1
|
Shan XS, Hu LK, Wang Y, Liu HY, Chen J, Meng XW, Pu JX, Huang YH, Hou JQ, Feng XM, Liu H, Meng L, Peng K, Ji FH. Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine on Delayed Graft Function Following a Donation-After-Cardiac-Death Kidney Transplant: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2215217. [PMID: 35657627 PMCID: PMC9166619 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Delayed graft function (DGF) is a risk factor for acute rejection and graft failure after kidney transplant. Previous studies have suggested that dexmedetomidine may be renoprotective, but whether the use of dexmedetomidine would improve kidney allograft function is unknown. OBJECTIVE To investigate the effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine on DGF following a donation-after-cardiac-death (DCD) kidney transplant. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted at The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University in Suzhou, China. Adults (18 years or older) who were scheduled for DCD kidney transplant were enrolled between September 1, 2019, and January 28, 2021, and then randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine or normal saline (placebo). One-year postoperative outcomes were recorded. All analyses were based on the modified intention-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS Patients who were randomized to the dexmedetomidine group received a 24-hour perioperative dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion (0.4 μg/kg/h intraoperatively and 0.1 μg/kg/h postoperatively). Patients who were randomized to the normal saline group received an intravenous infusion of the placebo with the same dose regimen as the dexmedetomidine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of DGF, defined as the need for dialysis in the first posttransplant week. The prespecified secondary outcomes were in-hospital repeated dialysis in the first posttransplant week, in-hospital acute rejection, and serum creatinine, serum cystatin C, estimated glomerular filtration rate, need for dialysis, and patient survival on posttransplant day 30. RESULTS Of the 114 patients enrolled, 111 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [10.8] years; 64 male patients [57.7%]), of whom 56 were randomized to the dexmedetomidine group and 55 to the normal saline group. Dexmedetomidine infusion compared with normal saline reduced the incidence of DGF (17.9% vs 34.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.98; P = .04) and repeated dialysis (12.5% vs 30.9%; OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.88; P = .02, which was not statistically significant after multiple testing corrections), without significant effect on other secondary outcomes. Dexmedetomidine vs normal saline infusion led to a higher median (IQR) creatinine clearance rate on postoperative days 1 (9.9 [4.9-21.2] mL/min vs 7.9 [2.0-10.4] mL/min) and 2 (29.6 [9.7-67.4] mL/min vs 14.6 [3.8-45.1] mL/min) as well as increased median (IQR) urine output on postoperative days 2 (106.5 [66.3-175.6] mL/h vs 82.9 [27.1-141.9] mL/h) and 7 (126.1 [98.0-151.3] mL/h vs 107.0 [82.5-137.5] mL/h) and at hospital discharge discharge (110.4 [92.8-121.9] mL/h vs 97.1 [77.5-113.8] mL/h). Three patients (5.5%) from the normal saline group developed allograft failure by the post hoc 1-year follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that 24-hour perioperative dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of DGF after DCD kidney transplant. The findings support the use of dexmedetomidine in kidney transplants. TRIAL REGISTRATION Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR1900025493.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xi-sheng Shan
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Lin-kun Hu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Yiqing Wang
- Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hua-yue Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jun Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xiao-wen Meng
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jin-xian Pu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Yu-hua Huang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jian-quan Hou
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xiao-mei Feng
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City
| | - Hong Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis Health, Sacramento
| | - Lingzhong Meng
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | - Ke Peng
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| | - Fu-hai Ji
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
- Institute of Anesthesiology, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Luo Y, Dong Z, Hu X, Tang Z, Zhang J, Deng W, Wei X, Miao B, Qin F, Na N. Donor Death Category Is an Effect Modifier Between Cold Ischemia Time and Post-transplant Graft Function in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8:743085. [PMID: 34888321 PMCID: PMC8649960 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.743085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2021] [Accepted: 10/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to analyze the effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) on post-transplant graft function through mixed-effect model analysis to reduce the bias caused by paired mate kidneys. Methods: We reviewed all kidney transplantation records from 2015 to 2019 at our center. After applying the exclusion criteria, 561 cases were included for analysis. All donor characteristics, preservation and matching information, and recipient characteristics were collected. Transplant outcomes included delayed graft function (DGF) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Generalized linear mixed models were applied for analysis. We also explored potential effect modifiers, namely, donor death category, expanded criteria donors, and donor death causes. Results: Among the 561 cases, 79 DGF recipients developed DGF, and 15 recipients who died after surgery were excluded from the eGFR estimation. The median stable eGFR of the 546 recipients was 60.39 (47.63, 76.97) ml/min/1.73 m2. After adjusting for confounding covariates, CIT had a negative impact on DGF incidence [odds ratio = 1.149 (1.006, 1.313), P = 0.041]. In the evaluation of the impact on eGFR, the regression showed that CIT had no significant correlation with eGFR [β = −0.287 (−0.625, 0.051), P = 0.096]. When exploring potential effect modifiers, only the death category showed a significant interaction with CIT in the effect on eGFR (Pinteraction = 0.027). In the donation after brain death (DBD) group, CIT had no significant effect on eGFR [β = 0.135 (−0.433, 0.702), P = 0.642]. In the donation after circulatory death/donation after brain death followed by circulatory death (DCD/DBCD) group, CIT had a significantly negative effect on eGFR [β= −0.700 (−1.196, −0.204), P = 0.006]. Compared to a CIT of 0–6 h, a CIT of 6–8 or 8–12 h did not decrease the post-transplant eGFR. CIT over 12 h (12–16 h or over 16 h) significantly decreased eGFR. With the increase in CIT, the regenerated eGFR worsened (Ptrend = 0.011). Conclusion: Considering the effect of paired mate kidneys, the risk of DGF increased with prolonged CIT. The donor death category was an effect modifier between CIT and eGFR. Prolonged CIT did not reduce the eGFR level in recipients from DBDs but significantly decreased the eGFR in recipients from DCDs/DBCDs. This result indicates the potential biological interaction between CIT and donor death category.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- You Luo
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhanwen Dong
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiao Hu
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zuofu Tang
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jinhua Zhang
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Neurosurgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weiming Deng
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiangling Wei
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Bin Miao
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Feng Qin
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ning Na
- Department of Kidney Transplantation, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chen L, Bai H, Jin H, Zhang T, Shi B, Cai M, Wang Y. Outcomes in kidney transplantation with mycophenolate mofetil-based maintenance immunosuppression in China: a large-sample retrospective analysis of a national database. Transpl Int 2020; 33:718-728. [PMID: 31868986 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2019] [Revised: 08/27/2019] [Accepted: 12/18/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
There is no large data analysis reporting the outcome of Chinese kidney transplant patients using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). This study analyzed 6719 patients from the Chinese Scientific Registry of Kidney Transplantation using MMF, which included 1153 from donation after cardiac death (DCD), 1271 from donation after brain and cardiac death (DBCD), and 4295 from living donor (LD). Compared with the transplants from deceased donor (DD), better outcomes including 3-year graft survival probabilities (LD = 95.8% vs. DD = 91.3%), incidence of delayed graft function (DGF, LD = 2.4% vs. DD = 17.7%), infection (LD = 10.7% vs. DD = 20.7%), graft loss (LD = 2.3% vs. DD = 6.3), and death (LD = 1.3% vs. DD = 3.2%) were shown in the LD group, with similar incidences of acute rejection (AR, LD = 3.7% vs. DD = 4.7%), hyperuricemia (LD = 21.7% vs. DD = 22.2%) within postoperative 1 year, and serum creatinine (Scr) >133 μmol/l at 1 year (LD = 18.8% vs. DD = 18.6%). Nonsignificant differences were found between the DCD and DBCD group. The 5-year survival of patient and graft in the LD group were 97.5% and 93.0%. Adjusted Cox model for graft loss showed significant associations with DGF [hazard ratio 3.7 (95% CI: 2.4, 5.8)], AR [2.8 (1.7, 4.6)], Scr >133 μmol/l at 1 year [2.6 (1.5, 4.2)], hyperuricemia [2.3 (1.6, 3.3)], and DD [1.6 (1.1, 2.4)].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liping Chen
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Hongwei Bai
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Hailong Jin
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Tianyu Zhang
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Bingyi Shi
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ming Cai
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yudi Wang
- Kidney Transplant Quality Control Center of National Health Commission, The 8th Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li C, Zhao Q, Zhang W, Chen M, Ju W, Wu L, Han M, Ma Y, Zhu X, Wang D, Guo Z, He X. MicroRNA-146b-5p Identified in Porcine Liver Donation Model is Associated with Early Allograft Dysfunction in Human Liver Transplantation. Med Sci Monit 2017; 23:5876-5884. [PMID: 29227984 PMCID: PMC5736328 DOI: 10.12659/msm.907542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor transplant outcome was observed in donation after brain death followed by circulatory death (DBCD), since the donor organs suffered both cytokine storm of brain death and warm ischemia injury. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as promising disease biomarkers, so we sought to establish a miRNA signature of porcine DBCD and verify the findings in human liver transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS MiRNA expression was determined with miRNA sequencing in 3 types of the porcine model of organ donation, including donation after brain death (DBD) group, donation after circulatory death (DCD) group, and DBCD group. Bioinformatics analysis was performed to reveal the potential regulatory behavior of target miRNA. Human liver graft biopsy samples after reperfusion detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization were used to verify the expression of target miRNA. RESULTS We compared miRNA expression profiles of the 3 donation types. The porcine liver graft miR-146b was significantly increased and selected in the DBCD group versus in the DBD and DCD groups. The donor liver expression of human miR-146b-5p, which is homologous to porcine miR-146b, was further examined in 42 cases of human liver transplantations. High expression of miR-146b-5p successfully predicted the post-transplant early allograft dysfunction (EAD) with the area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.759 (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS Our results revealed the miRNA signature of DBCD liver grafts for the first time. The miR-146b-5p may have important clinical implications for monitoring liver graft function and predicating transplant outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheukfai Li
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Qiang Zhao
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Wei Zhang
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Maogen Chen
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Weiqiang Ju
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Linwei Wu
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Ming Han
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Yi Ma
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Xiaofeng Zhu
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Dongping Wang
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Zhiyong Guo
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| | - Xiaoshun He
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Organ Donation and Transplant Immunology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).,Guangdong Provincial International Cooperation Base of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)
| |
Collapse
|