The Impact of Pretransplant Dialysis on Outcomes in Renal Transplantation

Effect of Plasmapheresis on the Efficacy of Rituximab in Antibody-Mediated Rejection Patients

BACKGROUND

Rituximab and plasmapheresis (PP) suppress and eliminate antibody production in patients experiencing antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Herein, we discuss a case where rituximab was less effective after PP for treating AMR.

CASE

A 55-year-old male patient underwent kidney transplantation. His renal function remained normal for 1 year. Subsequently, renal function declined, and (donor-specific antibodies showed positive results. A biopsy of the transplanted kidney revealed AMR. On the day of the biopsy, the medical staff administered 200 mg of rituximab, followed by IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) and PP the next day. The time interval between PP + IVIg treatment and rituximab was 12 h. As a result, the B-cell markers CD19 and CD20 did not decrease sufficiently, and the patient's creatinine and glomerular filtration rate muscles did not recover adequately.

CONCLUSION

We report a case in which PP was administered shortly after rituximab injection, resulting in insufficient B-cell inhibition due to the removal of rituximab.

Predicting Cellular Rejection of Renal Allograft Based on the Serum Proteomic Fingerprint

Kidney transplantation is an essential medical procedure that significantly enhances the survival rates and quality of life for patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, despite advancements in immunosuppressive therapies, allograft rejection remains a leading cause of organ loss. Notably, predictions of cellular rejection processes primarily rely on biopsy analysis, which is not routinely performed due to its invasive nature. The present work evaluates if the serum proteomic fingerprint, as acquired by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, can predict cellular rejection processes. We analyzed 28 serum samples, corresponding to 17 without cellular rejection processes and 11 associated with cellular rejection processes, as based on biopsy analyses. The leave-one-out-cross validation procedure of a Naïve Bayes model enabled the prediction of cellular rejection processes with high sensitivity and specificity (AUC > 0.984). The serum proteomic profile was obtained in a high-throughput mode and based on a simple, rapid, and economical procedure, making it suitable for routine analyses and large-scale studies. Consequently, the current method presents a high potential to predict cellular rejection processes translatable to clinical scenarios, and that should continue to be explored.

Pretransplant characteristics of kidney transplant recipients that predict posttransplant outcome

Better characterization of the potential kidney transplant recipient using novel biomarkers, for example, pretransplant plasma endotrophin, will lead to improved outcome after transplantation. This mini-review will focus on current knowledge about pretransplant recipients’ characteristics, biomarkers, and immunology. Clinical characteristics of recipients including age, obesity, blood pressure, comorbidities, and estimated survival scores have been introduced for prediction of recipient and allograft survival. The pretransplant immunologic risk assessment include histocompatibility leukocyte antigens (HLAs), anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies, HLA-DQ mismatch, and non-HLA antibodies. Recently, there has been the hope that pretransplant determination of markers can further improve the prediction of posttransplant complications, both short-term and long-term outcomes including rejections, allograft loss, and mortality. Higher pretransplant plasma endotrophin levels were independently associated with posttransplant acute allograft injury in three prospective European cohorts. Elevated numbers of non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphism mismatch have been associated with increased allograft loss in a multivariable analysis. It is concluded that there is a need for integration of clinical characteristics and novel molecular and immunological markers to improve future transplant medicine to reach better diagnostic decisions tailored to the individual patient.

Initiation of dialysis for kidney graft failure: A retrospective single-center cohort study

Few studies have focused on the outcome of dialysis for kidney graft failure. We investigated the outcomes of dialysis for graft failure. We retrospectively studied 52 patients undergoing dialysis for graft failure at our facility from January 2004 to December 2018. The mean age at initiation of dialysis was 51.8 ± 13.5 years. The patient survival rates after initiation of dialysis at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.0%, 93.8%, and 82.4%, respectively. The rate of unplanned initiation was 44.2%. In multivariate logistic analysis, lack of follow-up by nephrologists and pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PEKT) tended to be risk factors for unplanned initiation (P = 0.065 and P = 0.014, respectively). Our study suggests that the prognosis of patients with dialysis for graft failure is acceptable. Dialysis for graft failure, especially in patients with PEKT, tends to be unplanned, and for safe initiation, early involvement of nephrologists may be necessary.

Impact of Different Approaches to Kidney Transplant with and without Chronic Hemodialysis on Cardiac Function and Morphology: A Case-Control Study

Patients with end-stage renal disease have higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with the general population. Preemptive kidney transplant (KTx) has been shown to be associated with improved survival, better quality of life, lower healthcare burden, and reduced cardiovascular risk. In this case–control study, we investigated the cardiovascular benefits of two approaches to KTx: with and without previous chronic hemodialysis. We enrolled 21 patients who underwent preemptive KTx and 21 matched controls who received chronic hemodialysis before KTx. Cardiac morphological and functional parameters were assessed by echocardiography. Overall, patients undergoing preemptive KTx showed less extensive cardiac damage compared with controls, as evidenced by higher global longitudinal strain, peak atrial and contractile strain, and early diastolic mitral annular velocity as well as a lower left ventricular mass, left atrial volume index, and the ratio of mitral inflow early diastolic velocity to the mitral annular early diastolic velocity. In the multivariable analysis, the presence of chronic hemodialysis prior to KTx was an independent determinant of post-transplant cardiac functional and structural remodeling. These findings may have important clinical implications, supporting the use of preemptive KTx as a preferred treatment strategy in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Management of Kidney Failure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: What Are the Best Options?

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the most frequent cause of kidney failure (KF). There are large variations in the incidence rates of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Late referral to nephrology services has been associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. In many countries, when patients reach severely reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), they are managed by multidisciplinary teams led by nephrologists. In these clinics, efforts will continue to halt chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and to prevent cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. In patients with diabetes and severely reduced GFR and KF, treating hyperglycemia is a challenge, since some drugs are contraindicated and most of them require dose adjustments. Even more, a decision-making process will help in deciding whether the patient would prefer comprehensive conservative care or KRT. On many occasions, this decision will be conditioned by diabetes mellitus itself. Effective education should cover the necessary information for the patient and family to answer these questions: 1. Should I go for KRT or not? 2. If the answer is KRT, dialysis and/or transplantation? 3. Dialysis at home or in center? 4. If dialysis at home, peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis? 5. If transplantation is desired, discuss the options of whether the donation would be from a living or deceased donor. This review addresses the determinant factors with an impact on DKD, aiming to shed light on the specific needs that arise in the management and recommendations on how to achieve a comprehensive approach to the diabetic patient with chronic kidney disease.

Does increasing access-to-care delay accessing of care? Evidence from kidney transplantation

Policies increasing healthcare availability might decrease the cost of delaying accessing of care, leading to potential negative consequences if patients delay treatment. We analyze a policy designed to increase access to kidney transplantation through the use of time since dialysis inception to prioritize patients for transplant, which was piloted at 26 of the 271 kidney transplant centers in the United States in 2006 and 2007. We model the patient's optimization problem comparing the benefits and costs of early waitlisting and predict that the policy change will lead to delayed waitlisting. To empirically test this prediction, we use difference-in-differences fixed effects panel regression techniques to analyze data on patients who began dialysis between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2009. The results support the model's prediction; patients on dialysis who waitlist for kidney transplantation increase pre-waitlist dialysis duration by 11.6 percent or approximately 76 days from a pre-policy mean of 652 days (SD = 654). With regard to waitlist outcomes, the policy is associated with a 4.5 percentage point decrease in the probability of receiving a deceased donor transplant, somewhat offset by a 3.0 percentage point increase in the probability of receiving a live donor transplant. On the extensive margin, patients on dialysis decrease their likelihood of ever waitlisting by 1.5 percentage points. We find an increase in pre-waitlist dialysis time and a decrease in the likelihood of waitlisting at all, especially among populations likely to have experienced increased access to transplantation through the policy change: patients self-identifying as Black or Hispanic rather than Non-Hispanic White, and patients without private insurance. These results suggest that some individuals may not benefit if their access to care increases, if the increase in access sufficiently decreases the penalty of delaying accessing of care.

Waiting times in renal transplant candidates with a history of malignancy: time for a change?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the aging population of kidney transplant candidates, a history of malignancy is an increasingly prevalent finding. Tumors can constitute a contraindication for transplantation or can lead to a delay of acceptance to the waiting-list. Current waiting time guidelines mainly refer to early data collected nearly 30 years ago, when the knowledge on tumors was, by current standards, still limited.

RECENT FINDINGS

Today, cancers can usually be divided into many different biological subtypes, according to histological and molecular subclassification and the availability of genetic testing. A more precise stratification and targeted antitumor therapies have led to better therapy outcomes or even cures from certain malignancies and to a better appreciation of tumor risks for the patient.

SUMMARY

Even though transplant patients do have an increased risk for malignancies, it is often overlooked that patients, while on dialysis, are equally prone to develop a tumor. Competing risks (e.g. cardiovascular, mortality risks) through prolonged time on dialysis have to be equally considered, when the decision for acceptance of a patient to the waiting-list is made. Current waiting time suggestions should be critically reconsidered for every patient after a thorough discussion with an oncologist, including new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, as well as novel risk stratifications.

Improving HLA matching in living donor kidney transplantation using kidney paired exchange program

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of compatible pairs within kidney paired exchange programs has been described as a way to enhance these programs. Improved immunological matching for the recipient in compatible pair has been described to be a possible benefit.

METHODS

The main purpose of our study was to determine if the introduction of compatible pairs in the Portuguese kidney paired exchange program would result in a better match for these patients, but also to assess if this strategy would increase the number of incompatible pairs with a possible match. We included 17 compatible pairs in kidney paired exchange pool of 35 pairs and performed an in-silico simulation determining HLA eplet mismatch load between the co-registered and matched pairs using HLA MatchMaker, version 3.0.

RESULTS

Our study showed that the inclusion of fully HLA-A, -B, -DR mismatched compatible pairs within the national Portuguese KEP increased matched rate within ICP (0.71%) and improved HLA eplet matching within compatible pairs. 16 of 17 (94.12%) of the CP obtained one or more transplants possibilities and 13 (81.25%) would have been transplanted with significantly lower HLA class I and class II total and antibody-verified eplet mismatch load (83.9 ± 16.9 vs. 59.8 ± 12.2, P = .002 and 30.1 ± 5.5 vs. 21.2 ± 3.0, P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This strategy is a viable alternative for compatible pairs seeking a better matched kidney and Portuguese KEP program should allow them this possibility.

Pre-existing malignancies in renal transplant candidates-time to reconsider waiting times

Current proposals for waiting times for a renal transplant after malignant disease may not be appropriate. New data on malignancies in end-stage renal disease and recent diagnostic and therapeutic options should lead us to reconsider our current practice.

Endothelial dysfunction and low-grade inflammation in the transition to renal replacement therapy

Introduction

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) strongly associates with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This risk is not completely mitigated by renal replacement therapy. Endothelial dysfunction (ED) and low-grade inflammation (LGI) may contribute to the increased CVD risk. However, data on serum biomarkers of ED and LGI during the transition to renal replacement therapy (dialysis and kidney transplantation) are scarce.

Methods

We compared serum biomarkers of ED and LGI between 36 controls, 43 participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 non-dialysis (CKD5-ND), 20 participants with CKD stage 5 hemodialysis (CKD5-HD) and 14 participants with CKD stage 5 peritoneal dialysis (CKD5-PD). Further, in 34 and 15 participants repeated measurements were available during the first six months following dialysis initiation and kidney transplantation, respectively. Serum biomarkers of ED (sVCAM-1, E-selectin, P-selectin, thrombomodulin, sICAM-1, sICAM-3) and LGI (hs-CRP, SAA, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α) were measured with a single- or multiplex array detection system based on electro-chemiluminescence technology.

Results

In linear regression analyses adjusted for potential confounders, participants with ESRD had higher levels of most serum biomarkers of ED and LGI than controls. In addition, in CKD5-HD levels of serum biomarkers of ED and LGI were largely similar to those in CKD5-ND. In contrast, in CKD5-PD levels of biomarkers of ED were higher than in CKD5-ND and CKD5-HD. Similarly, in linear mixed model analyses sVCAM-1, thrombomodulin, sICAM-1 and sICAM-3 increased after PD initiation. In contrast, incident HD patients showed an increase in sVCAM-1, P-selectin and TNF-α, but a decline of hs-CRP, SAA and IL-6. Further, following kidney transplantation sVCAM-1, thrombomodulin, sICAM-3 and TNF-α were lower at three months post-transplantation and remained stable in the three months thereafter.

Conclusions

Levels of serum biomarkers of ED and LGI were higher in ESRD as compared with controls. In addition, PD initiation and, less convincingly, HD initiation may increase levels of selected serum biomarkers of ED and LGI on top of uremia per se. In contrast to dialysis, several serum biomarkers of ED and LGI markedly declined following kidney transplantation.

Association Between Declined Offers of Deceased Donor Kidney Allograft and Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Candidates

IMPORTANCE

In the United States, substantial disparities in access to kidney transplant exist for wait-listed candidates with end-stage renal disease. The implications of transplant centers' willingness to accept kidney offers for access to transplant and mortality outcomes are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcomes for wait-listed kidney transplant candidates after the transplant center's refusal of a deceased donor kidney offer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study obtained data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Potential Transplant Recipient data set on all deceased donor kidney offers in the United States made between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. The final study cohort included adult patients who were wait-listed for kidney transplant and received at least 1 allograft offer during the study period (N = 280 041). Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Candidate state of residence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Waiting list outcome event groups included received deceased donor allograft, received living donor allograft, died while on the waiting list, removed from the waiting list without a transplant, or still on the waiting list at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the 280 041 kidney transplant candidates included in the study, the mean (SD) age at wait-listing was 51.1 (13.1) years, and male patients were predominant (171 517 [61.2%]). In this cohort, 81 750 candidates (29.2%) received a deceased donor kidney allograft, 30 870 (11.0%) received a living donor allograft, 25 967 (9.3%) died while on the waiting list, and 59 359 (21.2%) were removed from the waiting list. Overall, 10 candidates with at least 1 previous allograft offer died each day during the study period. Time to first offer was similar for candidates who received deceased donor kidney allograft compared with those who died while waiting (median [interquartile range {IQR}] time, 79 [16-426] days vs 78 [17-401] days, respectively). Deceased donor allograft recipients had a median of 17 offers (IQR, 6-44) over 422 days (IQR, 106-909 days), whereas candidates who died while waiting received a median of 16 offers (IQR, 6-41) over 651 days (IQR, 304-1117 days). Most kidneys (84%) were declined on behalf of at least 1 candidate before being accepted for transplant. As reported by centers, organ or donor quality concerns accounted for 8 416 474 (92.6%) of all declined offers, whereas offers were infrequently refused because of patient-related factors (232 193 [2.6%]), logistical limitations (49 492 [0.5%]), or other concerns. The odds of death after an offer and the median number of offers received prior to death varied considerably by state.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that transplant candidates appeared to receive a large number of viable deceased donor kidney offers that were refused on their behalf by transplant centers, potentially exacerbating the detrimental consequences of the organ shortage; increased transparency in organ allocation process and decisions may improve patient-centered care and access to kidney transplant.

Adherence to Medical Appointments Among Living Kidney Donors After Donation Under a Monitored Approach and Long-term Clinical Outcomes: A Brazilian Single-center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is little information about living donor long-term follow-up among Brazilian living donors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the main outcomes among living donors and to measure their adherence to regular medical appointments.

METHODS

This is a Brazilian single-center cohort study that included 397 living donors with 87.1 months of follow-up and measured adherence to clinical appointments. Before 2010, the appointments were scheduled only spontaneously; after that an approach was structured to check the returns of donors, who were monitored actively. We also evaluated long-term outcomes such as survival and chronic kidney disease development and, secondarily, the incidences of hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), and dyslipidemia after donation.

RESULTS

The donors' adherence to annual clinical appointments was 75.8% (54.7% of them presenting annual regularity). Before 2010 the adherence was lower than 40%; 10-year cumulative incidences of hypertension, DM, and dyslipidemia were 20.4%, 5.7%, and 23.5%, respectively. The crude mortality was 1% and 10-year donor survival was 98.5%. The incidence of chronic kidney disease 5 years after donation was 19%, with 16.4% of patients staged in 3a and 2.6% in 3b.

CONCLUSION

A structured approach to check donor returns to long-term clinical appointments has doubled the adherence to visits returns (compared to historical data). We identified lower incidence of arterial hypertension and DM among donors as compared with the incidence of arterial hypertension and DM in the Brazilian general population, but the 5-year chronic kidney disease incidence was considered high, taking into consideration data that have been published in the last years.

Racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlist appearance in Chicago: Is it race or place?

BACKGROUND

Prior work has demonstrated how neighborhood poverty and racial composition impact racial disparities in access to the deceased donor kidney transplant waitlist, both nationally and regionally. We examined the association between neighborhood characteristics and racial disparities in time to transplant waitlist in Chicago, a diverse city with continued neighborhood segregation.

METHODS

Using data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and the US Census, we investigated time from dialysis initiation to kidney transplant waitlisting for African American and white patients in Chicago using cause-specific proportional hazards analyses, adjusting for individual sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as neighborhood poverty and racial composition.

RESULTS

In Chicago, African Americans are significantly less likely than whites to appear on the renal transplant waitlist (HR 0.73, P < .05). Compared to whites in nonpoor neighborhoods, African Americans in poor neighborhoods are significantly less likely to appear on the transplant waitlist (HR 0.61, P < .05). Over 69% of African Americans with ESRD live in these neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with national data, African Americans in Chicago have a lower likelihood of waitlisting than whites. This disparity is explained in part by neighborhood poverty, which impacts the majority of African American ESRD patients in Chicago.

Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation From Expanded-Criteria Deceased Donors: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Organ shortage has prompted the use of expanded-criteria donors (ECDs). Our objective was to compare long-term outcomes of kidney transplants from ECDs with those from concurrent standard-criteria donors (SCDs). In addition, we evaluated variables associated with graft survival in both groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all 617 deceased-donor kidney transplantations performed from 2005 to 2009 in our department. The population was divided according to donor status into ECD or SCD. Patients were followed until 5 years after transplantation, death, graft failure, or loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

We transplanted 150 deceased-donor kidneys from ECDs and 467 from SCDs. ECD were older, more frequently women, had a lower pre-retrieval glomerular filtration rate, and more frequently died due to cerebrovascular accident. ECD recipients were older, presented a lower proportion of black race, more frequently were on hemodialysis, and presented a higher rate of first kidney transplants. Mean glomerular filtration rate was consistently lower in the ECD group. Patient and graft survivals were lower in the ECD group, but statistical significance was present only in graft survival censored for death with a functioning graft at 3 years and graft survival noncensored for death with a functioning graft at 5 years. Younger recipient ages, longer time on dialysis, acute rejection episodes, and glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after transplantation were independent risk factors for lower graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplantation with the use of ECD kidneys provide quite satisfactory patient and graft survival rates despite their poorer long-term outcomes.

Optimizing waiting duration for renal transplants in the setting of renal malignancy: is 2 years too long to wait?

Background

For potential transplant recipients with a prior history of renal malignancy, no evidence-based recommendations currently exist with regard to waiting duration on dialysis. We aim to improve decision making by evaluating the impact of waiting duration on the outcomes of kidney cancer patients awaiting renal transplantation.

Methods

The United States Renal Data System was used to identify patients with a known cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from 1983 to 2007. Evaluation of overall survival (OS) was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to assess cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and non-cancer-specific mortality (NCSM).

Results

Of 1 374 175 patients with ESRD, 228 984 (16.7%) received transplantation. Transplant recipients with renal malignancy-associated ESRD (RM-ESRD) had longer waiting durations than those with other known causes of ESRD (2.4 versus 1.3 years; P < 0.0001). RM-ESRD patients who had shorter waiting durations (0-2 years) had better OS than those who waited longer (2+ years) (10-year OS 69.0 versus 46.7%, respectively; P < 0.0001), with similar CSM (10-year CSM 10.3 versus 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.883), whereas NCSM was worse for those with longer waiting durations (10-year NCSM 20.7 versus 44.3%, respectively; P < 0.0001). On Cox modeling, the status of RM-ESRD was not a significant predictor (P = 0.07), while longer waiting duration remained significant (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

We found that CSM was not affected by waiting duration, while NCSM significantly improved with shorter wait times. These findings suggest that the OS of potential transplant recipients with RM-ESRD may be improved by reducing waiting duration.

Anesthesia for Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation

Kidney transplants are the most common solid organ abdominal transplant and are occasionally performed simultaneously with pancreas transplants in diabetic patients. Preoperative evaluation of potential transplant recipients should focus on the potential for occult cardiovascular disease while also screening for other signs of end-organ dysfunction. Intraoperatively, it is of utmost importance to ensure adequate graft perfusion to limit the risk of postoperative graft dysfunction or rejection. Postoperative care of the kidney or pancreas transplant patient should focus on ensuring normalization of volume status, electrolyte concentrations, and glycemic control.

Factors that Influence Graft Function at 1-Year Posttransplantation and Correlation with Baseline Donated Kidney Function Measured with Radioisotopes

Introduction. Assessment of renal function is a crucial component of donor evaluation. The higher measured donor GFR is independently associated with a better allograft outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Monitoring graft function and estimation of GFR is a recommended method for patients’ follow-up in posttransplantation period. The aim of our study was to investigate the correlation of directly measured GFR of donated kidney with estimated GFR through creatininebased formulas and to detect impact factors on the graft function at 12 months posttransplantation. Methods. Fifty LDKT patients (related and nonrelated donors) with stable renal function in a period of 12 months after transplantation were included in our study. The mean recipient age was 30.7±9.6 years, and donor age 55.45±9.41 years. The mean directly measured donated kidney GFR was 47.61±5.72 ml/min. Graft function was estimated at 3, 6 and 12 months by 3 formulas: Cockcroft- Gault (C-G), MDRD 6 variables and Nankivell. Direct correlation of estimated with measured radiolabeled 99mTc DTPA GFR was performed. Various impact factors such as donor age, dialysis vintage and different calcineurin inhibitors as a part of immunosupression were evaluated. Results. Estimated GFR at 12 months with MDRD, Cockroft Gault, and Nankivell formulas was 72.65±22.6, 94.25±36.42, and 81.78±17.89 ml/min, respectively. The highest estimated GFR was obtained with C-G formula at all three time points. The estimated allograft GFR did not correlate with directly measured GFR of donated kidney. Donor age well correlated with the graft function at 12 months. Allografts from standard criteria donors-SCD (<60 years) had better function than allografts form expanded criteria donors-ECD (>60 years). The highest GFR was estimated with C-G equation (106.08±39.26 ml/min), while GFR estimated with Nankivell was 86.86±15.30 ml/min, and with MDRD 79.67±20.28 ml/min, presenting patients in stage 2 of chronic kidney disease. Duration of hemodialysis treatment under 24 months showed better graft function estimated by C-G at 12 months (102.23±38.86 ml/min), compared to that above 24 months of HD (77.84±18.11 ml/ min). Different type of calcineurin inhibitors did not influence on the graft function at any time point. Conclusion. Creatinine-based formulas for estimation of the graft function did not correlate with directly measured function of the donated kidney with radiolabeled isotopes, nor between each other. Hence, the monitoring of the graft function should be done by a single formula in the posttransplantation period. Expectedly, a better graft function was observed in young donors (standard criteria) and in patients with shorter hemodialysis treatment.

[Report on chronic dialysis in France in 2016]

The report on dialysis in France in 2016 from the French Speaking Society of Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (SFNDT) provides an exhaustive and documented inventory on dialysis in France. It underlines the organizations that are important in 2016 to maintain a high quality dialysis. Several measures are proposed to maintain and improve the care of dialysis in France: (1) The regulation of dialysis treatment in France must be maintained; (2) a burden of care indicator is proposed to ensure that patients requiring the most care are treated in the centers. Proposals are also made to stimulate peritoneal dialysis offers, (3) to improve the calculation of the cost of dialysis and warn against lower reimbursement rates of dialysis, (4) to reduce transport costs by minimizing transport by ambulance (5). The SFNDT recalls recent recommendations concerning access to the renal transplant waiting list, are recalled; (6) as well as recommendations that require waiting until clinical signs are present to start dialysis (7). The SFNDT makes the proposal to set up advanced renal failure units. These units are expected to develop care that is not supported today: consultation with a nurse, a dietician, a social worker or psychologist, palliative care, and coordination (8). Finally, the financial and human resources for pediatric dialysis should be maintained.

Transplantation of Kidneys From Donors With Acute Kidney Injury: Friend or Foe?

The gap between supply and demand in kidney transplantation has led to increased use of marginal kidneys; however, kidneys with acute kidney injury are often declined/discarded. To determine whether this policy is justified, we analyzed outcomes of donor kidneys with acute kidney injury (AKI) in a large UK cohort. A retrospective analysis of the UK Transplant Registry evaluated deceased donors between 2003 and 2013. Donors were classified as no AKI, or AKI stage 1-3 according to Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria. Relationship of AKI with delayed graft function/primary nonfunction (DGF/PNF), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and graft-survival at 90 days and 1 year was analyzed. There were 11 219 kidneys (1869 [17%] with AKI) included. Graft failure at 1 year is greater for donors with AKI than for those without (graft survival 89% vs. 91%, p = 0.02; odds ratio (OR) 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.41]). DGF rates increase with donor AKI stage (p < 0.005), and PNF rates are significantly higher for AKIN stage 3 kidneys (9% vs. 4%, p = 0.04) Analysis of association between AKI and recipient eGFR suggests a risk of inferior eGFR with AKI versus no AKI (p < 0.005; OR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.08-1.31]). We report a small reduction in 1-year graft-survival of kidneys from donors with AKI. We conclude that AKI stage 1 or 2 kidneys should be used; however, caution is advised for AKI stage 3 donors.

[Chronic kidney disease and kidney transplantation]

OBJECTIVES

To report epidemiology and characteristics of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients and renal transplant candidates, and to evaluate access to waiting list and results of renal transplantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An exhaustive systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in the Medline database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using different associations of the following keywords: "chronic kidney disease, epidemiology, kidney transplantation, cost, survival, graft, brain death, cardiac arrest, access, allocation". French legal documents have been reviewed using the government portal (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr). Articles were selected according to methods, language of publication and relevance. The reference lists were used to identify additional historical studies of interest. Both prospective and retrospective series, in French and English, as well as review articles and recommendations were selected. In addition, French national transplant and health agencies (http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr and http://www.has-sante.fr) databases were screened using identical keywords. A total of 3234 articles, 6 official reports and 3 newspaper articles were identified; after careful selection 99 publications were eligible for our review.

RESULTS

The increasing prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) leads to worsen organ shortage. Renal transplantation remains the best treatment option for ESRD, providing recipients with an increased survival and quality of life, at lower costs than other renal replacement therapies. The never-ending lengthening of the waiting list raises issues regarding treatment strategies and candidates' selection, and underlines the limits of organ sharing without additional source of kidneys available for transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Allocation policies aim to reduce medical or geographical disparities regarding enrollment on a waiting list or access to an allotransplant.

Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight

Approximately 59 000 kidney transplant candidates have been removed from the waiting list since 2000 for reasons other than transplantation, death, or transfers. Prior studies indicate that low-performance (LP) center evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) are associated with reductions in transplant volume. There is limited information to determine whether performance oversight impacts waitlist management. We used national SRTR data to evaluate outcomes of 315 796 candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list (2007-2014). Compared to centers without LP, rates of waitlist removal (WLR) were higher at centers with LP evaluations (44.6/1000 follow-up years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 44.0, 45.1 versus 68.0/1000 follow-up years, 95% CI 66.6, 69.4), respectively, which was consistent after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.55, 1.63). Candidate mortality following waitlist removal was lower at LP centers (AHR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Analyses limited to LP centers indicated a significant increase in WLR (+28.6 removals/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001), a decrease in transplant rates (-11.9/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) and a decrease in mortality after removal (-67.5 deaths/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) following LP evaluation. There is a significant association between LP evaluations and transplant center processes of care for waitlisted candidates. Further understanding is needed to determine the impact of performance oversight on transplant center quality of care and patient outcomes.

Effect of recipient sensitization (peak panel reactive antibodies) on 15-year survival after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Despite dynamic development within the field of transplantology, the immunization of a potential organ recipient remains an important issue for transplant teams. Panel reactive antibodies (PRA) identification in the serum of the recipient remains routine practice in the majority of transplantation centers. The influence of peak PRA levels on graft function is a well known fact. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of peak PRA on long-term survival after renal transplantation.

METHODS

The study was conducted on a group of 232 kidney recipients from multiorgan donors, transplanted in 6 transplant centers in Poland from 1995 to 1997. Data analyzed in this study included recipients' age, sex, PRA, HLA, number and time of hemodialyses after the transplantation, cold ischemia time, and etiology of end-stage renal disease. The effect of data examined in this study on mortality was evaluated at set time points at 5, 10, and 15 years after transplantation. The statistical methods included monofactorial and multifactorial Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards model for mortality prediction. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among all of the analyzed factors, only peak PRA concentrations significantly correlated with increased mortality among renal transplant recipients. The results were analyzed in all of the set time points: P = .007 at 5 years, P = .014 at 10 years, and P = .05 at 15 years after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased level of PRA in kidney recipients is a risk factor increasing mortality after the transplantation.

Preemptive Kidney Transplantation: The Initial Experience of a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment method for end-stage renal disease. Outcomes of the preemptive kidney transplantation are better than non-preemptive kidney transplantation. Preemptive kidney transplantation is performed as a small percentage of kidney transplantations worldwide. We performed 15 preemptive kidney transplantations from living donors between November 2010 and April 2014. We present our experiences and outcomes for these 15 preemptive kidney transplantations.

METHODS

We performed 110 kidney transplantations between November 2010 and April 2014. Fifteen of the kidney transplantations were performed from living related donors to preemptive recipients. These 15 preemptive recipients and their donors' data were collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of recipients and donors was 37.2 years (range, 4-60) and 50.6 years (range, 28-64), respectively. The male-female ratios were 10:5 in the recipients and 8:7 in the donors. Nine left kidneys and 6 right kidneys were recovered. Nine kidneys had a single artery; the other 6 kidneys had 2 renal arteries. The mean warm ischemic time was 219.5 seconds (range, 90-480). The mean hospitalization times were 5.9 days (range, 4-10) and 4.9 days (range, 3-9) for the recipients and the donors, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 20.3 months (range, 0.5-37) for recipients. Graft survival was 100% in this period. BK virus nephropathy occurred in only 1 pediatric recipient. One patient had a recurrent disease that was the cause of the renal failure. They graft functions were stable. No kidney was lost from rejection, technical causes, infection, or recurrent disease. The donors live their lives with no problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive kidney transplantation is a better therapeutic option than is non-preemptive kidney transplantation for patients with chronic renal failure. Kidney transplantation should be performed if possible before beginning dialysis for these patients.

Optimal predialysis care

Management of severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) involves dealing with medical, nursing and psychosocial problems and therefore warrants support from a multidisciplinary team. In the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) classification system of CKD, preparation for renal replacement therapy has been recommended in CKD stage 4, characterized by a reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of <30 ml/min. In this article we share our approach to perfecting predialysis care. Tools are given to make an estimation of the progression of kidney disease. Also the prevention and treatment of metabolic complications and cardiovascular risk management are summarized. Finally, the possibilities for dialysis but even more important, aiming for pre-emptive transplantation, are being discussed. Using a multidisciplinary integrated care approach predialysis care has come of age.

Effect of time on dialysis and renal transplantation on endothelial function: a longitudinal analysis

Background

Soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1) is a marker of endothelial injury and a potent predictor of cardiovascular mortality in patients with kidney failure on dialysis. The longitudinal effects of dialysis on endothelial dysfunction and in particular the effects of renal transplantation on markers of endothelial function including sVCAM-1 have not been well characterized.

Methods

We used the Transplant Manitoba registry and biobank to assemble a retrospective cohort of all patients receiving a first kidney transplant between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005 (n=186). One hundred seventy-four patients had at least two serum samples pretransplant and at least two samples posttransplant. In total, 1,004 serial samples (median 5/patient) were analyzed. Factors associated with sVCAM-1 were examined using mixed linear models.

Results

The sVCAM-1 levels increased progressively on dialysis (0.15 [0.10 to 0.20] ng/mL/day; P<0.0001), fell significantly within 1 month after transplantation (−625 ng/mL/day; P<0.0001) and continued to fall thereafter (−0.23 [−0.34 to −0.12] ng/mL/day). Smoking and heart failure were associated with higher sVCAM-1 levels, whereas transplantation was associated with lower sVCAM-1 levels. The relationship between sVCAM-1 and transplantation was not changed by multivariate adjustment.

Conclusion

Endothelial injury worsens over time on dialysis but improves significantly after renal transplantation.

Supplemental digital content is available in the article.

Early referral to specialist nephrology services for preventing the progression to end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Early referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is believed to help with interventions to address risk factors to slow down the rate of progression of kidney failure to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and the need for dialysis, hospitalisation and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the benefits (reduced hospitalisation and mortality; increased quality of life) and harms (increased hospitalisations and mortality, decreased quality of life) of early versus late referral to specialist nephrology services in CKD patients who are progressing to ESKD and RRT. In this review, referral is defined as the time period between first nephrology evaluation and initiation of dialysis; early referral is more than one to six months, whereas late referral is less than one to six months prior to starting dialysis. All-cause mortality and hospitalisation and quality of life were measured by the visual analogue scale and SF-36. SF-36 and KDQoL are validated measurement instruments for kidney diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012; Issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to February 2012), EMBASE (1980 to February 2012). Search terms were approved by the Trial Search Co-ordinator.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort studies were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Events relating to adverse effects were collected from the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or quasi-RCTs were identified. There were 40 longitudinal cohort studies providing data on 63,887 participants; 43,209 (68%) who were referred early and 20,678 (32%) referred late.Comparative mortality was higher in patients referred to specialist services late versus those referred early. Risk ratios (RR) for mortality reductions in patients referred early were evident at three months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.67; I² = 84%) and remained at five years (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.71; I² = 87%). Initial hospitalisation was 9.12 days shorter with early referral (95% CI -10.92 to -7.32 days; I² = 82%) compared to late referral. Pooled analysis showed patients referred early were more likely than late referrals to initiate RRT with peritoneal dialysis (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.64 to 1.84; I² = 92%).Patients referred early were less likely to receive temporary vascular access (RR 0.47, 95% CL 0.45 to 0.50; I² = 97%) than those referred late. Patients referred early were more likely to receive permanent vascular access (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.92 to 3.55; I² = 97%). Systolic blood pressure (BP) was significantly lower in early versus late referrals (MD -3.09 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.23 to -0.95; I² = 85%); diastolic BP was significantly lower in early versus late referrals (MD -1.64 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.77 to -0.51; I² = 82%). EPO use was significantly higher in those referred early (RR 2.92, 95% CI 2.42 to 3.52; I² = 0%). eGFR was higher in early referrals (MD 0.42 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56; I² = 95%). Diabetes prevalence was similar in patients referred early and late (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15; I² = 87%) as was ischaemic heart disease (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I² = 74%), peripheral vascular disease (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; I² = 90%), and congestive heart failure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; I² = 92%). Inability to walk was less prevalent in early referrals (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86). Prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was similar in those referred early and late (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.14; I² = 94%) as was cerebrovascular disease (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; I² = 83%).The quality of the included studies was assessed as being low to moderate based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Slight differences in the definition of early versus late referral infer some risk of bias. Generally, heterogeneity in most of the analyses was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed reduced mortality and mortality and hospitalisation, better uptake of peritoneal dialysis and earlier placement of arteriovenous fistulae for patients with chronic kidney disease who were referred early to a nephrologist. Differences in mortality and hospitalisation data between the two groups were not explained by differences in prevalence of comorbid disease or serum phosphate. However, early referral was associated with better preparation and placement of dialysis access.

Nutrition assessment and counseling of the medically complex live kidney donor

Kidney transplantation is the preferred option for patients with end-stage renal disease facing the need for dialysis because it provides maximum survival benefit. The number of people seeking kidney transplantation greatly exceeds available deceased donor organs. Organs from live donors provide a survival advantage over organs from deceased donors while also broadening the pool of available organs. The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical guidelines that pertain to live kidney organ donation and to describe the nutrition evaluation and care of live kidney donors. The process for living kidney donation is dictated by policies centered on protecting the donor. In a perfect world, the living donor would present with a flawless medical examination and a benign family health history. The obesity epidemic has emerged as a major health concern. Live donor programs are faced with evaluating increasing numbers of obese candidates. These "medically complex donors" may present with obesity and its associated comorbid conditions, including hypertension, impaired glycemic control, and kidney stone disease. The dietitian's role in the live donor program is not well defined. Participation in the living donor selection meeting, where details of the evaluation are summarized, provides a platform for risk stratification and identification of donors who are at increased lifetime risk for poor personal health outcomes. Guiding the donor toward maintenance of a healthy weight through diet and lifestyle choices is a legitimate goal to minimize future health risks.

Survival of renal transplantation patients older than 60 years: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are the fastest growing population requiring renal replacement therapy. It has been stated that renal transplantation may be the best treatment option for these patients. However, it has been observed that older patients have a higher mortality rate than those who are younger. Yet the factors that determine post-transplantation outcomes in this population remain poorly defined. The aims of this study were to evaluate the graft and patient survival in kidney transplant recipients who are older than 60 years of age to identify relevant predictive factors.

METHODS

In this population-based retrospective cohort study of 201 kidney transplantations performed in elderly patients from January 2002 throughout June 2009, we estimated the 1-,3-,and 5-year patients and graft survival rates. We also evaluated the complications and the predictors of poor outcomes. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and survival differences assessed with Mantel-Cox log rank-test. We performed a Cox proportional hazards regression models to evaluate the impact of baseline and treatment characteristics on patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 76.4%, 71.3%, and 54.3%, and 78.2%, 73.8%, and 56.4%, respectively. Graft survival rates censored for patient death with a functioning graft were 93.1, 92.1, and 89%. Patient survival rates differed between diabetic and nondiabetic subjects at 1, 3 and 5 years (69.5% versus 83.6%; 59.8% versus 72.3%; 43.6% versus 65.7%; P = .008). On multivariate analysis, the factors associated with patients survival were diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.058, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.173-3.611, P = .012) and the 1-month serum creatinine value was > 1.6 mg/dL (HR 2.108 for each point increase, 95% CI 1.521-2.921, P = .000). Furthermore, there was an insignificant trend forward an association between active or past smoker and lower patient survival (HR 1.689, 95% CI 0.937-3.043, P = .08). The main causes of graft loss were patient death (79.5%). acute rejection (6.8%), and chronic allograft nephropathy (5.5%).

CONCLUSION

Renal transplantation can be performed safely and with acceptable outcomes in elderly patients after appropriate clinical evaluation. The grafts show excellent survival albeit that deaths with a functional graft continue to be an important issue.

Investigation of features of patients in renal transplantation waiting list: Who wants much more of what for renal transplantation?

Background and Objective: Renal transplant is the best form of treatment for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), because that therapy improves quality of life, prolongs survival, and is cost-effective. The objective of the study being reported was to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and registration status for renal transplantation of ESRD patients in Turkey who were registered for transplant or not.

Methods: The study was conducted between June and September 2012 on patients of several Dialysis Centers. They all were informed in a one on one interview about the risks and benefits of renal transplants; they were also asked to fill out the questionnaires given to them. The study questionnaire was designed with the help of already published reports to include among others the patient’s age, sex, waiting time and educational status.

Results: Patients who had been registered in the cadaver kidney waiting list were aged 43.85±13.48 in the average, with a balanced sex ratio, average dialysis duration 57.30±51.46 months. Of these patients 45 had finished high school, 87 lived in rural areas and 67 had an income equivalent to expenses.

Conclusion: There was a significant difference among the groups depending on the patients’ residence in an urban or rural environment. Such a difference might be following the greater ease of obtaining relevant information in the urban areas.

Prominent impact of community risk factors on kidney transplant candidate processes and outcomes

Numerous factors impact patients' health beyond traditional clinical characteristics. We evaluated the association of risk factors in kidney transplant patients' communities with outcomes prior to transplantation. The primary exposure variable was a community risk score (range 0-40) derived from multiple databases and defined by factors including prevalence of comorbidities, access and quality of healthcare, self-reported physical and mental health and socioeconomic status for each U.S. county. We merged data with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and utilized risk-adjusted models to evaluate effects of community risk for adult candidates listed 2004-2010 (n = 209 198). Patients in highest risk communities were associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.22, 1.16-1.28), decreased likelihood of living donor transplantation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.90, 0.85-0.94), increased waitlist removal for health deterioration (AHR = 1.36, 1.22-1.51), decreased likelihood of preemptive listing (AOR = 0.85, 0.81-0.88), increased likelihood of inactive listing (AOR = 1.49, 1.43-1.55) and increased likelihood of listing for expanded criteria donor kidneys (AHR = 1.19, 1.15-1.24). Associations persisted with adjustment for rural-urban location; furthermore the independent effects of rural-urban location were largely eliminated with adjustment for community risk. Average community risk varied widely by region and transplant center (median = 21, range 5-37). Community risks are powerful factors associated with processes of care and outcomes for transplant candidates and may be important considerations for developing effective interventions and measuring quality of care of transplant centers.

Why is organ transplantation clinically important?

Solid organ transplantations save lives in patients affected by terminal organ failures and improve quality of life. Organ transplantations have gradually ameliorated in the last two decades and usually provide excellent results in children and young adults, and are increasingly challenged by the growing proportion of elderly transplant patients with comorbidities. Renal transplantation increases patient survival over dialysis, and lifesaving transplants are indispensible to treat patients with liver, heart, or lung irreversible diseases. Solid organ transplant programs activity has been steadily growing but is still far from global needs, with great differences among countries. Solid organ transplantations are essential for developed and mature health care systems.

Influence of delayed graft function and acute rejection on outcomes after kidney transplantation from donors after cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) exert an adverse impact on graft outcomes after kidney transplantation using organs from donation after brain-stem death (DBD) donors. Here, we examine the impact of DGF and AR on graft survival in kidney transplants using organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of DCD and DBD donor kidney transplants. We compared 1- and 4-year graft and patient survival rates, as well as death-censored graft survival (DCGS) rates, between the two groups using univariate analysis, and the impact of DGF and AR on graft function was compared using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty DCD and 206 DBD donor transplants were analyzed. Median follow-up was 4.5 years. The incidence of DGF was higher among DCD recipients (73% vs. 27%, P<0.001), and AR was higher among DBD recipients (23% vs. 9%, P<0.001). One-year and 4-year graft survival rates were similar (DCD 94% and 79% vs. DBD 90% and 82%). Among recipients with DGF, the 4-year DCGS rate was better for DCD recipients compared with DBD recipients (100% vs. 92%, P=0.04). Neither DGF nor AR affected the 1-year graft survival rate in DCD recipients, whereas in DBD recipients, the 1-year graft survival rate was worse in the presence of DGF (88% vs. 96%, P=0.04) and the 4-year DCGS rate was worse in the presence of AR (88% vs. 96%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Despite the high incidence of DGF, medium-term outcomes of DCD kidney transplants are comparable to those from DBD transplants. Short-term graft survival from DCD transplants is not adversely influenced by DGF and AR, unlike in DBD transplants.

Preemptive deceased donor kidney transplantation: considerations of equity and utility

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There exists gross disparity in national deceased donor kidney transplant availability and practice: waiting times exceed 6 years in some regions, but some patients receive kidneys before they require dialysis. This study aimed to quantify and characterize preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant recipients and compare their outcomes with patients transplanted shortly after dialysis initiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database, first-time adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients between 1995 and 2011 were classified as preemptive, early (on dialysis ≤1 year), or late recipients. Random effects logistic regression and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression were used to identify characteristics of preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant and evaluate survival in preemptive and early recipients, respectively.

RESULTS

Preemptive recipients were 9.0% of the total recipient population. Patients with private insurance (adjusted odds ratio=3.15, 95% confidence interval=3.01-3.29, P<0.001), previous (nonkidney) transplant (adjusted odds ratio=1.94, 95% confidence interval=1.67-2.26, P<0.001), and zero-antigen mismatch (adjusted odds ratio=1.45, 95% confidence interval=1.37-1.54, P<0.001; Caucasians only) were more likely to receive preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant, even after accounting for center-level clustering. African Americans were less likely to receive preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant (adjusted odds ratio=0.44, 95% confidence interval=0.41-0.47, P<0.001). Overall, patients transplanted preemptively had similar survival compared with patients transplanted within 1 year after initiating dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio=1.06, 95% confidence interval=0.99-1.12, P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant occurs most often among Caucasians with private insurance, and survival is fairly similar to survival of recipients on dialysis for <1 year.

Preemptive renal transplant candidate survival, access to care, and renal function at listing

BACKGROUND

Preemptive transplantation is associated with better survival and transplant outcomes than transplantation after dialysis has been started. The purpose of this study is to examine associations between candidate characteristics, likelihood of preemptive transplant, candidate survival and renal function (RF) at the time of listing.

METHODS

We looked at 57 677 solitary renal transplant candidates from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database listed prior to dialysis from 2000 to 2009. Using multivariable models, we measured associations between candidate characteristics, likelihood of preemptive transplantation, candidate survival and RF at listing.

RESULTS

Candidates with higher RF at listing were more likely to be male, Caucasian, diabetic, be a prior transplant recipient and have more education. Higher RF at listing was strongly associated with greater likelihood of receipt of preemptive transplant [adjusted odds ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-1.51] and conferred a significant survival advantage [adjusted hazards ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.89, per 5 mL/min/1.73 m(2)].

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics associated with higher RF at listing suggest differences in access to care. Given that higher RF at the time of listing was also significantly associated with greater likelihood of preemptive transplantation and better survival prior to transplantation, our results suggest that listing at higher levels of RF may improve transplant candidate outcomes.

Trends in the timing of pre-emptive kidney transplantation

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation is considered the best available renal replacement therapy, but no guidelines exist to direct its timing during CKD progression. We used a national cohort of 19,471 first-time pre-emptive kidney transplant recipients between 1995-2009 to evaluate patterns and implications of transplant timing. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) at the time of pre-emptive transplant increased significantly over time, from 9.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 1995 to 13.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 2009 (P<0.001). Patients with eGFR ≥ 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) represented an increasing proportion of pre-emptive transplant recipients, from 9% in 1995 to 35% in 2009; the trend for patients with eGFR ≥ 10 was similar (30% to 72%). We did not detect statistically significant differences in patient survival or death-censored graft survival between strata of eGFR at the time of transplant, either in the full cohort or in subgroup analyses of patients who might theoretically benefit from earlier pre-emptive transplantation. In summary, pre-emptive kidney transplantation is occurring at increasing levels of native kidney function. Earlier transplantation does not appear to associate with patient or graft survival, suggesting that earlier pre-emptive transplantation may subject donors and recipients to premature operative risk and waste the native kidney function of recipients.

Senescence rates in patients with end-stage renal disease: a critical appraisal of the Gompertz model

The most frequently used model to describe the exponential increase in mortality rate over age is the Gompertz equation. Logarithmically transformed, the equation conforms to a straight line, of which the slope has been interpreted as the rate of senescence. Earlier, we proposed the derivative function of the Gompertz equation as a superior descriptor of senescence rate. Here, we tested both measures of the rate of senescence in a population of patients with end-stage renal disease. It is clinical dogma that patients on dialysis experience accelerated senescence, whereas those with a functional kidney transplant have mortality rates comparable to the general population. Therefore, we calculated the age-specific mortality rates for European patients on dialysis (n=274 221; follow-up=594 767 person-years), for European patients with a functioning kidney transplant (n=61 286; follow-up=345 024 person-years), and for the general European population. We found higher mortality rates, but a smaller slope of logarithmic mortality curve for patients on dialysis compared with both patients with a functioning kidney transplant and the general population (P<0.001). A classical interpretation of the Gompertz model would imply that the rate of senescence in patients on dialysis is lower than in patients with a functioning transplant and lower than in the general population. In contrast, the derivative function of the Gompertz equation yielded the highest senescence rates for patients on dialysis, whereas the rate was similar in patients with a functioning transplant and the general population. We conclude that the rate of senescence is better described by the derivative function of the Gompertz equation.

Significant improvement in patient survival after renal transplantation in the last decade

INTRODUCTION

The extremely good results of renal transplantation have favored the use of pre-emptive procedures for treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease before entering dialysis, but still some concerns exist about patient survival. The aim of this study was to analyze the evolution of death rates and the causes of mortality among recipients of procedures performed between 1970 and 2007.

METHODS

We examined the outcomes at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years follow-up of 793 adults who underwent primary or repeat renal transplantation from living or deceased donors between January 1, 1970 and December 31, 2007. To evaluate the impact of immunosuppressive regimens on patient survivals, we considered 3 time intervals: the precyclosporine era, the cyclosporine era, and the postcyclosporine era.

RESULTS

During follow-up 115/793 (14.5%) renal transplant recipients died. There was a significant decrease in the overall mortality rate over the years. Patients who underwent transplantation more recently in the postcyclosporine era (1997-2007) showed a mortality rate of 1.8% (7/394) at 1 year and 3.3% (13/394) at 5 years, significantly lower than in previous periods. There was no significant change in the most frequent causes of death: cardiovascular diseases and sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicated a significant improvement in patient survival after renal transplantation over the last decade. These data are significantly better than those reported for dialysis treatment thus supporting the strategy of pre-emptive transplantation for end-stage renal disease.