Steroid Use and Infectious Complication in Peritoneal Dialysis After Kidney Transplant Failure

Comparison of outcomes between kidney transplant-naïve and post-transplant graft failure peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes between transplant-naïve peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients and those returning to PD after a failed allograft.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study during 2006 and 2016, we included a total of 786 patients on chronic PD. Of them 679 were transplant-naïve, 75 patients underwent a successful transplantation, and 32 patients returned to PD after a failed kidney allograft. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were analyzed in relation to the outcomes of all-cause mortality and peritonitis rate. We employed the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate survival, while Poisson regression was utilized to estimate rate ratios for peritonitis.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 6.37 years, 56.68 % death and 146.62 episodes of peritonitis/patient-year were observed. Compared with patients who received a kidney graft, transplant-naïve patients were older, more with diabetes and having higher mortality (58.6 ± 15.8, 40.5 % and 57.73 %, p < 0.0001). After accounting for age, gender, and comorbidities, the adjusted hazards ratios were 0.26 (95 % CI 0.13-0.53) in patients with a functioning graft and 1.12 (95 % CI 0.61-2.06) in patients returning to PD after graft failure, compared respectively with concurrent PD patients without kidney transplant. The adjusted rate ratio of peritonitis in patients resuming PD after graft failure was 0.55 (95 % CI: 0.22-1.14) compared to those without kidney transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients restarting PD after graft failure exhibited clinical outcomes comparable to transplant-naïve PD patients. These findings support the feasibility of reinitiating PD after kidney transplant fails.

Peritoneal dialysis after failed kidney allograft: Comparing patients with and without pd before transplant

BACKGROUND

The result of published studies on the clinical outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after kidney allograft failure is conflicting. There are also few published data on the outcome of patients who had PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure.

METHODS

We reviewed 100 patients who were started on PD after kidney allograft failure between 2001 and 2020 (failed transplant group); 50 of them received PD before transplant. We compared the clinical outcome to 200 new PD patients matched for age, sex, and diabetic status (control group).

RESULTS

The patients were followed for 45.8 ± 40.5 months. the 2-year patient survival rate was 83.3% and 87.8% for the failed transplant and control groups, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.2). The corresponding 2-year technique survival rate 66.5% and 71.7% (p = 0.5). The failed transplant and control groups also had similar hospitalization rate and peritonitis rate. In the failed transplant group, there was also no difference in patient survival, technique survival, hospitalization, or peritonitis rate between those with and without PD before transplant. In the failed transplant group, patients who had PD before transplant and then returned to PD after allograft failure had substantial increase in D/P4 (0.585 ± 0.130 to 0.659 ± 0.111, paired t-test, p = 0.032) and MTAC creatinine (7.74 ± 3.68 to 9.73 ± 3.00 ml/min/1.73m2, p = 0.047) from the time before the transplant to the time after PD was resumed after failed allograft.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcome of PD patients with a failed kidney allograft is similar to other PD patients. However, patients who have a history of PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure have increased peritoneal transport parameters.

Comparison of outcomes of peritoneal dialysis between patients after failed kidney transplant and transplant-naïve patients: a meta-analysis of observational studies

PURPOSE

The influence of prior failed kidney transplants on outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is unclear. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of patients initiating PD after a failed kidney transplant with those initiating PD without a prior history of kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until 25 November 2020. Our meta-analysis considered the absolute number of events of mortality, technical failures, and patients with peritonitis, and we also pooled multi-variable adjusted hazard ratios (HR).

RESULTS

We included 12 retrospective studies. For absolute number of events, our analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in technique failure [RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80-1.61; I²=52%; p = 0.48], number of patients with peritonitis [RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.32; I²=5%; p = 0.11] and mortality [RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67-1.50; I²=63%; p = 0.99] between the study groups. The pooled analysis of adjusted HRs indicated no statistically significant difference in the risk of technique failure [HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78; I²=79%; p = 0.22], peritonitis [HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.50; I²=76%; p = 0.85] and mortality [HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77-2.00; I²=66%; p = 0.38] between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with kidney transplant failure initiating PD do not have an increased risk of mortality, technique failure, or peritonitis as compared to transplant-naïve patients initiating PD. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of prior and ongoing immunosuppression on PD outcomes.

Peritoneal dialysis patient selection from a comorbidity perspective

Despite many medical and socioeconomic advantages, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized dialysis modality that in most countries is used by only 5%-20% of dialysis patients, while the vast majority are treated with in-center hemodialysis. Several factors may explain this paradox, such as lack of experience and infrastructure for training and monitoring of PD patients, organizational issues, overcapacity of hemodialysis facilities, and lack of economic incentives for dialysis centers to use PD instead of HD. In addition, medical conditions that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as contraindications to PD represent barriers for the use of PD because of their purported potential negative impact on clinical outcomes in patients starting PD. While there are few absolute contraindications to PD, high age, comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, polycystic kidney disease, heart failure, and previous history of abdominal surgery and renal allograft failure, may be seen (rightly or wrongly) as relative contraindications and thus barriers to initiation of PD. In this brief review, we discuss how the presence of these conditions may influence the strategy of selecting patients for PD, focusing on measures that can be taken to overcome potential problems.

Peritoneal dialysis after kidney transplant failure: a nationwide matched cohort study from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry (RDPLF)

BACKGROUND

Failed kidney transplant is becoming a frequent cause of dialysis initiation. Although studies have shown no difference between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) in terms of patients and technique survival, PD remains quite rarely used in this condition. Studies in larger multicentre matched cohorts are missing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study about 328 patients registered in the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry (RDPLF) who started PD after kidney transplant failure (Tx group) between January 2002 and December 2012 who were compared with 656 matched never-transplanted patients having started PD during the same period (control group). Patients and PD technique survival as well as peritonitis episodes were analysed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, patients' survival was similar between the two groups (P = 0.34). The mean time on PD was significantly shorter for patients in the Tx group [17 months (range 14-20)] compared with the control group [21 months (range 19-23)] (P = 0.003). The main cause of transfer to HD was for both group adequacy and/or ultrafiltration failure. Peritonitis rates were similar in the two groups: 43.6% (n = 143) versus 40.1% (n = 263) in the Tx and control group, respectively (P = 0.3). In multivariate Cox analysis, kidney transplant failure (P < 0.0001), younger age (P = 0.02) and male gender (P = 0.01) were associated with a higher risk of transfer to HD. Using multivariate competing risk analysis, kidney transplant failure was again observed as a predictive factor (P < 0.0001), but not age and gender. The only other significant predictive factor observed was peritonitis episodes experienced during PD treatment (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing the Tx and control groups, we report similar patient survival and peritonitis rates but a higher PD technique failure in the Tx group.

Peritoneal dialysis in patients with failed kidney transplant: Single centre experience

AIM

To determine if patients with failing kidney transplants who opt to have peritoneal dialysis (PD) have poor short-term PD technique survival and increased rates of peritonitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis comparing 50 consecutive patients starting PD after a failed kidney transplant to 93 incident patients starting PD (matching for age, gender, diabetes causing renal failure, ethnicity and year of starting PD).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 26 months. PD technique survival was lower for the post-transplant cohort. However, this did not appear to be related to PD peritonitis risk; infection rate was lower in the post-transplant group albeit not statistically significant (1 in 23.6 patient months vs 1 in 22.5 patient months). There were no differences in the proportion of Gram positive: Gran negative: Culture Negative infections. The only fungal peritonitis occurred in a Control patient. Results of baseline Peritoneal Equilibration Tests were not different; D/Pcr was 0.69 for post-TP versus 0.64 for Control (P = ns), and net UF was 250 mL for post-TP versus 310 mL for Control (P = ns). PET results after 12 months were also similar.

CONCLUSION

Our study found a small but significantly higher rate of PD technique failure in the post-transplant cohort, but this did not appear to be related to peritonitis rates or peritoneal membrane function. Further studies are required to explore reasons for PD technique failure in patients who have had kidney transplant, but our study supports the use of PD in selected patient from this cohort.