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

Outcomes of kidney replacement therapies after kidney transplant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following kidney transplant failure, patients generally have three kidney replacement therapy (KRT) options: peritoneal dialysis (PD), haemodialysis (HD), or pre-emptive kidney re-transplantation. This review aims to explore KRT options after kidney transplant failure and compare clinical outcomes.

METHOD

This review included studies from five databases: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO [CRD42024514346]. Causes of kidney transplant failure were explored. Survival and re-transplantation rates among three groups after kidney transplant failure were compared: patients starting PD (TX-PD group), patients starting HD (TX-HD group), and patients re-transplanted without bridging dialysis (TX-TX group). Causes of death were also explored. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CASP checklist and the meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Of 6405 articles, eight articles were included in the systematic review. Chronic damage was identified as the primary cause of kidney transplant failure. The TX-TX group had a lower mortality rate than the TX-HD group and TX-PD group, though this difference was only statistically significant in comparison to the TX-HD group (OR: 2.57; 95 % CI:1.58, 4.17; I2 = 79 %; P = 0.0001). Additionally, the TX-PD group had a significantly lower mortality rate (OR: 0.83; 95 % CI:0.76, 0.90; I2 = 88 %; P < 0.0001) and higher re-transplantation rate (OR: 1.56; 95 % CI:1.41, 1.73; I2 = 0 %; P < 0.00001) compared to the TX-HD group. Cardiovascular disease, infection, and cancer were the leading causes of death.

CONCLUSION

The TX-TX group had better survival than the TX-HD group. Survival and re-transplantation rates were higher in the TX-PD group than the TX-HD group. However, age and comorbidities may impact survival and re-transplantation rates between the TX-PD and TX-HD groups, which should be explored further.

Effect of End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System on Utilization of Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients with Kidney Allograft Failure

INTRODUCTION

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced an End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (PPS) in 2011 to increase the utilization of home dialysis modalities, including peritoneal dialysis (PD). Several studies have shown a significant increase in PD utilization after PPS implementation. However, its impact on patients with kidney allograft failure remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using data from the US Renal Data System (USRDS) that include all adult kidney transplant recipients with allograft failure who started dialysis between 2005 and 2019. We compared the PD utilization in the pre-PPS period (2005-2010) to the fully implemented post-PPS period (2014-2019) for early (within 90 days) and late (91-365 days) PD experience.

RESULTS

A total of 27,507 adult recipients with allograft failure started dialysis during the study period. There was no difference in early PD utilization between the pre-PPS and the post-PPS period in either immediate change (0.3% increase; 95% CI: -1.95%, 2.54%; p = 0.79) or rate of change over time (0.28% increase per year; 95% CI: -0.16%, 0.72%; p = 0.18). Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward higher PD utilization post-PPS in for-profit and large-volume dialysis units. There was a significant increase in PD utilization in the post-PPS period in units with low PD experience in the pre-PPS period. Similar findings were seen for the late PD experience.

CONCLUSION

PPS did not significantly increase the overall utilization of PD in patients initiating dialysis after allograft failure.

An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

Choosing a dialysis modality is an important decision for people to make as their kidney failure progresses. In doing so, their options should be informed by any absolute or relative indications that may favour one modality over another.

Methods

In creating this update, we reviewed literature using a framework that considered first, high-level outcomes (survival and modality transition) from large registry data and cohort studies when considering optimal patient pathways; second, factors at a dialysis provider level that might affect relative indications; and third, specific patient-level factors. Both main types of dialysis modality, peritoneal (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), and their subtypes were considered.

Results

For most people starting dialysis, survival is independent of modality, including those with diabetes. Better survival is seen in those with less comorbidity starting with PD or home HD, reflecting continued improvements over recent decades that have been greater than improvements seen for centre HD. There are provider-level differences in the perceived relative indications for home dialysis that appear to reflect variability in experience, prejudice, enthusiasm, and support for patients and carers. Absolute contraindications are uncommon and, in most cases, where modality prejudice exists, e.g. obesity, Adult Polycystic Kidney Disease, and social factors, this is not supported by reported outcomes.

Conclusion

Absolute contraindications to a particular dialysis modality are rare. Relative indications for or against particular modalities should be considered but are rarely more important than patient preferences.

Challenges in the Management of the Patient with a Failing Kidney Graft: A Narrative Review

Patients with a failed kidney allograft have steadily increase in recent years and returning to dialysis after graft loss is one of the most difficult transitions for chronic kidney disease patients and their assistant physicians. The management of these patients is complex and encompasses the treatment of chronic kidney disease complications, dialysis restart and access planning, immunosuppression withdrawal, graft nephrectomy, and evaluation for a potential retransplant. In recent years, several groups have focused on the management of the patient with a failing renal graft and expert recommendations are arising. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library was performed focusing on the specific care of these patients, from the management of low clearance complications to concerns with a subsequent kidney transplant. Conclusion: There is a growing interest in the failing renal graft and new approaches to improve these patients' outcomes are being defined including specific multidisciplinary programs, individualized immunosuppression withdrawal schemes, and strategies to prevent HLA sensitization and increase retransplant rates.

Managing Patients with Failing Kidney Allograft: Many Questions Remain

Patients who receive a kidney transplant commonly experience failure of their allograft. Transplant failure often comes with complex management decisions, such as when and how to wean immunosuppression and start the transition to a second transplant or to dialysis. These decisions are made in the context of important concerns about competing risks, including sensitization and infection. Unfortunately, the management of the failed allograft is, at present, guided by relatively poor-quality data and, as a result, practice patterns are variable and suboptimal given that patients with failed allografts experience excess morbidity and mortality compared with their transplant-naive counterparts. In this review, we summarize the management strategies through the often-precarious transition from transplant to dialysis, highlighting the paucity of data and the critical gaps in our knowledge that are necessary to inform the optimal care of the patient with a failing kidney transplant.

Returning to PD after kidney transplant failure is a valuable option

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of data on the prognosis for patients returning to peritoneal dialysis (PD) after a failed transplant. PD has an advantage over hemodialysis in preserving residual renal function, which is associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

We have reviewed the electronic charts of patients on PD in a tertiary academic hospital for the last 8 years. We have compared technique survival, peritonitis-free survival, and residual diuresis in two groups: patients with graft failure which returned to PD (PD-KTx, N = 18) and patients starting PD for other causes (PD-not KTx, N = 163).

RESULTS

The median follow-up was similar between groups [42(16,71) in PD-not KTx vs. 48(22,90) months in PD-KTx, p = 0.293]. Kaplan-Meier survival comparing PD-KTx and PD-not KTx showed no difference in technique survival (p = 0.196), and peritonitis-free survival (log-rank 0.238), which were confirmed in a fully adjusted Cox regression. Diuresis at baseline and at the end of the first year was similar between groups (p = 0.799 and p = 0.354, respectively). Six out of 18 patients from the PD-KTx group had the immunosuppression maintained and none of those had peritonitis. The reduction of diuresis across the first year of PD was significant for all patients, except for those on continued immunosuppressive therapy.

CONCLUSION

PD is a worthy dialysis alternative after a failed kidney transplant, providing similar outcomes when compared to patients who started PD for other reasons.

The characteristics of patients returning to hemodialysis due to nonfunctioning graft in Turkey

Renal transplantation is the most effective treatment modality for end-stage renal failure. According to the Ministry of Health Organ Transplant Registration System, despite the presence of 14,936 renal transplant recipients in Turkey, there are not enough data about the prognosis of these patients. Therefore, we aimed to ascertain the rate of patients returning to hemodialysis (HD) due to nonfunctioning graft in our country. One thousand four hundred and ninety-eight (males: 826, females: 672) HD patients who undergo HD at 22 HD centers in total, from different geographical regions to represent our country were examined retrospectively. The informations were obtained from patient registry files and anamnesis which were in HD centers. The number of patients returning to HD due to the loss of graft function was 77 (males: 56, females: 21). Eleven of the patients had transplantation from cadavers (14%) and 66 from living donors (86%). Prevelance of patients, who return to HD after the failure of renal transplantation, between HD patients was 5.1. The mean duration of return to HD after renal transplantation was 6.7 ± 5.9 years for all patients. There was no significant difference in the duration without HD after transplantation between two groups when cadaveric and living donor transplants were compared (P = 0.759). There was no statistically significant difference in duration without HD after transplantation between patients receiving HD treatment before transplantation and preemptive transplant (P = 0.212). The prevelance of patients, who return to HD due to nonfunctioning graft among HD patients was 5.1. The duration without HD were similar after transplantation from both cadavers and living donors. The duration without HD was found longer among those who were operated before 2000.

Allosensitization after transplant failure: the role of graft nephrectomy and immunosuppression - a retrospective study

There are conflicting data about the role of transplant nephrectomy and immunosuppression withdrawal on the development of allosensitization and the impact on re-transplantation. We divided 109 first graft recipients into two groups according to whether they underwent nephrectomy (NX+, n = 61) or their graft was left in situ (NX-, n = 48). Sera were assessed for HLA-A/B/Cw/DR/DQ antibodies at the time of NX/transplant failure and after 3, 6, 12, 24 months. The NX+ group showed a higher rate of donor specific antibody (DSA) and non-DSA human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody production at all the time points. Multivariable analysis showed that nephrectomy was a strong, independent risk factor for the development of DSAs after 12 and 24 months (P = 0.005 and 0.008). In the NX- group, low tacrolimus levels correlated with DSA formation (AUC 0.817, P = 0.002; best cut-off level 2.9 ng/ml). Analysis with a standardized pool of UK donors showed a more difficult grade of HLA matchability following nephrectomy compared with the NX- group. Nephrectomy is followed by the long-term production of DSA and non-DSA HLA antibodies and negatively impacts on the chances of finding a HLA-compatible kidney. Tacrolimus levels ≥3 ng/ml are protective against the development of allosensitization and could facilitate re-transplantation in the NX- group.

Impact of Transplant Nephrectomy for Patient Survival Over the Past 15 Years: A Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVES

How transplant nephrectomy affects patient survival after return to dialysis is unclear. Here, we compared patient survival after graft loss between patients with and without transplant nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We divided 171 patients who received transplant between 2000 and 2015 and had graft loss into 3 groups: 64 had graft failure left in situ (without nephrectomy), 51 had nephrectomy < 3 months posttransplant (early nephrectomy), and 56 patients had nephrectomy > 3 months posttransplant (late nephrectomy). The primary endpoint was patient survival. Risk factors for patient death were also analyzed. Secondary endpoints included relisting for transplant and immunosuppressive agent status.

RESULTS

Patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant in those without nephrectomy, early nephrectomy, and late nephrectomy were 92.1% /90.5%/86.6%, 96.0%/89.7%/80.4%, and 100.0% /97.9%/ 95.6%, respectively. Rates in patients with early nephrectomy differed significantly from those with late nephrectomy (P = .005). On multivariate analysis, patient survival was affected by relisting for transplant (hazard ratio 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.41; P < .001) and graft survival duration (hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.93; P = .036). Relisting for transplant occurred in 46.9% of patients without nephrectomy, 56.9% of patients with early nephrectomy, and 51.8% of patients with late nephrectomy. Those with late nephrectomy took 14.7 months after graft loss to relist for transplant, with 7.8 months for those without nephrectomy (P = .039) and 6.3 months for those with early nephrectomy (P = .051). Only 10.9% of those without nephrectomy were immunosuppressive free, which was in contrast to 94.1% and 78.6% of those with early and late nephrectomy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After graft failure, patients without nephrectomy did not have inferior survival versus patients who received early or late nephrectomy. Graft survival time and relisting for transplant were associated with patient survival regardless of having transplant nephrectomy.

Assessment of a Dedicated Transplant Low Clearance Clinic and Patient Outcomes on Dialysis After Renal Allograft Loss at 2 UK Transplant Centers

Background

Low clearance transplant clinics (LCTCs) are recommended for the management of recipients with a failing kidney transplant (RFKT) but data to support their use is limited. We conducted a retrospective study to assess management of RFKT at 2 transplant centers, 1 with a LCTC (center A) and 1 without (center B).

Methods

Patients who transitioned to an alternative form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) between January 1, 2012, and November 30, 2016, were included. Patients with graft failure within a year of transplantation or due to an unpredictable acute event were excluded. Clinical data were collected after review of medical records.

Results

One hundred seventy-nine patients (age, 48.6 ± 13.4 years, 99 [55.3%] male, and mean transplant duration 10.3 ± 7.8 years) were included. RRT counseling occurred in 79 (91%) and 68 (74%) patients at centers A and B (P = 0.003), at median 135 (61-319) and 133 (69-260) days before dialysis after graft loss (P = 0.92). Sixty-one (34.1%) patients were waitlisted for retransplantation; 18 (32.7%) nonwaitlisted patients were still undergoing workup at center A compared with 37 (58.7%) at center B (P = 0.028). Preemptive retransplantation occurred in 4 (4.6%) and 5 (5.4%) patients at centers A and B (P = 0.35). At 1 year after initiation of dialysis after graft loss, 11 (15.3%) and 11 (17.2%) patients were retransplanted (P = 0.12), and mortality was 6.6% overall.

Conclusions

A dedicated LCTC improved RRT counseling and transplant work-up but did not lead to improved rates of retransplantation. Earlier consideration of retransplantation in LCTCs is required to improve RFKT outcomes.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Kidney Retransplant Outcomes Associated with Common Induction Regimens: A Study of over Twelve-Thousand Cases in the United States

We studied registry data of 12,944 adult kidney retransplant recipients categorized by induction regimen received into antithymocyte globulin (ATG) (N = 9120), alemtuzumab (N = 1687), and basiliximab (N = 2137) cohorts. We analyzed risk factors for 1-year acute rejection (AR) and 5-year death-censored graft loss (DCGL) and patient death. Compared with the reference, basiliximab: (1) one-year AR risk was lower with ATG in retransplant recipients of expanded criteria deceased-donor kidneys (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35-0.91 and HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.27-1.08, resp.), while AR risk was lower with alemtuzumab in retransplant recipients with >3 HLA mismatches before transplant (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.44-0.93 and HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-1.06, resp.); (2) five-year DCGL risk was lower with alemtuzumab, not ATG, in retransplant recipients of African American race (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.34-0.86 and HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.51-1.04, resp.) or with pretransplant glomerulonephritis (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43-0.98 and HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.60-1.12, resp.). Therefore, specific risk factor-induction regimen combinations may predict outcomes and this information may help in individualizing induction in retransplant recipients.

Is Kidney Transplantation a Better State of CKD? Impact on Diagnosis and Management

Patients with CKD are at increased risk for cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the preferred treatment for end-stage kidney disease. Although comorbidities including anemia and bone and mineral disease improve or are even halted after KTx, kidney transplant recipients carry higher cardiovascular mortality risk than the general population, as well as an increased risk of infections, malignancies, fractures, and obesity. When comparing CKD with CKD after transplantation (CKD-T), the rate of decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is significantly lower in CKD-T. Higher rate of decline of eGFR has been associated with increased risk of mortality. However, due to the significant increased risk of mortality due to cardiovascular events, infections, and malignancies, many kidney transplant recipients may not benefit of decline in the rate of eGFR. Patients with CKD-T are a unique subset of patients with multiple traditional and transplant-specific risk factors. Proper management and appropriate preventive health measures may improve long-term patient and allograft survival in patients with CKD-T.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Transplant nephrectomy

About 10% of all renal allografts fail during the first year of transplantation and thereafter approximately 3%-5% yearly. Given that approximately 69 400 renal transplants are performed worldwide annually, the number of patients returning to dialysis following allograft failure is increasing. A failed transplant kidney, whether maintained by low dose immunosuppression or not, elicits an inflammatory response and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The risk for transplant nephrectomy (TN) is increased in patients who experienced multiple acute rejections prior to graft failure, develop chronic graft intolerance, sepsis, vascular complications and early graft failure. TN for late graft failure is associated with greater morbidity and mortality, bleeding being the leading cause of morbidity and infection the main cause of mortality. TN appears to be beneficial for survival on dialysis but detrimental to the outcome of subsequent transplantation by virtue of increased level of antibodies to mismatched antigens, increased rate of primary non function and delayed graft function. Many of the studies are characterized by a retrospective and univariate analysis of small numbers of patients. The lack of randomization in many studies introduced a selection bias and conclusions drawn from such studies should be applied with caution. Pending a randomised controlled trial on the role of TN in the management of transplant failure patients, it is prudent to remove failed symptomatic allografts and all grafts failing within 3 mo of transplantation, monitor inflammatory markers in patients with retained failed allografts and remove the allograft in the event of a significant increase in levels.

Peritoneal dialysis in transplant recipient patients: outcomes and management

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

Autobionics: a new paradigm in regenerative medicine and surgery

The concept of bionics was developed 50 years ago and represented the development of engineering and technology based on natural biological systems. Traditional applications of bionics in healthcare include artificial bionic organs that apply engineering principles to replace or augment physiological functions by integrating electronic, mechanical or electromechanical components to inherent body tissues/organs (we term this as 'exobionics'). Recently, there has been a new wave of bio-inspired treatments that act through the reorganization of the existing biological organs in an individual to enhance physiology. Here, the technology does not replace biological tissue, but rather applies engineering principles to replace or augment physiological functions by the rearrangement and manipulation of inherent tissue/organs; we term this autobionics. Examples include: dynamic cardiomyoplasty (artificial heart pump using skeletal muscle), the Ross procedure (pulmonary autograft), dynamic graciloplasty (artificial sphincter) and metabolic gastric bypass (rearranging the gastrointestinal tract to modify gut- and pancreatic-hormone release). Autobionic therapies can be classified into dynamic, static and metabolic procedures. This results in tissue redesignation (one tissue used in place of another), tissue replacement and systems reorganization (rearranging inherent organ/tissue anatomy). In some cases autobionic procedures can enhance physiological function beyond normality and represents a new era in bio-inspired versatility.