Association between pre-transplant dialysis modality and patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

Impact of Pretransplant Dialysis Modality on Posttransplant Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

It remains unclear whether posttransplant outcomes differ according to the pretransplant dialysis modality (peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis). Our aim was to assess posttransplant outcomes in patients with different predialysis modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two thousand two hundred fifty-eight kidney recipients following up in Hamed Alessa Organ transplant center in Kuwait were included and divided into two groups according to pre-transplant dialysis modality: Group 1: those who received hemodialysis (HD) and group 2: those with peritoneal dialysis (PD). Demographics, pretransplant and posttransplant comorbidities, and patient and graft outcomes were studied.

RESULTS

There were 1956 patients on hemodialysis, and 302 patients were on peritoneal dialysis. Most were male patients (1456 vs 802 female patients), with comparable mean age (P = .34). Chronic glomerulonephritis and diabetic nephropathy represented the most common original kidney disease before transplant (27.6% and 21.4%, respectively), with higher prevalence of glomerulonephritis in group 1 and diabetic nephropathy in group 2 (P = .001). The 2 groups were comparable with regard to immunosuppression (induction and maintenance) (P > .05). Posttransplant diabetes and hypertension were significantly higher in the hemodialysis group (P = .004 and P = 003, respectively). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to the graft outcome (P = .86). However, patient survival was significantly higher in the hemodialysis group (81.2% vs 64.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with peritoneal dialysis, pretransplant hemodialysis is associated with better posttransplant patient survival despite no difference in the graft outcome. Diabetes-related complications could be attributed to such outcomes.

Association Between Pretransplant Dialysis Modality and Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The benefits and disadvantages of different pretransplant dialysis modalities and their posttransplant outcomes remain unclear in contemporary kidney transplant care.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence of the association of different pretransplant dialysis modalities, including hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis (PD), with posttransplant outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, and gray literature were searched from inception to March 18, 2022 (updated to April 1, 2022), for relevant studies and with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized observational (case-control and cohort) studies that investigated the association between pretransplant dialysis modality and posttransplant outcomes regardless of age or donor sources (living or deceased) were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines, 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant information using a standardized approach. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio and 95% CI.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, overall graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and delayed graft function. Secondary outcomes included acute rejection, graft vessel thrombosis, oliguria, de novo heart failure, and new-onset diabetes after transplant.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 26 nonrandomized studies (1 case-control and 25 cohort), including 269 715 patients (mean recipient age range, 14.5-67.0 years; reported proportions of female individuals, 29.4%-66.9%) whose outcomes associated with pretransplant hemodialysis vs pretransplant PD were compared. No significant difference, with very low certainty of evidence, was observed between pretransplant PD and all-cause mortality (13 studies; n = 221 815; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.01]; P = .08) as well as death-censored graft failure (5 studies; n = 96 439; HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.85-1.14]; P = .81). However, pretransplant PD was associated with a lower risk for overall graft failure (10 studies; n = 209 287; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]; P = .02; very low certainty of evidence) and delayed graft function (6 studies; n = 47 118; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.70-0.76]; P < .001; low certainty of evidence). Secondary outcomes were inconclusive due to few studies with available data.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of the study suggest that pretransplant PD is a preferred dialysis modality option during the transition to kidney transplant. Future studies are warranted to address shared decision-making between health care professionals, patients, and caregivers as well as patient preferences.

The Role of Peritoneal Dialysis in Different Phases of Kidney Transplantation

The utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been increasing in the past decade owing to various government initiatives and recognition of benefits such as better preservation of residual renal function, quality of life, and lower cost. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the utilization of home therapies such as PD and kidney transplantation to treat end stage kidney disease (ESKD). A natural consequence of this development is that more patients will receive PD, and many will eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Therefore, it is important to understand the effect of pretransplant PD on posttransplant outcomes such as delayed graft function (DGF), rejection, thrombosis, graft, and patient survival. Furthermore, some of these patients may develop DGF, which raises the question of the utility of PD during DGF and its risks. Although transplant is the best renal replacement therapy option, it is not everlasting, and many transplant recipients must go on dialysis after allograft failure. Can PD be a good option for these patients? This is another critical question. Furthermore, a significant proportion of nonrenal solid organ transplant recipients develop ESKD. Is PD feasible in this group? In this review, we try to address all of these questions in the light of available evidence.

Impact of the Type of Dialysis on Time to Transplantation: Is It Just a Matter of Immunity?

Background: Renal transplantation represents the therapeutic gold standard in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Still the role of pre-transplant dialysis in affecting time to transplantation has yet to be determined. We wanted to verify whether the type of renal replacement therapy (hemodialysis vs. peritoneal dialysis) affects time to transplantation and to identify clinical features related to the longer time to transplantation. Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center observational study on patients who had received a transplant in the Bologna Transplant Unit from 1991 to 2019, described through the analysis of digital transplant list documents for sex, age, body mass index (BMI), blood group, comorbidities, underlying disease, serology, type of dialysis, time to transplantation, Panel Reactive Antibodies (PRA) max, number of preformed anti Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) antibodies. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the 1619 patients analyzed, we observed a significant difference in time to transplant, PRA max and Preformed Antibodies Number between patients who received Hemodialysis (HD) and Peritoneal dialysis (PD). Then we performed a multiple regression analysis with all the considered factors in order to identify features that support these differences. The clinical variables that independently and directly correlate with longer time to transplantation are PRA max (p < 0.0001), Antibodies number (p < 0.0001) and HD (p < 0.0001); though AB blood group (p < 0.0001), age (p < 0.003) and PD (p < 0.0001) inversely correlate with time to transplantation. Conclusions: In our work, PD population received renal transplants in a shorter period of time compared to HD and turned out to be less immunized. Considering immunization, the type of dialysis impacts both on PRA max and on anti HLA antibodies.

Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.

Improved renal allograft survival for pre-emptive paediatric renal transplant recipients in the UK

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether being on dialysis at the time of renal transplantation affected renal allograft survival in paediatric renal transplant recipients (pRTRs).

METHODS

Retrospective study of UK Transplant Registry (National Health Service Blood and Transplant) data on all children (aged <18 years) receiving a kidney-only transplant from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2015. Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient and renal allograft survival calculated and Cox regression modelling accounting for donor type. The relationship between time on dialysis and renal allograft survival was examined.

RESULTS

2038 pRTRs were analysed: 607 (30%) were pre-emptively transplanted, 789 (39%) and 642 (32%) on peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis, respectively, at the time of transplantation. Five-year renal allograft survival was significantly better in the pre-emptively transplanted group (90.6%) compared with those on peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis (86.4% and 85.7%, respectively; p=0.02). After accounting for donor type, there was a significantly lower hazard of 5-year renal allograft failure in pre-emptively transplanted children (HR 0.742, p=0.05). Time spent on dialysis pre-transplant negatively correlated with renal allograft survival (p=0.002). There was no significant difference in 5-year renal allograft survival between children who were on dialysis for less than 6 months and children transplanted pre-emptively (87.5% vs 90.5%, p=0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptively transplanted children have improved 5-year renal allograft survival, compared with children on dialysis at the time of transplantation. Although increased time spent on dialysis correlated with poorer renal allograft survival, there was no evidence that short periods of dialysis pre-transplant affected renal allograft survival.

Effect of Pretransplant Dialysis Modality on Outcomes After Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation

Background

Pretransplant dialysis modality may affect outcome after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT), and it has been suspected that peritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with more postoperative complications compared to hemodialysis (HD). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pretransplant dialysis modality affects the risk for postoperative complications in SPKT recipients.

Material/Methods

This was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of all patients undergoing SPKT from 2010 to 2017, during which 99 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantations were performed. Three pre-emptive transplantations were excluded. Patient groups receiving PD (n=59) or HD (n=37) were similar regarding baseline characteristics. All complications occurring during the first 3 months after transplantation, as well as patient and graft survival, were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between groups, with similar rates of intra-abdominal infections (8% in HD vs. 10% in PD), pancreatitis (16% in HD vs. 17% in PD), gastrointestinal bleedings (22% in HD vs. 10% in PD), and relaparotomies (27% in HD vs. 24% in PD). None of the patients had venous graft thrombosis. Past peritonitis was not associated with increased risk for postoperative complications in PD patients. Patient and graft survival were similar between PD and HD groups.

Conclusions

Peritoneal dialysis is not a risk factor for postoperative complications after SPKT.

Choice of dialysis modality prior to kidney transplantation: Does it matter?

The population of patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing, lengthening waiting lists for kidney transplantation. Majority of the patients are not able to receive a kidney transplant in timely manner even though it is well established that patient survival and quality of life after kidney transplantation is far better when compared to being on dialysis. A large number of patients who desire a kidney transplant ultimately end up needing some form of dialysis therapy. Most of incident ESRD patients choose hemodialysis (HD) over peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the modality of choice in the United States, even though studies have favored PD as a better choice of pre-transplant dialysis modality than HD. PD is largely underutilized in the United States due to variety of reasons. As a part of the decision making process, patients are often educated how the choice regarding modality of dialysis would fit into their life but it is not clear and not usually discussed, how it can affect eventual kidney transplantation in the future. In this article we would like to discuss ESRD demographics and outcomes, modality of dialysis and kidney transplant related events. We have summarized the data comparing PD and HD as the modality of dialysis and its impact on allograft and recipient outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Hemodialysis or Peritoneal Dialysis, Which Is Better for Patients with Delayed Graft Function?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important renal replacement method in patients with delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantation; however, it is not clear which dialysis modality is superior. This study determined the impact of different dialysis modalities on patients with DGF.

METHODS

It was a single-center, retrospective and descriptive study. We performed 673 kidney transplants from donors after cardiac death (DCD) between January 2010 and December 2016 at our center and 138 (20.5%) recipients developed DGF after transplantation. We classified the recipients into two groups according to post-transplant dialysis: DGF-HD (n=96) and DGF-PD (n=42). We analyzed the outcomes of the different dialysis modalities 30 days and 1 year post-transplantation.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline factors between patients with post-transplant HD (n = 96) or PD (n = 42). There were 10 patients with conversion from PD to HD during DGF. The DGF-PD patients had a higher rate of treatment failure than the DGF-HD patients (23.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), peritonitis (7.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.027), and longer duration of dialysis dependence (10.5 vs. 9 days, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups with respect to acute rejection, hemorrhage, and patient and graft survival at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In renal transplant recipients with DGF, post-transplant PD led to increased treatment failure. PD did not result in rapid recovery of transplanted renal function, and had a high probability of peritonitis.

Effects of pretransplant peritoneal vs hemodialysis modality on outcome of first kidney transplantation from donors after cardiac death

Background

The effect of pretransplant peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) modality on outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is debatable. We evaluated the outcomes these modalities in KT from donor after cardiac death (DCD).

Methods

A cohort of 251 patients on HD, PD or pre-emptive who underwent first KT from DCD between January 2014 and December 2016 were prospectively analyzed to compare for outcomes on recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival. The patients were followed till August 2017. Data on 104 HD and 98 PD were available for final comparative outcome analysis, 5 pre-emptive were analyzed as the control group.

Results

Both HD and PD group patients were well matched for demographic and baseline characteristics. The follow-up period was 12.5 (3.0, 22.0) months in HD and 12.0 (6.0, 20.0) months in PD patients. Post-transplant renal functions between the two groups showed no differences. Among PD patients, 16 (16.3%) suffered delayed graft function, versus 19 (18.3%) in HD, with no statistical differences (p = 0.715). Complications of acute rejection, infections were comparable between the groups. The patient survival, graft survival and death-censored graft survival were similar for HD and PD after adjusting for other multiple risk factors.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that outcome of first KT from DCD is not affected by pretransplant dialysis modality of PD or HD in aspects of recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival.

Our Timing to Remove Peritoneal Catheter Dialysis After Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

Patients on peritoneal dialysis treatment represent 15% of the global dialysis population. The major complication of peritoneal dialysis is catheter and peritoneal infection. Peritoneal dialysis patients who receive kidney transplants are at increased risk of infection because of immunosuppressive therapy.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to show our ideal timing to remove peritoneal catheter after kidney transplant, which gives adequate security on renal function recovery and reduction of septic risk.

METHOD OF STUDY

We analyzed the outcomes of 65 patients on peritoneal dialysis who underwent kidney transplant between 2000 and 2016.

RESULTS

In 61 cases there was an immediate graft functional recovery. In 4 cases there was a delayed graft function (DGF), and we performed a hemodialysis with temporary placement of a venous catheter. In all patients we removed peritoneal dialysis catheter 30 to 45 days after transplant. There has been 1 case of catheter infection, which was treated with antibiotic therapy.

DISCUSSION

Our average time to remove the peritoneal dialysis catheter was shorter than times in previous studies, between the 30th and 45th postoperative day. In the 4 cases in which there has been a DGF, we performed hemodialysis treatment to avoid, in the immediate postoperative period, direct insults to the peritoneum by local dialysis procedures.

CONCLUSION

Our experience show that the 30th to 45th postoperative day is a good time frame, better yet a good watershed between the safe removal of peritoneal catheter when patients have a stabilized renal function and the possibility of leaving it in situ, to resume peritoneal dialysis in case of persistent DGF.

Impact of the pretransplant dialysis modality on kidney transplantation outcomes: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with uraemia must undergo chronic dialysis while awaiting kidney transplantation; however, the role of the pretransplant dialysis modality on the outcomes of kidney transplantation remains obscure. The objective of this study was to clarify the associations between the pretransplant dialysis modality, namely haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD), and the development of post-transplant de novo diseases, allograft failure and all-cause mortality for kidney-transplant recipients.

DESIGN

Retrospective nationwide cohort study.

SETTING

Data retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database.

PARTICIPANTS

The National Health Insurance database was explored for patients who received kidney transplantation in Taiwan during 1998-2011 and underwent dialysis >90 days before transplantation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The pretransplant characteristics, complications during kidney transplantation and post-transplant outcomes were statistically analysed and compared between the HD and PD groups. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the HR of the dialysis modality on graft failure and all-cause mortality. The primary outcomes were long-term post-transplant death-censored allograft failure and all-cause mortality started after 90 days of kidney transplantation until the end of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were events during kidney transplantation and post-transplant de novo diseases adjusted by propensity score in log-binomial model.

RESULTS

There were 1812 patients included in our cohort, among which 1209 (66.7%) and 603 (33.3%) recipients received pretransplant HD and PD, respectively. Recipients with chronic HD were generally older and male, had higher risks of developing post-transplant de novo ischaemic heart disease, tuberculosis and hepatitis C after adjustment. Pretransplant HD contributed to higher graft failure in the multivariate analysis (HR 1.38, p<0.05) after adjustment for the recipient age, sex, duration of dialysis and pretransplant diseases. There was no significant between-group difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant HD contributed to higher risks of death-censored allograft failure after kidney transplantation when compared with PD.

Paired Analysis of Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation in Peritoneal and Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

The impact of dialysis modality before kidney transplantation (hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) on outcomes is not clear. In this study we retrospectively analyzed the impact of dialysis modality on posttransplant follow-up.

METHODS

To minimize donor bias, a paired kidney analysis was applied. One hundred thirty-three pairs of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients were transplanted at our center between 1994 and 2016. Those who received kidneys from the same donor were included in the study. HD patients were significantly older (44 vs 48 years), but the Charlson Comorbidity Index was similar (3.12 vs 3.46) in both groups. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to immunosuppressive protocols and number of mismatches (2.96 vs 2.95).

RESULTS

One-year patient (98% vs 96%) and graft (90% vs 93%) survival was similar in the PD and HD patient groups. The Kaplan-Meier curves of the patients and graft survival did not differ significantly. Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) occurred significantly more often in the HD recipients. Graft vessel thrombosis resulting in graft loss occurred in 9 PD (6.7%) and 4 HD (3%) patients (P > .05). Serum creatinine concentration and estimated glomerular filtration rate (using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease guidelines) showed no difference at 1 month, 1 year, and at final visit. On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with graft loss were graft vessel thrombosis, DGF, and graft function 1 month after transplantation. On univariate analysis, age, coronary heart disease, and graft loss were associated with death. Among these factors, only coronary heart disease (model 1) and graft loss were significant predictors of death on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcome for renal transplantation is similar in patients with PD and HD. These groups differ in some aspects, however, such as susceptibility to vascular thrombosis in PD patients, and to DGF and AR in HD patients.

Association of Pre-Transplant Dialysis Modality and Post-Transplant Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

♦ BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether post-transplant outcomes differ according to the pre-transplant dialysis modality (peritoneal dialysis [PD] versus hemodialysis [HD]). We performed a meta-analysis of studies that assessed either post-transplant mortality, graft survival, or delayed graft function (DGF) in both PD and HD patients. ♦ METHODS: Two independent authors searched English-language literature from January 1, 1980, through August 31, 2014, national conference proceedings, and reference lists. We used combinations of terms related to dialysis (hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or renal replacement therapy), kidney transplant, and outcomes. Studies were included if they measured any of the 3 post-transplant study outcomes in both pre-transplant HD and PD. ♦ RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in the final analysis. Of these, 6 studies reported adjusted hazard ratio for mortality, pooled adjusted risk ratio: 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 - 0.97) in favor of PD (p = 0.006). The same 6 studies reported adjusted hazard ratio for graft survival, pooled adjusted risk ratio: 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 - 1.01, p = 0.16). A total of 13 studies reported unadjusted DGF. Pooled odds ratio: 0.5 (95% CI 0.41 - 0.63) in favor of PD (p < 0.005). Significant heterogeneity observed for all outcomes: I2 = 72.7%, I2 = 59.9%, and I2 = 66.8%, respectively. ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, pre-transplant PD is associated with better post-transplant survival than HD. Pre-transplant PD was also associated with decreased risk for DGF compared with HD, although these results were unadjusted. There was no significant difference in graft survival between pre-transplant HD and PD. These results suggest that PD may be the preferred dialysis modality for patients expected to receive a transplant.

Pre-transplant dialysis modality does not influence short- or long-term outcome in kidney transplant recipients: analysis of paired kidneys from the same deceased donor

Previous studies have reported contradictory results regarding the effect of pre-transplant dialysis modality on the outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT). To minimize the confounding effect of donor-related variables, we performed a donor-matched retrospective comparison of 160 patients that received only one modality of pre-transplant dialysis (peritoneal dialysis [PD] and hemodialysis [HD] in 80 patients each) and that subsequently underwent KT at our center between January 1990 and December 2007. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between pre-transplant dialysis modality and primary study outcomes (death-censored graft survival and patient survival). To control for imbalances in recipient-related baseline characteristics, we performed additional adjustments for the propensity score (PS) for receiving pre-transplant PD (versus HD). There were no significant differences according to pre-transplant dialysis modality in death-censored graft survival (PS-adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.25-1.68) or patient survival (aHR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.13-2.68). There were no differences in 10-year graft function or in the incidence of post-transplant complications either, except for a higher risk of lymphocele in patients undergoing PD (odds ratio: 4.31; 95% CI: 1.15-16.21). In conclusion, pre-transplant dialysis modality in KT recipients does not impact short- or long-term graft outcomes or patient survival.

Pancreas-Kidney transplantation: Impact of dialysis modality on the outcome

It remains controversial whether dialysis modality prior to SPKT (simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation) affects the outcome. We analyzed outcomes in type 1 diabetic patients undergoing SPKT, comparing peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) groups: 119 had been on HD; 39 on PD. They were comparable except regarding dialysis time, higher in HD patients (30 ± 23 vs. 21 ± 15 months, P = 0.003). Thrombosis-driven relaparotomy was more frequent in PD patients (12.8% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.014). Pancreas loss due to infection was higher in PD patients (12.8% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.042). Thrombosis-related kidney loss was more frequent in PD patients (5.1%, vs. 0% in HD patients, P = 0.058). Thirteen deaths occurred, more within the PD group (17.9% vs. 5%; P = 0.011), being infection the leading cause (13.5%, vs. 1.7% in HD patients, P = 0.010). Patient survival was inferior in PD patients. Besides PD, cardiovascular disease and graft failure were independent predictors of patient death. In conclusion, PD patients more frequently complicated with intra-abominal infection leading to pancreatic loss and with renal thrombosis, with adverse impact on survival. As a PD first strategy in end-stage renal disease patients is generally associated with good outcomes, these gloomier results after SPKT urge for careful adjustment of infection and thrombosis prophylactic protocols in PD patients.

Factors influencing survival after kidney transplant failure

Background

The failure of a kidney transplant is now a common reason for initiation of dialysis therapy. Kidney transplant recipients commencing dialysis have greater morbidity and mortality than transplant-naïve, incident dialysis patients. This study aimed to identify variables associated with survival after graft failure.

Methods

All recipients of first, deceased donor kidney transplants performed in Northern Ireland between 1986 and 2005 who had a functioning graft at 12 months were included (n = 585). Clinical and blood-derived variables (age, gender, primary renal disease, diabetic status, smoking status, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, acute rejection episodes, immunosuppression, cardiovascular disease, graft survival, haemoglobin, albumin, phosphate, C reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), rate of eGFR decline, dialysis modality, and access) were collected prospectively and investigated for association with re-transplantation and survival. The association between re-transplantation and survival was explored by modelling re-transplantation as a time-dependent covariate.

Results

Median follow-up time was 12.1 years. Recipients with a failing graft (158/585) demonstrated rapid loss of eGFR prior to graft failure, reducing the time available to plan for alternative renal replacement therapy. Median survival after graft failure was 3.0 years. In multivariate analysis, age and re-transplantation were associated with survival after graft failure. Re-transplantation was associated with an 88% reduction in mortality.

Conclusions

Optimal management of kidney transplant recipients with failing grafts requires early recognition of declining function and proactive preparation for re-transplantation given the substantial survival benefit this confers. The survival benefit associated with re-transplantation persists after prolonged exposure to immunosuppressive therapy.

Improving outcomes in patients with lupus and end-stage renal disease

The development of lupus-related end-stage renal disease (ESRD) confers the highest mortality rates among individuals with lupus. Lupus-related ESRD is also associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with non-lupus ESRD. We review the evidence that persistent lupus activity, hypercoagulability, and continuing immunosuppression may contribute to unfavorable outcomes in dialysis and renal transplantation among lupus patients. Robust epidemiologic studies are needed to develop individualized evidence-based approaches to treating lupus-related ESRD. In the meantime, managing lupus-related ESRD presents a significant challenge for clinicians and requires a team approach involving nephrologists and rheumatologists. Goals of therapy after developing ESRD should include continuing monitoring of lupus activity, minimizing corticosteroid exposure, and choosing the most appropriate renal replacement therapy based on patient's risk profile and quality-of-life considerations.