Effect of hemodialysis before transplant surgery on renal allograft function--a pair of randomized controlled trials

Anticoagulation for people receiving long-term haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) requires safe and effective anticoagulation to prevent clot formation within the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis treatments to enable adequate dialysis and minimise adverse events, including major bleeding. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide a more predictable dose, reliable anticoagulant effects and be simpler to administer than unfractionated heparin (UFH) for HD anticoagulation, but may accumulate in the kidneys and lead to bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation strategies (including both heparin and non-heparin drugs) for long-term HD in people with kidney failure. Any intervention preventing clotting within the extracorporeal circuit without establishing anticoagulation within the patient, such as regional citrate, citrate enriched dialysate, heparin-coated dialysers, pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), and saline flushes were also included.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to November 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating anticoagulant agents administered during HD treatment in adults and children with kidney failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies randomising 4535 participants. The risk of bias in each study was adjudicated as high or unclear for most risk domains. Compared to UFH, LMWH had uncertain effects on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (3 studies, 91 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.42; I2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate anticoagulation may lower the risk of minor bleeding compared to UFH (2 studies, 82 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data comparing regional citrate to UFH on risks of extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and major bleeding. The effects of very LMWH, danaparoid, prostacyclin, direct thrombin inhibitors, factor XI inhibitors or heparin-grafted membranes were uncertain due to insufficient data. The effects of different LMWH, different doses of LMWH, and the administration of LMWH anticoagulants using inlet versus outlet bloodline or bolus versus infusion were uncertain. Evidence to compare citrate to another citrate or control was scant. The effects of UFH compared to no anticoagulant therapy or different doses of UFH were uncertain. Death, dialysis vascular access outcomes, blood transfusions, measures of anticoagulation effect, and costs of interventions were rarely reported. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospital admissions. Adverse events were inconsistently and rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant strategies, including UFH and LMWH, have uncertain comparative risks on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate may decrease minor bleeding, but the effects on major bleeding and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis were not reported. Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different forms of anticoagulant strategies for HD is of low and very low certainty, as available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on important clinical outcomes.

Interventions for preventing thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE₁ plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.

Perioperative considerations for kidney and pancreas-kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in patients with end-stage renal disease, as it improves survival and quality of life. Living donor kidney transplant prior to pancreas transplantation, or simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation are discussed. Patients usually present comorbidities and extensive preoperative workups are recommended, especially cardiac assessment, though type and frequency of surveillance is not established. Nephroprotective strategies include adequate fluid status and goal-directed therapy. The conventional use of diuretics has not demonstrated a real nephroprotective effect at follow-up. Thromboprophylaxis regimes, especially for the pancreatic graft outcome, are of importance. Notably, transplantation in the obese population has increased in recent decades. Strict preoperative evaluation and pulmonary considerations must be kept in mind. Finally, robotic kidney transplant is a recent approach that presents anesthetic challenges, mainly related to steep Trendelenburg position and fluid restriction.

Utility and safety of early allograft biopsy in adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Delayed graft function (DGF) is considered a risk factor for rejection after kidney transplantation (KTx). Clinical guidelines recommend weekly allograft biopsy until DGF resolves. However, who may benefit the most from such an aggressive policy and when histology should be evaluated remain debated.

METHODS

We analyzed 223 biopsies in 145 deceased donor KTx treated with basiliximab or anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) and calcineurin inhibitor-based maintenance. The aim of the study was to assess the utility and safety of biopsies performed within 28 days of transplant. Relationships between transplant characteristics, indication, timing, and biopsy-related outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Main indication for biopsy was DGF (87.8%) followed by lack of improvement in graft function (9.2%), and worsening graft function (3.1%). Acute tubular necrosis was the leading diagnosis (89.8%) whereas rejection was detected in 8.2% specimens. Rejection was more frequent in patients biopsied due to worsening graft function or lack of improvement in graft function than DGF (66.7% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.0075 and 33.3% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.0104, respectively) and in biopsies performed between day 15 and 28 than from day 0 to 14 (31.2% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.0002). Complication rate was 4.1%. Management was affected by the information gained with histology in 12.2% cases (7% considering DGF).

CONCLUSIONS

In low-immunological risk recipients treated with induction and calcineurin inhibitors maintenance, protocol biopsies obtained within 2 weeks of surgery to rule out rejection during DGF do not necessarily offer a favourable balance between risks and benefits. In these patients, a tailored approach may minimize complications thus optimizing results.

Is Regional Citrate Anticoagulation the Future of Hemodialysis?

Citrate has many characteristics of the ideal anticoagulant for hemodialysis. In addition to immediate and complete anticoagulation in the dialysis circuit, citrate has important effects beyond anticoagulation, mainly in reducing inflammatory response induced by hemodialysis. Citrate has already become the standard anticoagulant in acute kidney injury requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), both for adults and children, with the citrate module being a part of modern CRRT monitors. Although the citrate module is not yet available for intermittent hemodialysis, precise infusion pumps, point-of-care ionometers and high citrate clearance from high flux dialyzers increase safety while reducing the risk of metabolic complications, both in adult and pediatric patients. Slovenia has a long tradition, high volume and expansion of citrate use in hemodialysis, including long-term citrate anticoagulation in selected patients. At the Department of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, more than 10 000 citrate procedures were performed in 2015. We believe that regional citrate anticoagulation may replace heparin as the main anticoagulant for intermittent hemodialysis in the not so distant future.

Anesthesia for Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation

Kidney transplants are the most common solid organ abdominal transplant and are occasionally performed simultaneously with pancreas transplants in diabetic patients. Preoperative evaluation of potential transplant recipients should focus on the potential for occult cardiovascular disease while also screening for other signs of end-organ dysfunction. Intraoperatively, it is of utmost importance to ensure adequate graft perfusion to limit the risk of postoperative graft dysfunction or rejection. Postoperative care of the kidney or pancreas transplant patient should focus on ensuring normalization of volume status, electrolyte concentrations, and glycemic control.

Delayed graft function and its management in children

Delayed graft function (DGF) is commonly defined as the requirement for dialysis within the first 7 days following renal transplantation. The major underlying mechanism is related to ischaemia/reperfusion injury, which includes microvascular inflammation and cell death and apoptosis, and to the regeneration processes. Several clinical factors related to donor, recipient and organ procurement/transplantation procedures may increase the risk of DGF, including donor cardiovascular instability, older donor age, donor creatinine concentration, long cold ischaemia time and marked body mass index of both the donor and recipient. Some of these parameters have been used in specific predictive formulas created to assess the risk of DGF. A variety of other pre-, intra- and post-transplant clinical factors may also increase the risk of DGF, such as potential drug nephrotoxicity, surgical problems and/or hyperimmunization of the recipient. DGF may decrease the long-term graft function, but data on this effect are inconsistent, partially due to the many different types of organ donation. Relevant management strategies may be classified into the classic clinical approach, which has the aim of minimizing the individual risk factors of DGF, and specific pharmacologic strategies, which are designed to prevent or treat ischaemia/reperfusion injury. Both strategies are currently being evaluated in clinical trials.

Body mass index: short- and long-term impact on kidney transplantation

AIM

The topic of pretransplantation body mass index (BMI) is still a matter of controversy. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of pretransplant BMI on short- and long-term outcomes in patients receiving kidney transplant.

METHODS

We have analysed 521 renal transplant recipients (RTRs). BMI was categorised as follows: less than or equal to 20, more than 20 to less than or equal to 25, more than 25 to less than or equal to 30 and more than 30 RESULTS: The distribution of the RTRs per category of BMI at baseline was: ≤ 20 (14.4%), > 20 to ≤ 25 (50.9%), > 25 ≤ 30 (26.9%) and > 30 (7.9%). In further analysis, the patients were stratified into four groups according to their pretransplant BMI values. There was no difference in the rates of delayed graft function between the four analysed groups of patients. Recipients with normal pre-transplant BMI were less likely to develop wound complications in comparison to the recipients with high BMI (p = 0.04) and obese recipients (p = 0.0001). RTRs with normal BMI were less likely to develop lymphoceles in comparison to the recipients with high BMI (p = 0.0003). Obese patients were more likely to develop lymphocele in comparison to the recipients with high BMI (p = 0.01). Obese recipients had a longer mean length of hospital stay in comparison to the recipients with normal BMI (p = 0.04). There was no significant difference regarding 1-year graft and patient survival, as well as because of acute rejection crisis between the investigated groups of recipients. We did not find any significant difference in 5-year patients and graft survival between those RTRs with BMI > 20 to ≤ 25 and to those recipients with BMI > 25.

CONCLUSION

Overweight and obese transplant candidates should not be excluded from kidney transplantation.

Delayed graft function after kidney transplantation: the clinical perspective

Delayed graft function continues to pose a significant challenge to clinicians in the context of kidney transplantation. With the present disparity between supply and demand for organs, transplantation is proceeding with more marginal kidneys and therefore the problem of delayed graft function is likely to increase in the future. Although our understanding of the mechanism and risk factors for delayed graft function has improved, translation of this understanding into targeted clinical therapy to attenuate or manage established delayed graft function has been elusive. Based on current trends, the use of kidneys from expanded criteria or cardiac death donors will continue to expand, which will increase the prevalence of delayed graft function in the immediate postoperative setting. The aim of this article is to discuss and critique the available clinical evidence for targeted intervention in the prevention and management of delayed graft function and review emerging and experimental therapies.

Delayed graft function in the kidney transplant

Acute kidney injury occurs with kidney transplantation and too frequently progresses to the clinical diagnosis of delayed graft function (DGF). Poor kidney function in the first week of graft life is detrimental to the longevity of the allograft. Challenges to understand the root cause of DGF include several pathologic contributors derived from the donor (ischemic injury, inflammatory signaling) and recipient (reperfusion injury, the innate immune response and the adaptive immune response). Progressive demand for renal allografts has generated new organ categories that continue to carry high risk for DGF for deceased donor organ transplantation. New therapies seek to subdue the inflammatory response in organs with high likelihood to benefit from intervention. Future success in suppressing the development of DGF will require a concerted effort to anticipate and treat tissue injury throughout the arc of the transplantation process.