Preemptive Living-Donor Renal Transplantation: Outcome and Clinical Advantages

Strategies to address perceived barriers to timely kidney transplantation in the Netherlands: A qualitative study from a stakeholders' perspective

Objective

We present strategies to perceived barriers to access to kidney transplantation (KT) in the Netherlands.

Methods

This qualitative study (N = 70) includes nephrologists, social workers, surgeons, nurses, patients, former living kidney donors, policy employees, and insurance representatives. Interviews were conducted both in focus groups and individually and coded with NVivo.

Results

Participants proposed strategies within five domains. 1.Policy: Making KT guideline more visible. 2.Medical: Increase access and transparency to KT medical eligibility criteria (e.g., age, BMI) for patients and healthcare providers. 3.Psychological: Support patients who continue to use dialysis because of social interaction opportunities associated with dialysis settings to find such interaction elsewhere. Link kidney patients with fears for KT to experienced experts or trained professionals. 4.Social: Support patients with language barriers with interpreters and visual explanations. Support patients using social media, e.g. Facebook, to identify potential donors. Better expectation management to reduce reports of inadequate aftercare for living donors. 5.Economical: Solving negative economic incentives for KT by changing incentives.

Conclusion

Stakeholders see strategies for barriers in the entire care pathway.

Innovation

This large qualitative study gives an important overview which strategies stakeholders see improving access to KT. Some strategies offer opportunities to solve barriers in the short-term.

What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Opting for a preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) can help avoid costs and morbidity associated with dialysis. However, while multiple studies have shown clinical benefits of PKT, other studies have not demonstrated this, leading to controversy in the literature regarding the exact benefits of PKT. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation (nPKT) in adult patients. Multiple databases were searched up to May 4, 2022. Independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Eighty-seven studies including 859,715 adult kidney transplant patients were included the review. The risk of patient death (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.60-0.91]) was significantly lower in PKT versus nPKT patients for living donor (LD) transplants, whereas the risk of overall graft loss was significantly lower in PKT compared to nPKT patients for both LD (0.72 [0.62-0.83]) as well as deceased donor (DD) transplants (0.80 [0.69-0.92]). The evidence suggests that LD PKT patients have a lower risk of patient death and graft loss compared to nPKT patients, and DD PKT patients have a lower risk of graft loss than nPKT patients.

Factors to consider during anesthesia in patients undergoing preemptive kidney transplantation: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

International guidelines have recommended preemptive kidney transplantation (KT) as the preferred approach, advocating for transplantation before the initiation of dialysis. This approach is advantageous for graft and patient survival by avoiding dialysis-related complications. However, recipients of preemptive KT may undergo anesthesia without the opportunity to optimize volume status or correct metabolic disturbances associated with end-stage renal disease. In these regard, we aimed to investigate the anesthetic events that occur more frequently during preemptive KT compared to nonpreemptive KT.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study. Of the 672 patients who underwent Living donor KT (LDKT), 388 of 519 who underwent nonpreemptive KT were matched with 153 of 153 who underwent preemptive KT using propensity score based on preoperative covariates. The primary outcome was intraoperative hypotension defined as area under the threshold (AUT), with a threshold set at a mean arterial blood pressure below 70 mmHg. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative metabolic acidosis estimated by base excess and serum bicarbonate, electrolyte imbalance, the use of inotropes or vasopressors, intraoperative transfusion, immediate graft function evaluated by the nadir creatinine, and re-operation due to bleeding.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, we analyzed 388 and 153 patients in non-preemptive and preemptive groups. The multivariable analysis revealed the AUT of the preemptive group to be significantly greater than that of the nonpreemptive group (mean ± standard deviation, 29.7 ± 61.5 and 14.5 ± 37.7, respectively, P = 0.007). Metabolic acidosis was more severe in the preemptive group compared to the nonpreemptive group. The differences in the nadir creatinine value and times to nadir creatinine were statistically significant, but clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative hypotension and metabolic acidosis occurred more frequently in the preemptive group during LDKT. These findings highlight the need for anesthesiologists to be prepared and vigilant in managing these events during surgery.

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: Access, fate, and review of the status in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation (PLDKT) is recommended as the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease.

AIM

To assess the rate of PLDKT among patients who accessed KT in our center and review the status of PLDKT in Egypt.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the patients who accessed KT in our center from November 2015 to November 2022. In addition, the PLDKT status in Egypt was reviewed relative to the literature.

RESULTS

Of the 304 patients who accessed KT, 32 patients (10.5%) had preemptive access to KT (PAKT). The means of age and estimated glomerular filtration rate were 31.7 ± 13 years and 12.8 ± 3.5 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. Fifty-nine patients had KT, including 3 PLDKTs only (5.1% of total KTs and 9.4% of PAKT). Twenty-nine patients (90.6%) failed to receive PLDKT due to donor unavailability (25%), exclusion (28.6%), regression from donation (3.6%), and patient regression on starting dialysis (39.3%). In multivariate analysis, known primary kidney disease (P = 0.002), patient age (P = 0.031) and sex (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of achievement of KT in our center. However, PAKT was not significantly (P = 0.065) associated with the achievement of KT. Review of the literature revealed lower rates of PLDKT in Egypt than those in the literature.

CONCLUSION

Patient age, sex, and primary kidney disease are independent predictors of achieving living donor KT. Despite its non-significant effect, PAKT may enhance the low rates of PLDKT. The main causes of non-achievement of PLDKT were patient regression on starting regular dialysis and donor unavailability or exclusion.

Early Referral, Living Donation, and Preemptive Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

Preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) is recognized as the most beneficial and cost-effective form of renal replacement therapy among patients with end-stage renal disease. Despite optimal outcomes and improved quality of life associated with PKT, its use as a first renal replacement therapy remains low among patients with end-stage renal disease. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to compare, among adult kidney transplant recipients, characteristics across PKT status.

METHODS

We compared the characteristics of patients who did and did not have a PKT over 5 years, from 2010 to 2014, using the electronic health records of Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States.

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients received a kidney-alone transplant, and, of these, 44 patients (19%) were PKT and 189 patients (81%) were non-PKT. Of the patients in the PKT group, 43% received a kidney from a deceased donor. PKT recipients were more often White, had polycystic kidney disease or glomerulonephritis, received a living donor organ, and were transplanted at certain transplant centers. Estimated glomerular filtration rate on listing for those who received a deceased donor transplant was higher in PKT than non-PKT patients listed pre-dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

PKT was associated with having a living kidney donor and with having a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate at listing for deceased donor recipients.

Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities: An ethical, legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view

Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease (ESRD), enhancing patient and graft survival. Pre-emptive LDKT, prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), provides further advantages, due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance. There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT. Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes, which varies based on socio-economic standards. National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes. Focus on other programme’s components, including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT, can also hamper uptake. LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient, which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation. Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral. Equitable access for varying population groups, without socio-economic bias, also requires prioritisation. Cultural barriers, including religious influence, also need consideration in developing successful outcomes. In addition, the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised, and opportunities provided to potential donors, to ensure timely and safe work-up processes. Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake. Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group. We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success. Education regarding pre-emptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD, appropriate for the patient’s cultural needs and physical status. Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients, with the potential to occur within successful service delivery. To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm, investment in infrastructure, increased awareness, and donor and recipient support is required.

Perioperative Comparison of Preemptive and Non-Preemptive Renal Transplant Recipients

Objective

Preemptive transplantation cannot be performed for all patients because of the limited number of donors. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative effects of dialysis before renal transplantation.

Methods

In this study, we retrospectively investigated 666 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at our centre. We divided patients into two groups: patients with pre-transplant dialysis (67.3%, n=448) and patients with preemptive transplant (32.7%, n=218). We carried out preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative comparisons between groups.

Results

No difference was observed in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion, crystalloid and colloid requirement, inotropic-vasopressor agent administration and hemodynamic parameters between the patients with pre-transplant dialysis and preemptive transplant. It was observed that dialysis requirement, delayed graft function and acute rejection development were significantly higher during the postoperative period in patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. In patients with non-preemptive transplant, the decrease of serum creatinine levels at the first postoperative month was more prominent when compared to patients with preemptive transplant; however, that difference disappeared in the first year follow-up. No significant difference was found for serum albumin levels and proteinuria alterations of the patients in long-term follow-up. Additionally, patient and graft survival comparisons between patients with non-preemptive and preemptive transplant on three-year follow-up revealed no significant difference.

Conclusion

We think that preemptive transplantation treatment is a better option for patients with end-stage renal failure since patients with preemptive transplantation appear to have less metabolic function impairment, complication risk and more successful outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Factors influencing access to kidney transplantation: a research protocol of a qualitative study on stakeholders' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Unequal access to kidney transplantation is suggested, but no systematic inventory exists about factors influencing access to kidney transplantation. There is an absence of any research that has combined stakeholder perspectives along the complete trajectory of transplantation. The present qualitative study explores the contributing factors from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in this trajectory, including patients, health professionals and health insurance and financial representatives in the Netherlands. Moreover, stakeholders will be invited to suggesting strategies and solutions for handling the facilitating and hindering factors found. By means of interaction, stakeholder groups will arrive at a consensus for new policymaking in the field of a Dutch transplantation care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The different stakeholders' perspectives and possible solutions will be explored by interviewing in three phases. In the first phase, stakeholders' group perspectives will be explored with individual interviews and focus group interviews without confrontation of views from other perspectives. In the second phase of focus group interviewing, perspectives will be confronted with the other stakeholders' perspectives assessed. Finally, in the third phase, stakeholders will be invited to focus group discussions for suggesting solutions to overcome barriers and promote facilitators for improving access to transplantation. Approximately, groups from six to twelve participants per focus group and four to maximal six focus groups will be held per stakeholder, depending on the level of saturation, as prescribed by grounded theory. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and qualitative data will be analysed according to the principles of grounded theory supported by using NVivo software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Preemptive Transplant and Transplant After a Short Period of Dialysis in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Propensity-Score-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND The permissible extent of pretransplant dialysis for patient and allograft survival is unclear. We assumed that a short period of dialysis before living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) will show the similar results as preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT). MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of LDKT according to pretransplant dialysis duration in both unmatched cohorts (n=1984) and propensity-score-matched cohorts (n=986) cohorts. The primary study endpoint was post-transplantation patient survival and death-censored graft survival (DCGS) according to the duration of pretransplant dialysis by 19 months which was the best cutoff value to differentiate clinical outcomes with the use of the time-dependent area under the curve. RESULTS Of 1984 patients with LDKT at our center between January 2005 and September 2016, PKT was performed in 429 patients. The durations of pretransplant dialysis were <19 months in 962 recipients and ≥19 months in 593 recipients. There was no significant difference in mortality and DCGS between PKT and non-PKT recipients with pretransplant dialysis of <19 months. Patient survival (P=0.024) and DCGS (P=0.001) were worse in non-PKT recipients with pretransplant dialysis of ≥19 months. In the matched cohort, DCGS was significantly lower in non-PKT recipients with pretransplant dialysis of ≥19 months (P=0.037). It is likely that the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection was higher in this group (P=0.083). CONCLUSIONS Patient survival and DCGS were worse when the pretransplant dialysis duration was ³19 months in a propensity-score-matched LDKT cohort.

Use of Intraoperative Duplex Ultrasound and Resistance Index Reduces Complications in Living Renal Donor Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The treatment of choice in end-stage renal disease is transplantation. Hemodynamic disturbances can evoke graft loss, while early ultrasound identification of vascular problems improves outcome. The aim of this study was to identify differences in postoperative complications with and without systematic intraoperative Doppler ultrasound use.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the postoperative rate of complications and the secondary aim was to find a predictive resistance index cut-off value, which would show where surgical reintervention was necessary. Over a 10-year period, 108 renal transplants were performed from living donors at our institution. In group 1 (n = 67), intraoperative duplex ultrasound and intraparenchymatous resistance index measurements assessed patients, while in group 2 (n = 41), no ultrasound was performed.

RESULTS

There were no intergroup differences in the overall postoperative complication rate or in benefit to graft or patient survival with Doppler use. However, significantly more vascular complications (10% vs 0%, P = .02) and more acute rejections (37% vs 10%) occurred in group 2 than in group 1. Therefore, an intraoperative cut-off value of the resistance index 0.5 was proposed to justify immediate surgical revision.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report demonstrating benefits of systematic intraoperative Doppler ultrasound on postoperative complications in renal transplantation from living donors. Our results support surgical revision with a resistance index <0.5.

Recurrence of IgA nephropathy after kidney transplantation in steroid continuation versus early steroid-withdrawal regimens: a retrospective analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database

In the past 20 years, there has been an increase in use of steroid-withdrawal regimens in kidney transplantation. However, steroid withdrawal may be associated with an increased risk of recurrent IgA nephropathy (IgAN). Using United Network of (Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) UNOS/OPTN data, we analyzed adult patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to IgAN who received their first kidney transplant between 2000 and 2014. For the primary outcome, we used a competing risk analysis to compare the cumulative incidence of graft loss due to IgAN recurrence between early steroid-withdrawal (ESW) and steroid continuation groups. The secondary outcomes were patient survival and death-censored graft survival (DCGS). A total of 9690 recipients were included (2831 in ESW group and 6859 in steroid continuation group). In total, 1238 recipients experienced graft loss, of which 191 (15.43%) were due to IgAN recurrence. In multivariable analysis, steroid use was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.666, 95% CI 0.482-0.921; P = 0.014). Patient survival and DCGS were not different between the two groups. In the USA, ESW in transplant for ESRD due to IgAN is associated with a higher risk of graft loss due to disease recurrence. Future prospective studies are warranted to further address which patients with IgAN would benefit from steroid continuation.

Value of dynamic MRI using the Ktrans technique for assessment of native kidneys in pre-emptive renal transplantation

Background Different non-invasive imaging techniques such as Doppler ultrasonography and renal scintigraphy are commonly employed to assess allograft function and associated complications. However, all such methods lack sufficient specificity to discriminate between residual renal function of native kidneys. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) evaluates signal dynamics during the passage of contrast material through the renal cortex, medulla, and collecting system. Purpose To investigate the value of DCE 3T MRI using a quantitative pharmacokinetic parameter (Ktrans) for the assessment of native kidneys before and after pre-emptive renal transplantation. Material and Methods Twenty-five consecutive patients with end-stage renal disease underwent DCE MRI before and 6 months after kidney transplantation. MRI was performed using a 3T scanner. Regions of interests were drawn over each kidney, encompassing the cortex and medulla but excluding the collecting system and any coexisting cysts. Parametric Ktrans values were automatically generated. Results In the pre-transplantation group, mean Ktrans values for the right and left kidneys were 0.55 ± 0.09 min^-1 and 0.44 ± 0.15 min^-1, respectively. In the post-transplantation group, mean Ktrans values of the right and left kidneys were 0.27 ± 0.07 min^-1 and 0.25 ± 0.10 min^-1, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between right and left kidneys in terms of mean Ktrans values in the pre- and post-transplantation groups ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Our preliminary results show that native kidneys were still functioning 6 months after transplantation. MR perfusion using Ktrans may constitute a non-invasive means of determination of the viability of native kidneys after renal transplantation.

Impact of Donor Source on the Outcome of Live Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Renal transplantation is the ideal method for management of end-stage renal disease. The use of living donors for renal transplantation was critical for early development in the field and preceded the use of cadaveric donors. Most donors are related genetically to the recipients, like a parent, a child, or a sibling of the recipient, but there are an increasing percentage of cases where donors are genetically unrelated like spouses, friends, or altruistic individuals. Donor shortages constitute the major barrier for kidney transplantation, and much effort has been made to increase the supply of living donors. The impact of donor source on the outcome of renal transplantation is not adequately studied in our country.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of donor source on the outcome of live donor kidney transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From March 1976 to December 2013, the number of patients that underwent living renal transplantation sharing at least one HLA haplotype with their donors was 2,485. We divided these patients into two groups: (1) 2,075 kidney transplant recipients (1,554 or 74.9% male and 521 or 25.1% female) for whom the donors were living related, (2) 410 kidney transplant recipients (297 or 72.4% male and 113 or 27.6% female) for whom the donors were living unrelated. All patients received immunosuppressive therapy, consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor, mycophenolate mofetil, or azathioprine and prednisolone. We compared acute rejection and complication rates, as well as long-term graft and patient survival of both groups. Demographic characteristics were compared using the chi-square test. Graft survival and patient survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The percentages of patients with acute vascular rejection were significantly higher in the unrelated group, while percentages of patients with no rejection were significantly higher in the related group, but there were no significant differences regarding patient and graft survivals between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplant recipients who received their grafts either from live related donors or live unrelated donors had comparable patient and graft survival outcomes.

Pathophysiologic and treatment strategies for cardiovascular disease in end-stage renal disease and kidney transplantations

The inextricable link between the heart and the kidneys predestines that significant cardiovascular disease ensues in the face of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). As a point of fact, the leading cause of mortality of patients on dialysis is still from cardiovascular etiologies, albeit differing in particular types of disease from the general population. For example, sudden cardiac death outnumbers coronary artery disease in patients with ESRD, which is the reverse for the general population. In this review, we will focus on the pathophysiology and treatment options of important traditional and nontraditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease in ESRD patients such as hypertension, anemia, vascular calcification, hyperparathyroidism, uremia, and oxidative stress. The evidence of erythropoietin-stimulating agents, phosphate binders, calcimimetics, and dialysis modalities will be presented. We will then discuss how these risk factors may be changed and perhaps exacerbated after renal transplantation. This is largely due to the immunosuppressive agents that are both crucial yet potentially detrimental in the posttransplant state. Calcineurin inhibitors, corticosteroids, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, the mainstay of transplant immunosuppression, are all known to increase the risks of developing new onset diabetes as well as the metabolic syndrome. Thus, we need to carefully negotiate between patients' cardiovascular profile and their risks of rejection. Finally, we end by considering strategies by which we may minimize cardiovascular disease in the transplant population, as this modality still confers the highest chance of survival in patients with ESRD.

Does pre-emptive transplantation versus post start of dialysis transplantation with a kidney from a living donor improve outcomes after transplantation? A systematic literature review and position statement by the Descartes Working Group and ERBP

This position statement brings up guidance on pre-emptive kidney transplantation from living donors. The provided guidance is based on a systematic review of the literature.

Comparison of preemptive kidney transplant recipients with nonpreemptive kidney recipients in single center: 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

For suitable patients with end-stage renal disease, kidney transplantation (KT) is the best renal replacement therapy, resulting in lower morbidity and mortality rates and improved quality of life. Preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) is defined as transplantation performed before initiation of maintenance dialysis and reported to be associated with superior outcomes of graft and patient survival. In our study, we aimed to compare the 5-year outcomes of PKT and nonpreemptive kidney transplantation (NPKT) patients who received KT in our center, to define the differences according to complications, comorbidities, adverse effects, clinical symptoms, periodical laboratory parameters, rejection episodes, graft, and patient survival.

METHODS

One hundred kidney transplantation (37 PKT, 63 NPKT) recipients were included in our study. All patients were evaluated for adverse effects, complications, comorbidities, clinical symptoms, monthly laboratory parameters, acute rejection episodes, graft, and patient survival.

RESULTS

Acute rejection episodes were found to be significantly correlated with graft loss in both groups (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). Hypertension after transplantation was diagnosed by ambulatory blood pressure measurement in 74 of 100 patients. Twenty-five of 37 (67.6%) of Group 1 (PKT) recipients had hypertension while 54 of 63 (85.4%) of Group 2 (NPKT) had hypertension. The incidence of hypertension between two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.03), but this finding was not correlated to graft survival (P = 0.07). Some patients had serious infections, requiring hospitalization, and were treated immediately. Infection rates between the two groups were 10.8% for Group 1 patients and 31.7% for Group 2 patients and were statistically significant (P = 0.02). Infection, requiring hospitalization, was found to be statistically correlated to graft loss in only NPKT patients (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

While the comparison of PKT and graft and patient survival with NPKT is poorer than we expected, lower morbidity rates of hypertension and infection are similar with recent data. Avoidance of dialysis-associated comorbidities, diminished immune response, and cardiovascular complications are the main benefits of PKT.

Patient and graft survival after pre-emptive versus non-pre-emptive kidney transplantation: a single-center experience from Turkey

OBJECTIVE

We sought to report the graft and patients survival of pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive kidney transplantations performed in our center.

METHODS

The 859 subjects showed a mean age of 36.1 years and included 64.6%; males, who received grafts from living (n = 665) or deceased (n = 194) donors between January 2008 and June 2011. We reviewed their medical records retrospectively, to separately pre-emptive versus non-pre-emptive recipients for year transplant outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 859 patients, 153 (17.8%) underwent pre-emptive and 706 (82.2%), non-pre-emptive kidney transplantations. The rate of living donors was higher in the pre-emptive group (97.4% vs 73%, respectively). The 1-year graft survivals were 99.3% and 95.8% in pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive transplantation groups, respectively (P > .05). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to patient survival at 1 year (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, graft and patient survival rates between pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive kidney transplantation cases were comparable at 1 year. Pre-emptive kidney transplantation, which eliminates hemodialysis costs and complications, should be preferred as the optimal renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: experience in two centers

INTRODUCTION

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a prevalent, important cause of death. Transplantation increases survival and improves the quality of life of patients with ESRD while long-term dialysis is related to poor outcomes even among patients who undergo subsequent transplantations.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the advantages of preemptive procedures with kidney transplants among patients on renal replacement therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed in two Córdoba city transplantation centers. Patients were divided into three groups: preemptive kidney transplant (PKT), patients on hemodialysis who received living donor kidney transplants (LDT), and subjects who received grafts from deceased donors (DDT). Serum creatinine, delayed graft function (DGF), subclinical rejection, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) were evaluated at 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included: PKT (n = 28), LDT (n = 27), DDT (n = 25) mean age 29, 30, and 35 years, respectively. Women predominated among PKT and men in the other groups. In all groups, cyclosporine was the calcineurin inhibitor mostly used. Creatinine at 6 months was lower in the living donor groups (1.26 mg/dL PKT and 1.32 mg/dL LDT; P = NS) in relation to the deceased donor group (1.96 mg/dL; P < .05). DDT had the highest rate of DGF: 44% DDT versus 11.5% LDT vs 0% PKT (P < .05). Subclinical rejection was significantly lower among preemptive transplantations: PKT 7.6% versus LDT 18.5% versus DDT 24% (P < .05). IF/TA was higher in transplants from deceased donors: PKT 11.1%; LDT 11.5%; DDT 32%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive kidney transplantation offered the advantages of a lower creatinine, no DGF, as well as a reduced incidence of subclinical rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy at 6 months posttransplantation.

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.

Clinical outcome of preemptive kidney transplantation in patients with diabetes mellitus

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) caused by diabetic nephropathy is increasing throughout the world. The survival of diabetic patients treated by transplantation has improved nowadays. Although recent studies have demonstrated preemptive kidney transplantation to be associated with better graft survival in CKD patients, the effect of pre-transplantation dialysis on graft outcomes among diabetic ESRD patients is unclear. This analysis summarized our experience with preemptive kidney transplantation in diabetic ESRD patients by retrospectively comparing 70 such patients transplanted between 1995 and 2009. These 70 patients were divided into two groups: 30 patients underwent preemptive and the other 40 transplantation after maintenance hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. We compared graft survivals, acute rejection episodes, postoperative complications, and delayed graft function rates. The 10-year patient survival of 100% in the preemptive group was similar to that of the nonpreemptive group (85%, P = .11). But the 10 year graft survival was higher among the preemptive than the nonpreemptive group (100% vs 75%, P = .02). Pre-transplantation modality did not affect graft survival. Therefore, preemptive kidney transplantation should be applied to eligible patients with diabetic ESRD.

Preemptive transplantation and the transplant first initiative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) is the focus of a new initiative, 'Transplant First'. This initiative focuses on increasing patient transition to transplantation prior to the need for dialysis. This review will evaluate the benefits of PKT and means to accomplish this goal.

RECENT FINDINGS

Outcomes data show PKT significantly improves long-term survival for the recipient and the allograft. In addition quality of life is improved. This also holds true for children and particularly for adolescents. In 2008, 5.7% of incident patients with end-stage renal disease were placed on the waiting list before beginning dialysis and 0.8% underwent preemptive living donor transplant before wait listing. If patients are evaluated before starting dialysis and are acceptable candidates, up to 40% will receive a preemptive transplant. Recent articles stress that patients want information from their physician; important impediments to PKT remain provider and patient education, insurance coverage and patient reluctance to ask for living donation.

SUMMARY

Preemptive transplant saves lives. Increased education focused on providers, patients and entire communities is key, as is an increase in living donation. Furthermore, to maximize the impact of transplant first, increased living donor protections and immunosuppression coverage for the life of the allograft are essential.