The effect of a first kidney transplant on a subsequent transplant outcome: An experimental and clinical study

The Role of Allograft Nephrectomy in the Failing Kidney Transplant

Patients with failed renal allografts have associated increased morbidity and mortality. The individualization of immunosuppression taper is the key element in managing these patients to avoid graft intolerance and sensitization while balancing the risk of continued immunosuppression. Most patients with uncomplicated chronic allograft failure do not require allograft nephrectomy (AN), and there is no clear evidence that it improves outcomes. The AN procedure is associated with variable morbidity and mortality. It is reserved mainly for early technical graft failure or in symptomatic cases associated with allograft infection, malignancy, or graft intolerance syndrome. It may also be considered in those who cannot tolerate immunosuppression and are at high risk for graft intolerance. AN has been associated with an increased risk of sensitization due to inflammatory response from surgery, immunosuppression withdrawal with allograft failure, and retained endovascular tissue. Although it is presumed that for-cause AN after transplant failure is associated with sensitization, it remains unclear whether elective AN in patients who remain on immunotherapy may prevent sensitization. The current practice of immunosuppression taper has not been shown to prevent sensitization or increase infection risk, but current literature is limited by selection bias and the absence of medication adherence data. We discuss the management of failed allografts based on retransplant candidacy, wait times, risk of graft intolerance syndrome, and immunosuppression side effects. Many unanswered questions remain, and future prospective randomized trials are needed to help guide evidence-based management.

How to Deal With Kidney Retransplantation-Second, Third, Fourth, and Beyond

Kidney transplantation is the best health option for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Ideally, a kidney transplant would last for the lifetime of each recipient. However, depending on the age of the recipient and details of the kidney transplant, there may be a need for a second, third, fourth, or even more kidney transplants. In this overview, the outcome of multiple kidney transplants for an individual is presented. Key issues include surgical approach and immunologic concerns. Included in the surgical approach is an analysis of transplant nephrectomy, with indications, timing, and immunologic impact. Allograft thrombosis, whether related to donor or recipient factors merits investigation to prevent it from happening again. Other posttransplant events such as rejection, viral illness (polyomavirus hominis type I), recurrent disease (focal segmental glomerulosclerosis), and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease may lead to the need for retransplantation. The pediatric recipient is especially likely to need a subsequent kidney transplant. Finally, noncompliance/nonadherence can affect both adults and children. Innovative approaches may reduce the need for retransplantation in the future.

Association of Nephrectomy of the Failed Renal Allograft With Outcome of the Future Transplant: A Systematic Review

Kidney allograft failure is a significant complication in kidney transplant recipients, and the surgical decision to perform allograft nephrectomy poses a strong dilemma because it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a debate over the effect of allograft nephrectomy on the development of allosensitization and the impact on potential retransplantation. Moreover, the use of immunosuppression may contribute to antibody allosensitization as allograft nephrectomy and immunosuppression act jointly and interdependently toward antibody formation. Because more and more patients with kidney allograft failure are entering wait lists for repeat transplant procedures, a review of available evidence on the field is required. Here, we performed a literature search using multiple medical databases to identify relevant studies that assessed the effects of allograft nephrectomy on important retransplant endpoints such as allograft and patient survival; furthermore, secondary outcomes such as alloantibody sensitization were also evaluated. A total of 15 studies were identified; all were retrospective, single-center studies. The rate of allograft nephrectomy in patients with retransplant varied widely (from 20% to 80%). The average allograft nephrectomy rate in included studies was 43% (allograft nephrectomy number/number of repeat transplantations: 2351/5431). Most studies did not observe an allograft survival benefit after retransplant for patients with allograft nephrectomy with the exception of 4 studies that found worse allograft survival after allograft nephrectomy. Interestingly, 1 study found that, in the patient subgroup with early kidney allograft failure (<12 months posttransplant), allograft nephrectomy may be associated with better allograft survival. Available data suggested that allograft nephrectomy may be associated with a higher risk of increasing anti-HLA antibody levels. The quality of the included studies suffered from nonrandomized design, potential confounding, and small sample size. To conclude, further randomized controlled trials are required to delineate the role of allograft nephrectomy on retransplant outcomes.

Practice patterns and influence of allograft nephrectomy in pediatric kidney re-transplantation: A pediatric nephrology research consortium study

INTRODUCTION

There are no guidelines regarding management of failed pediatric renal transplants.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We performed a first of its kind multicenter study assessing prevalence of transplant nephrectomy, patient characteristics, and outcomes in pediatric renal transplant recipients with graft failure from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Fourteen centers contributed data on 186 pediatric recipients with failed transplants. The 76 recipients that underwent transplant nephrectomy were not significantly different from the 110 without nephrectomy in donor or recipient demographics. Fifty-three percent of graft nephrectomies were within a year of transplant. Graft tenderness prompted transplant nephrectomy in 91% (P < .001). Patients that underwent nephrectomy were more likely to have a prior diagnosis of rejection within 3 months (43% vs 29%; P = .04). Nephrectomy of allografts did not affect time to re-listing, donor source at re-transplant but significantly decreased time to (P = .009) and incidence (P = .0002) of complete cessation of immunosuppression post-graft failure. Following transplant nephrectomy, recipients were significantly more likely to have rejection after re-transplant (18% vs 7%; P = .03) and multiple rejections in first year after re-transplant (7% vs 1%; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Practices pertaining to failed renal allografts are inconsistent-40% of failed pediatric renal allografts underwent nephrectomy. Graft tenderness frequently prompted transplant nephrectomy. There is no apparent benefit to graft nephrectomy related to sensitization; but timing / frequency of immunosuppression withdrawal is significantly different with slightly increased risk for rejection following re-transplant.

Allograft nephrectomy versus nonallograft nephrectomy after failed renal transplantation: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis

There is limited evidence regarding the impact of allograft nephrectomy (AN) on the long-term outcome of subsequent kidney re-transplantation compared with no prior allograft nephrectomy. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the accumulation of evidence over time. Primary outcomes were 5-year graft and patient survival. Cochrane library, Google scholar, PubMed, Medline and Embase were systematically searched. Meta-analysis was conducted using both fixed- and random-effects models. Study quality was assessed in duplicate using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sixteen studies were included, with a total of 2256 patients. All included studies were retrospective and comparative. There was no significant difference in 5-year graft survival (GS) [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.11, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.89, 1.38, P = 0.37, I²  = 10%) or in 5-year patient survival (PS; HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45, 1.10, P = 0.12, I²  = 0%]. Patients in the AN cohort were significantly younger than patients in the nonallograft nephrectomy (NAN) cohort by one year. Prior allograft nephrectomy was associated with a significantly higher risk of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, primary nonfunction (PNF), per cent of panel reactive antibodies (% PRA) and allograft loss of the subsequent transplant. Although, DGF, % PRA, acute rejection and primary nonfunction rates were significantly higher in the AN cohort, allograft nephrectomy prior to re-transplantation had no significant association with five-year graft and patient survival.

Histopathological examination of removed kidney allografts: Is it useful? A retrospective cohort study

The incidence and relevance of histological findings in removed allografts is unknown. In this study, we investigated the outcome of routine histopathological examination of removed allografts. We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients with kidney graft failure ≥3 months after transplantation. In this cohort, 244 allograft nephrectomies were performed. We routinely sent removed grafts for histopathological examination. In 197 cases, a pathology report was available for analysis. In 21 of the 197 grafts, gross necrosis precluded adequate interpretation. Signs of rejection were reported in 163 of the remaining 176 allografts. Recurrences of the original disease were found in 13 cases. These were all known from prior biopsies. Relevant secondary findings were present in eight cases: renal cell carcinoma (n = 2), urothelial cell carcinoma, candida pyelonephritis (n = 2), post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disease, polyomavirus inclusions, and membranous nephropathy. All conditions were diagnosed before graft nephrectomy, except for one case of papillary renal cell carcinoma of 0.8 cm. As expected, signs of acute and/or chronic rejection are the main histopathological finding in grafts that are removed after late graft failure. Unexpected secondary findings are very rare. Therefore, it is justifiable to restrict histopathological examination of removed kidney allografts to specific cases.

Transplant nephrectomy with peritoneal window: Georgetown University experience

Objectives

Transplant nephrectomy is a technically challenging procedure with high complication rates. Morbidity and mortality are mostly due to hemorrhage or infection and are reported to be 17-60% and 1-39%, respectively. The most common surgical technique for transplant nephrectomy is sub-capsular, extraperitoneal approach which may result in fluid accumulation and subsequent super-infection. We report that intraperitoneal approach, after assuring hemostasis of the transplant pedicle, allows for passive drainage, decreases hematoma formation and minimizes the subsequent infection risk in the nephrectomy bed.

Material and Methods

From July 2009 to July 2014 a total of 38 transplant nephrectomies were performed using the intraperitoneal window technique at Georgetown University MedStar Transplant Institute (MGTI). Data was collected retrospectively.

Results

Average age at the time of transplant nephrectomy was 43.9 ± 14.3, and the majority were male (55.3%). Mean time to nephrectomy was 71.7 ± 67.4 months following transplantation. Indications for nephrectomy included pain, hematuria, fever, and recalcitrant rejection. Average operative time was 97.1 ± 28.9 minutes, average blood loss was 172.5 ± 213.6 mL. A total of 9 (24%) complications occurred. Postoperative blood transfusion was the most common complication (15.7%) followed by 2 (5.3%) re-interventions; one take back for hematoma and one percutaneous drain placement for symptomatic fluid collection. We had no infection, postoperative sepsis, ICU admissions, or mortality.

Conclusion

Transplant nephrectomy with peritoneal window is a technique with better results compared to the literature. An opening between the transplant cavity and the peritoneum allows for passive drainage of fluid and minimizes the risk of hematoma and abscess formation. This approach does not add significant time to the operation, furthermore it may decrease morbidity and mortality by reducing overall complications, namely hematoma formation and infection, which overall decreases rates of re-interventions and length of hospital stay.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Kidney Retransplant Outcomes Associated with Common Induction Regimens: A Study of over Twelve-Thousand Cases in the United States

We studied registry data of 12,944 adult kidney retransplant recipients categorized by induction regimen received into antithymocyte globulin (ATG) (N = 9120), alemtuzumab (N = 1687), and basiliximab (N = 2137) cohorts. We analyzed risk factors for 1-year acute rejection (AR) and 5-year death-censored graft loss (DCGL) and patient death. Compared with the reference, basiliximab: (1) one-year AR risk was lower with ATG in retransplant recipients of expanded criteria deceased-donor kidneys (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35-0.91 and HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.27-1.08, resp.), while AR risk was lower with alemtuzumab in retransplant recipients with >3 HLA mismatches before transplant (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.44-0.93 and HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-1.06, resp.); (2) five-year DCGL risk was lower with alemtuzumab, not ATG, in retransplant recipients of African American race (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.34-0.86 and HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.51-1.04, resp.) or with pretransplant glomerulonephritis (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43-0.98 and HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.60-1.12, resp.). Therefore, specific risk factor-induction regimen combinations may predict outcomes and this information may help in individualizing induction in retransplant recipients.

Allelic and Epitopic Characterization of Intra-Kidney Allograft Anti-HLA Antibodies at Allograft Nephrectomy

The reasons for the increased incidence of de novo anti-human leukocyte antibody (HLA) donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) observed after kidney allograft nephrectomy are not fully understood. One advocated mechanism suggests that at graft loss, DSAs are not detected in the serum because they are fixed on the nonfunctional transplant; removal of the kidney allows DSAs to then appear in the blood circulation. The aim of our study was to compare anti-HLA antibodies present in the serum and in the graft at the time of an allograft nephrectomy. Using solid-phase assays, anti-HLA antibodies were searched for in the sera of 17 kidney transplant patients undergoing allograft nephrectomy. No anti-HLA antibodies were detected in the graft if they were not also detected in the serum. Eleven of the 12 patients who had DSAs detected in their sera also had DSAs detected in the grafts. Epitopic analysis revealed that most anti-HLA antibodies detected in removed grafts were directed against the donor. In summary, our data show that all anti-HLA antibodies that were detected in grafts were also detected in the sera. These intragraft anti-HLA antibodies are mostly directed against the donor at an epitopic level but not always at an antigenic level.

Patterns of Early Rejection in Renal Retransplantation: A Single-Center Experience

It has been reported that kidney retransplant patients had high rates of early acute rejection due to previous sensitization. In addition to the acute antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) that has received widespread attention, the early acute T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) may be another important issue in renal retransplantation. In the current single-center retrospective study, we included 33 retransplant patients and 90 first transplant patients with similar protocols of induction and maintenance therapy. Analysis focused particularly on the incidence and patterns of early acute rejection episodes, as well as one-year graft and patient survival. Excellent short-term clinical outcomes were obtained in both groups, with one-year graft and patient survival rates of 93.9%/100% in the retransplant group and 92.2%/95.6% in the first transplant group. Impressively, with our strict immunological selection and desensitization criteria, the retransplant patients had a very low incidence of early acute ABMR (6.1%), which was similar to that in the first transplant patients (4.4%). However, a much higher rate of early acute TCMR was observed in the retransplant group than in the first transplant group (30.3% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001). Acute TCMR that develops early after retransplantation should be monitored in order to obtain better transplant outcomes.

Dynamics and epitope specificity of anti-human leukocyte antibodies following renal allograft nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of patients awaiting kidney transplantation is immunized by previous transplantation(s). We investigated how allograft nephrectomy (Nx) and withdrawal of maintenance immunosuppression (WD-MIS) in patients with a failed renal allograft contribute to allosensitization.

METHODS

HLA antibodies (HLAabs) were analyzed before and after Nx and/or WD-MIS using a single antigen bead assay. Patients were grouped as follows: (A) Nx and concomitant WD-MIS (n = 28), (B) Nx (n = 14) and (C) WD-MIS (n = 12). In a subgroup of patients, the epitope specificity of HLAabs was determined by adsorption and elution of sera with recombinant single HLA allele-expressing cell lines.

RESULTS

Following Nx and/or WD-MIS, HLAabs were detectable in 100, 100 and 92% of patients in Groups A, B and C, respectively. In patients of all groups, de novo donor-specific HLAabs (DSAs) were found. After Nx, an increase in the breadth [percent panel reactive antibody (%PRA)] and mean fluorescence intensity of class I HLAabs was predominant. In contrast, an increase of class II HLAabs prevailed following WD-MIS. Experimental analysis of the epitope specificities revealed that 64% of the class I HLAabs classically denoted as non-DSA were donor epitope-specific HLAabs (DESA).

CONCLUSIONS

Both Nx and WD-MIS contribute to alloimmunization with differing patterns concerning class I and II HLAabs. Nx preferentially increased class I HLAabs and most of the observed class I HLAabs were DESA. Considering that class I, but not class II, HLA molecules are constitutively expressed, our results support the hypothesis that the increase of HLAabs following Nx might have been caused by removal of the adsorbing donor tissue (sponge hypothesis).

Re-Examining Risk of Repeated HLA Mismatch in Kidney Transplantation

Kidney retransplantation is a risk factor for decreased allograft survival. Repeated mismatched HLA antigens between first and second transplant may be a stimulus for immune memory responses and increased risk of alloimmune damage to the second allograft. Historical data identified a role of repeated HLA mismatches in allograft loss. However, evolution of HLA testing methods and a modern transplant era necessitate re-examination of this role to more accurately risk-stratify recipients. We conducted a contemporary registry analysis of data from 13,789 patients who received a second kidney transplant from 1995 to 2011, of which 3868 had one or more repeated mismatches. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed no effect of repeated mismatches on all-cause or death-censored graft loss. Analysis of predefined subgroups, however, showed that any class 2 repeated mismatch increased the hazard of death-censored graft loss, particularly in patients with detectable panel-reactive antibody before second transplant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.02 to 1.29). Furthermore, in those who had nephrectomy of the first allograft, class 2 repeated mismatches specifically associated with all-cause (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.58) and death-censored graft loss (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.78). These updated data redefine the effect of repeated mismatches in retransplantation and challenge the paradigm that repeated mismatches in isolation confer increased immunologic risk. We also defined clear recipient categories for which repeated mismatches may be of greater concern in a contemporary cohort. Additional studies are needed to determine appropriate interventions for these recipients.

HLA sensitisation: can it be prevented?

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitisation occurs after transfusion of blood products and transplantation. It can also happen spontaneously through cross-sensitisation from infection and pro-inflammatory events. Patients who are highly sensitised face longer waiting times on organ allocation programmes, more graft rejection and therefore more side effects of immunosuppression, and poorer graft outcomes. In this review, we discuss these issues, along with the limitations of modern HLA detection methods, and potential ways of decreasing HLA antibody development. We do not discuss the removal of antibodies after they have developed.

Transplant nephrectomy: histologic findings—a single center study

AIMS

To identify the histopathological features of transplant nephrectomy (TN) specimens.

METHODS

We performed retrospective analysis of 73 nephrectomies to review the histopathology in detail and correlate the Banff grading characteristics of TN specimens with time post engraftment and clinical features. Retrospective data on donor-specific antibodies (DSA) were also collected.

RESULTS

The majority of patients who had TN in less than 3 months posttransplant (n = 20; median time to TN: 4 days) had hemorrhagic infarction; 7 patients (35%) had grade 3 acute rejection (AR). Patients who had TN later than 3 months posttransplant (n = 53; median time to TN: 67 months) had AR, grade 2B (21%) and 3 (43%), coexisting with advanced vascular injury in the form of interstitial hemorrhage, extensive interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IF/TA) as well as the presence of DSAs. Overall, the majority of patients without DSA pre-TN developed DSA post-TN.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data revealed extensive inflammation and ongoing immunologic activity in a subset of patients with a failed graft. Careful and individualized approach based on clinical and laboratory data should guide the decision for transplant nephrectomy.

Impact of transplant nephrectomy on peak PRA levels and outcome after kidney re-transplantation

AIM: To determine the impact of transplant nephrectomy on peak panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels, patient and graft survival in kidney re-transplants.

METHODS: From 1969 to 2006, a total of 609 kidney re-transplantations were performed at the University of Freiburg and the Campus Benjamin Franklin of the University of Berlin. Patients with PRA levels above (5%) before first kidney transplantation were excluded from further analysis (n = 304). Patients with graft nephrectomy (n = 245, NE+) were retrospectively compared to 60 kidney re-transplants without prior graft nephrectomy (NE-).

RESULTS: Peak PRA levels between the first and the second transplantation were higher in patients undergoing graft nephrectomy (P = 0.098), whereas the last PRA levels before the second kidney transplantation did not differ between the groups. Age adjusted survival for the second kidney graft, censored for death with functioning graft, were comparable in both groups. Waiting time between first and second transplantation did not influence the graft survival significantly in the group that underwent nephrectomy. In contrast, patients without nephrectomy experienced better graft survival rates when re-transplantation was performed within one year after graft loss (P = 0.033). Age adjusted patient survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 94.1% and 86.3% vs 83.1% and 75.4% group NE+ and NE-, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Transplant nephrectomy leads to a temporary increase in PRA levels that normalize before kidney re-transplantation. In patients without nephrectomy of a non-viable kidney graft timing of re-transplantation significantly influences graft survival after a second transplantation. Most importantly, transplant nephrectomy is associated with a significantly longer patient survival.

Timing of return to dialysis in patients with failing kidney transplants

In the last decade, the number of patients starting dialysis after a failed kidney transplant has increased substantially. These patients appear to be different from their transplant-naïve counterparts, and so may be the timing of dialysis therapy initiation. An increasing number of studies suggest that in transplant-naïve patients, later dialysis initiation is associated with better outcomes. Very few data are available on timing of dialysis reinitiation in failed transplant recipients, and they suggest that an earlier return to dialysis therapy tended to be associated with worse survival, especially among healthier and younger patients and women. Failed transplant patients may also have unique issues such as continuation of immunosuppression versus withdrawal or the need for remnant allograft nephrectomy with regard to dialysis reinitiation. These patients may have a different predialysis preparation work-up, worse blood pressure control, higher or lower serum phosphorus levels, lower serum bicarbonate concentration, and worse anemia management. The choice of dialysis modality may also represent an important question for these patients, even though there appears to be no difference in mortality between patients starting peritoneal versus hemodialysis. Finally, failed transplant patients returning to dialysis appear to have a higher mortality rate compared with transplant-naïve incident dialysis patients, especially in the first several months of dialysis therapy. In this review, we will summarize the available data related to the timing of dialysis initiation and outcomes in failed kidney transplant patients after returning to dialysis.

Missing links in multiple sclerosis etiology. A working connecting hypothesis

The etiology of multiple sclerosis is still elusive despite an extended patchwork of mechanistic events has been accumulated. In this article, are tentatively identified from scattered literature sources new factors that may link well known characteristic of MS such as the central alteration of BBR selectivity, its association with EBV status and its biased distribution of the globe more comprehensively. The hypothesis proposes that the concomitant important rise in some heterophilic antibodies (anti Neu5Gc) which activate BBB endothelial cells and in the frequency of anti EBV committed T cells and of memory B infected cells with EBV contemporary to EBV infection play a major role in MS etiology. In addition, the hypothesis proposes new possible explanations for the elevated risk of MS in specific geographical area.

[Kidney nephrectomy after allograft failure]

The number of kidney-transplant patients that return to dialysis therapy after a failed kidney allograft is increasing sharply. These patients differ from patients treated with chronic dialysis, but who have never received a transplant; i.e., former transplanted patients display a higher risk of morbidity-mortality, particularly from cardiovascular and infectious complications. The management of immunosuppression has not been codified for patients with a failed kidney allograft: immunosuppressive therapy can be either abruptly stopped or progressively reduced. In addition, nephrectomy of the failed allograft is debatable. Some advocate this procedure only when there is intolerance, e.g., gross hematuria, local pain, or unexplained inflammatory syndrome. In contrast, others propose a systematic nephrectomy, mainly to reveal anti-HLA antibodies within peripheral blood that may have been adsorbed within the failed allograft, and are not detected, even using sensitive techniques. Prospective studies are warranted to answer these issues.

Impact of renal graft nephrectomy on second kidney transplant survival

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of non-functional renal graft nephrectomy on second kidney transplantation survival.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on patients managed in our department from April 1989 to April 2011. We compared the number of acute graft rejections and graft survival between patients undergoing second transplantation with (Group I) or without (Group II) prior graft nephrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of ninety-one patients received a second renal graft: 43 underwent graft nephrectomy and 48 kept their non-functional renal graft. There were 5 episodes of acute graft rejection in Group I and 12 in Group II (p = 0.3). Six (13.9 %) grafts failed in Group I and eight (16.6 %) in Group II. Five and 10 years actuarial graft survival in Group I were, respectively, 91 and 85 %, while in Group II were 82.7 % and 69 % (p = 0.2). PRA level and number of acute rejection episodes did not have a statistically significant influence on graft survival, whether the patient had a nephrectomy or not (p = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Nephrectomy of a failed allograft did not significantly improve the survival of a subsequent graft. Graft nephrectomy should be indicated in case of graft-related pain or a chronic inflammation syndrome.

Impact of transplant nephrectomy on retransplantation: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

Kidney retransplantation is the best treatment option for transplanted patients returning to dialysis. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of removal of a failed graft on the outcome of a subsequent transplant.

METHODS

We identified 140 patients who underwent retransplantation at our institution. Retrospective comparison was performed between patients undergoing kidney retransplantation with (group A, n = 28) and without (group B, n = 112) preliminary nephrectomy. Graft and patient survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 64.5 months, patients survival was comparable between the two groups (group A = 68.6 vs. group B = 63.5 months; p = 0.6). Mean graft survival was 65.5 versus 56.0 months in group A and B, respectively (p = 0.14). Surgical complications after retransplantation were significantly higher in group A compared to group B (57.1 vs. 19.6 %; p = 0.0002). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the panel reactive antibody level at the time of retransplantation (group A = 20 % vs. group B = 32 %; p = 0.22). The acute rejection rate was 35.7 % in group A and 25 % in group B (p = 0.36). The risk of delayed graft function was not significantly increased in group A (p = 0.63). Finally, 2 years after retransplantation, patients who had not undergone nephrectomy had lower serum creatinine concentrations (1.3 vs. 1.7 mg/dl; p = 0.01) and higher estimated GFR (77.9 vs. 59.3 ml/min/1.73 m(2); p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our experience shows that there is no advantage in performing allograft nephrectomy before retransplantation, and that this procedure does not seem to significantly influence the survival of a subsequent graft.

Donor-specific antibodies after ceasing immunosuppressive therapy, with or without an allograft nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Within the last few years, anti-human leukocyte antigen detection assays have significantly improved. This study asked, using the Luminex single-antigen assay, whether an allograft nephrectomy allowed donor-specific alloantibodies to appear that were not previously detected in the serum when the failed kidney was still in place.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

After losing the kidney allograft and stopping immunosuppressive therapy, the proportions of donor-specific alloantibodies and nondonor-specific alloantibodies were compared in patients who had (n=48; group I) and had not (n=21; group II) undergone an allograft nephrectomy. Allograft nephrectomies were performed at 150 days after kidney allograft loss, and the time between allograft nephrectomy and last follow-up was 538 ± 347 days.

RESULTS

At kidney allograft loss, donor-specific alloantibodies were detected in three group II patients (14.2%) and six group I patients (12.5%). At last follow-up, donor-specific alloantibodies were detected in 11 patients (52.4%) without and 39 patients (81%) with an allograft nephrectomy (P=0.02). Anti-human leukocyte antigen class I donor-specific alloantibodies were positive in 23.8% of group II and 77% of group I patients (P<0.001); anti-human leukocyte antigen class II donor-specific alloantibodies were positive in 42.8% of group II and 62.5% of group I patients. Independent predictive factors for developing donor-specific alloantibodies after losing kidney allograft and stopping immunosuppressants were number of anti-human leukocyte antigen A/B mismatches at transplantation (zero versus one or more) and allograft nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of donor-specific alloantibodies was significantly greater in patients with a failed kidney who had undergone an allograft nephrectomy compared with those patients who had not undergone allograft nephrectomy.

Managing patients with a failed kidney transplant: how can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with a failed kidney transplant represent a unique chronic kidney disease (CKD) population that is increasing in number, and that is at high risk of morbidity and mortality because of a prolonged history of CKD that may be sub-optimally managed, and exposure to immunosuppressant medications that are often continued after transplant failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no consensus on the optimal use of immunosuppressant medications after transplant failure. Recent observational studies have demonstrated that surgical removal of the failed allograft and discontinuation of immunosuppressant medications may be associated with a decreased long-term risk of mortality. However, the indications for elective transplant nephrectomy remain poorly defined. Removal of the failed allograft may limit opportunities for repeat transplantation by increasing cytotoxic antibody levels, and may be associated with an increased risk of repeat transplant failure.

SUMMARY

In the absence of controlled studies, judicious use of immunosuppressant medications based on the patient's suitability for repeat transplantation, anticipated time to repeat transplantation, risk of sensitization, and drug tolerance, together with a cohesive plan for CKD management and appropriate preparation for dialysis, may improve outcomes in this unique patient population.

Early but not late allograft nephrectomy reduces allosensitization after transplant failure

INTRODUCTION

Allosensitization is a significant obstacle to retransplantation for patients with primary renal graft failure.

METHODS

We assessed the impact of allograft nephrectomy (Group I) and weaning of immunosuppression (Group II) on percent panel reactive antibody (%PRA) at various time points after graft failure in 132 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months. Of these, 68% had allograft nephrectomy while 32% were placed on the waiting list and were either taken off immunosuppression, left on prednisone or on low-dose immunosuppressive therapy.

RESULTS

When groups were stratified into early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) graft failure, patients who had transplant nephrectomy for early failure demonstrated a decline in %PRA from 46% at time of graft failure to 27% at last follow-up (p = 0.02); conversely, %PRA continued to rise in Group II experiencing early allograft failure. Both Groups I and II patients with late graft failure maintained elevated %PRA at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Allograft nephrectomy may play a role in limiting allosensitization in patients with early but not late graft failures.

Does nephrectomy of failed allograft influence graft survival after re-transplantation?

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of removal of a failed kidney allograft on the outcome of subsequent transplant.

METHODS

Retrospective analytical study comparing graft survival for patients (1993-2005) who had previous graft nephrectomy with those who had not.

RESULTS

Of 89 patients with kidney re-transplants, 68 had had a transplant nephrectomy (Group I) while 21 had retained failed grafts (Group II). There was no significant difference in the two groups in the PRA level at the time of re-transplantation (37% versus 29%). Mean follow-up was 47 months. Acute rejections in Group I were 49.1% and in Group II, 31.2% (P = 0.20). Twenty (29%) grafts failed in Group I and four (19%) in Group II. One, three and five years' actuarial graft survival in Group I was 83.8%, 76% and 66.2%, while in Group II, it was 94.7%, 86.8% and 69.5%, respectively (P = 0.66). Five-year actuarial patient survival in Groups I and II was 94.1% and 87.5%, respectively (P = 0.69). Multivariate analysis showed that PRA level significantly influenced graft survival independent of nephrectomy (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Nephrectomy of a failed allograft does not seem to significantly influence the survival of a subsequent graft.

Clinical outcomes after failed renal transplantation-does dialysis modality matter?

Patients returning to dialysis after graft loss (DAGL) are an increasing segment of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population. It is unclear whether patients with previous graft loss have equivalent or reduced survival from the time of restarting dialysis when compared with ESRD patients initiating dialysis for the first time. Moreover, the impact of dialysis modality on the survival of patients returning to DAGL is not known. Studies of patients with transplant graft failure returning to hemodialysis (HD) have suggested decreased survival when compared with transplant-naïve dialysis patients, yet some studies of patients with graft failure returning to peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated equivalent survival. Based on these data, it is unclear whether survival differences may exist between the dialysis modalities, and if they do, whether they can be attributed to either differences in patient characteristics or to factors related to the dialysis modalities. For patients starting back onto dialysis, in whom preservation of residual renal function is important, it is also unclear how immunosuppression reduction or transplant nephrectomy may affect survival. In this review, we will summarize the available literature on survival rates of patients returning to DAGL; compare and contrast survival after initiation of HD and PD and discuss what is known about the impact of transplant nephrectomy and the different approaches to immunosuppression reduction. Practical considerations will be discussed with a specific emphasis on patients treated by PD.

Nephrectomy after transplant failure: current practice and outcomes

The role of transplant nephrectomy after transplant failure is uncertain. We report the use and consequences of transplant nephrectomy among 19 107 transplant failure patients between 1995 and 2003 in the United States. Among 3707 patients with early transplant failure (graft survival <12 m), nephrectomy was performed in 56%, and was associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26). In contrast, among 15,400 patients with late transplant failure (graft survival > or =12 m), nephrectomy was performed in 27%, and was associated with a decreased risk of death (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95). In early transplant failure patients, nephrectomy was associated with a lower risk of repeat transplant failure (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.94), while among late transplant failure patients; nephrectomy was associated with a higher risk of repeat transplant failure (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41). Definitive conclusions are not possible from this observational study. The role of nephrectomy in the management of dialysis treated transplant failure patients, and the implications of nephrectomy for repeat transplantation should be further studied in prospective studies.