The importance of transitions between dialysis and transplantation in the care of end-stage renal disease patients

Supportive care in transplantation: A patient-centered care model to better support kidney transplant candidates and recipients

Kidney transplantation (KT), although the best treatment option for eligible patients, entails maintaining and adhering to a life-long treatment regimen of medications, lifestyle changes, self-care, and appointments. Many patients experience uncertain outcome trajectories increasing their vulnerability and symptom burden and generating complex care needs. Even when transplants are successful, for some patients the adjustment to life post-transplant can be challenging and psychological difficulties, economic challenges and social isolation have been reported. About 50% of patients lose their transplant within 10 years and must return to dialysis or pursue another transplant or conservative care. This paper documents the complicated journey patients undertake before and after KT and outlines some initiatives aimed at improving patient-centered care in transplantation. A more cohesive approach to care that borrows its philosophical approach from the established field of supportive oncology may improve patient experiences and outcomes. We propose the "supportive care in transplantation" care model to operationalize a patient-centered approach in transplantation. This model can build on other ongoing initiatives of other scholars and researchers and can help advance patient-centered care through the entire care continuum of kidney transplant recipients and candidates. Multi-dimensionality, multi-disciplinarity and evidence-based approaches are proposed as other key tenets of this care model. We conclude by proposing the potential advantages of this approach to patients and healthcare systems.

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.

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.

Perspectives and experiences of kidney transplant recipients with graft failure: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are a rapidly rising cohort of patients who experience high morbidity, mortality, and fragmented transitions of care between transplant and dialysis teams. Current approaches to improving care focus on medical and surgical interventions, increasing re-transplantation, and improving coordination between treating teams with little understanding of patient needs and perspectives.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic literature review of personal experiences of patients with graft failure. Six electronic and five grey literature databases were searched systematically. Of 4664 records screened 43 met the inclusion criteria. Six empirical qualitative studies and case studies were included in the final analysis. Thematic synthesis was used to combine data that included the perspectives of 31 patients with graft failure and 9 caregivers.

RESULTS

Using the Transition Model, we isolated three interconnected phases as patients transition through graft failure: shattering of lifestyle and plans associated with a successful transplant; physical and psychological turbulence; and re-alignment by learning adaptive strategies to move forward. Critical factors affecting coping included multi-disciplinary healthcare approaches, social support, and individual-level factors. While clinical transplant care was evaluated positively, participants identified gaps in the provision of information and psychosocial support related to graft failure. Graft failure had a profound impact on caregivers especially when they were living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review reports patient-identified priorities for improving care and can help inform research and guideline development that strives to improve the care of patients with graft failure.

The Importance Of Avoiding Time-Dependent Bias When Testing The Prognostic Value Of An Intervening Event - Two Acute Cellular Rejection Examples In Intestinal Transplantation

In testing the prognostic value of the occurrence of an intervening event (clinical event that occurs post-transplant), 3 proper statistical methodologies for testing its prognostic value exist (time dependent covariate, landmark, and semi-Markov modelling methods). However, time-dependent bias has appeared in many clinical reports, whereby the intervening event is statistically treated as a baseline variable (as if it occurred at transplant). Using a single-center cohort of 445 intestinal transplant cases to test the prognostic value of 1^st acute cellular rejection (ACR) and severe (grade of) ACR on the hazard rate of developing graft loss, we demonstrate how the inclusion of such time-dependent bias can lead to severe underestimation of the true hazard ratio (HR). The (statistically more powerful) time dependent covariate method in Cox's multivariable model yielded significantly unfavorable effects of 1^st ACR (P<.0001; HR=2.492) and severe ACR (P<.0001; HR=4.531). In contrast, when using the time-dependent biased approach, multivariable analysis yielded an incorrect conclusion for the prognostic value of 1^st ACR (P=.31, HR=0.877, 35.2% of 2.492) and a much smaller estimated effect of severe ACR (P=.0008; HR=1.589; 35.1% of 4.531). In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of avoiding time-dependent bias when testing the prognostic value of an intervening event.

Transitions in an integrated model of renal replacement therapy in a regional health system

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is an important decision that determines the quality of life and survival. Most patients change from one RRT modality to another to adapt RRT to clinical and psychosocial needs. This has been called «integrated model of RRT» that implies new questions about the best sequence of techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study describes the impact of transitions between RRT modalities on survival using the Madrid Registry of Renal Patients (2008-2018). This study used the proportional hazards models and competitive risk models to perform an intention-to-treat (ITT), according to their 1st RRT modality and as-treated (AT) analysis, that consider also their 1st transition.

RESULTS

A total of 8971 patients started RRT during this period in Madrid (6.6 Million population): 7207 (80.3%) on hemodialysis (HD), 1401 (15.6%) on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 363 (4.2%) received a pre-emptive kidney transplantation (KT). Incident HD-patients were older (HD group 65.3 years (SD 15.3) vs PD group 58.1 years (SD 14.8) vs KTX group 52 years (SD 17.2); p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities. They presented higher mortality (HD group 40.9% vs PD group 22.8% vs KTX group 8.3%, p < 0.001) and less access to a transplant (HD group 30.4% vs PD group 51.6%; p < 0.001). Transitions between dialysis techniques define different groups of patients with different clinical outcomes. Those who change from HD to PD do it earlier (HD → PD: 0.7 years (SD 1.1) vs PD → HD: 1.5 years (SD 1.4) p < 0.001), are younger (HD → PD: 53.5 years (SD 16.7) vs PD → HD: 61.6 years (SD 14.6); p < 0.001), presented less mortality (HD → PD: 24.5% vs PD → HD: 32.0%; p < 0.001) and higher access to a transplant (HD → PD: 49.4% vs PD → HD: 31.7%; p < 0.001). Survival analysis by competitive risks is essential for integrated RRT models, especially in groups such as PD patients, where 51.6% of the patients were considered as lost follow-up (received a KTX after during the first 2.5 years on PD). In this analysis, survival of patients who change from one technique to another, is more similar to the destination modality than the origin one.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that transitions between RRT-techniques describes different patients, who associate different risks, and could be analyzed in an integrated manner to define improvement actions. This approach should be incorporated into the analysis and reports of renal registries.

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.

Survival for waitlisted kidney failure patients receiving transplantation versus remaining on waiting list: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis for waitlisted kidney failure patients with a priori stratification.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched between database inception and 1 March 2021.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

All comparative studies that assessed all cause mortality for transplantation versus dialysis in patients with kidney failure waitlisted for transplant surgery were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was done using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, with heterogeneity investigated by subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression.

RESULTS

The search identified 48 observational studies with no randomised controlled trials (n=1 245 850 patients). In total, 92% (n=44/48) of studies reported a long term (at least one year) survival benefit associated with transplantation compared with dialysis. However, 11 of those studies identified stratums in which transplantation offered no statistically significant benefit over remaining on dialysis. In 18 studies suitable for meta-analysis, kidney transplantation showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.54; P<0.001), with significant heterogeneity even after subgroup/sensitivity analyses or meta-regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Kidney transplantation remains the superior treatment modality for most patients with kidney failure to reduce all cause mortality, but some subgroups may lack a survival benefit. Given the continued scarcity of donor organs, further evidence is needed to better inform decision making for patients with kidney failure.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021247247.

Design of therapeutic education workshops for home haemodialysis in a patient-centered chronic kidney diseases research: a qualitative study

Rationale & Objective

A quarter of patients do not receive any information on the modalities of renal remplacement therapy (RRT) before its initiation. In our facility, we provide therapeutic education workshops for all RRT except for home hemodialysis (HHD). The objectives of this study were to identify and describe the needs of CKD patients and caregivers for RRT with HHD and design therapeutic education workshops.

Setting & participants

Two sequential methods of qualitative data collection were conducted. Interviews with patients treated with HHD and doctors specialized in HHD were performed to define the interview guide followed by semi-structured interviews with the help of HHD patients from our center.

Analytic approach

Thematic analysis was conducted and were rooted in the principles of qualitative analysis for social scientists. Data were analyzed by two investigators. Transcribed interviews were entered into RQDA 3.6.1 software for data organization and coding purposes (Version 3.6.1).

Results

In total, five interviews were performed. We identified six themes related to the barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to home dialysis therapy: (1) HHD allows autonomy and freedom with constraints, (2) safety of the care environment, (3) the caregiver and family environment, (4) patient’s experience and experiential knowledge, (5) self-care experience and impact on life, and (6) factors that impact the choice of treatment with HHD. We designed therapeutic education workshops in a group of patients and caregivers.

Conclusions

Our study confirmed previous results obtained in literature on the major barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to HHD including the impact of HHD on the caregiver, the experiences of patients already treated with HHD, and the role of nurses and nephrologists in informing and educating patients. A program to develop patient-to-patient peer mentorship allowing patients to discuss their dialysis experience may be relevant.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02683-0.

Screening for occult coronary artery disease in potential kidney transplant recipients: time for reappraisal?

Screening for occult coronary artery disease in potential kidney transplant recipients has become entrenched in current medical practice as the standard of care and is supported by national and international clinical guidelines. However, there is increasing and robust evidence that such an approach is out-dated, scientifically and conceptually flawed, ineffective, potentially directly harmful, discriminates against ethnic minorities and patients from more deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, and unfairly denies many patients access to potentially lifesaving and life-enhancing transplantation. Herein we review the available evidence in the light of recently published randomized controlled trials and major observational studies. We propose ways of moving the field forward to the overall benefit of patients with advanced kidney disease.

Kidney Transplantation in Times of Covid-19: Decision Analysis in the Canadian Context

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted transplant programs across Canada.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the implications of delays in transplantation among Canadian end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients to allow pretransplant vaccination.

DESIGN

We used a Markov microsimulation model and ESKD patient perspective to study the effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of living (LD) or deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation followed by 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine versus delay in LD ("Delay LD") or refusal of DD offer ("Delay DD") to receive 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine pretransplant.

SETTING

Canadian dialysis and transplant centers.

PATIENTS

We simulated a 10 000-waitlisted ESKD patient cohort, which was predictively modeled for a lifetime horizon in monthly cycles.

MEASUREMENTS

Inputs on patient and graft survival estimates by patient, LD or DD characteristics, were extracted from the Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada, Canadian Organ Replacement Register, 2009 to 2018. In addition, a literature review provided inputs on quality of life, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, new variants of concern, mortality risk, and antibody responses to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

METHODS

We conducted base case, scenario, and sensitivity analyses to illustrate the impact of patient, donor, vaccine, and pandemic characteristics on the preferred strategy.

RESULTS

In the average waitlisted Canadian patient, receiving 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine post-transplant provided an effectiveness of 22.32 (95% confidence interval: 22.00-22.7) for LD and 19.34 (19.02-19.67) QALYs for DD. Delaying transplants for 6 months to allow 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine before LD and DD transplant yielded effectiveness of 22.83 (21.51-23.14) and 20.65 (20.33-20.96) QALYs, respectively. Scenario analysis suggested a benefit to short delays in DD transplants to receive 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in waitlisted patients ≥55 years. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested decreased effectiveness of the strategy prioritizing 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine prior to DD transplant the longer the delay and the higher the Kidney Donor Risk Index of the eventual DD transplant. When assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (infection rates ≥10-fold and associated mortality ≥3-fold vs base case), we found short delays to allow 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration pretransplant to be preferable.

LIMITATIONS

Risks associated with nosocomial exposure of LDs were not considered. There was uncertainty regarding input parameters related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, new variants, and COVID-19 severity in ESKD patients. Given rollout of population-level SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, we assumed a linear decrease in infection rates over 1 year. Proportions of patients mounting an antibody response to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were considered in lieu of data on vaccine efficacy in dialysis and following transplantation. Non-age-stratified annual mortality rates were used for waitlisted candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that short delays allowing pretransplant vaccination offered comparable to greater effectiveness than pursuing transplantation without delay, proposing transplant candidates should be prioritized to receive at least 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Our scenario and sensitivity analyses suggest that caution must be exercised when declining DD offers in patients offered low risk DD and who are likely to incur significant delays in access to transplantation. While population-level herd immunity may decrease infection risk in transplant patients, more data are required on vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern in ESKD, and how efficacy may be modified by a third vaccine dose, maintenance immunosuppression and timing of induction and rejection therapies.

Transitions in an integrated model of renal replacement therapy in a regional health system

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is an important decision that determines the quality of life and survival. Most patients change from one RRT modality to another to adapt RRT to clinical and psychosocial needs. This has been called «integrated model of RRT» that implies new questions about the best sequence of techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study describes the impact of transitions between RRT modalities on survival using the Madrid Registry of Renal Patients (2008-2018). This study used the proportional hazards models and competitive risk models to perform an intention-to-treat (ITT), according to their 1st RRT modality and as-treated (AT) analysis, that consider also their 1st transition.

RESULTS

A total of 8971 patients started RRT during this period in Madrid (6.6 Million population): 7207 (80.3%) on hemodialysis (HD), 1401 (15.6%) on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 363 (4.2%) received a pre-emptive kidney transplantation (KTX). Incident HD-patients were older (HD group 65.3 years (SD 15.3) vs PD group 58.1 years (SD 14.8) vs KTX group 52 years (SD 17.2); p<0.001) and had more comorbidities. They presented higher mortality (HD group 40.9% vs PD group 22.8% vs 8.3% KTX group, p<0.001) and less access to a transplant (HD group 30.4% vs DP group 51.6%; p<0.001). Transitions between dialysis techniques define different groups of patients with different clinical outcomes. Those who change from HD to PD do it earlier (HD→PD: 0.7 years (SD 1.1) vs PD→HD: 1.5 years (SD 1.4) p<0.001), are younger (HD→PD: 53.5 years (SD 16.7) vs PD→HD: 61.6 years (SD 14.6); p<0.001), presented less mortality (HD→PD: 24.5% vs PD→HD: 32.0%; p<0.001) and higher access to a transplant (HD→PD: 49.4% vs PD→HD: 31.7%; p<0.001). Survival analysis by competitive risks is essential for integrated RRT models, especially in groups such as PD patients, where 51.6% of the patients were considered as lost follow-up (received a KTX after during the first 2.5 years on PD). In this analysis, survival of patients who change from one technique to another, is more similar to the destination modality than the origin one.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that transitions between RRT-techniques describes different patients, who associate different risks, and could be analyzed in an integrated manner to define improvement actions. This approach should be incorporated into the analysis and reports of renal registries.

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

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

Potential Unintended Consequences of National Infectious Disease Screening Strategies in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In order to counter the lack of sufficient kidney donors, there has been interest in expanding the utilization of organs from increased infectious-risk donors. Negative nucleic acid testing of increased infectious-risk organs has been shown to increase their use as compared to only enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay negativity. However, it is not known how the expanded use of nucleic acid testing on a national scale might affect total donor utilization.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to determine if a national screening policy requiring the use of nucleic acid testing in both increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk renal transplant donors would increase the donor organ pool.

METHODS

This study used decision-tree analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of four US national screening policies based on an increasingly expansive use of nucleic acid testing for increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk kidneys. Parameters were taken from the literature. All costs were reported in 2020 US dollars using a Medicare payer perspective and a life-time horizon.

RESULTS

The use of nucleic acid screening solely for increased infectious-risk organs was the dominant strategy. Our results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. One of the main driving factors of cost-effectiveness was the false-positive rate of nucleic acid testing.

CONCLUSION

Before implementing nucleic acid screening outside of increased infectious-risk organs, its false-positivity rate should be directly studied to ensure that its use does not detrimentally affect transplantation numbers, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs.

Dialysis after graft loss: a Swiss experience

BACKGROUND

Patients returning to dialysis after graft loss have high early morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We used data from the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study to describe the current practice and outcomes in Switzerland. All patients who received a renal allograft between May 2008 and December 2014 were included. The patients with graft loss were divided into two groups depending on whether the graft loss occurred within 1 year after transplantation (early graft loss group) or later (late graft loss group). Patients with primary non-function who never gained graft function were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven out of 1502 patients lost their graft during follow-up, 40 within 1 year after transplantation. Eleven patients died within 30 days after allograft loss. Patient survival was 86, 81 and 74% at 30, 90 and 365 days after graft loss, respectively. About 92% started haemodialysis, 62% with definitive vascular access, which was associated with decreased mortality (hazard ratio = 0.28). At the time of graft loss, most patients were on triple immunosuppressive therapy with significant reduction after nephrectomy. One year after graft loss, 77.5% (31 of 40) of patients in the early and 43.2% (16 out of 37) in the late-loss group had undergone nephrectomy. Three years after graft loss, 36% of the patients with early and 12% with late graft loss received another allograft.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our data illustrate high mortality, and a high number of allograft nephrectomies and re-transplantations. Patients commencing haemodialysis with a catheter had significantly higher mortality than patients with definitive access. The role of immunosuppression reduction and allograft nephrectomy as interdependent factors for mortality and re-transplantation needs further evaluation.

Approach to stable angina in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic kidney disease is one of the major risk factors for coronary artery disease. Both end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and advanced chronic kidney disease patients have atypical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD) due to modifications in cardinal symptoms and clinical presentation. Data on evaluation and management of coronary artery or stable angina is limited in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients due to a limited number of trials. There are sparse data supporting either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft in advanced CKD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ISCHEMIA-CKD trial to date is the most extensive prospective randomized study looking at advanced CKD patients study looking at advanced CKD stage 4/5 patients randomized to medical treatment alone vs. invasive strategy for moderate to severe myocardial ischemia. There was no evidence found that an initial invasive strategy compared with conservative strategy with maximal medical management resulted in reduced risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with advanced CKD and coronary artery disease with stable angina.

SUMMARY

In this review, we will discuss the existing data on assessment and management of stable coronary artery disease/stable angina. And how this extrapolates to the application in advanced CKD patients awaiting kidney transplant.

Assessing the Complex Causes of Kidney Allograft Loss

BACKGROUND

Although graft loss is a primary endpoint in many studies in kidney transplantation and a broad spectrum of risk factors has been identified, the eventual causes of graft failure in individual cases remain ill studied.

METHODS

We performed a single-center cohort study in 1000 renal allograft recipients, transplanted between March 2004 and February 2013.

RESULTS

In total, 365 graft losses (36.5%) were identified, of which 211 (57.8%) were due to recipient death with a functioning graft and 154 (42.2%) to graft failure defined as return to dialysis or retransplantation. The main causes of recipient death were malignancy, infections, and cardiovascular disease. The main causes of graft failure were distinct for early failures, where structural issues and primary nonfunction prevailed, compared to later failures with a shift towards chronic injury. In contrast to the main focus of current research efforts, pure alloimmune causes accounted for only 17.5% of graft failures and only 7.4% of overall graft losses, although 72.7% of cases with chronic injury as presumed reason for graft failure had prior rejection episodes, potentially suggesting that alloimmune phenomena contributed to the chronic injury.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this study provides better insight in the eventual causes of graft failure, and their relative contribution, highlighting the weight of nonimmune causes. Future efforts aimed to improve outcome after kidney transplantation should align with the relative weight and expected impact of targeting these causes.

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.

Organ donation and transplantation: a multi-stakeholder call to action

Although overall donation and transplantation activity is higher in Europe than on other continents, differences between European countries in almost every aspect of transplantation activity (for example, in the number of transplantations, the number of people with a functioning graft, in rates of living versus deceased donation, and in the use of expanded criteria donors) suggest that there is ample room for improvement. Herein we review the policy and clinical measures that should be considered to increase access to transplantation and improve post-transplantation outcomes. This Roadmap, generated by a group of major European stakeholders collaborating within a Thematic Network, presents an outline of the challenges to increasing transplantation rates and proposes 12 key areas along with specific measures that should be considered to promote transplantation. This framework can be adopted by countries and institutions that are interested in advancing transplantation, both within and outside the European Union. Within this framework, a priority ranking of initiatives is suggested that could serve as the basis for a new European Union Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation.

Survival improvements for Europeans with ESKD

Excess end-stage kidney disease-related mortality rates have decreased substantially over time among adults recorded in the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry, with the largest relative decreases in the youngest adults and the largest absolute decreases in the oldest adults. While improvements were observed among patients of all ages being treated with dialysis, patients with kidney transplants showed no clear improvements, and those ≥65 years old showed a worrying increase in excess mortality over time.

Reduced survival in patients who return to dialysis after kidney allograft failure

BACKGROUND

The outcome of patients who return to dialysis after Kidney allograft failure (KAF) remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the outcome of KAF patients vs two different types of transplant naive incident dialysis (TNID) patients, those on the waiting list (WL) and those with a kidney transplant contraindication (KTC).

METHODS

We performed an observational study using data from the Argentinian Dialysis Registry between 2005 and 2016. We compare mortality between KAF, WL, and KTC.

RESULTS

We included 75 722 patients of which 2734 were KAF. Survival between the three cohorts (KAF vs WL (n = 14 630) vs KTC (n = 58 358) revealed a significant difference (log-rank test: P < .0001) indicating worse survival for KTC patients and best survival for WL. We found that KAF patients had as poor outcome as KTC patients after multivariate adjustment. Cox regression showed that age >65 years: HR: 1.845 (1.79-1.89) P < .0001, transient catheter: HR: 1.303 (1.26-1.34) P < .0001, diabetic: HR: 1.273 (1.22-1.31) P < .0001, hepatitis C: HR: 1.156 (1.09-1.22) P < .0001, and albumin: HR: 1.247 (1.21-1.28) P < .0001 were associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Patients who return to dialysis after KAF have higher mortality than WL patients and similar to KTC patients.

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.

Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). As well as their high prevalence of traditional CAD risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension, persons with CKD are also exposed to other nontraditional, uremia-related cardiovascular disease risk factors, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and abnormal calcium-phosphorus metabolism. CKD and end-stage kidney disease not only increase the risk of CAD, but they also modify its clinical presentation and cardinal symptoms. Management of CAD is complicated in CKD patients, due to their likelihood of comorbid conditions and potential for side effects during interventions. This summary of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on CAD and CKD (including end-stage kidney disease and transplant recipients) seeks to improve understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of CAD in CKD and to identify knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and priorities for research.

Assessment of Short-term, Within Hospital Cardiovascular Complications After Renal Transplantation in Baqiyatallah Hospital

Introduction:

Several studies have looked at cardiac complications in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) after renal transplantation, but more attention has been paid to the long-term cardiovascular complications.

Aim:

The present study was designed to investigate the short-term cardiovascular complications of intrahospital hospitalization in post-renal transplant patients and related factors.

Methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of all renal transplant patients in Baqiyatallah Hospital between 2015 and 2018 during the post-transplantation phase were investigated. Demographic data, transplantation type, cardiac risk factors, pre-operation cardiac consultation and para-clinical tests results were extracted from the patients’ records. The frequency and factors influencing the need for re-visitation as well as its final diagnosis were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 982 patients with a mean age of 13.73 ± 45.33 years were studied (62.6% males). In 39.8% of patients, cardiology re-visitation was required; of these 391 visits, only 162 patients (41.4%) had heart problems. In multivariate analysis, patients’ need for cardiac reconsideration was predicted by 7 variables; age, diabetes, history of CABG, ECG, echocardiography, angiography, and myocardial perfusion scan (R² = 0.652, P <0.001). Furthermore, the five variables of first cardiology consultant, the first consultation physician, left ventricular hypertrophy, having history of angiography and myocardial perfusion scan, can predict the final diagnosis of cardiac problems in re-counseling (R² = 0.188, P = 0.043).

Conclusion:

Given the high prevalence of need for a patient’s recurrent cardiac visit, it seems that risk assessment prior to kidney transplantation needs to be more accurate. It is recommended that elderly patients with abnormal findings in electrocardiography and echocardiography, having diabetes, having a history of negative coronary angiography or myocardial perfusion scan be more closely monitored for heart disease.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Intra-gastric Balloon Placement in Dialyzed Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The number of obese patients who are candidates for renal transplantation has considerably increased, but obesity can be a barrier to kidney transplantation. Weight loss is often difficult through diet alone. We studied the efficacy and tolerance of the intra-gastric balloon (IGB) procedure in obese patients who were undergoing dialysis and were candidates for a renal transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m²) who were candidates for renal transplantation were prospectively included in the study between 2010 and 2012. The balloon was inserted and removed during a gastric endoscopy under general anesthesia. The treatment lasted 6 months. The end point was a decrease in BMI after 6 months. Body impedance spectrometry (BIS) and nutritional statute were evaluated initially and then after IGB removal.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (nine females and eight males) with a mean age of 53.4 years [19.4-69.4] were included. The decrease in body mass index (BMI) during the 6-month placement was 3 kg/m² (from 37.7 to 34.4 kg/m²). The mean weight loss was 7 kg. The mean percentage of excess weight loss after 6 months was 20.2 (± 11.4). The tolerance was good without any complications. Eleven patients underwent kidney transplantation.

CONCLUSION

IGB in obese dialyzed patients who are candidates for renal transplantation is safe and effective. However, the amount of weight loss can vary.

Waiting List and Kidney Transplant Vascular Risk: An Ongoing Unmet Concern

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in patients waitlisted for kidney transplantation (KT). Although KT reduces cardiovascular risk, these patients still have a higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than the general population. This concerning situation is due to a high burden of traditional and nontraditional risk factors as well as uremia-related factors and transplant-specific factors, leading to 2 differentiated processes under the framework of CKD, atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis. These can be initiated by insults to the vascular endothelial endothelium, leading to vascular calcification (VC) of the tunica media or the tunica intima, which may coexist. Several pathogenic mechanisms such as inflammation-related endothelial dysfunction, mineral metabolism disorders, activation of the renin-angiotensin system, reduction of nitric oxide, lipid disorders, and the fibroblast growth factor 23-klotho axis are involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis, including VC.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on the current understanding of atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis, both in patients on the waiting list as well as in kidney transplant recipients, emphasizing the cardiovascular risk factors in both populations and the inflammation-related pathogenic mechanisms. Key Message: The importance of cardiovascular risk factors and the pathogenic mechanisms related to inflammation in patients waitlisted for KT and kidney transplant recipients.

Integrated care: enhancing transition from renal replacement therapy options to home haemodialysis

Transition is an intrinsic process in the life of a patient with kidney disease and should be planned and anticipated when possible. A single therapy option might not be adequate across a patient’s entire lifespan and many patients will require a switch in their treatment modality to adapt the treatment to their clinical and psychosocial needs. There are several reasons behind changing a patient’s treatment modality, and the consequences of each decision should be evaluated, considering both short- and long-term benefits and risks. Dialysis modality transition is not only to allow for technical optimization or improved patient survival, the patient’s experience associated with the transition should also be taken into account. Transition should not be considered as treatment failure, but rather as an expected progression in the patient’s treatment options.

Canadian-Australasian Randomised trial of screening kidney transplant candidates for coronary artery disease-A trial protocol for the CARSK study

Transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients with kidney failure, but the need exceeds the supply of transplantable kidneys, and patients routinely wait >5 years on dialysis for a transplant. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in kidney failure and can exclude patients from transplantation or result in death before or after transplantation. Screening asymptomatic patients for CAD using noninvasive tests prior to wait-listing and at regular intervals (ie, annually) after wait-listing until transplantation is the established standard of care and is justified by the need to avoid adverse patient outcomes and loss of organs. Patients with abnormal screening tests undergo coronary angiography, and those with critical stenoses are revascularized. Screening is potentially harmful because patients may be excluded or delayed from transplantation, and complications after revascularization are more frequent in this population. CARSK will test the hypothesis that eliminating screening tests for occult CAD after wait-listing is not inferior to regular screening for the prevention of major adverse cardiac events defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina. Secondary outcomes include the transplant rate, safety measures, and the cost-effectiveness of screening. Enrolment of 3,306 patients over 3 years is required, with patients followed for up to 5 years during wait-listing and for 1 year after transplantation. By validating or refuting the use of screening tests during wait-listing, CARSK will ensure judicious use of health resources and optimal patient outcomes.

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.

Hemodialysis Quality Metrics in the First Year Following a Failed Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

Failure of a previously transplanted kidney is a common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and represents 5% of incident dialysis patients in the United States. Patients with native kidney failure ESRD (Nat-ESRD) who receive predialysis care from a nephrologist have better outcomes in the first 12 months on dialysis than those who don't. Because many patients with a failed kidney transplant ESRD (Tx-ESRD) receive care from nephrologists, they would also be expected to have good dialysis outcomes. We sought to compare the quality metrics of Tx-ESRD patients and Nat-ESRD patients during the first 12 months of hemodialysis.

METHODS

We used data from the United States Renal Data System to identify hemodialysis patients who began treatment between May 2012 and December 2013 and who received nephrology care prior to starting hemodialysis. Quality metrics by quarter for the first 12 months of treatment were dichotomized according to practice guidelines to determine the percentage of patients in each quarter who met quality of care goals.

RESULTS

Compared to Nat-ESRD (n = 96,063) patients, Tx-ESRD (n = 5,528) patients had 10-19% lower rates of at goal hemoglobin levels, 6-12% lower rates of at goal serum phosphorus, and 3-11% lower rates of at goal albumin levels. Compared to Nat-ESRD patients, -Tx-ESRD patients had a 6% higher rate of fistula use in the first quarter but a 3-7% lower rate in subsequent quarters.

CONCLUSIONS

Tx-ESRD patients have worse quality metrics related to anemia, phosphorus, albumin, and vascular access compared to Nat-ESRD patients. Nephrology care for patients with Tx-ESRD should be improved to address these quality metrics gaps.

Outcomes of end-stage renal disease patients on the waiting list for deceased donor kidney transplantation: A single-center study

Background

Kidney transplantation is an effective renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this study, we assessed the impact of the baseline characteristics and comorbidities of ESRD patients on the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and evaluated the morbidity and mortality during the time spent waiting.

Methods

The study population consisted of 544 ESRD patients on the waiting list for DDKT at Chungnam National University Hospital in South Korea between February 2000 and October 2015. The patients were observed from the date of transplantation list registration to the date of transplantation. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were investigated together with new-onset comorbidities that occurred during the waiting time.

Results

Diabetes mellitus (39.0%), hypertension (25.2%), and glomerulonephritis (21.3%) were the three most common causes of ESRD in this study, and coronary artery disease (9.4%) was the most common comorbidity. The 115 patients (19.3%) who underwent DDKT had a mean waiting time of 1,711 days (768–2,654 days or 4.68 years [2.10–7.27]). Blood groups other than type O, peritoneal dialysis, and nondiabetic ESRD were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of DDKT. Infection was the leading cause of death and the most common comorbidity that arose during the waiting time. Patients who experienced cardiovascular events during the waiting time showed a lower transplant rate compared with those who did not.

Conclusion

The prevalence of comorbidities was high in renal transplantation candidates. During the often-long waiting time, new comorbidities may occur, with long-term sequelae limiting access to kidney transplantation or resulting in death.

Renal transplantation from seropositive hepatitis C virus donors to seronegative recipients in Spain: a prospective study

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive donors are identified in Spain by antibody detection (HCV-Ab) techniques while a HCV nuclear acid-testing (HCV-NAT) is not mandatory. Since it has been shown that HCV-Ab positive HCV-NAT negative donors do not universally transmit the infection, we designed a protocol based on the identification of viremia in HCV-Ab positive donors to start treatment if needed. HCV-Ab-positive donors were identified and we performed HCV-NAT immediately. Donors coinfected with HIV were excluded. Recipients with a low chance to receive a transplant, with no history of liver disease and who were negative for HCV-Ab were selected after informed consent was signed. Kidney recipients from HCV-NAT-positive donors received glecaprevir and pibrentasvir from 6 h before the transplant until 8 weeks after. Recipients from HCV-NAT-negative donors were not treated. Regular monitoring by HCV-NAT was performed to initiate antiviral treatment. We included 11 recipients from six deceased donors Four recipients received grafts from HCV-NAT-positive donors and seven patients received grafts from HCV-NAT-negative donors. None of our recipients exhibited HCV-NAT positivity during the minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Recipients from HCV-NAT-positive donors exhibited sustained virologic response at 12 weeks. One recipient from an HCV-NAT-negative donor lost his graft via a process thought to be unrelated to HCV. The remaining 10 patients had a stable functioning graft at the end of the follow-up period. Our preliminary data suggest that renal transplantation from HCV-Ab- positive donors to HCV-Ab negative recipients is safe when only the recipients of organs from HCV-NAT-positive donors are treated.

Transplant Patients With Failing Renal Allografts

Progress in patient care and immunosuppressive medications has resulted in improved allograft survival in the early posttransplant period; however, substantial graft loss continues in the long term. Therefore, the number of dialysis patients with failed allografts is increasing progressively. These patients have a worse prognosis than naive dialysis patients. Cardiovascular causes are the leading cause of death, followed by infections and malignancies. Delay in return to dialysis, a chronic inflammatory state, infections, and cancer are contributing factors to mortality, whereas type of dialysis modality does not have a significant effect on outcomes. Graft nephrectomy is a risky operation; therefore, it should not be a routine procedure and rather should be performed only when indicated. Overall, most grafts are left in place, whereas graft nephrectomy is performed in atients with graft intolerance syndrome. Management of immunosuppressive drugs after graft failure is controversial. In the case of maintaining immunosuppression, there is increased risk of infections, cardiovascular diseases, and malignancies and also steroid-related adverse effects. On the other hand, discontinuation of immunosuppressants may result in loss of residual allograft function and also acute graft inflammation. Together, immunosuppressive drugs are almost always discontinued in these patients because of their inherent adverse effects. Considering the sequence of cessation, first antiproliferative drugs are stopped, followed by calcineurin inhibitors, and finally steroids. Because many studies show a clear survival benefit, every attempt should be made for a retransplant in patients with failed renal allografts.

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.

The Drug Overdose Epidemic and Deceased-Donor Transplantation in the United States: A National Registry Study

BACKGROUND

The epidemic of drug overdose deaths in the United States has led to an increase in organ donors.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize donors who died of overdose and to analyze outcomes among transplant recipients.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

138 565 deceased donors; 337 934 transplant recipients at 297 transplant centers.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary exposure was donor mechanism of death (overdose-death donor [ODD], trauma-death donor [TDD], or medical-death donor [MDD]). Patient and graft survival and organ discard (organ recovered but not transplanted) were compared using propensity score-weighted standardized risk differences (sRDs).

RESULTS

A total of 7313 ODDs and 19 897 ODD transplants (10 347 kidneys, 5707 livers, 2471 hearts, and 1372 lungs) were identified. Overdose-death donors accounted for 1.1% of donors in 2000 and 13.4% in 2017. They were more likely to be white (85.1%), aged 21 to 40 years (66.3%), infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) (18.3%), and increased-infectious risk donors (IRDs) (56.4%). Standardized 5-year patient survival was similar for ODD organ recipients compared with TDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 3.1% lower to 3.9% higher survival) and MDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 2.1% to 5.2% higher survival). Standardized 5-year graft survival was similar between ODD and TDD grafts (minimal difference for kidneys and lungs, marginally lower [sRD, -3.2%] for livers, and marginally higher [sRD, 1.9%] for hearts). Kidney discard was higher for ODDs than TDDs (sRD, 5.2%) or MDDs (sRD, 1.5%); standardization for HCV and IRD status attenuated this difference.

LIMITATION

Inability to distinguish between opioid and nonopioid overdoses.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, transplantation with ODD organs has increased dramatically, with noninferior outcomes in transplant recipients. Concerns about IRD behaviors and hepatitis C among donors lead to excess discard that should be minimized given the current organ shortage.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Direct-Acting Antiviral Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplantation From Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Donors to Noninfected Recipients: An Open-Label Nonrandomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Given the high mortality rate for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving dialysis and the efficacy and safety of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments, discarded kidneys from HCV-infected donors may be a neglected public health resource.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the tolerability and feasibility of using direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) as prophylaxis before and after kidney transplantation from HCV-infected donors to non-HCV-infected recipients (that is, HCV D+/R- transplantation).

DESIGN

Open-label nonrandomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781649).

SETTING

Single center.

PARTICIPANTS

10 HCV D+/R- kidney transplant candidates older than 50 years with no available living donors.

INTERVENTION

Transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors aged 13 to 50 years with positive HCV RNA and HCV antibody test results. All recipients received a dose of grazoprevir (GZR), 100 mg, and elbasvir (EBR), 50 mg, immediately before transplantation. Recipients of kidneys from donors with genotype 1 infection continued receiving GZR-EBR for 12 weeks after transplantation; those receiving organs from donors with genotype 2 or 3 infection had sofosbuvir, 400 mg, added to GZR-EBR for 12 weeks of triple therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events related to GZR-EBR treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of recipients with an HCV RNA level below the lower limit of quantification 12 weeks after prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Among 10 HCV D+/R- transplant recipients, no treatment-related adverse events occurred, and HCV RNA was not detected in any recipient 12 weeks after treatment.

LIMITATION

Nonrandomized study design and a small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Pre- and posttransplantation HCV treatment was safe and prevented chronic HCV infection in HCV D+/R- kidney transplant recipients. If confirmed in larger studies, this strategy should markedly expand organ options and reduce mortality for kidney transplant candidates without HCV infection.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Mortality in Elderly Waiting-List Patients Versus Age-Matched Kidney Transplant Recipients: Where is the Risk?

The number of elderly patients on the waiting list (WL) for kidney transplantation (KT) has risen significantly in recent years. Because KT offers a better survival than dialysis therapy, even in the elderly, candidates for KT should be selected carefully, particularly in older waitlisted patients. Identification of risk factors for death in WL patients and prediction of both perioperative risk and long-term post-transplant mortality are crucial for the proper allocation of organs and the clinical management of these patients in order to decrease mortality, both while on the WL and after KT. In this review, we examine the clinical results in studies concerning: a) risk factors for mortality in WL patients and KT recipients; 2) the benefits and risks of performing KT in the elderly, comparing survival between patients on the WL and KT recipients; and 3) clinical tools that should be used to assess the perioperative risk of mortality and predict long-term post-transplant survival. The acknowledgment of these concerns could contribute to better management of high-risk patients and prophylactic interventions to prolong survival in this particular population, provided a higher mortality is assumed.

Integrating kidney transplantation into value-based care for people with renal failure

Healthcare reimbursement is increasingly tied to value instead of volume, with special attention paid to resource-intensive populations such as patients with renal disease. To this end, Medicare has sponsored pilot projects to encourage providers to develop care coordination and population health management strategies to provide quality care while reducing resource utilization. In this Personal Viewpoint essay, we argue in favor of expanding one such pilot project-the Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) initiative-to include patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and kidney transplant recipients. The implementation of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) offers a time-sensitive incentive for transplant centers in particular to align with extant CECs. An "expanded" CEC model proffers opportunity for robust cooperation between general nephrology practices, dialysis providers, and transplant centers to develop care coordination strategies for all patients with renal disease, realign incentives for all clinical stakeholders to increase kidney transplantation rates, and reduce total costs of care.

Remote Patient Management for Home Dialysis Patients

Remote patient management (RPM) offers renal health care providers and patients with end-stage kidney disease opportunities to embrace home dialysis therapies with greater confidence and the potential to obtain better clinical outcomes. Barriers and evidence required to increase adoption of RPM by the nephrology community need to be clearly defined. Ten health care providers from specialties including nephrology, cardiology, pediatrics, epidemiology, nursing, and health informatics with experience in home dialysis and the use of RPM systems gathered in Vienna, Austria to discuss opportunities for, barriers to, and system requirements of RPM as it applies to the home dialysis patient. Although improved outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RPM have been demonstrated in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart disease, only observational data on RPM have been gathered in patients on dialysis. The current review focused on RPM systems currently in use, on how RPM should be integrated into future care, and on the evidence needed for optimized implementation to improve clinical and economic outcomes. Randomized controlled trials and/or large observational studies could inform the most effective and economical use of RPM in home dialysis. These studies are needed to establish the value of existing and/or future RPM models among patients, policy makers, and health care providers.

A comparative analysis of survival of patients on dialysis and after kidney transplantation

Background

Kidney transplant survival benefits are not observed for around 8 months after transplantation because of a higher complications rate in early post-transplant periods. This study compares survival of patients awaiting transplantation with survival of transplant recipients and non-listed dialysis patients in Ireland.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, the relative-risk (RR) of death was assessed with time-dependent, non-proportional hazards analysis, with adjustment for age, cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), time from first treatment for ESKD to placement on the waiting list and year of initial placement on the list.

Results

A total of 3597 patients were included. Annual death rates per 100 patient-years at risk for all patients on dialysis, waiting-list patients and transplant recipients were 16.5, 2.4 and 1.2, respectively. Death rate was highest among diabetics. The relative risk of death for all patients on dialysis was five times higher than the waiting-list patients [RR, 4.90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.70–6.52; P < 0.001]. Time to survival equilibration was 1 year. Thereafter, the 5-year mortality risk was estimated to be 47% lower than that of the patients on the waiting list (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37–0.77; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Transplant recipients had a higher risk of death initially, but a better long-term survival. Time to death risk equilibration was longer compared with other studies. This could be explained by better survival rates in our waiting-list cohort.

Towards Improving the Transfer of Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients

Kidney transplant recipients require specialized medical care and may be at risk for adverse health outcomes when their care is transferred. This document provides opinion-based recommendations to facilitate safe and efficient transfers of care for kidney transplant recipients including minimizing the risk of rejection, avoidance of medication errors, ensuring patient access to immunosuppressant medications, avoidance of lapses in health insurance coverage, and communication of risks of donor disease transmission. The document summarizes information to be included in a medical transfer document and includes suggestions to help the patient establish an optimal therapeutic relationship with their new transplant care team. The document is intended as a starting point towards standardization of transfers of care involving kidney transplant recipients.

Mortality Prediction after the First Year of Kidney Transplantation: An Observational Study on Two European Cohorts

After the first year post transplantation, prognostic mortality scores in kidney transplant recipients can be useful for personalizing medical management. We developed a new prognostic score based on 5 parameters and computable at 1-year post transplantation. The outcome was the time between the first anniversary of the transplantation and the patient’s death with a functioning graft. Afterwards, we appraised the prognostic capacities of this score by estimating time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves from two prospective and multicentric European cohorts: the DIVAT (Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation) cohort composed of patients transplanted between 2000 and 2012 in 6 French centers; and the STCS (Swiss Transplant Cohort Study) cohort composed of patients transplanted between 2008 and 2012 in 6 Swiss centers. We also compared the results with those of two existing scoring systems: one from Spain (Hernandez et al.) and one from the United States (the Recipient Risk Score, RRS, Baskin-Bey et al.). From the DIVAT validation cohort and for a prognostic time at 10 years, the new prognostic score (AUC = 0.78, 95%CI = [0.69, 0.85]) seemed to present significantly higher prognostic capacities than the scoring system proposed by Hernandez et al. (p = 0.04) and tended to perform better than the initial RRS (p = 0.10). By using the Swiss cohort, the RRS and the the new prognostic score had comparable prognostic capacities at 4 years (AUC = 0.77 and 0.76 respectively, p = 0.31). In addition to the current available scores related to the risk to return in dialysis, we recommend to further study the use of the score we propose or the RRS for a more efficient personalized follow-up of kidney transplant recipients.

[Dialysis after graft failure: How to improve survival?]

Ten to 15 % of transplant recipients will return to dialysis, or require another transplantation within 5years, rising to 23 % by 10years, and failed transplantation is now one of the major indications for starting dialysis, accounting for almost 5 % of incident dialysis patients in the US and 10 % in France. Patients who resume dialysis post-transplantation have usually experienced an extended period of uraemia and long-term immunosuppressive therapy, and exhibit high rates of anaemia and erythropoietin resistance, hypoalbuminaemia and persistent chronic inflammation from the failed graft. These factors may increase mortality risk during the first year of dialysis, as observed in the US, but not in Canada or France. When compared to a control group of transplant-naive patients followed in the same institution in France, patients with transplant failure have a higher rate of usable arteriovenous fistula or graft, a similar rate of non-planned dialysis, and initiate dialysis with a higher glomerular filtration rate. We suggest that patient survival in dialysis after graft loss is influenced by both patient characteristics and quality of care, and this may explain the favourable outcome of this specific dialysis population in France.

Contraindications to kidney transplantation: uneven grounds?

Background

Determining eligibility for a kidney transplant is an important decision. Practice guidelines define contraindications to transplantation; however many are not evidence based. Canadian guidelines recommend that patients unlikely to survive the wait period not be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate what proportion of patients with a contraindication would survive the wait time.

Methods

Consecutive incident dialysis patients (January 2006 to December 2012) with a contraindication, defined using Canadian guidelines, were studied. Mortality rates were determined for each individual contraindication. Theoretical survival to the median wait time to transplantation was calculated.

Results

Of 746 incident patients, 435 (58 %) were deemed to have a contraindication at dialysis start. Nearly 80 % had a contraindication with a high mortality rate (dementia, multisystem disease, etc.). Patients with high mortality rates were less likely to survive the wait list than be transplanted. Patients with non-adherence, obesity, and potentially reversible disease had relatively low mortality rates, were more likely to survive, and possibly be transplanted at a time with the prospect of a better outcome.

Conclusions

This study gives some credence that many patients with a contraindication are not likely to benefit. A better framework of defining contraindications is needed to allow better decision-making.