Care of the patient after renal allograft failure: managing the present and planning for the future

The Perspectives of General Nephrologists Toward Transitions of Care and Management of Failing Kidney Transplants

The management of failing kidney allograft and transition of care to general nephrologists (GN) remain a complex process. The Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice (KPCOP) Failing Allograft Workgroup designed and distributed a survey to GN between May and September 2021. Participants were invited via mail and email invitations. There were 103 respondents with primarily adult nephrology practices, of whom 41% had an academic affiliation. More than 60% reported listing for a second kidney as the most important concern in caring for patients with a failing allograft, followed by immunosuppression management (46%) and risk of mortality (38%), while resistant anemia was considered less of a concern. For the initial approach to immunosuppression reduction, 60% stop antimetabolites first, and 26% defer to the transplant nephrologist. Communicating with transplant centers about immunosuppression cessation was reported to occur always by 60%, and sometimes by 29%, while 12% reported making the decision independently. Nephrologists with academic appointments communicate with transplant providers more than private nephrologists (74% vs. 49%, p = 0.015). There are heterogeneous approaches to the care of patients with a failing allograft. Efforts to strengthen transitions of care and to develop practical practice guidelines are needed to improve the outcomes of this vulnerable population.

Kidney recipients with allograft failure, transition of kidney care (KRAFT): A survey of contemporary practices of transplant providers

Kidney allograft failure and return to dialysis carry a high risk of morbidity. A practice survey was developed by the AST Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice workgroup and distributed electronically to the AST members. There were 104 respondents who represented 92 kidney transplant centers. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists at academic centers. The most common approach to immunosuppression management was to withdraw the antimetabolite first (73%), while only 12% responded they would withdraw calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) first. More than 60% reported that the availability of a living donor is the most important factor in their decision to taper immunosuppression, followed by risk of infection, risk of sensitization, frailty, and side effects of medications. More than half of respondents reported that embolization was either not available or offered to less than 10% as an option for surgical intervention. Majority reported that ≤50% of failed allograft patients were re-listed before dialysis, and less than a quarter of transplant nephrologists performed frequent visits with their patients with failed kidney allograft after they return to dialysis. This survey demonstrates heterogeneity in the care of patients with a failing allograft and the need for more evidence to guide improvements in clinical practice related to transition of care.

Development and evaluation of dedicated low clearance transplant clinics for patients with failing kidney transplants

BACKGROUND

Recipients with failing kidney transplants (RFKTs) may receive sub-optimal care compared with patients with native kidney disease. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of RFKTs managed in a dedicated low clearance transplant clinic (LCTC) compared with those attending a general transplant clinic.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients with failing kidney transplants comparing two clinics-a LCTC versus a general transplant clinic. Kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR < 20 ml/min were included. A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken of all patients with two consecutive follow-up visits between the dates of January and July 2016 in either clinic, with follow-up to event or December 2017.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 141 kidney transplant recipients; 60 in the LCTC and 81 in the general transplant clinic. More patients in the LCTC cohort were non-white and early transplant recipients. A significantly greater proportion of LCTC versus general transplant patients had received documented discussions regarding their hepatitis vaccine status (63.3% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), counselled regarding dialysis modality (98.3% vs. 55.6%, p < 0.001) and had documented decision regarding re-transplantation (80.0% vs. 58.0%, p = 0.006). No difference was noted in the comparison of any clinical or biochemical parameters. More patients seen in the LCTC lost their kidney allograft (HR: 2.09, 95%CI: 1.17-3.72, p = 0.013) but patient survival was equivalent (p = 0.343).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest the management of RFKTs within LCTCs can focus attention on renal replacement therapy planning and counselling, but further work is warranted to investigate for any benefit in hard outcomes such as survival.

Assessment of a Dedicated Transplant Low Clearance Clinic and Patient Outcomes on Dialysis After Renal Allograft Loss at 2 UK Transplant Centers

Background

Low clearance transplant clinics (LCTCs) are recommended for the management of recipients with a failing kidney transplant (RFKT) but data to support their use is limited. We conducted a retrospective study to assess management of RFKT at 2 transplant centers, 1 with a LCTC (center A) and 1 without (center B).

Methods

Patients who transitioned to an alternative form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) between January 1, 2012, and November 30, 2016, were included. Patients with graft failure within a year of transplantation or due to an unpredictable acute event were excluded. Clinical data were collected after review of medical records.

Results

One hundred seventy-nine patients (age, 48.6 ± 13.4 years, 99 [55.3%] male, and mean transplant duration 10.3 ± 7.8 years) were included. RRT counseling occurred in 79 (91%) and 68 (74%) patients at centers A and B (P = 0.003), at median 135 (61-319) and 133 (69-260) days before dialysis after graft loss (P = 0.92). Sixty-one (34.1%) patients were waitlisted for retransplantation; 18 (32.7%) nonwaitlisted patients were still undergoing workup at center A compared with 37 (58.7%) at center B (P = 0.028). Preemptive retransplantation occurred in 4 (4.6%) and 5 (5.4%) patients at centers A and B (P = 0.35). At 1 year after initiation of dialysis after graft loss, 11 (15.3%) and 11 (17.2%) patients were retransplanted (P = 0.12), and mortality was 6.6% overall.

Conclusions

A dedicated LCTC improved RRT counseling and transplant work-up but did not lead to improved rates of retransplantation. Earlier consideration of retransplantation in LCTCs is required to improve RFKT outcomes.

The interstitial interface within the renal stem/progenitor cell niche exhibits an unique microheterogeneous composition

Repair of parenchyma by stem/progenitor cells is seen as a possible alternative to cure acute and chronic renal failure in future. To learn about this therapeutic purpose, the formation of nephrons during organ growth is under focus of present research. This process is triggered by numerous morphogenetic interactions between epithelial and mesenchymal cells within the renal stem/progenitor cell niche. Recent data demonstrate that an astonishingly wide interstitial interface separates both types of stem/progenitor cells probably controlling coordinated cell-to-cell communication. Since conventional fixation by glutaraldehyde (GA) does not declare in transmission electron microscopy the spatial separation, improved contrasting procedures were applied. As a consequence, the embryonic cortex of neonatal rabbit kidneys was fixed in solutions containing glutaraldehyde in combination with cupromeronic blue, ruthenium red or tannic acid. To obtain a comparable view to the renal stem/progenitor cell niche, the specimens had to be orientated along the cortico-medullary axis of lining collecting ducts. Analysis of tissue samples fixed with GA, in combination with cupromeronic blue, demonstrates demasked extracellular matrix. Numerous braces of proteoglycans cover, as well, the basal lamina of epithelial stem/progenitor cells as projections of mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells crossing the interstitial interface. Fixation with GA containing ruthenium red or tannic acid illustrates strands of extracellular matrix that originate from the basal lamina of epithelial stem/progenitor cells and line through the interstitial interface. Thus, for the first time, improved contrasting techniques make it possible to analyze in detail a microheterogeneous composition of the interstitial interface within the renal stem/progenitor cell niche.