The mode of pretransplant dialysis does not affect postrenal transplant outcomes in african americans

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Role of Peritoneal Dialysis in Different Phases of Kidney Transplantation

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

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

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

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

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

Cell therapy attempted as a novel approach for chronic traumatic brain injury - a pilot study

Traumatic brain injury is an injury to the brain parenchyma resulting from external factors such as vehicular accidents, falls, or sports injuries. Its outcome involves primary insult followed by a cascade of secondary insult, resulting in diffuse axonal injury further causing white matter damage. Surgical intervention targets the primary damage, whereas only few treatment alternatives are available to treat the secondary damage. Cellular therapy could be one of the prospective therapeutic options, as it has the potential to arrest the degeneration and promote regeneration of new cells in the brain. We conducted a pilot study on 14 cases who were administered with autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells, intrathecally. The follow up was done at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months after the intervention. The Functional Independence Measure scale, the SF-8 Health Survey Scoring and the disability rating scale were used as outcome measures. These scales showed a positive shift in scores at the end of 6 months. Improvements were observed in various symptoms, along with activities of daily living. Improvement in PET CT scan performed before and 6 months after the intervention in 3 patients corresponded to the clinical and functional improvements observed in these patients. The results of this study suggest that cell therapy may promote functional recovery leading to an improved quality of life in chronic TBI. Although the results are positive, the improvements after cell therapy are not optimal. Hence, additional multicenter, controlled studies are required to establish cell therapy as a standard therapeutic approach.