Continued transplant immunosuppression may prolong survival after return to peritoneal dialysis: results of a decision analysis

Exploring Preconceptions as Barriers to Peritoneal Dialysis Eligibility: A Global Scenario-Based Survey of Kidney Care Physicians

Introduction

Despite the growing number of patients requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT), peritoneal dialysis (PD) is underutilized globally. A contributory factor may be clinician myths about its use. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions about PD initiation by clinicians according to various physical, social, and clinical characteristics of patients.

Methods

An online global survey (in English and Thai) was administered to ascertain nephrologists' and nephrology trainees' decisions on recommending PD as a treatment modality.

Results

A total of 645 participants (522 nephrologists and 123 trainees; 56% male) from 54 countries (66% from high-income countries [HICs], 22% from upper middle-income countries [UMICs], 12% from lower middle-income countries, and 1% from low-income countries [LICs]) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 81% identified as attending physicians or consultants, and 19% identified as trainees or other. PD was recommended for most scenarios, including repeated exposures to heavy lifting, swimming (especially in a private pool and ocean), among patients with cirrhosis or cognitive impairment with available support, and those living with a pet if a physical separation can be achieved during PD. Certain abdominal surgeries were more acceptable to proceed with PD (hysterectomy, 90%) compared to others (hemicolectomy, 45%). Similar variation was noted for different types of stomas (nephrostomies, 74%; suprapubic catheters, 53%; and ileostomies, 27%).

Conclusion

The probability of recommending PD in various scenarios was greater among clinicians from HICs, larger units, and consultants with more clinical experience. There is a disparity in recommending PD across various clinical scenarios driven by experience, unit-level characteristics, and region of practice. Globally, evidence-informed education is warranted to rectify misconceptions to enable greater PD uptake.

The Role of Allograft Nephrectomy in the Failing Kidney Transplant

Patients with failed renal allografts have associated increased morbidity and mortality. The individualization of immunosuppression taper is the key element in managing these patients to avoid graft intolerance and sensitization while balancing the risk of continued immunosuppression. Most patients with uncomplicated chronic allograft failure do not require allograft nephrectomy (AN), and there is no clear evidence that it improves outcomes. The AN procedure is associated with variable morbidity and mortality. It is reserved mainly for early technical graft failure or in symptomatic cases associated with allograft infection, malignancy, or graft intolerance syndrome. It may also be considered in those who cannot tolerate immunosuppression and are at high risk for graft intolerance. AN has been associated with an increased risk of sensitization due to inflammatory response from surgery, immunosuppression withdrawal with allograft failure, and retained endovascular tissue. Although it is presumed that for-cause AN after transplant failure is associated with sensitization, it remains unclear whether elective AN in patients who remain on immunotherapy may prevent sensitization. The current practice of immunosuppression taper has not been shown to prevent sensitization or increase infection risk, but current literature is limited by selection bias and the absence of medication adherence data. We discuss the management of failed allografts based on retransplant candidacy, wait times, risk of graft intolerance syndrome, and immunosuppression side effects. Many unanswered questions remain, and future prospective randomized trials are needed to help guide evidence-based management.

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.

A Systematic Review of Kidney Transplantation Decision Modelling Studies

BACKGROUND

Genome-based precision medicine strategies promise to minimize premature graft loss after renal transplantation, through precision approaches to immune compatibility matching between kidney donors and recipients. The potential adoption of this technology calls for important changes to clinical management processes and allocation policy. Such potential policy change decisions may be supported by decision models from health economics, comparative effectiveness research and operations management.

OBJECTIVE

We used a systematic approach to identify and extract information about models published in the kidney transplantation literature and provide an overview of the status of our collective model-based knowledge about the kidney transplant process.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and other sources, for reviews and primary studies. We reviewed all English-language papers that presented a model that could be a tool to support decision making in kidney transplantation. Data were extracted on the clinical context and modelling methods used.

RESULTS

A total of 144 studies were included, most of which focused on a single component of the transplantation process, such as immunosuppressive therapy or donor-recipient matching and organ allocation policies. Pre- and post-transplant processes have rarely been modelled together.

CONCLUSION

A whole-disease modelling approach is preferred to inform precision medicine policy, given its potential upstream implementation in the treatment pathway. This requires consideration of pre- and post-transplant natural history, risk factors for allograft dysfunction and failure, and other post-transplant outcomes. Our call is for greater collaboration across disciplines and whole-disease modelling approaches to more accurately simulate complex policy decisions about the integration of precision medicine tools in kidney transplantation.

Effect of kidney replacement therapy modality after first kidney graft failure on second kidney transplantation outcomes

Background

There is a lack of information regarding which is the best dialysis technique after kidney transplant (KT) failure. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of kidney replacement therapy modality-peritoneal dialysis (TX-PD-TX), haemodialysis (TX-HD-TX) and preemptive deceased donor retransplantation (TX-TX) on patient survival and second KT outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective observational study from the Catalan Renal Registry was carried out. We included adult patients with failing of their first KT from 2000 to 2018.

Results

Among 2045 patients, 1829 started on HD (89.4%), 168 on PD (8.2%) and 48 (2.4%) received a preemptive KT. Non-inclusion on the KT waiting list and HD were associated with worse patient survival. For patients included on the waiting list, the probability of human leucocyte antigens (HLA) sensitization and to receive a second KT was similar in HD and PD. A total of 776 patients received a second KT (38%), 656 in TX-HD-TX, 72 in TX-PD-TX and 48 in TX-TX groups. Adjusted mortality after second KT was higher in TX-HD-TX patients compared with TX-TX and TX-PD-TX groups, without differences between TX-TX and TX-PD-TX groups. Death-censored second graft survival was similar in all three groups.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that after first KT failure, PD is superior to HD in reducing mortality in candidates for a second KT without options for preemptive retransplantation.

The Role of Peritoneal Dialysis in Different Phases of Kidney Transplantation

The utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been increasing in the past decade owing to various government initiatives and recognition of benefits such as better preservation of residual renal function, quality of life, and lower cost. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the utilization of home therapies such as PD and kidney transplantation to treat end stage kidney disease (ESKD). A natural consequence of this development is that more patients will receive PD, and many will eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Therefore, it is important to understand the effect of pretransplant PD on posttransplant outcomes such as delayed graft function (DGF), rejection, thrombosis, graft, and patient survival. Furthermore, some of these patients may develop DGF, which raises the question of the utility of PD during DGF and its risks. Although transplant is the best renal replacement therapy option, it is not everlasting, and many transplant recipients must go on dialysis after allograft failure. Can PD be a good option for these patients? This is another critical question. Furthermore, a significant proportion of nonrenal solid organ transplant recipients develop ESKD. Is PD feasible in this group? In this review, we try to address all of these questions in the light of available evidence.

Humoral Response after Three Doses of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Hemodialysis Patients

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a worldwide health issue. Among hemodialysis (HD) patients, two-dose immunization schemes with mRNA vaccines have contributed to preventing severe COVID-19 cases; however, some have not produced a sufficient humoral response, and most have developed a rapid decline in antibody levels over the months following vaccination. This observational, prospective, multi-center study evaluated the humoral response in terms of presence and levels of IgG antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of the S1 spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S1-RBD IgG) to the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, either the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer), in 153 patients from three dialysis units affiliated to Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (Spain). Most hemodialysis patients responded intensely to this third vaccine dose, achieving the seroconversion in three out of four non- or weak responders to two doses. Moreover, 96.1% maintained the upper limit or generated higher titers than after the second. BNT162b2 vaccine, active cancer, and immunosuppressive treatment were related to a worse humoral response. Every hemodialysis patient should be administered a third vaccine dose six months after receiving the second one. Despite the lack of data, immunosuppressed patients and those with active cancer may benefit from more frequent vaccine boosters.

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.

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

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

Novel options for failing allograft in kidney transplanted patients to avoid or defer dialysis therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite improvement in short-term renal allograft survival in recent years, renal transplant recipients (RTR) have poorer long-term allograft outcomes. Allograft function slowly declines with periods of stable function similar to natural progression of chronic kidney disease in nontransplant population. Nearly all RTR transitions to failing renal allograft (FRG) period and require transition to dialysis. Conservative chronic kidney disease management before transition to end-stage renal disease is an increasingly important topic; however, there is limited data in RTR regarding how to delay dialysis initiation with conservative management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since immunological and nonimmunological factors unique to RTR contribute to decline in allograft function, therapies to slow progression of FRG should take both sets of factors into account. Renal replacement therapy either incremental dialysis or rekidney transplantation should be explored. This required taking benefits and risks of continuing immunosuppressive medications into account when allograft nephrectomy may be necessary.

SUMMARY

FRG may benefit from various interventions to slow progression of worsening allograft function. Until there are stronger evidence to guide interventions to preserve renal function, extrapolating evidence from nontransplant patients and clinical judgment are necessary. The goal is to provide individualized care for conservative management of RTR with FRG.

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).

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.

Peritoneal dialysis in patients with failed kidney transplant: Single centre experience

AIM

To determine if patients with failing kidney transplants who opt to have peritoneal dialysis (PD) have poor short-term PD technique survival and increased rates of peritonitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis comparing 50 consecutive patients starting PD after a failed kidney transplant to 93 incident patients starting PD (matching for age, gender, diabetes causing renal failure, ethnicity and year of starting PD).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 26 months. PD technique survival was lower for the post-transplant cohort. However, this did not appear to be related to PD peritonitis risk; infection rate was lower in the post-transplant group albeit not statistically significant (1 in 23.6 patient months vs 1 in 22.5 patient months). There were no differences in the proportion of Gram positive: Gran negative: Culture Negative infections. The only fungal peritonitis occurred in a Control patient. Results of baseline Peritoneal Equilibration Tests were not different; D/Pcr was 0.69 for post-TP versus 0.64 for Control (P = ns), and net UF was 250 mL for post-TP versus 310 mL for Control (P = ns). PET results after 12 months were also similar.

CONCLUSION

Our study found a small but significantly higher rate of PD technique failure in the post-transplant cohort, but this did not appear to be related to peritonitis rates or peritoneal membrane function. Further studies are required to explore reasons for PD technique failure in patients who have had kidney transplant, but our study supports the use of PD in selected patient from this cohort.

Peritoneal dialysis: The unique features by compartmental delivery of renal replacement therapy

Despite decades of research, the clinical efficacy of peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains enigmatic. We may wonder why the modality fail in some patients but perhaps the more proper question would be, why it works in so many? We know that the contribution of residual renal function (RRF), more so than in hemodialysis, is critically important to the well-being of many of the patients. Unique features of the modality include the relatively low volume of dialysate fluid needed to provide effective uremic control and the disproportionate tendency for both hypokalemia and hypoalbuminemia, when compared to hemodialysis. It is currently believed that most uremic toxins are generated on the interface of human and bacterial structures in the gastrointestinal tract, the intestinal biota. PD offers disproportionate removal of these toxins upon "first-pass", i.e., via PD fluid exchanges before reaching the systemic circulation beyond the gastrointestinal compartment. Studies examining the net removal gradient of protein-bound uremic toxins during PD are scarce, whereas RRF receives considerably more attention without effective interventions being developed to preserve it. We propose an alternative view on PD, emphasizing the modality's compartmental nature, both for its benefits and the limitations.

Medical management of chronic kidney disease in the renal transplant recipient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An updated overview of the state-of-the-art approaches to the care of chronic kidney disease-related issues in renal transplant recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

These include the impact of immunosuppression therapy on kidney function, the management of cardiovascular risk, metabolic bone disease, and hematologic complications, with a focus on the care of the patient with a failing allograft.

SUMMARY

A kidney transplant improves patient morbidity and mortality, but almost all transplant patients continue to have morbidity related to chronic kidney disease. It is increasingly clear that the provision of adequate immunosuppression is important to preserve allograft function. Recent studies have lent support to current guidelines for the management of cardiovascular risk factors in transplant patients. New data regarding the management of metabolic bone disease are sparse. Erythropoietin replacement may improve outcomes in transplant recipients, but the optimal target hemoglobin level is not known. Cessation of immunosuppression in the failed allograft carries the risk of rejection and allosensitization. New evidence suggests that nephrectomy may reduce mortality in patients with a failed allograft, but likely enhances sensitization in the patient awaiting retransplantation.

Preservation of residual kidney function in hemodialysis patients: reviving an old concept

Residual kidney function (RKF) may confer a variety of benefits to patients on maintenance dialysis. RKF provides continuous clearance of middle molecules and protein-bound solutes. Whereas the definition of RKF varies across studies, interdialytic urine volume may emerge as a pragmatic alternative to more cumbersome calculations. RKF preservation is associated with better patient outcomes including survival and quality of life and is a clinical parameter and research focus in peritoneal dialysis. We propose the following practical considerations to preserve RKF, especially in newly transitioned (incident) hemodialysis patients: (1) periodic monitoring of RKF in hemodialysis patients through urine volume and including residual urea clearance with dialysis adequacy and outcome markers such as anemia, fluid gains, minerals and electrolytes, nutritional, status and quality of life; (2) avoidance of nephrotoxic agents such as radiocontrast dye, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and aminoglycosides; (3) more rigorous hypertension control and minimizing intradialytic hypotensive episodes; (4) individualizing the initial dialysis prescription with consideration of an incremental/infrequent approach to hemodialysis initiation (e.g., twice weekly) or peritoneal dialysis; and (5) considering a lower protein diet, especially on nondialysis days. Because RKF appears to be associated with better patient outcomes, it requires more clinical and research focus in the care of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients.

Prolonged immunosuppression preserves nonsensitization status after kidney transplant failure

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Timing of return to dialysis in patients with failing kidney transplants

In the last decade, the number of patients starting dialysis after a failed kidney transplant has increased substantially. These patients appear to be different from their transplant-naïve counterparts, and so may be the timing of dialysis therapy initiation. An increasing number of studies suggest that in transplant-naïve patients, later dialysis initiation is associated with better outcomes. Very few data are available on timing of dialysis reinitiation in failed transplant recipients, and they suggest that an earlier return to dialysis therapy tended to be associated with worse survival, especially among healthier and younger patients and women. Failed transplant patients may also have unique issues such as continuation of immunosuppression versus withdrawal or the need for remnant allograft nephrectomy with regard to dialysis reinitiation. These patients may have a different predialysis preparation work-up, worse blood pressure control, higher or lower serum phosphorus levels, lower serum bicarbonate concentration, and worse anemia management. The choice of dialysis modality may also represent an important question for these patients, even though there appears to be no difference in mortality between patients starting peritoneal versus hemodialysis. Finally, failed transplant patients returning to dialysis appear to have a higher mortality rate compared with transplant-naïve incident dialysis patients, especially in the first several months of dialysis therapy. In this review, we will summarize the available data related to the timing of dialysis initiation and outcomes in failed kidney transplant patients after returning to dialysis.

Nephrectomy for the failed renal allograft in children: predictors and outcomes

BACKGROUND

There are no guidelines for the removal of a failed renal allograft, and its impact on subsequent dialysis and retransplantation has not yet been described.

METHODS

We performed a 10-year review of allograft failure to study the factors that determined an outcome of transplant nephrectomy and choice of subsequent renal replacement therapy in children with or without nephrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 34 children developed graft failure over the 10-year study period, of whom 18 (53 %) required transplant nephrectomy. The median graft survival was 1.1 (range 0.2-10.6) versus 7.5 (1.5-15.0) years in the nephrectomy and non-nephrectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.011). Children with graft failure within 1 year of transplantation were four-fold more likely to require transplant nephrectomy than those with graft failure after 1 year (p = 0.04). Renal biopsy performed at ≤ 8 weeks prior to graft loss showed Banff grade II acute rejection in 13 of the 18 children who required subsequent nephrectomy versus three of the 13 children who did not need nephrectomy (p = 0.01). Inflammation (fever, graft tenderness and raised C-reactive protein (CRP) in the 2 weeks preceding graft failure) was seen in 66 % of nephrectomized children, but not in any in the non-nephrectomy group (p = 0.0003 for CRP between groups). Banff II rejection, an inflammatory response and the time post-transplantation significantly and independently predicted the outcome of nephrectomy (p = 0.008, R (2) = 67 %). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody levels after graft failure were higher in the nephrectomy group (p = 0.0003), but there was no difference between groups in terms of the presence or class of donor-specific antibodies. Of the children with graft failure, 82 % required dialysis (61 % hemodialysis) and 35 % have to date been successfully retransplanted.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with Banff II rejection, an inflammatory response and early graft loss are more likely to require transplant nephrectomy. Nephrectomy may be associated with higher circulating HLA antibody levels.

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

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

[Kidney nephrectomy after allograft failure]

The number of kidney-transplant patients that return to dialysis therapy after a failed kidney allograft is increasing sharply. These patients differ from patients treated with chronic dialysis, but who have never received a transplant; i.e., former transplanted patients display a higher risk of morbidity-mortality, particularly from cardiovascular and infectious complications. The management of immunosuppression has not been codified for patients with a failed kidney allograft: immunosuppressive therapy can be either abruptly stopped or progressively reduced. In addition, nephrectomy of the failed allograft is debatable. Some advocate this procedure only when there is intolerance, e.g., gross hematuria, local pain, or unexplained inflammatory syndrome. In contrast, others propose a systematic nephrectomy, mainly to reveal anti-HLA antibodies within peripheral blood that may have been adsorbed within the failed allograft, and are not detected, even using sensitive techniques. Prospective studies are warranted to answer these issues.

Managing patients with a failed kidney transplant: how can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with a failed kidney transplant represent a unique chronic kidney disease (CKD) population that is increasing in number, and that is at high risk of morbidity and mortality because of a prolonged history of CKD that may be sub-optimally managed, and exposure to immunosuppressant medications that are often continued after transplant failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no consensus on the optimal use of immunosuppressant medications after transplant failure. Recent observational studies have demonstrated that surgical removal of the failed allograft and discontinuation of immunosuppressant medications may be associated with a decreased long-term risk of mortality. However, the indications for elective transplant nephrectomy remain poorly defined. Removal of the failed allograft may limit opportunities for repeat transplantation by increasing cytotoxic antibody levels, and may be associated with an increased risk of repeat transplant failure.

SUMMARY

In the absence of controlled studies, judicious use of immunosuppressant medications based on the patient's suitability for repeat transplantation, anticipated time to repeat transplantation, risk of sensitization, and drug tolerance, together with a cohesive plan for CKD management and appropriate preparation for dialysis, may improve outcomes in this unique patient population.

Definition and risk factors of rapidly declining residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis: an observational study

BACKGROUND

It is critical to preserve residual renal function (RRF) in peritoneal dialysis (PD), as RRF is associated with lower morbidity and mortality. There is no uniform definition of RRF, and rapidly declining RRF has rarely been studied and predominately limited to single factor analysis and not corrected for lead-time bias.

METHODS

An observational study in 71 incident PD patients. RRF was defined as urine output (UO) ≥500 ml/day and renal glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) ≥2 ml/min/1.73 m(2), rapid declining RRF as UO <500 ml/day and rGFR <2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) occurring within 6 months which were separately evaluated. Independent risk factors associated with rapid RRF decline were identified while correcting for lead-time bias.

RESULTS

RRF declined rapidly by both definitions in 65% patients 2.5 years after PD start. Both definitions of RRF decline were consistent in 96%. Nephrotoxic drugs, renal transplant failure and absent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) were independent risk factors associated with rapidly declining RRF defined both by definitions, intravascular radiocontrast additionally for UO decline.

CONCLUSIONS

Most PD patients demonstrated rapid RRF decline, independent of its definition. Both definitions are highly consistent and interchangeable. Nephrotoxic drugs and radiocontrast were identified as risk factors of acute, absent ACEI or ARB, and renal transplant failure of chronic renal injury.

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

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

Peritoneal dialysis in transplant recipient patients: outcomes and management

Transplant recipient patients performing dialysis represent a growing population in the integrated model of renal replacement therapy. This includes both patients with kidney allograft loss and non-renal organ transplant recipients requiring dialysis. Although a number of possible advantages of peritoneal dialysis over haemodialysis could hypothetically favour its choice when starting dialysis, peritoneal dialysis penetration is relatively residual in this population. Questions about its safety and adequacy in these patients can explain this fact. The purpose of this review is to address unfounded fears and document evidence that peritoneal dialysis should be considered a viable and safe choice in patients returning to dialysis. Specific issues that still need further investigation are also discussed.

Preserving residual renal function in dialysis patients: an update on evidence to assist clinical decision making

It has been documented that preservation of residual renal function in dialysis patients improves quality of life as well as survival. Clinical trials on strategies to preserve residual renal function are clearly lacking. While waiting for more results from clinical trials, patients will benefit from clinicians being aware of available knowledge. The aim of this review was to offer an update on current evidence assisting doctors in clinical practice.

Early but not late allograft nephrectomy reduces allosensitization after transplant failure

INTRODUCTION

Allosensitization is a significant obstacle to retransplantation for patients with primary renal graft failure.

METHODS

We assessed the impact of allograft nephrectomy (Group I) and weaning of immunosuppression (Group II) on percent panel reactive antibody (%PRA) at various time points after graft failure in 132 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months. Of these, 68% had allograft nephrectomy while 32% were placed on the waiting list and were either taken off immunosuppression, left on prednisone or on low-dose immunosuppressive therapy.

RESULTS

When groups were stratified into early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) graft failure, patients who had transplant nephrectomy for early failure demonstrated a decline in %PRA from 46% at time of graft failure to 27% at last follow-up (p = 0.02); conversely, %PRA continued to rise in Group II experiencing early allograft failure. Both Groups I and II patients with late graft failure maintained elevated %PRA at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Allograft nephrectomy may play a role in limiting allosensitization in patients with early but not late graft failures.

Impact of dialysis modality on survival after kidney transplant failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of Patients after Renal Graft Loss: An Open Question for Nephrologists

Patients undergoing renal graft failure and returning to dialysis are often regarded to like facing for the first time a substitutive treatment, without considering the technical complications, the economical impact, and the psychological implications. This review attempt, to give answers to various questions, concerning the management of vascular access, the immunosuppressive therapy, the transplantectomy, the emotional and neuropsychic aspects, and the quality of life of graft-failed patients.

[Failed transplant patients: dialysis initiation and short-term outcome]

This study was carried out to evaluate dialysis initiation of failed transplant patient and the short-term outcome of these patients on dialysis.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We conducted a retrospective study of transplanted patients from one centre returning in dialysis after allograft failure. Those patients were transplanted between 31st October 1986 and 3rd March 2004. Patients who experienced allograft failure after 6 months on transplantation were included in the study.

RESULTS

Among 600 transplanted patients, 92 patients restarted dialysis after allograft failure. Of the 92 failed transplant patients, 69 had a graft survival of more than 6 months. The mean glomerular filtration rate at dialysis initiation was 13+/-5mL per minute. At time of dialysis initiation, patients had mean haemoglobin level at 80.7+/-10.7g/L, and mean serum albumin level at 34+/-6g/L. Urgent dialysis was needed for 39 over 57 patients. Fourteen over 58 patients had no vascular access or peritoneal catheter at dialysis initiation. Fifty-six over 69 patients were treated by haemodialysis. Of the 13 patients treated by peritoneal dialysis 7 were on PD before transplantation whereas 49 over 57 haemodialysis patients were treated by haemodialysis before transplant failure (p<0.05). Immunosuppressive therapy was stopped during the first year following transplantation failure in 52 over 69 patients and 36 over 69 patients underwent transplantectomy. Thirteen over 56 patients presented a least one cardiovascular events after transplantation failure.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned dialysis initiation is frequent in failed transplant patients, in whom an early dialysis start is probably mandatory.

Clinical outcomes after failed renal transplantation-does dialysis modality matter?

Patients returning to dialysis after graft loss (DAGL) are an increasing segment of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population. It is unclear whether patients with previous graft loss have equivalent or reduced survival from the time of restarting dialysis when compared with ESRD patients initiating dialysis for the first time. Moreover, the impact of dialysis modality on the survival of patients returning to DAGL is not known. Studies of patients with transplant graft failure returning to hemodialysis (HD) have suggested decreased survival when compared with transplant-naïve dialysis patients, yet some studies of patients with graft failure returning to peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated equivalent survival. Based on these data, it is unclear whether survival differences may exist between the dialysis modalities, and if they do, whether they can be attributed to either differences in patient characteristics or to factors related to the dialysis modalities. For patients starting back onto dialysis, in whom preservation of residual renal function is important, it is also unclear how immunosuppression reduction or transplant nephrectomy may affect survival. In this review, we will summarize the available literature on survival rates of patients returning to DAGL; compare and contrast survival after initiation of HD and PD and discuss what is known about the impact of transplant nephrectomy and the different approaches to immunosuppression reduction. Practical considerations will be discussed with a specific emphasis on patients treated by PD.

Nephrectomy after transplant failure: current practice and outcomes

The role of transplant nephrectomy after transplant failure is uncertain. We report the use and consequences of transplant nephrectomy among 19 107 transplant failure patients between 1995 and 2003 in the United States. Among 3707 patients with early transplant failure (graft survival <12 m), nephrectomy was performed in 56%, and was associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26). In contrast, among 15,400 patients with late transplant failure (graft survival > or =12 m), nephrectomy was performed in 27%, and was associated with a decreased risk of death (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95). In early transplant failure patients, nephrectomy was associated with a lower risk of repeat transplant failure (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.94), while among late transplant failure patients; nephrectomy was associated with a higher risk of repeat transplant failure (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41). Definitive conclusions are not possible from this observational study. The role of nephrectomy in the management of dialysis treated transplant failure patients, and the implications of nephrectomy for repeat transplantation should be further studied in prospective studies.