Prevention of sepsis during the transition to dialysis may improve the survival of transplant failure patients

Management of Failing Kidney and Pancreas Transplantations

Survival rates for allografts have improved over the last 2 decades, yet failing allografts remains a challenge in the field of transplant. The risks of mortality and morbidity associated with failed allografts are compounded by infectious complications and metabolic abnormalities, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach to management. Management of failing allografts lacks consensus, highlighting the need for unified protocols to guide treatment protocols and minimize risks with postdialysis initiation. The decision to wean off immunosuppression depends on various factors, including living donor availability and infectious risks, necessitating improved coordination of care and a standard guideline. Treatment of failed pancreas focuses on glycemic control, with insulin as the mainstay, while considering surgical interventions such as graft pancreatectomy in advanced symptomatic cases. Navigating the complexities of failed allograft management demands a multidisciplinary approach and standardized stepwise protocol. Addressing the gaps in management plans for failing allografts and employing a systematic approach to transplant decisions will enhance patient outcomes and facilitate informed decision-making.

Haemodialysis access profile in failed kidney transplant patients: Analysis of data from the Catalan Renal Registry (1998-2016)

BACKGROUND

Data about vascular access (VA) use in failed kidney transplant (KT) patients returning to haemodialysis (HD) are limited. We analysed the VA profile of these patients, the factors associated with the likelihood of HD re-initiation through fistula (AVF) and the effect of VA in use at the time of KT on kidney graft (KTx) outcome.

METHOD

Data from the Catalan Registry on failed KT patients restarting HD and incident HD patients with native kidney failure were examined over an 18-year period.

RESULTS

The VA profile of 675 failed KT patients at HD re-initiation compared with that before KT and with 16,731 incident patients starting HD was (%): AVF 79.3 versus 88.6 and 46.2 (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001), graft AVG 4.4 versus 2.6 and 1.1 (p = 0.08 and p < 0.001), tunnelled catheter TCC 12.4 versus 5.5 and 18.0 (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) and non-tunnelled catheter 3.9 versus 3.3 and 34.7 (p = 0.56 and p < 0.001). The likelihood of HD re-initiation by AVF was significantly lower in patients with cardiovascular disease, KT duration >5 years, dialysed through AVG or TCC before KT, and females. The analysis of Kaplan-Meier curves showed a greater KTx survival in patients dialysed through arteriovenous access than in patients using catheter just before KT (λ2 = 5.59, p = 0.0181, log-rank test). Cox regression analysis showed that patients on HD through arteriovenous access at the time of KT had lower probability of KTx loss compared to those with catheter (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The VA profile of failed KT patients returning to HD and incident patients starting HD was different. Compared to before KT, the proportion of failed KT patients restarting HD with AVF decreased significantly at the expense of TCC. Patients on HD through arteriovenous access at the time of KT showed greater KTx survival compared with those using catheter.

Association between diabetic status and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality on dialysis following first kidney allograft loss

Background

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with a greater risk of mortality in kidney transplant patients, primarily driven by a greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality. However, the associations between diabetes status at time of first allograft loss and mortality on dialysis remain unknown.

Methods

All patients with failed first kidney allografts transplanted in Australia and New Zealand between 2000 and 2020 were included. The associations between diabetes status at first allograft loss, all-cause and cause-specific mortality were examined using competing risk analyses, separating patients with diabetes into those with pre-transplant DM or post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM).

Results

Of 3782 patients with a median (IQR) follow-up duration of 2.7 (1.1-5.4) years, 539 (14%) and 390 (10%) patients had pre-transplant DM or developed PTDM, respectively. In the follow-up period, 1336 (35%) patients died, with 424 (32%), 264 (20%) and 199 (15%) deaths attributed to CVD, dialysis withdrawal and infection, respectively. Compared to patients without DM, the adjusted subdistribution HRs (95% CI) for pre-transplant DM and PTDM for all-cause mortality on dialysis were 1.47 (1.17-1.84) and 1.47 (1.23-1.76), respectively; for CVD-related mortality were 0.81 (0.51-1.29) and 1.02 (0.70-1.47), respectively; for infection-related mortality were 1.84 (1.02-3.35) and 2.70 (1.73-4.20), respectively; and for dialysis withdrawal-related mortality were 1.71 (1.05-2.77) and 1.51 (1.02-2.22), respectively.

Conclusions

Patients with diabetes at the time of kidney allograft loss have a significant survival disadvantage, with the excess mortality risk attributed to infection and dialysis withdrawal.

Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.

Risk factors for infection in patients with a failed kidney allograft on immunosuppressive medications

Patients with a failing kidney allograft are often continued on immunosuppression (IS) to preserve residual kidney function and prevent allosensitization. It has been previously accepted that maintaining patients on immunosuppressive therapy results in an increased risk of infection, hospitalization, and mortality. However, as the management of IS in patients with a failed kidney allograft continues to evolve, it is important to review the data regarding associations between infection and specific immunosuppression regimens. We present a review of the literature of failed kidney allograft management and infection risk, and discuss practices for infection prevention. Fifteen studies, published from 1995 to 2022, which investigated the experience of patients with failed allograft and infection, were identified. Infection was most commonly documented as a general event, but when specified, included infections caused by Candida, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Aspergillus. In addition, the definition of reduced "IS" varied from decreased doses of a triple drug regimen to monotherapy, whereas others did not specify which medications patients were receiving. Despite attempts at lowering net immunosuppression, patients with failed allografts remain at risk of acquiring opportunistic and non-opportunistic infections. Although opportunistic infections secondary to IS are expected, somewhat surprisingly, it appears that the greatest risk of infection may be related to complications of dialysis. Therefore, mitigating strategies, such as planning for an arteriovenous (AV) fistula over a hemodialysis catheter placement, may reduce infection risk. Additional studies are needed to provide more information regarding the types and timing of infection in the setting of a failed kidney allograft. In addition, more data are needed regarding specific medications, doses, and timing of taper of IS to guide future patient management and inform strategies for infection surveillance and prophylaxis.

Allograft nephrectomy vs. no nephrectomy for failed renal transplants

The role of allograft nephrectomy (AN) in failed renal transplants is a topic of debate, owing to controversial results reported in the literature and the fact that most of the studies are limited by a retrospective design and small numbers of participants. Allograft nephrectomy is most likely of benefit in the patient with recurrent allograft intolerance syndrome (AIS) following pulse steroids. Immunosuppression weaning in the presence of clinical signs related to a chronic inflammatory state is also reasonable grounds to pursue AN. Studies are mainly inconclusive but suggest that AN has no overall benefit for allograft survival after retransplant. This topic is still of interest in the transplant field and is particularly relevant for patients who are likely to require retransplantation within their lifetime. Further assessment is needed in the form of randomized controlled trials that control for various AN indications and immunosuppression regimens, and have clearly defined survival outcomes.

Challenges in the Management of the Patient with a Failing Kidney Graft: A Narrative Review

Patients with a failed kidney allograft have steadily increase in recent years and returning to dialysis after graft loss is one of the most difficult transitions for chronic kidney disease patients and their assistant physicians. The management of these patients is complex and encompasses the treatment of chronic kidney disease complications, dialysis restart and access planning, immunosuppression withdrawal, graft nephrectomy, and evaluation for a potential retransplant. In recent years, several groups have focused on the management of the patient with a failing renal graft and expert recommendations are arising. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library was performed focusing on the specific care of these patients, from the management of low clearance complications to concerns with a subsequent kidney transplant. Conclusion: There is a growing interest in the failing renal graft and new approaches to improve these patients' outcomes are being defined including specific multidisciplinary programs, individualized immunosuppression withdrawal schemes, and strategies to prevent HLA sensitization and increase retransplant rates.

Immunosuppressant Medication Use in Patients with Kidney Allograft Failure: A Prospective Multi-Center Canadian Cohort Study

Background: Patients with kidney transplant failure have a high risk of hospitalization and death due to infection. The optimal use of immunosuppressants after transplant failure remains uncertain and clinical practice varies widely. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients within 21 days of starting dialysis after transplant failure in 16 Canadian centers. Immunosuppressant medication use, death, hospitalized infection, rejection of the failed allograft, and panel reactive anti-HLA antibodies (PRA) were determined at 1, 3, 6 , and 12 months and bi-annually until death, repeat transplantation, or loss to follow-up. Results: The 269 study patients were followed for a median of 558 days. There were 33 deaths, 143 patients hospitalized for infection, and 21 rejections. Most patients (65%) continued immunosuppressants, 20% continued prednisone only, while 15% discontinued all immunosuppressants. In multivariable models, patients who continued immunosuppressants had a lower risk of death (HR =0.40, 95% CI, 0.17-0.93) and were not at increased risk of hospitalized infection (HR 1.81; 95% CI 0.82 to 4.0) compared to patients who discontinued all immunosuppressants or continued prednisone only. The mean class I and class II PRA increased from 11% to 27% and 25% to 47%, respectively, but did not differ by immunosuppressant use. Continuation of immunosuppressants was not protective of rejection of the failed allograft (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.22-2.94). Conclusions: Prolonged use of immunosuppressants greater than one year after transplant failure was not associated with a higher risk of death or hospitalized infection but was insufficient to prevent higher anti-HLA antibodies or rejection of the failed allograft.

The failing kidney allograft: A review and recommendations for the care and management of a complex group of patients

The return to dialysis after allograft failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This transition is made more complex by the rising numbers of patients who seek repeat transplantation and therefore may have indications for remaining on low levels of immunosuppression, despite the potential increased morbidity. Management strategies vary across providers, driven by limited data on how to transition off immunosuppression as the allograft fails and a paucity of randomized controlled trials to support one approach over another. In this review, we summarize the current data available for management and care of the failing allograft. Additionally, we discuss a suggested plan for immunosuppression weaning based upon the availability of re-transplantation and residual allograft function. We propose a shared-care model in which there is improved coordination between transplant providers and general nephrologists so that immunosuppression management and preparation for renal replacement therapy and/or repeat transplantation can be conducted with the goal of improved outcomes and decreased morbidity in this vulnerable patient group.

Socioeconomic disparity, access to care and patient relevant outcomes after kidney allograft failure

Social disparity is a major impediment to optimal health outcomes after kidney transplantation. In this study, we aimed to define the association between socioeconomic status (SES) disparities and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney allograft failure. Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant registry, we included patients with failed first kidney allografts in Australia between 2005-2017. The association between residential postcode-derived SES in quintiles (quintile 1-most disadvantaged areas, quintile 5-most advantaged areas) with uptake of home dialysis (peritoneal or home haemodialysis) within the first 12-months post-allograft failure, repeat transplantation and death on dialysis were examined using competing-risk analysis. Of 2175 patients who had experienced first allograft failure, 417(19%) and 505(23%) patients were of SES quintiles 1 and 5, respectively. Compared to patients of quintile 5, quintile 1 patients were less likely to receive repeat transplants (adjusted subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR] 0.70,95%CI 0.55-0.89) and were more likely to die on dialysis (1.37[1.04-1.81]), but there was no association with the uptake of home dialysis (1.02[0.77-1.35]). Low SES may have a negative effect on outcomes post-allograft failure and further research is required into how best to mitigate this. However, small-scale variation within SES cannot be accounted for in this study.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of dialysis modality on morbimortality of kidney transplant recipients after allograft failure. Analysis in the presence of competing events

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The number of patients who start dialysis due to graft failure increases every day. The best dialysis modality for this type of patient is not well defined and most patients are referred to HD. The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of the dialysis modality on morbidity and mortality in transplant patients who start dialysis after graft failure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentre retrospective observation and cohort study was performed to compare the evolution of patients who started dialysis after graft failure from January 2000 to December 2013. One group started on PD and the other on HD. The patients were followed until the change of dialysis technique, retransplantation or death. Anthropometric data, comorbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at start of dialysis, the presence of an optimal access for dialysis, the appearance of graft intolerance and retransplantation were analyzed. We studied the causes for the first 10 hospital admissions after starting dialysis. For the statistical analysis, the presence of competitive events that hindered the observation of the event of interest, death or hospital admission was analyzed.

RESULTS

175 patients were included, 86 in DP and 89 in HD. The patients who started PD were younger, had less comorbidity and started dialysis with lower eGFR than those on HD. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 33 months, with a median of 24 months (IQR 7-50 months), Patients on HD had longer follow-up than patients on PD (35 vs. 18 months, p = < 0.001). The mortality risk factors were age sHR 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03-1.106, p = 0.000), non-optimal use of access for dialysis sHR 3.00 (95% CI: 1.507-5.982, p = 0.028) and the dialysis modality sHR (PD/HD) 0.36 (95% CI: 0.148-0.890, p = 0.028). Patients on PD had a lower risk of hospital admission sHR [DP/HD] 0.52 (95% CI: 0.369-0.743, p = < 0.001) and less probability of developing graft intolerance HR 0.307 (95% CI 0.142-0.758, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

With the limitations of a retrospective and non-randomized study, it is the first time nationwide that PD shows in terms of survival to be better than HD during the first year and a half after the kidney graft failure. The presence of a non-optimal access for dialysis was an independent and modifiable risk factor for mortality. Early referral of patients to advanced chronic kidney disease units is essential for the patient to choose the technique that best suits their circumstances and to prepare an optimal access for the start of dialysis.

Outcomes of an Inpatient Dialysis Start in Patients With Kidney Graft Failure: A Population-Based Multicentre Cohort Study

Background:

The frequency and outcomes of starting maintenance dialysis in the hospital as an inpatient in kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are poorly understood.

Objective:

To determine the frequency of inpatient dialysis starts in patients with kidney graft failure and examine whether dialysis start status (hospital inpatient vs outpatient setting) is associated with all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation.

Design:

Population-based cohort study.

Setting:

We used linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada.

Patients:

We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure from 1994 to 2016.

Measurements:

All-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation.

Methods:

The cumulative incidence function was used to calculate the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation, accounting for competing risks. Subdistribution hazard ratios from the Fine and Gray model were used to examine the relationship between inpatient dialysis starts (vs outpatient dialysis start [reference]) and the dependent variables (ie, mortality or re-transplant).

Results:

We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure. More than half (55.8%) of patients with kidney graft failure, initiated dialysis as an inpatient. Compared with outpatient dialysis starters, inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of mortality and a significantly lower incidence of kidney re-transplantation (P < .001). The 10-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 51.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.4, 56.9%) (inpatient) and 35.3% (95% CI: 31.1, 40.1%) (outpatient). After adjusting for clinical characteristics, we found inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly increased hazard of mortality in the first year after graft failure (hazard ratio: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.43, 3.33]) but at 1+ years there was no significant difference between groups.

Limitations:

Possibility of residual confounding and unable to determine inpatient dialysis starts that were unavoidable.

Conclusions:

In this study we identified that most patients with kidney graft failure had inpatient dialysis starts, which was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for an inpatient dialysis start in this patient population.

Returning to haemodialysis after kidney allograft failure: a survival study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Patients who return to dialysis after kidney allograft failure (KAF) are classically considered to have lower survival rates than their transplant-naïve incident dialysis counterparts. However, this observation in previous comparisons could be due to poor matching between the two populations.

METHODS

To compare survival rates between patients who returned to haemodialysis (HD) after KAF versus transplant-naïve incident HD patients, we performed a retrospective study using the EuCliD® database (European Clinical Database) that collects data from Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) outpatient HD facilities in Spain. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to homogenize both populations.

RESULTS

This study included 5216 patients from 65 different FMC clinics between 2009 and 2014. Naïve incident HD patients were mostly male, older, comorbid and more commonly had catheters as vascular access. During the study follow-up, 3915 patients exited, of whom 1534 died. The mean survival time for the entire cohort was 4.86 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.78-4.94]. Univariate Cox analysis indicated higher mortality risk among transplant-naïve incident HD patients [hazard ratio (HR) 1.728; 95% CI 1.35-2.21; P < 0.001). However, this difference was no longer significant after multivariate adjustment. After applying PSM to minimize the bias due to indication issue, we obtained an adjusted population composed of 480 naïve and 240 KAF patients. The results analysing the PSM-adjusted cohort confirmed similar survival in both cohorts (log-rank, 3.34; P = 0.068; HR 1.382; 95% CI 0.97-1.95; P = 0.069).

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing properly matched patient groups, patients who return to HD after KAF present similar survival than survival than transplant-naïve incident patients.

Evolution of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients following return to hemodialysis after kidney transplant failure

INTRODUCTION

Severe uncontrolled secondary hyperparathyroidism and kidney transplantation history are both risk factors for fractures in hemodialyzed patients. Moreover, patients who return to dialysis after transplant failure have more severe infections/anemia and higher mortality risk than transplant-naive patients starting dialysis with native kidneys. In this context, our aim was to test the hypothesis that transplant failure patients have more secondary hyperparathyroidism than transplant-naive patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared 29 transplant failure patients to 58 transplant-naive patients matched for age, sex, chronic kidney disease duration and diabetes condition (1 transplant failure/2 transplant-naive ratio), who started dialysis between 2010 and 2014. Clinical and biological data were collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

FINDINGS

At baseline, neither serum parathyroid hormone (transplant-naive: 386±286pg/mL; transplant failure: 547±652pg/mL) nor serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (transplant-naive: 27.8±17.0μg/L, transplant failure: 31.1±14.9μg/L) differed between groups. However, serum parathyroid hormone at 12 months and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled secondary hyperparathyroidism (parathyroid hormone>540pg/mL, KDIGO criteria) were significantly higher in transplant failure than in transplant-naive (parathyroid hormone: 286±205 vs. 462±449, P<0.01; uncontrolled secondary hyperparathyroidism: 30% vs. 13%, P<0.01, respectively). Within the transplant failure group, patients with uncontrolled secondary hyperparathyroidism at 12 months were younger than patients with normal or low parathyroid hormone.

DISCUSSION

This retrospective and monocentric study suggests that transplant failure patients are more likely to develop secondary hyperparathyroidism. Thus, finding high serum parathyroid hormone in young transplant failure patients, who are expected to undergo further transplantations, should incite physicians to treat early and more aggressively this complication.

Access to Kidney Transplantation after a Failed First Kidney Transplant and Associations with Patient and Allograft Survival: An Analysis of National Data to Inform Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patients who have failed a transplant are at increased risk of repeat transplant failure. We determined access to transplantation and transplant outcomes in patients with and without a history of transplant failure.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In this observational study of national data, the proportion of waitlisted patients and deceased donor transplant recipients with transplant failure was determined before and after the new kidney allocation system. Among patients initiating maintenance dialysis between May 1995 and December 2014, the likelihood of deceased donor transplantation was determined in patients with (n=27,459) and without (n=1,426,677) a history of transplant failure. Among transplant recipients, allograft survival, the duration of additional kidney replacement therapy required within 10 years of transplantation, and the association of transplantation versus dialysis with mortality was determined in patients with and without a history of transplant failure.

RESULTS

The proportion of waitlist candidates (mean 14%) and transplant recipients (mean 12%) with transplant failure did not increase after the new kidney allocation system. Among patients initiating maintenance dialysis, transplant-failure patients had a higher likelihood of transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.12 to 1.20; P<0.001). Among transplant recipients, transplant-failure patients had a higher likelihood of death-censored transplant failure (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.34 to 1.54; P<0.001) and a greater need for additional kidney replacement therapy required within 10 years after transplantation (mean, 9.0; 95% CI, 5.4 to 12.6 versus mean, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7 months). The association of transplantation versus dialysis with mortality was clinically similar in waitlisted patients with (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.35; P<0.001) and without transplant failure (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.41; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant-failure patients initiating maintenance dialysis have a higher likelihood of transplantation than transplant-naïve patients. Despite inferior death-censored transplant survival, transplantation was associated with a similar reduction in the risk of death compared with treatment with dialysis in patients with and without a prior history of transplant failure.

Transplant nephrectomy after graft failure: is it so risky? Impact on morbidity, mortality and alloimmunization

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of transplant nephrectomy on morbidity and mortality and HLA immunization.

METHODS

All patients who underwent transplant nephrectomy in our centre between 2000 and 2016 were included in this study. A total of 2822 renal transplantations and 180 transplant nephrectomies were performed during this period.

RESULTS

The indications for transplant nephrectomy were graft intolerance syndrome: 47.2%, sepsis: 22.2%, vascular thrombosis: 15.5%, tumour: 8.3% and other 6.8%. Transplant nephrectomies were performed via an intracapsular approach in 61.7% of cases. The blood transfusion rate was 50%, the morbidity rate was 38% and the mortality rate was 3%. Transplant nephrectomies more than 12 months after renal transplant failure were associated with more complications (p = 0.006). Transfusions in the context of transplant nephrectomy had no significant impact on alloimmunization.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bleeding, and therefore of transfusion, constitutes the major challenge of this surgery in patients eligible for retransplantation. Even if transfusions in this context of transplant nephrectomy had no significant impact on alloimmunization, this high-risk surgery, whenever possible, must be performed electively in a well-prepared patient.

Survival in Southern European patients waitlisted for kidney transplant after graft failure: A competing risk analysis

Background

Whether patients waitlisted for a second transplant after failure of a previous kidney graft have higher mortality than transplant-näive waitlisted patients is uncertain.

Methods

We assessed the relationship between a failed transplant and mortality in 3851 adult KT candidates, listed between 1984–2012, using a competing risk analysis in the total population and in a propensity score-matched cohort. Mortality was also modeled by inverse probability weighting (IPTW) competing risk regression.

Results

At waitlist entry 225 (5.8%) patients had experienced transplant failure. All-cause mortality was higher in the post-graft failure group (16% vs. 11%; P = 0.033). Most deaths occurred within three years after listing. Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death (25.3%), followed by infections (19.3%). Multivariate competing risk regression showed that prior transplant failure was associated with a 1.5-fold increased risk of mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–2.2). After propensity score matching (1:5), the competing risk regression model revealed a subhazard ratio (SHR) of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.01–2.5). A similar mortality risk was observed after the IPTW analysis (SHR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.6).

Conclusions

Previous transplant failure is associated with increased mortality among KT candidates after relisting. This information is important in daily clinical practice when assessing relisted patients for a retransplant.

Sensitization trends after renal allograft failure: the role of DQ eplet mismatches in becoming highly sensitized

Sensitization following renal allograft failure (AF) is highly variable. Some patients remain non-sensitized (NS), while others become highly sensitized (HS). We studied 66 NS patients who experienced AF after initial kidney transplantation. Post-failure, two main groups of NS panel reactive antibody (PRA) class I and II <10% and HS patients (PRA class I or II ≥80%) were identified. The impact of acute rejection (AR), immunosuppression withdrawal (ISW) at AF, allograft nephrectomy, graft intolerance syndrome (GIS), and both standard serologic and eplet-based mismatches (MM) in inducing HS status after failure was examined. Late PRA testing post-failure revealed 18 patients remained NS and 34 patients became HS. African American recipients, ISW at AF, DQB1 eplet MM, and presence of GIS were associated with becoming HS. Presence of total zero eplet MM, zero DQA1/B1 eplet MM, continuation of immunosuppression after failure, and a hyporesponsive immune status characterized by recurrent infections were features of NS patients. DQ eplet MM represents a significant risk for becoming HS after AF. Studies comparing ISW vs. continuation in re-transplant candidates with high baseline DQ eplet MM burden should be performed. This may provide insights if sensitization post-AF can be lessened.

Endocarditis and spondylodiscitis associated with tunneled cuffed hemodialysis catheters: hospitalizations with poor outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis using tunneled cuffed catheters (TCCs) are at increased risk of metastatic infections, namely endocarditis and spondydodiscitis, and mortality is high in this group. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical features, causative organisms, its susceptibility and outcomes in patients hospitalized with these infections from a single center.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with TCC and endocarditis and/or spondylodiscitis treated at the authors' institution between 2005 and 2011 were selected retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 7 cases of endocarditis and 7 cases of spondylodiscitis were diagnosed. Concurrent infection was present in 1 patient. The mean age was 63.4 years, 53.8% were male, 23% had diabetes and 31% had previous immunosuppression. The average time on hemodialysis was 24 months. Those patients with endocarditis presented with fever, and 43% had previous valvular disease; mitral valve involvement was the most common. Early surgery was performed in 2 patients.Concerning spondylodiscitis, the median time from first symptom to diagnosis was 48 days. The first manifestation was back pain in 86% percent of patients, and 71% had an epidural or paraspinous abscess demonstrated by neuroimaging. One patient underwent surgical drainage of the abscess. Regarding both infections, staphylococcus aureus was the most common causative agent with a lower rate of negative blood cultures. All patients received intravenous antibiotics for a mean duration of six weeks. The mortality rate was 46%.

CONCLUSIONS

A high index of suspicion is critical in the early recognition and management of both of these infections.

Prolonged immunosuppression preserves nonsensitization status after kidney transplant failure

BACKGROUND

When kidney transplants fail, transplant medications are discontinued to reduce immunosuppression-related risks. However, retransplant candidates are at risk for allosensitization which prolonging immunosuppression may minimize. We hypothesized that for these patients, a prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal after graft failure preserves nonsensitization status (PRA 0%) better than early immunosuppression withdrawal.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined subjects transplanted at a single center between July 1, 1999 and December 1, 2009 with a non-death-related graft loss. Subjects were stratified by timing of immunosuppression withdrawal after graft loss: early (≤3 months) or prolonged (>3 months). Retransplant candidates were eligible for the main study where the primary outcome was nonsensitization at retransplant evaluation. Non-retransplant candidates were included in the safety analysis only.

RESULTS

We found 102 subjects with non-death-related graft loss of which 49 were eligible for the main study. Nonsensitization rates at retransplant evaluation were 30% and 66% for the early and prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal groups, respectively (P=0.01). After adjusting for cofactors such as blood transfusion and allograft nephrectomy, prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal remained significantly associated with nonsensitization (adjusted odds ratio=5.78, 95% CI [1.37-24.44]). No adverse safety signals were seen in the prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal group compared to the early immunosuppression withdrawal group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that prolonged immunosuppression may be a safe strategy to minimize sensitization in retransplant candidates and provide the basis for larger or prospective studies for further verification.

Fever, infection, and rejection after kidney transplant failure

BACKGROUND

Patients returning to dialysis therapy after renal transplant failure have high morbidity and retransplant rates. After observing frequent hospitalizations with fever after failure, it was hypothesized that maintaining immunosuppression for the failed allograft increases the risk of infection, while weaning immunosuppression can lead to symptomatic rejection mimicking infection.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-six patients with failed kidney transplants were analyzed for rates of hospitalization with fever within 6 months of allograft failure. Patients were stratified by the presence of full immunosuppression versus minimal (low-dose prednisone) or no immunosuppression, before hospital admission. Subsequent rates of documented infection and nephrectomy, as well as patient survival, were ascertained.

RESULTS

Hospitalization with fever within 6 months of allograft failure was common, occurring in 44% of patients overall. However, among febrile hospitalized patients who had been weaned off of immunosuppression before admission, only 38% had documented infection. In contrast, 88% of patients maintained on immunosuppression had documented infection (P<0.001). In both groups, dialysis catheter-related infections were the most common infection source. Allograft nephrectomy was performed in 81% of hospitalized patients with no infection, compared to 30% of patients with documented infection (P<0.001). Mortality risk was significantly higher in patients with concurrent pancreas transplants or who were hospitalized with documented infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance immunosuppression after kidney allograft failure was associated with a greater incidence of infection, while weaning of immunosuppression commonly resulted in symptomatic rejection with fever mimicking infection on presentation. Management of the failed allograft should include planning to avoid both infection and sensitizing events.

Risk of death following kidney allograft failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

BACKGROUND

People with kidney allograft failure represent an increasing fraction of all those starting dialysis therapy. We sought to summarize prognosis following kidney allograft failure and identify potentially beneficial interventions or modifiable risk factors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to 1 October 2013) and article reference lists without language restriction and selected cohort studies of all-cause mortality and fatal infection-related and cardiovascular events in people starting dialysis following kidney allograft failure. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, dialysis modality, transplant nephrectomy, immunosuppression strategy, transplant-naive comparators and risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Forty studies comprising 249 716 participants met the inclusion criteria. The first year of dialysis therapy was associated with the highest mortality. By random effects meta-analysis, annual risk of death, from years 1 to 4, was 0.12 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.09-0.15], 0.06 (95% CI: 0.05-0.07), 0.05 (95% CI: 0.04-0.06) and 0.05 (95% CI: 0.04-0.06), respectively. We found high heterogeneity in each meta-analysis, which remained unexplained by prespecified subgroup analyses. We could not find sufficient information to summarize the risk for fatal infection-related and cardiovascular events, or to test the role of transplant nephrectomy or different immunosuppressive strategies. Risk of bias was high, especially participation bias.

CONCLUSION

Mortality is higher during the first year of dialysis treatment following kidney allograft failure than in subsequent years. Insufficient data are available to assess factors or interventions potentially impacting prognosis following kidney allograft failure. In a culture promoting transplantation, clinical research of different models of care in this growing high-risk population should be a research priority.

Is dialysis modality a factor in the survival of patients initiating dialysis after kidney transplant failure?

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant failure (TF) is among the leading causes of dialysis initiation. Whether survival is similar for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and with hemodialysis (HD) after TF is unclear and may inform decisions concerning dialysis modality selection.

METHODS

Between 1995 and 2007, 16 113 adult dialysis patients identified from the US Renal Data System initiated dialysis after TF. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of initial dialysis modality (1 865 PD, 14 248 HD) on early (1-year) and overall mortality in an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

Compared with HD patients, PD patients were younger (46.1 years vs 49.4 years, p < 0.0001) with fewer comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (23.1% vs 25.7%, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, survival among PD patients was greater within the first year after dialysis initiation [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74 to 0.97], but lower after 2 years (AHR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.29). During the entire period of observation, survival in both groups was similar (AHR for PD compared with HD: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.20). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to a cohort of 1865 propensity-matched pairs of HD and PD patients, results were similar (AHR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.14). Subgroups of patients with a body mass index exceeding 30 kg/m(2) [AHR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.52) and with a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (AHR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.98) experienced inferior overall survival when treated with PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HD, PD is associated with an early survival advantage, inferior late survival, and similar overall survival in patients initiating dialysis after TF. Those data suggest that increased initial use of PD among patients returning to dialysis after TF may be associated with improved outcomes, except among patients with a higher BMI and those who initiate dialysis at lower levels of eGFR. The reasons behind the inferior late survival seen in PD patients are unclear and require further study.

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.

Residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis with failed allograft and minimum immunosuppression

Immunosuppression (IS) is often withdrawn in patients with end stage renal disease secondary to a failed renal allograft, and this can lead to an accelerated loss of residual renal function (RRF). As maintenance of RRF appears to provide a survival benefit to peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, it is not clear whether this benefit of maintaining RRF in failed allograft patients returning to PD outweigh the risks of maintaining IS. A 49 year-old Caucasian male developed progressive allograft failure nine years after living-donor renal transplantation. Hemodialysis was initiated via tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) and IS was gradually withdrawn. Two weeks after IS withdrawal he developed a febrile illness, which necessitate removal of the TDC and conversion to PD. He was maintained on small dose of tacrolimus (1 mg/d) and prednisone (5 mg/d). Currently (1 year later) he is doing exceedingly well on cycler-assisted PD. Residual urine output ranges between 600-1200 mL/d. Total weekly Kt/V achieved 1.82. RRF remained well preserved in this patient with failed renal allograft with minimal immunosuppressive therapy. This strategy will need further study in well-defined cohorts of PD patients with failed allografts and residual RRF to determine efficacy and safety.

Timing of dialysis initiation in transplant-naive and failed transplant patients

Over the past two decades, most guidelines have advocated early initiation of dialysis on the basis of studies showing improved survival in patients starting dialysis early. These recommendations led to an increase in the proportion of patients initiating dialysis with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >10 ml/min/1.73 m(2), from 20% in 1996 to 52% in 2008. During this period, the percentage of patients starting dialysis with an eGFR ≥15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) increased from 4% to 17%. However, recent studies have failed to substantiate a benefit of early dialysis initiation and some data have suggested worse outcomes for patients starting dialysis with a higher eGFR. Several reasons for this seemingly paradoxical observation have been suggested, including the fact that patients requiring early dialysis are likely to have more severe symptoms and comorbidities, leading to confounding by indication, as well as biological mechanisms that causally relate early dialysis therapy to adverse outcomes. Patients with a failing renal allograft who reinitiate dialysis encounter similar problems. However, unique factors associated with a failed allograft means that the optimal timing of dialysis initiation in failed transplant patients might differ from that in transplant-naive patients with chronic kidney disease. In this Review, we discuss studies of dialysis initiation and compare risks and benefits of early versus late initiation and reinitiation of dialysis therapy.

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.

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

The number of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing kidney transplantation - both cadaveric and living-donor - continues to rise. With long-term graft survival relatively fixed, this trend means that increasing numbers of patients are returning to dialysis after graft loss. Most will never be retransplanted, which introduces a host of clinical questions regarding optimal management of this unique patient population. In this paper, we explore data that informs astute care of the patient requiring dialysis after graft loss. We address new data about the increased clinical risk and the optimal dialysis modality in renal allograft loss, explore new approaches to immunosuppression and transfusion management, and examine the risks and benefits of allograft nephrectomy and timing thereof. While there are no randomized clinical trials in this field, rapidly evolving data will aid the clinician whose practice includes patients who have been transplanted and are returning to dialysis.

Transplant nephrectomy

About 10% of all renal allografts fail during the first year of transplantation and thereafter approximately 3%-5% yearly. Given that approximately 69 400 renal transplants are performed worldwide annually, the number of patients returning to dialysis following allograft failure is increasing. A failed transplant kidney, whether maintained by low dose immunosuppression or not, elicits an inflammatory response and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The risk for transplant nephrectomy (TN) is increased in patients who experienced multiple acute rejections prior to graft failure, develop chronic graft intolerance, sepsis, vascular complications and early graft failure. TN for late graft failure is associated with greater morbidity and mortality, bleeding being the leading cause of morbidity and infection the main cause of mortality. TN appears to be beneficial for survival on dialysis but detrimental to the outcome of subsequent transplantation by virtue of increased level of antibodies to mismatched antigens, increased rate of primary non function and delayed graft function. Many of the studies are characterized by a retrospective and univariate analysis of small numbers of patients. The lack of randomization in many studies introduced a selection bias and conclusions drawn from such studies should be applied with caution. Pending a randomised controlled trial on the role of TN in the management of transplant failure patients, it is prudent to remove failed symptomatic allografts and all grafts failing within 3 mo of transplantation, monitor inflammatory markers in patients with retained failed allografts and remove the allograft in the event of a significant increase in levels.

Impact of dialysis modality on survival after kidney transplant failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of patients are returning to dialysis after allograft loss (DAGL). These patients are at a higher mortality risk compared with incident ESRD patients. Among transplant-naïve patients, those treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) enjoy an early survival advantage compared with those treated with hemodialysis (HD), but this advantage is not sustained over time. Whether a similar time-dependent survival advantage exists for PD-treated patients after allograft loss is unclear and may impact dialysis modality selection in these patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We identified 2110 adult patients who initiated dialysis after renal transplant failure between January 1991 and December 2005 from The Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Multivariable regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of initial dialysis modality on early (2 years), late (after 2 years), and overall mortality using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

After adjustment, there was no difference in overall survival between HD- and PD-treated patients (hazard ratio((HD:PD)), 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.31), with similar results seen for both early and late survival. Superior survival was seen in more contemporary cohorts of patients returning to DAGL.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PD compared with HD is associated with similar early and overall survival among patients initiating DAGL. Differences in both patient characteristics and predialysis management between patients returning to DAGL and transplant-naive incident dialysis patients may be responsible for the absence of an early survival advantage with the use of PD in DAGL patients.

Cardiovascular disease in transplant recipients: current and future treatment strategies

A cardiovascular disease event in a transplant recipient may be the result of a pretransplantation disease process, a direct effect of immunosuppressant medications, or the result of exposure to a variety of traditional and nontraditional risk factors after transplantation. Although the understanding of posttransplantation cardiovascular disease remains incomplete, there is evidence that the impact of posttransplantation cardiovascular disease has been decreased, through increased attention to this problem. In the absence of controlled studies to guide therapy, this review summarizes treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors for which there is strong evidence of benefit in the nontransplantation setting, observational evidence of a similar risk in transplant recipients, and evidence that treatment can be safely administered to transplant recipients. Putative risk factors for posttransplantation cardiovascular disease for which the current level of evidence is insufficient to support specific treatment recommendations are also discussed. Potential new strategies to decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease events after transplantation in the future, including aggressive pretransplantation risk reduction, individualized treatments to prevent different types of cardiovascular disease, dedicated efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease events during transitions between dialysis and transplantation, and manipulation of immunosuppressant protocols, are also introduced.