Lower urinary tract symptoms and their impact on quality of life after successful renal transplantation

Factors related to nocturia-specific quality of life in renal transplantation patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients following renal transplantation (RTX) may experience nocturia exacerbation due to polyuria and reduced bladder capacity, thereby impacting the specific quality of life (QOL) associated with nocturia. The present study aims to investigate factors associated with the deterioration of nocturia-specific QOL in RTX patients.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 59 consecutive patients who had undergone successful RTX. Nocturia-related QOL questionnaires (N-QOL) were employed to evaluate the specific QOL related to nocturia. The Bother/Concern and Sleep/Energy domains of the N-QOL were also assessed. The primary outcome measure was to explore factors related to the aggravation of nocturia-specific QOL in patients post-RTX.

RESULTS

The mean nocturia frequency post-RTX was 1.3 ± 1.0. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed a significant reduction in the Bother/Concern domain score associated with increased nocturia (p = .042). Aging significantly decreased the total N-QOL score and the Sleep/Energy domain score (p = .001 and .0002, respectively). Prolonged duration after RTX significantly reduced the scores of both the Sleep/Energy domain and the Bother/Concern domain (p = .018 and .037, respectively). However, the duration of dialysis prior to RTX was not significantly associated with the total score or subdomains of N-QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Nocturia-specific QOL affected not only the nocturia itself, but also aging and the prolonged duration after RTX. Thus, comprehensive approaches to the RTX patients were needed to improve the Nocturia-specific QOL in RTX patients.

Impact of Nocturnal Polyuria and Sleep Quality in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Nocturia

BACKGROUND

To investigate the quality of life (QOL) of patients with nocturia after kidney transplantation (KT) and the association between nocturnal polyuria and sleep quality.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, a patient who consented was evaluated using the following items: international prostate symptom QOL score, nocturia-quality of life score, overactive bladder symptom score, Pittsburgh sleep quality index, bladder diary, uroflowmetry, and bioimpedance analysis. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from medical charts.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were included in the analysis. Approximately 25% of patients urinated once at night, and 58.1% had nocturia twice. Nocturnal polyuria was observed in 86.0% of patients, and overactive bladder was observed in 23.3% of patients. According to the Pittsburgh sleep quality Index, 34.9% of patients had poor sleep quality. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with nocturnal polyuria tended to have a high estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .058). On the other hand, multivariate analysis for poor sleep quality revealed that high body fat percentage and low nocturia-quality of life total score were independently correlated factors (P = .008 and P = .012, respectively). Furthermore, the patients with nocturia ≥3/night were significantly older than those with nocturia ≤2/night (P = .022).

CONCLUSION

Nocturnal polyuria, poor sleep quality, and aging may decrease the QOL of patients with nocturia after KT. Further investigations, including optimal water intake and interventions, can lead to better management after KT.

Update on the Management of Urological Problems Following Kidney Transplantation

Urological problems in kidney transplant recipients are not limited only to posttransplantation urological complications. These problems are a cause of significant patient mortality and morbidity that have wide-ranging effects on graft survival throughout the entire life of the graft. Ultimately, the transplant comprises a major portion of the urinary system; therefore, the transplant team should be prepared for foreseeable and unforeseeable urological problems in the short and long terms. These mainly include postoperative urological complications (urine leakage, ureteral stenosis, and vesicoureteral reflux), bladder outlet obstruction, and graft urolithiasis. In recent years, significant advances have been made in the management of urological complications, especially due to advances in endourologic interventions. The aim of this review is to summarize the management of urological problems after kidney transplantation in the context of the current literature.

Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Kidney Transplant Recipients and Timing of Treatment With TURP: Impact on Renal Graft Survival and Function

BACKGROUND

With the aging of recipients of renal transplantation (RT) one of the emerging issues is the incidence of low urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which may have negative consequences on the graft survival and function. The aim of our study was to assess the influence of LUTS and the treatment with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the outcome of RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected data from men over 55 who underwent RT at our center from January 2007 to December 2016. We analyzed the incidence of LUTS; the rate of treatment with TURP; the eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) at 6 months and 1, 3, and 5 years from transplantation; and graft survival.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients out of 268 experienced LUTS, and 19 of them had a bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Patients experiencing BOO had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) of graft failure (HR 5.7, CI 1.56-21.4) compared to the other recipients. Of the 18 patients treated with TURP, 10 received the procedure within 6 months from the LUTS onset. They had a significantly absolute eGFR improvement at 6 months from the intervention (+14.25 mL/min ± 8.10) compared to the patients treated later (-8.4 mL/min ± 14.43).

DISCUSSION

We showed the negative effects of LUTS on kidney graft function and survival. Although TURP is the standard therapy for such an issue, the best timing for it still has to be defined. Our experience supports the need for an early treatment of the LUTS for promoting the outcome of the RT.

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Endoscopic Surgical Procedures in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Comparison Between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate, GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate, and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

Purpose: The main objective of this multicentric retrospective pilot study was to evaluate the 1-year follow-up safety (i.e., minor [Clavien-Dindo I-II] and major [Clavien-Dindo ≥III] complications) of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate (GL PVP), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) performed after kidney transplantation (KT). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and to assess the impact of these procedures on graft function. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included all KT recipients who underwent a HoLEP or GL PVP or TURP for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in three French university centers. Results: From January 2013 to April 2018, 60 BPH endoscopic surgical procedures in KT recipients were performed: 17 HoLEP (HoLEP group), 9 GL PVP (GL PVP group), and 34 TURP (TURP group). Age, body mass index, preoperative serum creatinine, preoperative International Prostatic Symptom Score, preoperative Q_max, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, medical history of acute urinary retention (AUR), urinary tract infection (UTI), and indwelling urethral catheter were similar in all study groups. Mean preoperative prostate volume was higher in HoLEP group. The rate of overall postoperative complications was statistically higher in the HoLEP group (11/17 [64.7%] vs 1/9 [11.1%] vs 12/34 [35.3%] in HoLEP group, GL PVP group, and TURP group, respectively, p = 0.02), with higher rate of long-term UTI and AUR. Q_max improved in all groups after operation. Delta postoperative month 12-preoperative serum creatinine was similar in the all groups. Conclusions: Although our study is underpowered, the rate of postoperative complications is higher with HoLEP procedure, in comparison with GL PVP, for the treatment of BPH after KT. One-year efficacy is similar in HoLEP, GL PVP, and TURP groups. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.

The outcomes of transurethral incision/resection of the prostate (TUIP/TURP) performed early after renal transplantation

OBJECTIVE

In the early period after renal transplantation, urinary retention stemming from bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) may directly affect graft success. The aim of this study was to evaluate the early and long-term outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and transurethral incision of prostate (TUIP) procedures performed in the first month following RT due to BOO.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between February 2009 and March 2016, 38 male patients underwent TURP/TUIP due to BOO within the first 30 days of renal transplantation. The urodynamic and renal function assessment results of all patients were collected during the pre-and postoperative periods. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 12 months for short and long-term complications. The results were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients who underwent operations was 59.2±12 years. The median duration of dialysis was 41 months (range 0-180). Before the operation the mean serum creatinine (sCr) level was 1.8±0.7 mg/dL, the mean total PSA level was 1.6±1.1 ng/mL. Of the voiding parameters, the mean Qmax and Qave were measured as 8.2±4.5 mL/sec and 4.6±2.5 mL/sec, respectively. The median post-micturition residual urine (PMR) was 105 mL (range 10-400). TURP/TUIP operations were performed at a median of 19 days (range 8-30) after renal transplantations. None of the patients experienced major complications. In the early postoperative period, 5 patients (13.1%) developed urinary tract infection. The mean decrease in sCr in the first month following TURP/TUIP was 1.4±0.4 mg/dL (p<0.001). The mean Qmax (22.4±11.1 mL/sec), and Qave (11.7±5.4 mL/sec) increased significantly (p<0.001), while the median PMR (15 mL, range 0-205) decreased significantly (p<0.001). The mean follow-up period after the procedure was 46.8±23.3 months. During the follow-up period, 3 (7.8%) patients suffered from urethral stricture and 2 (5.2%) patients from bladder neck obstruction.

CONCLUSION

In the surgical treatment of urinary retention arising from BOO in the first month following renal transplantation, TURP/TUIP yield safe and successful results. In addition, regarding the short and long term outcomes, these procedures may be safely performed with low morbidity.

Does the Age of Donor Kidneys Affect Nocturnal Polyuria in Patients With Successful Real Transplantation?

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether the age of donor kidneys influences the incidence of nocturnal polyuria in patients with successful renal transplantation (RTX).

METHODS

Eighty-five patients (45 men and 40 women) undergoing RTX (median age, 47 years) were included in this study. Twenty-four-hour bladder diaries were kept for 3 days, and nocturnal polyuria was defined as a nocturnal polyuria index (nocturnal urine volume/24-hour urine volume) of >0.33. Risk factors for nocturnal polyuria were analyzed in patients with RTX by means of the Mann-Whitney U test, χ² test, and a logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) developed from diabetes mellitus in 16 patients (19%). Sixty-five patients (76%) received pre-transplant dialysis, with a median duration of 5 years. The median serum creatinine level and body mass index at the most recent visit were 1.2 mg/dL and 21.2 kg/m², respectively. On the basis of the 24-hour bladder diaries, nocturnal polyuria was identified in 48 patients (56%). A logistic regression analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus as the original disease for ESRD was the only risk factor for nocturnal polyuria (odds ratio, 8.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-65.3; P = .0028). The age of donor kidneys at examination did not affect the incidence of nocturnal polyuria (P = .9402).

CONCLUSIONS

Nocturnal polyuria was not uncommon in patients with successful RTX. Diabetes mellitus as the original disease for ESRD was the only risk factor for nocturnal polyuria, whereas the age of donor kidneys at examination did not affect the incidence of nocturnal polyuria. Thus, nocturnal polyuria is caused by recipient factors but not donor factors.

[LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS AND FUNCTIONS AFTER RENAL TRANSPLANTATION AT OUR HOSPITAL]

OBJECTIVE

We investigated lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and function in patients who had undergone renal transplantation (RTx).

METHODS

Fifty patients (34 males and 16 females; age 16-68 years) undergoing RTx at our hospital were included in this study. Average follow-up after RTx was 6.1 years (range 0.5-28). The pre-transplant dialysis period averaged 2.5 years (range preemptive-18.6 years). We conducted the evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and function using uroflowmetry (UFM) , residual urine measurement, 24h bladder diary, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), QOL score, Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) and Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Score (CLSS).

RESULTS

Average first desire to void and maximum desire to void were 89.9 mL and 185 mL respectively in cystometry before RTx. Atrophy of the bladder before RTx showed a correlation with the dialysis period. UFM of post-RTx was maximum urinary flow rate of 21.8 mL/s and a voided volume of 287.6 mL. Severe cases of IPSS, QOL, OABSS and CLSS were not observed. Average 24h voided volume, urination times and nocturia were 2,329 mL, 8.2 times and 0.9 times respectively. Polyuria after RTx was observed in 21 patients (42%). Aging and vascular lesions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease were the most important factor of LUTS.

CONCLUSIONS

After RTx, LUTS were present in a number of cases after RTx. Patients undergoing RTx has been aging, it is considered necessary to perform the evaluation of LUTS before RTx.

Transurethral incision of the bladder neck in a woman with primary bladder neck obstruction after kidney transplantation

Voiding dysfunction is frequently seen in the early posttransplant period. Among other causes, this condition can arise due to bladder outlet obstruction. Primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO) is a possible but very rare cause of bladder outlet obstruction. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who, after kidney transplantation, presented with PBNO. The diagnosis was established based on symptoms, uroflowmetry, and multichannel urodynamics with electromyography. The transurethral incision of the bladder neck was made at the 5- and 7-o'clock position. After the operation, the maximal flow rate was significantly increased, and postvoid residual urine was decreased compared to the preoperative findings. The patient was followed for 5 years, and her voiding improvement is persistent. This is the first reported case of PBNO treated with a transurethral incision of the bladder neck in a posttransplantation female patient.

Transurethral resection of the prostate in kidney transplant recipients: urological and renal functional outcomes at long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To assess prospectively the safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients who have undergone renal transplantation (RT). To assess the impact of TURP on renal graft function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Urological and renal functional outcomes of TURP performed in RT recipients for treatment of lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH were prospectively assessed in a series of 32 consecutive patients with follow-up of ≥48 months. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) at uroflowmetry, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), haemoglobin and serum creatinine (sCr) levels were recorded before TURP and 1, 6, 24 and 48 months after the procedure. The trends in these variables after TURP were evaluated. Early and delayed complications were assessed and graded according to the Clavien classification system.

RESULTS

TURP was performed at a mean of 6 months after RT. No intraoperative complications occurred. Seven postoperative complications were observed (21.9%): two Clavien grade II and five Clavien grade IIIa. Qmax , IPSS and PVR improved significantly after surgery and the improvement was maintained until 48 months. No patient required a repeat TURP during follow-up. SCr levels significantly decreased 1 and 6 months after TURP and did not significantly increase at long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TURP for lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH in RT recipients is safe and effective since it improves urinary flow, bladder emptying and related urinary symptoms. TURP allows an early significant improvement of graft function that is maintained at a follow-up of 48 months.

Improvement of urinary dysfunction after kidney transplantation by administration of the antimuscarinic agent--prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Bladder dysfunction after kidney transplantation (KTx) impairs the patients' quality of life. We examined the bladder function status perioperatively in patients undergoing KTx and performed a randomized prospective study to determine the efficacy of an antimuscarinic agent, solifenacin, in ameliorating the bladder dysfunction after KTx.

METHODS

The subjects in this study were 33 patients who underwent KTx at our institution. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (n=18), composed of patients who were not treated with any antimuscarinic agent, and group 2 (n=15), composed of patients treated with an antimuscarinic agent. We investigated the actual bladder function status of these patients before and after KTx by the following two methods: (1) video water cystometry and (2) questionnaire study using the Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and King's Health Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The cystometry study revealed a significantly greater increase of the maximum cystometric capacity in group 2 than in group 1 (173.0±60.7 mL in group 1 and 260.1±51.0 mL in group 2 [P=0.005]) after KTx. In the questionnaire surveys, the decreases in the scores for all domains were observed 6 weeks after KTx. The scores in group 2 tended to be lower than those in group 1.

CONCLUSION

In all of our patients, the bladder dysfunction status improved dramatically after KTx. In addition, our results suggest that administration of the antimuscarinic agent, solifenacin, may contribute to improvement of the quality of life of patients undergoing KTx.

Bladder dysfunction following renal transplantation is it predictable?

Dysfunction of the urinary bladder is often faced in kidney transplantation due to various structural, neurological, infectious, or other pathologies. As the goal is to obtain a well functioning urinary bladder or at least, a low-pressure reservoir without reflux, specific urologic examinations and therapies should be performed. This review based on a Medline and PubMed search as well as on international guidelines and personal experience, reflects the actual knowledge in the field of pretransplant urologic evaluation as well as pre- and posttransplant optimal therapeutic options. The evaluation of these factors and interventional strategies will help to improve long-term transplant outcomes.

Urological involvement in renal transplantation

Historically, urologists were the primary surgeons in renal transplantation. Specialization and increased complexity of the field of transplantation, coupled with a de-emphasis of vascular surgical training in urology, has created a situation where many renal transplants are carried out by surgeons with a general surgery background. Because of its genitourinary nature, however, urological input in renal transplantation is still vital. For living donors, a urologist should be involved to help evaluate and prepare certain patients for eventual donation. This could involve both medical and surgical intervention. Additionally, urologists who carry out living donor nephrectomy maintain a sense of ownership in the renal transplant process and provide a unique opportunity to the trainees of that particular program. For renal transplant recipients, preoperative evaluation of voiding dysfunction and other genitourinary anomalies might be necessary before the transplant. Also, occasional surgical intervention to prepare a patient for renal transplant might be necessary, such as in a patient with a small renal mass that is detected by a screening pretransplant ultrasound. Intraoperatively, for patients with complex urological reconstructions that might be related to the etiology of the renal failure (urinary diversion, bladder augmentation), a urologist who is familiar with the anatomy should be available. Postoperatively, urological evaluation and intervention might be necessary for patients who had a pre-existing urological condition or who might have developed something de novo after the transplant. Although renal transplant programs could consult an on-call urologist for particular issues on an as-needed basis, having a urologist, who has repeated exposure to the particular issues and procedures that are involved with renal transplantation, and who is part of a dedicated multidisciplinary renal transplant team, provides optimal quality of care to these complex patients.