Pre-transplant dialysis modality does not influence short- or long-term outcome in kidney transplant recipients: analysis of paired kidneys from the same deceased donor

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

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.

Impact of the Type of Dialysis on Time to Transplantation: Is It Just a Matter of Immunity?

Background: Renal transplantation represents the therapeutic gold standard in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Still the role of pre-transplant dialysis in affecting time to transplantation has yet to be determined. We wanted to verify whether the type of renal replacement therapy (hemodialysis vs. peritoneal dialysis) affects time to transplantation and to identify clinical features related to the longer time to transplantation. Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center observational study on patients who had received a transplant in the Bologna Transplant Unit from 1991 to 2019, described through the analysis of digital transplant list documents for sex, age, body mass index (BMI), blood group, comorbidities, underlying disease, serology, type of dialysis, time to transplantation, Panel Reactive Antibodies (PRA) max, number of preformed anti Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) antibodies. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the 1619 patients analyzed, we observed a significant difference in time to transplant, PRA max and Preformed Antibodies Number between patients who received Hemodialysis (HD) and Peritoneal dialysis (PD). Then we performed a multiple regression analysis with all the considered factors in order to identify features that support these differences. The clinical variables that independently and directly correlate with longer time to transplantation are PRA max (p < 0.0001), Antibodies number (p < 0.0001) and HD (p < 0.0001); though AB blood group (p < 0.0001), age (p < 0.003) and PD (p < 0.0001) inversely correlate with time to transplantation. Conclusions: In our work, PD population received renal transplants in a shorter period of time compared to HD and turned out to be less immunized. Considering immunization, the type of dialysis impacts both on PRA max and on anti HLA antibodies.

Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.

Prophylactic Peritoneal Fenestration during Kidney Transplantation Can Reduce the Type C Lymphocele Formation

Lymphocele is a common complication following kidney transplantation (KTx). We aimed to evaluate the preventive effect of peritoneal fenestration during KTx in reducing lymphocele. From January 2001, the data of all KTx were prospectively gathered in our digital data bank. From 2008, preventive peritoneal fenestration was performed as a routine procedure for all patients with KTx. Between 2001 and 2008, 579 KTx were performed without preventive peritoneal fenestration. To compare the results between with and without peritoneal fenestration, the same number of patients after 2008 (579 patients) was included in this study. The pre-, intra-, and postoperative data of the patients in these two groups were analyzed and compared, especially regarding the postoperative different types of lymphocele formation. The mean recipient age was 52.6 ± 13.8, and 33.7% of the patients were female. Type C lymphocele was significantly lower in the group with preventive fenestration (5.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.014 for 31/579 vs. 51/579). Peritoneal dialysis and implantation of the kidney in the left fossa were independently associated with a higher rate of type C lymphocele (OR 2.842, 95% CI 1.354–5.967, p = 0.006 and OR 3.614, 95% CI 1.215–10.747, p = 0.021, respectively). The results of this study showed that intraoperative preventive peritoneal fenestration could significantly reduce type C lymphocele.

Factors Influencing Long-Term Patient and Allograft Outcomes in Elderly Kidney Transplant Recipients

Introduction

Individuals aged ≥65 years are increasingly prevalent on the waitlist for kidney transplantation, yet evidence on recipient and donor factors that define optimal outcomes in elderly patients after kidney transplantation is scarce.

Methods

We used multivariable Cox regression modeling to determine the factors associated with all-cause death, death with a functioning graft, and overall and death-censored graft survival, using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry.

Results

A total of 802 kidney transplant recipients aged ≥65 years underwent their first transplantation between June 2006 and December 2016. Median age at transplantation was 68 years (interquartile range = 66−69 years). The 1-year and 5-year overall patient and graft survivals (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 95.1 (93.5−96.7) and 79.0 (75.1−82.9), and 92.9 (91.1−94.7) and 75.4 (71.3−79.5), respectively. Factors associated with higher risks of all-cause death included prevalent coronary artery disease (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.47 [1.03–2.11]), cerebrovascular disease (1.99 [1.26–3.16]), increasing graft ischemic time (1.06 per hour [1.03–1.09]), donor age (1.02 per year [1.01–1.03]), delayed graft function (1.64 [1.13−2.39]), and peritoneal dialysis pretransplantation (1.71 [1.17–2.51]).

Conclusion

Prevalent vascular disease and peritoneal dialysis as a pretransplantation dialysis modality are risk factors associated with poorer outcomes in transplant recipients aged ≥65 years. Careful selection and evaluation of potential candidates may improve graft and patient outcomes in older patients.

Consensus on definition and severity grading of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The incidence of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation varies considerably in the literature. This is partly because a universally accepted definition has not been established. This study aimed to propose an acceptable definition and severity grading system for lymphatic complications based on their management strategy.

METHODS

Relevant literature published in MEDLINE and Web of Science was searched systematically. A consensus for definition and a severity grading was then sought between 20 high-volume transplant centres.

RESULTS

Lymphorrhoea/lymphocele was defined in 32 of 87 included studies. Sixty-three articles explained how lymphatic complications were managed, but none graded their severity. The proposed definition of lymphorrhoea was leakage of more than 50 ml fluid (not urine, blood or pus) per day from the drain, or the drain site after removal of the drain, for more than 1 week after kidney transplantation. The proposed definition of lymphocele was a fluid collection of any size near to the transplanted kidney, after urinoma, haematoma and abscess have been excluded. Grade A lymphatic complications have a minor and/or non-invasive impact on the clinical management of the patient; grade B complications require non-surgical intervention; and grade C complications require invasive surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

A clear definition and severity grading for lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation was agreed. The proposed definitions should allow better comparisons between studies.

Is peritoneal dialysis prior to kidney transplantation a risk factor for ureteral stenosis after adult to adult live kidney transplantation

Objectives

Major urinary complications such as urinary leaks, stenosis or urinary tract infections after kidney transplantation can lead to graft or patient loss. The effect of peritoneal dialysis on post-kidney transplantation complications have been discussed but its effect on ureteral stenosis is unknown. In this study, it was aimed to analyze factors effecting major ureteral complications after living donor kidney transplantation and impact of peritoneal dialysis and double J-stents (JJ stents).

Material and Methods

This study included 116 adult to adult living donor kidney transplant patients. Factors effecting major urologic complications after living donor kidney transplantation were analyzed. The donors were primary relatives of the recipients.

Results

Major urologic complications after living donor kidney transplantation was 8/116 (6.9%). Urinary leak was present in 2 (1.7%) patients. Ureteral stenosis was encountered in 6 (5.2%) patients. Double J stents were used in 84 (72.4%) of the cases. The effect of JJ ureteral stent was not statistically significant for urinary leak, ureteral stenosis (p= 0.074, p= 0.470, respectively). A total of 29 (25%) patients had peritoneal dialysis before kidney transplantation. Preoperative peritoneal dialyses and bacteriuria after kidney transplantation were independent risk factors for ureteral stenosis in multivariate analysis (p= 0.013, and p= 0.010 respectively).

Conclusion

In the guidance of the results of the present study, peritoneal dialysis prior to kidney transplantation and bacteriuria are independent risk factors for ureteral stenosis after living donor kidney transplantation. JJ stents have no effect on urologic complications after living donor kidney transplantation.

Risk factors and etiology of repeat infection in kidney transplant recipients

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the best therapy available for patients with end-stage renal disease, but postoperative infections are a significant cause of mortality.In this retrospective study the frequency, risk factors, causative pathogens, and clinical manifestations of infection in KT recipients from Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University were investigated. Ninety-seven KT recipients who were hospitalized with infection between January 2010 and December 2016 were included. Clinical characteristics, surgery details, laboratory results, and etiology were compared in patients who developed single infection and patients who developed repeated infection (2 or more) after KT.A total of 161 infections were adequately documented in a total of 97 patients, of which 57 patients (58.8%) had 1 infection, 24 (24.7%) had 2, 11 (11.3%) had 3; 3 (3.1%) had 4, and 2 (2.1%) had 5 or more. The most common infection site was the urinary tract (90 infections; 56%), both overall and in the repeated infection group. The most frequently isolated pathogen was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In the repeated infection patients, in most cases of P. aeruginosa infection (54%) it was cultured from urine. For first infections, a time between KT and infection of ≤ 21 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.636) and a tacrolimus level ≥ 8 ng/mL (AUC 0.663) independently predicted repeat infection. The combination of these two predictive factors yielded an AUC of 0.716, which did not differ statistically significantly from either predictor alone.With regard to first infections after KT, a time between KT and infection of ≤ 21 days, and a tacrolimus level ≥ 8 ng/mL each independently predicted repeated infection in KT recipients.

Effect of Pretransplant Dialysis Modality on Outcomes After Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation

Background

Pretransplant dialysis modality may affect outcome after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT), and it has been suspected that peritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with more postoperative complications compared to hemodialysis (HD). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pretransplant dialysis modality affects the risk for postoperative complications in SPKT recipients.

Material/Methods

This was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of all patients undergoing SPKT from 2010 to 2017, during which 99 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantations were performed. Three pre-emptive transplantations were excluded. Patient groups receiving PD (n=59) or HD (n=37) were similar regarding baseline characteristics. All complications occurring during the first 3 months after transplantation, as well as patient and graft survival, were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between groups, with similar rates of intra-abdominal infections (8% in HD vs. 10% in PD), pancreatitis (16% in HD vs. 17% in PD), gastrointestinal bleedings (22% in HD vs. 10% in PD), and relaparotomies (27% in HD vs. 24% in PD). None of the patients had venous graft thrombosis. Past peritonitis was not associated with increased risk for postoperative complications in PD patients. Patient and graft survival were similar between PD and HD groups.

Conclusions

Peritoneal dialysis is not a risk factor for postoperative complications after SPKT.

Choice of dialysis modality prior to kidney transplantation: Does it matter?

The population of patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing, lengthening waiting lists for kidney transplantation. Majority of the patients are not able to receive a kidney transplant in timely manner even though it is well established that patient survival and quality of life after kidney transplantation is far better when compared to being on dialysis. A large number of patients who desire a kidney transplant ultimately end up needing some form of dialysis therapy. Most of incident ESRD patients choose hemodialysis (HD) over peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the modality of choice in the United States, even though studies have favored PD as a better choice of pre-transplant dialysis modality than HD. PD is largely underutilized in the United States due to variety of reasons. As a part of the decision making process, patients are often educated how the choice regarding modality of dialysis would fit into their life but it is not clear and not usually discussed, how it can affect eventual kidney transplantation in the future. In this article we would like to discuss ESRD demographics and outcomes, modality of dialysis and kidney transplant related events. We have summarized the data comparing PD and HD as the modality of dialysis and its impact on allograft and recipient outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Our Timing to Remove Peritoneal Catheter Dialysis After Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

Patients on peritoneal dialysis treatment represent 15% of the global dialysis population. The major complication of peritoneal dialysis is catheter and peritoneal infection. Peritoneal dialysis patients who receive kidney transplants are at increased risk of infection because of immunosuppressive therapy.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to show our ideal timing to remove peritoneal catheter after kidney transplant, which gives adequate security on renal function recovery and reduction of septic risk.

METHOD OF STUDY

We analyzed the outcomes of 65 patients on peritoneal dialysis who underwent kidney transplant between 2000 and 2016.

RESULTS

In 61 cases there was an immediate graft functional recovery. In 4 cases there was a delayed graft function (DGF), and we performed a hemodialysis with temporary placement of a venous catheter. In all patients we removed peritoneal dialysis catheter 30 to 45 days after transplant. There has been 1 case of catheter infection, which was treated with antibiotic therapy.

DISCUSSION

Our average time to remove the peritoneal dialysis catheter was shorter than times in previous studies, between the 30th and 45th postoperative day. In the 4 cases in which there has been a DGF, we performed hemodialysis treatment to avoid, in the immediate postoperative period, direct insults to the peritoneum by local dialysis procedures.

CONCLUSION

Our experience show that the 30th to 45th postoperative day is a good time frame, better yet a good watershed between the safe removal of peritoneal catheter when patients have a stabilized renal function and the possibility of leaving it in situ, to resume peritoneal dialysis in case of persistent DGF.

Impact of the pretransplant dialysis modality on kidney transplantation outcomes: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with uraemia must undergo chronic dialysis while awaiting kidney transplantation; however, the role of the pretransplant dialysis modality on the outcomes of kidney transplantation remains obscure. The objective of this study was to clarify the associations between the pretransplant dialysis modality, namely haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD), and the development of post-transplant de novo diseases, allograft failure and all-cause mortality for kidney-transplant recipients.

DESIGN

Retrospective nationwide cohort study.

SETTING

Data retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database.

PARTICIPANTS

The National Health Insurance database was explored for patients who received kidney transplantation in Taiwan during 1998-2011 and underwent dialysis >90 days before transplantation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The pretransplant characteristics, complications during kidney transplantation and post-transplant outcomes were statistically analysed and compared between the HD and PD groups. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the HR of the dialysis modality on graft failure and all-cause mortality. The primary outcomes were long-term post-transplant death-censored allograft failure and all-cause mortality started after 90 days of kidney transplantation until the end of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were events during kidney transplantation and post-transplant de novo diseases adjusted by propensity score in log-binomial model.

RESULTS

There were 1812 patients included in our cohort, among which 1209 (66.7%) and 603 (33.3%) recipients received pretransplant HD and PD, respectively. Recipients with chronic HD were generally older and male, had higher risks of developing post-transplant de novo ischaemic heart disease, tuberculosis and hepatitis C after adjustment. Pretransplant HD contributed to higher graft failure in the multivariate analysis (HR 1.38, p<0.05) after adjustment for the recipient age, sex, duration of dialysis and pretransplant diseases. There was no significant between-group difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant HD contributed to higher risks of death-censored allograft failure after kidney transplantation when compared with PD.

Paired Analysis of Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation in Peritoneal and Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

The impact of dialysis modality before kidney transplantation (hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) on outcomes is not clear. In this study we retrospectively analyzed the impact of dialysis modality on posttransplant follow-up.

METHODS

To minimize donor bias, a paired kidney analysis was applied. One hundred thirty-three pairs of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients were transplanted at our center between 1994 and 2016. Those who received kidneys from the same donor were included in the study. HD patients were significantly older (44 vs 48 years), but the Charlson Comorbidity Index was similar (3.12 vs 3.46) in both groups. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to immunosuppressive protocols and number of mismatches (2.96 vs 2.95).

RESULTS

One-year patient (98% vs 96%) and graft (90% vs 93%) survival was similar in the PD and HD patient groups. The Kaplan-Meier curves of the patients and graft survival did not differ significantly. Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) occurred significantly more often in the HD recipients. Graft vessel thrombosis resulting in graft loss occurred in 9 PD (6.7%) and 4 HD (3%) patients (P > .05). Serum creatinine concentration and estimated glomerular filtration rate (using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease guidelines) showed no difference at 1 month, 1 year, and at final visit. On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with graft loss were graft vessel thrombosis, DGF, and graft function 1 month after transplantation. On univariate analysis, age, coronary heart disease, and graft loss were associated with death. Among these factors, only coronary heart disease (model 1) and graft loss were significant predictors of death on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcome for renal transplantation is similar in patients with PD and HD. These groups differ in some aspects, however, such as susceptibility to vascular thrombosis in PD patients, and to DGF and AR in HD patients.

Comparison of graft and patient outcomes following kidney transplantation in extended hour and conventional haemodialysis patients

AIM

Differences in early graft function between kidney transplant recipients previously managed with either haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis are well described. However, only two single-centre studies have compared graft and patient outcomes between extended hour and conventional HD patients, with conflicting results.

METHODS

This study compared the outcomes of all extended hour (≥24 h/week) and conventional HD patients transplanted in Australia and New Zealand between 2000 and 2014. The primary outcome was delayed graft function (DGF), defined in an ordinal manner as either a spontaneous fall in serum creatinine of less than 10% within 24 h, or the need for dialysis within 72 h following transplantation. Secondary outcomes included the requirement for dialysis within 72 h post-transplant, acute rejection, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 months, death-censored graft failure, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and a composite of graft failure and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 4935 HD patients (378 extended hour HD, 4557 conventional HD) received a kidney transplant during the study period. Extended hour HD was associated with an increased likelihood of DGF compared with conventional HD (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.67). There was no significant difference between extended hour and conventional HD in terms of any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional HD, extended hour HD was associated with DGF, although long-term graft and patient outcomes were not different.