus

Patients who develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) associated with Type I Diabetes Mellitus may receive kidney alone (KA) transplantation, simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation, or a pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation. The goal of this study is to examine the long-term impact of pancreas transplantation on kidney graft and patient survival rates. A total of 85 transplantation cases, consisting of 30 that received living donor KA, 21 that received SPK, and 34 that received PAK, from 2003–2010 at Akdeniz University Organ Transplantation Institute were retrospectively screened. There was a graft loss in 4 cases from the KA group, and in 1 case from each of the SPK and PAK groups. The five-year kidney graft survival rates were 86.7% in KA, 95.2% in SPK, and 97.1% in PAK. There was a single patient loss in both KA and SPK. The kidney survival percentages were higher in SPK and PAK groups compared to the KA group. Therefore, SPK should be the primary preference in these patients; however, for the cases that have a living donor, pancreas transplantation should be considered after kidney transplantation, or the patients can be followed-up on with close blood sugar control.Key words: Kidney, Pancreas, Transplantation, Kidney survival, Patient survivalThe discovery of insulin in 1921 enabled the transition from diabetic ketoacidosis and diabetic coma to an increasing number of patients with prolonged life expectancies in the clinical course of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, with prolonged lifetime, increases in the neurological, ocular, and renal complications of DM have become evident. With a 40% rate, DM is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States.¹ In patients with type I DM-related kidney failure, kidney transplant is highly more preferable in terms of the negative effects of long-term dialysis on the patient survival and quality of life compared with the benefits of kidney transplants.² In patients who develop type I DM-related kidney failure, kidney-alone transplantation (KA) from a living donor or a cadaver, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK), or pancreas-after-kidney transplantation (PAK) are among the transplantation alternatives. The 10-year life expectancy in patients receiving hemodialysis for ESRD, and in those undergoing living donor or a cadaveric renal transplantation, was reported to be 4.4, 32.9, and 59.3% in the United States, respectively.³ Similarly, while the average life expectancy for diabetes patients waiting for kidney transplantation was 8 years, the average life expectancy after kidney transplantation was determined to be 22 years.² When pancreas transplantation is added to kidney transplantation, prolonged kidney and patient survival rates can be attained along with other benefits, such as protection from the secondary effects of diabetes and an increase in patients'' quality of life. While the 4-year mortality rate in the selected dialysis patients on the waitlist for pancreas-kidney was 40%, it was 10% in patients who received SPK transplantation.⁴ The goal of this study is to compare the impact of the KA, SPK, and PAK transplantation methods on kidney graft and patient survival rates in patients with ESRD associated with type I diabetes.     

Patient mortality after graft failure reduces kidney transplant patient survival only in the long term: an "intention to treat" analysis

The benefits of kidney transplantation over dialysis on patient survival have been demonstrated without considering the outcomes of patients with graft loss. To determine whether mortality after graft failure reduced the transplantation advantage in patient survival, we retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 918 first-deceased renal transplant recipients from May 1979 to August 2005. Patient survivals were 88% and 72% at 10 and 20 years; cancer (26%) and cardiovascular disease (25%) were the major causes of death. Graft survivals were 72% and 50% at 10 and 20 years; chronic rejection was the major cause of graft loss (50%). Patient outcomes after return to dialysis were reviewed in 224 of 240 patients. The survivals were 97%, 83%, and 70% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively; cardio-cerebrovascular disease (56%), infections (9%), cachexia (9%), and cancer (8%) were the major causes of death. Mortality correlated with patient age at transplantation (P< .001). Re-listed patients (96 of 224) were younger (32+/-10 vs 43+/-11 years; P< .001), had a shorter dialysis period pretransplant (3.2+/-3.1 vs 4.3+/-3.9 years; P< .03), and a better survival at 10 years (98% vs 56%; P< .001). Ten-year mortality for patients who returned to dialysis was 20% higher than for patients with a functioning graft (P< .001). The reduction in overall patient survival was 2.2% at 10 years (P=NS), 5% at 15 years (P=NS), and 14% at 20 years (P< .05). The same results have been demonstrated for patients >50 years at transplantation. In conclusion, the mortality rate after return to dialysis did not influence the long-term benefits of kidney transplantation.     

Age Matching Improves Graft Survival After Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

Background

Donor and recipient age in kidney transplantation are known to affect graft and patient survival. To address the question of whether the age difference between donor and recipient impacts on graft survival and death-censored graft survival after transplantation, we examined the impact of age matching (less than 10-year age difference) on the survivals after living donor kidney transplantation.

Methods

Two hundred one cases of the primary living donor kidney transplantation were performed and were divided into two groups, age-matched (n = 123) versus age-discrepant (n = 78). Variables included in this study were age, gender, body weight, height, kidney disease, type and duration of dialysis before transplantation, degree of human leukocyte antigen mismatch, ischemic time, graft weight, episode of rejection, type of immunosuppression, recipient serum creatinine after transplantation, and causes of patient death and graft loss.

Results

We observed the disparities of graft survival (P = .008) and death-censored graft survival (P = .003) between the groups. One-, 3-, and 5-year death-censored graft survival was 100%, 100%, and 97% in the age-matched group, respectively; and 97%, 90%, and 88% in the age-discrepant group, respectively. By Cox regression multivariate analysis, the variable of age-matching was an independent predictor for both graft survival (ß = 1.325, P = .017) and death-censored graft survival (ß = 2.217, P = .021).

Conclusion

During living donor and recipient matching, age difference between donor and recipient should be minimized.     

Outcomes of kidney allograft in recipients with kidney disease of unknown etiology

The etiology of renal disease is important because the primary renal pathology may affect the outcomes of kidney allograft with respect to recurrence, rejection, and survival. However, for a significant number of patients who undergo kidney transplantation, the disease etiology is unknown. Here, allograft outcomes for patients with kidney disease of unknown etiology (UEK) at three affiliated Korean hospitals were identified. The incidence of biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR) for UEK was 22.9%, which was similar to the rates for diabetic nephropathy (DN, 24.4%) and IgA nephropathy (IgAN, 20.0%; p = 0.345). The cumulative incidence of post‐transplant glomerulonephritis (PTGN) among patients with UEK was significantly lower than that among patients with IgAN (p < 0.001). Overall graft survival of the UEK group was superior to that of the DN group (hazards ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.17–0.92, p = 0.030). Preemptive transplantation for UEK significantly reduced the incidence of BPAR (preemptive vs. non‐preemptive 9.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.001), but graft survival and recurrence were not affected by preemptive transplantation. The outcomes of kidney transplantation for patients with UEK were not inferior to those for patients with IgAN or DN. Preemptive kidney transplantation may be encouraged for UEK patients.