Review: Management of patients with kidney allograft failure

Dialysis after kidney transplant failure: how to deal with this daunting task?

The best treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation, which, if successful provides both a reduction in mortality and a better quality of life compared to dialysis. Although there has been significant improvement in short-term outcomes after kidney transplantation, long-term graft survival still remains insufficient. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who need dialysis again after kidney transplant failure, and increasingly contribute to kidney transplant waiting lists. Starting dialysis after graft failure is a difficult task not only for the patients, but also for the nephrologists and the care team. Furthermore, recommendations for management of dialysis after kidney graft loss are lacking. Aim of this narrative review is to provide a perspective on the role of dialysis in the management of patients with failed kidney allograft. Although numerous studies have reported higher mortality in patients undergoing dialysis following kidney allograft failure, reports are contrasting. A patient-centered, individualized approach should drive the choices of initiating dialysis, dialysis modality, maintenance of immunosuppressive drugs and vascular access.

Revisiting maintenance immunosuppression in patients with renal transplant failure: early weaning of immunosuppression versus prolonged maintenance-systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prolonged immunosuppression after dialysis start has been assumed to reduce sensitization, need for graft nephrectomy, and to favor re-transplantation. In contrast, immunosuppression is considered to increase the risk of mortality, infection, and malignancy. We aimed to assess the evidence regarding superiority of early or late withdrawal of maintenance immunosuppression post renal transplant failure.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, WOS, Ovid, and Scopus databases was conducted. Combined relative risks, (RRs), mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1187 patients with kidney transplant failure were included. No difference could be detected between patients with early withdrawal of  immunosuppressive drugs (≤ 3 months) or prolonged immunosuppressive treatment (> 3 months) regarding mortality (95% CI 0.91-2.28), panel reactive antibodies (PRAs) (95% CI - 0.75-30.10), re-transplantation rate (95% CI 0.55-1.35), infectious episodes (95% CI 0.67, 1.17), cancer (95% CI 0.26-1.54), and graft nephrectomy (95% CI 0.82-1.63). Similarly, no difference was found between immunosuppressive drug withdrawal over < 6 or ≥ 6 months regarding mortality (95% CI 0.16, 2.89), re-transplantation rate (95% CI 0.85-1.55), cancer (95% CI 0.37-1.63), and allograft nephrectomy (95% CI 0.87-4.33).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged maintenance immunosuppression post kidney transplant failure is not associated with increased risk of mortality, infection, or malignancy, or reduced risk of sensitization or allograft nephrectomy compared with early withdrawal.

Can We Predict Graft Intolerance Syndrome After Kidney Transplant Failure? External Validation of a Previously Developed Model

Previously we established a prediction model for graft intolerance syndrome requiring graft nephrectomy in patients with late kidney graft failure. The aim of this study is to determine generalizability of this model in an independent cohort. The validation cohort included patients with late kidney graft failure between 2008 and 2018. Primary outcome is the prognostic performance of our model, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), in the validation cohort. In 63 of 580 patients (10.9%) a graft nephrectomy was performed because of graft intolerance. The original model, which included donor age, graft survival and number of acute rejections, performed poorly in the validation cohort (ROC-AUC 0.61). After retraining of the model using recipient age at graft failure instead of donor age, the model had an average ROC-AUC of 0.70 in the original cohort and of 0.69 in the validation cohort. Our original model did not accurately predict the graft intolerance syndrome in a validation cohort. However, a retrained model including recipient age at graft failure instead of donor age performed moderately well in both the development and validation cohort enabling identification of patients with the highest and lowest risk of graft intolerance syndrome.

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.

Transplant Nephrectomy: Current Concepts

Kidney transplantation is the gold standard treatment option for patients with endstage kidney disease. As the number of waitlisted patients increases, the gap between supply and demand for suitable donor kidneys keeps widening. The adoption of novel strategies that expand the donor pool has attenuated this issue to a certain degree, and this has led to a progressive increase in the number of annual transplants performed. As transplanted kidneys have a finite lifespan, there is a reciprocal rise in the number of patients who return to dialysis once their allograft fails. The clinicians involved in the management of such patients are left with the problem of managing the nonfunctioning allograft. The decision to undertake transplant nephrectomy (TN) in these patients is not straightforward. Allograft nephrectomy is a procedure that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It will have implications for the outcomes of the subsequent transplant. In this review, we aimed to compressively discuss the indications, techniques, and outcomes of TN, which is an integral component of the management of a failing allograft.

Improving Outcomes after Allograft Nephrectomy through Use of Preoperative Angiographic Kidney Embolization

BACKGROUND

Allograft nephrectomy (AN) has been associated with considerable perioperative morbidity. We aimed to determine if preoperative angiographic kidney embolization (PAKE) to induce graft thrombosis before AN improves outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed adult kidney transplant alone patients who underwent AN at a single center from 2002 to 2020 and compared perioperative outcomes for patients with and without PAKE.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent AN, including 54 (67.5%) with PAKE before AN and 26 (32.5%) with AN alone. PAKE was associated with significantly reduced blood loss (PAKE: mean 266 ± 292 mL vs AN alone: 495 ± 689 mL; p = 0.04) and reduced transfusion requirements (PAKE: mean 0.5 ± 0.8 packed red blood cell units vs AN alone: 1.6 ± 2.6 units; p = 0.004) despite similar preoperative hemoglobin levels. Mean operating time (PAKE: 142 ± 43 minutes vs AN alone: 202 ± 111 minutes; p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (PAKE: 4.3 ± 2.0 days vs AN alone: 9.3 ± 9.4 days; p = 0.0003) also favored PAKE, as did the surgical complication rate (PAKE: 6/54 [11%] vs AN alone: 9/26 [35%], p = 0.02). Long-term patient survival after AN was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PAKE was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions, reduced operating time, shorter length of stay, and fewer surgical complications compared with AN alone at our center.

"Together We Stand": A Pilot Study Exploring the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effects of a Family-Based Psychoeducational Intervention for Patients on Hemodialysis and Their Family Caregivers

This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of a family-based psychoeducational intervention for patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) and their family members. This was a single-group (six dyads), six-week, pre–post pilot study, delivered in a multifamily group format. Feasibility was based on screening, eligibility, content, retention, completion, and intervention adherence rates. Acceptability was assessed at post-intervention through a focus group interview. Self-reported anxiety and depression and patients’ inter-dialytic weight gain (IDWG) were also measured. The screening (93.5%), retention (85.7%), and completion (100%) rates were satisfactory, whereas eligibility (22.8%), consent (18.4%), and intervention adherence (range: 16.7–50%) rates were the most critical. Findings showed that participants appreciated the intervention and perceived several educational and emotional benefits. The results from the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test showed that a significant decrease in anxiety symptoms (p = 0.025, r = 0.646) was found, which was followed by medium to large within-group effect sizes for changes in depression symptoms (p = 0.261, r = 0.325) and patients’ IDWG (p = 0.248, r = 0.472), respectively. Overall, the results indicated that this family-based psychoeducational intervention is likely to be feasible, acceptable, and effective for patients undergoing HD and their family caregivers; nonetheless, further considerations are needed on how to make the intervention more practical and easily implemented in routine dialysis care before proceeding to large-scale trials.

Changes in cancer incidence and outcomes among kidney transplant recipients in the United States over a thirty-year period

Recipients of kidney transplants have elevated cancer risk compared with the general population. Improvements over time in transplant care and cancer treatment may have affected incidence and outcomes of cancer among recipients of kidney transplant. To evaluate this, we used linked United States transplant and cancer registry data to study 101,014 adult recipients of kidney transplants over three decades (1987-1996, 1997-2006, 2007-2016). Poisson regression was used to assess trends in incidence for cancer overall and seven common cancers. Associations of cancer with risk of death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and death with functioning graft (DWFG) were evaluated with Cox regression. We also estimated absolute risks of DCGF and graft failure following cancer for recipients transplanted in 2007-2016. There was no significant change in the incidence of cancer overall or for six common cancers in recipients across the 1987-2016 period. Only the incidence of prostate cancer significantly decreased across this period after multivariate adjustment. Among recipients of kidney transplants with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, there were significant declines over time in elevated risks for DCGF and DWFG but no significant changes for other combined cancers. For recipients transplanted in the most recent period (2007-2016), risks following cancer diagnosis remained high, with 38% experiencing DWFG and 14% graft failure within four years of diagnosis. Absolute risk of DWFG was especially high following lung cancer (78%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (38%), melanoma (35%), and colorectal cancer (49%). Thus, across a 30-year period in the United States, there was no overall change in cancer incidence among recipients of kidney transplants. Despite improvements for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, cancer remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality.

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.

Long-term outcomes after kidney transplant failure and variables related to risk of death and probability of retransplant: Results from a single-center cohort study in Brazil

Background

Returning to dialysis after kidney graft loss (GL) is associated with a high risk of mortality, mainly in the first 3–6 months. The follow-up of patients with GL should be extended to better understand crude patient outcomes, mainly in emerging countries, where the transplantation activity has increased.

Methods

This is a historical single-center cohort study conducted in an emerging country (Brazil) that included 115 transplant patients with kidney allograft failure who were followed for 44.1 (21.4; 72.6) months after GL. The outcomes were death or retransplantation after GL calculated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Proportional hazard ratios for death and retransplantation were assessed by Cox regression.

Results

The 5-year probability of retransplantation was 38.7% (95% CI: 26.1%-51.2%) and that of death was 37.7% (95% CI: 24.9%-50.5%); OR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.71–1.70) and P = 0.66. The likelihood of retransplantation was higher in patients who resumed dialysis with higher levels of hemoglobin (HR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.04–1.43; P = 0.01) and lower in blood type O patients (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.25–0.93; P = 0.03), which was associated with a lower frequency of retransplantation with a subsequent living-donor kidney. On the other hand, the risk of death was significantly associated with Charlson comorbidity index (HR for each point = 1.37; 95% CI 1.19–1.50; P<0.001), and residual eGFR at the time when patients had resumed to dialysis (HR for each mL = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.05–1.25; P = 0.002). The trend toward a lower risk of death when patients had resumed to dialysis using AV fistula access was observed (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.25–1.02; P = 0.06), while a higher risk seems to be associated with the number of previous engraftment (HR = 2.01; 95% CI 0.99–4.07; P = 0.05).

Conclusions

The 5-year probability of retransplantation was not less than that of death. Variables related to the probability of retransplantation were hemoglobin level before resuming dialysis and ABO blood type, while the risk of death was associated with comorbidities and residual eGFR.

Management of Immunosuppression After Kidney Transplant Failure: Effect on Patient Sensitization

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive treatment is often interrupted in the first months following kidney transplant failure (KTF) to limit side effects. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of prolonged treatment (PT) of more than 3 months' duration after KTF on HLA sensitization and treatment tolerance.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study involving 119 patients with KTF in 3 French kidney transplant centers between June 2007 and June 2017. Sensitization was defined as the development of HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA).

RESULTS

In the PT group receiving calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) treatment, 30 of 52 patients (57.7%) were sensitized vs 52 of 67 patients (77.6%) who had early cessation of treatment (P = .02). The results were confirmed by multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.16; 0.98], P = .04). The development of de novo DSAs after CNI treatment (n = 63/90 [70.0%]) was significantly more frequent than during CNI treatment, (n = 18/52 [34.6%], P = .01). Panel-reactive antibody ≥85% was lower in the PT group in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.10; 0.78], P = .02). No differences in the rates of infection, cardiovascular complications, neoplasia, and deaths were observed between the 2 groups. In multivariate analysis, continuation of corticosteroid treatment had no influence on sensitization but was associated with a higher rate of infection (OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.09; 6.46], P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Maintenance of CNI treatment after return to dialysis in patients requesting a repeat transplant could avoid the development of anti-HLA sensitization with a good tolerance.

Management of patients with a failed kidney transplant: what should we do?

The number of kidney transplant recipients returning to dialysis after graft failure is steadily increasing over time. Patients with a failed kidney transplant have been shown to have a significant increase in mortality compared with patients with a functioning graft or patients initiating dialysis for the first time. Moreover, the risk for infectious complications, cardiovascular disease and malignancy is greater than in the dialysis population due to the frequent maintenance of low-dose immunosuppression, which is required to reduce the risk of allosensitization, particularly in patients with the prospect of retransplantation from a living donor. The management of these patients present several controversial opinions and clinical guidelines are lacking. This article aims to review the leading evidence on the main issues in the management of patients with failed transplant, including the ideal timing and modality of dialysis reinitiation, the indications for an allograft nephrectomy or the correct management of immunosuppression during graft failure. In summary, retransplantation is a feasible option that should be considered in patients with graft failure and may help to minimize the morbidity and mortality risk associated with dialysis reinitiation.

Gene polymorphisms and risk of acute renal graft rejection: A field synopsis of meta-analyses and genome-wide association studies

In the present study we systematically re-analyzed results from meta-analyses and genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to assess the credibility of genetic associations with acute rejection risk in renal transplantation. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane library, and Open Grey up to July 2019. Methodological quality of systematic meta-analyses was assessed by the AMSTAR tool. Credibility of genetic associations was assessed by employing the Venice criteria and two Bayesian statistical approaches, the false positive report probability (FPRP) and the Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP). Sixteen systematic meta-analyses, with a moderate-high quality score (median AMSTAR score: 9, range: 6-11) and 1 GWAS fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, our systematic re-analysis has identified 9 polymorphic variants in 8 genes (ACE, CD28, CTLA-4, CYP3A5, IFNG, TNF-α, PTPRO and CCDC67) as potential risk factors for acute renal graft rejection. At the pre-specified prior probability of 0.001, the 2 SNPs identified by the GWAS (rs7976329 and rs10765602) showed no evidence of noteworthiness under FPRP or BFDP, indicating the possibility of false-positive associations. After applying the Venice criteria in combination with FPRP and BFDP to results from systematic meta-analyses, TT/AT vs AA of IFNG +874 T/A reached moderate epidemiological credibility, while weak evidence of association was found for all the other genetic comparisons. Well-designed GWASs and large replication studies with updated meta-analyses are still needed to identify reliable genetic predictors of acute renal graft rejection.

Weaning Immunosuppressant in Patients with Failing Kidney Grafts and The Outcomes: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

An immunosuppressant weaning protocol in failing allografts has not yet been established. Maintaining immunosuppressants would preserve residual renal function (RRF) and prevent graft intolerance syndrome and sensitization but would increase the risks of infection and malignancy. In this study, graft failure cases after kidney transplantation in a single center were reviewed retrospectively. The outcome differences in all-cause mortality, infection-related hospitalization, cancer, graft intolerance syndrome, re-transplantation, and RRF duration between the immunosuppressant maintaining and weaning groups 6 months after graft failure were compared. Among the weaning group, the outcome differences according to low-dose steroid use were also compared at 6 and 12 months. In a total of 131 graft failure cases, 18 mortalities, 42 infection-related hospitalizations, 22 cancer cases, 11 graft intolerance syndrome cases, and 28 re-transplantations occurred during the 94-month follow-up. Immunosuppressant maintenance significantly decreased the patient survival rate 6 months after graft failure compared with weaning (log-rank P = 0.008) and was an independent risk factor for mortality, even after adjustments (hazard ratio, 3.01; P = 0.025). Infection-related hospitalization, graft intolerance syndrome development, and re-transplantation were not affected by the immunosuppressant weaning protocol. Among the immunosuppressant weaning group, low-dose steroid maintenance at 6 and 12 months helped preserved RRF (P = 0.008 and P = 0.003, respectively).

Renal Graft Embolization as a Treatment for Graft Intolerance Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Renal graft intolerance syndrome is an inflammatory process that occurs in up to 40% of patients with graft loss. It is characterized by fever, graft pain, hematuria, and anemia. Traditionally, the treatment has been nephrectomy; however, this procedure is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. As an alternative, graft embolization is associated with success rates of up to 92%. In this study, we describe the graft embolization experience of 1 center, its clinical outcomes and complications.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective study was conducted. It included all patients with graft intolerance syndrome undergoing graft embolization between 2012 and 2018. The success of the procedure was defined by the resolution of the symptoms that motivated the embolization.

RESULTS

We found 12 cases of patients undergoing embolization. The time of presentation of the graft intolerance syndrome after admission to dialysis was 6 months (range, 0.6-13). The main clinical manifestation was pain in the area of the graft and macroscopic hematuria. Except for 1 patient, all continued with the immunosuppressive treatment regimen after graft loss for 4 months (range, 0.6-9), received antibiotics for 5.5 days (range, 2-14), and 10 patients received steroid treatment for 6.5 days (range, 5-10). The main complication, secondary to the procedure, was hematoma at the puncture site in 3 patients. Only 1 patient had postembolization syndrome, which resolved with steroid administration. Two patients required postembolization nephrectomy due to persistent renal blood flow and symptoms such as pain and hematuria. The average hospital stay was 5.5 days (range, 1-24).

CONCLUSIONS

Renal graft embolization is an effective technique as a treatment strategy in patients with clinical signs of intolerance syndrome, with a success rate ≥83.3%, low morbidity, and short hospital stay; furthermore, it avoids the potential complications of a surgical nephrectomy. Graft infection should be ruled out before embolization, and the use of prophylactic antibiotics and steroid therapy is recommended to reduce the risk of postembolization syndrome and infectious complications.