Earlier is not necessarily better in preemptive kidney transplantation

Defining pre-emptive living kidney donor transplantation as a quality indicator

Quality indicators in kidney transplants are needed to identify care gaps and improve access to transplants. We used linked administrative health care databases to examine multiple ways of defining pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants, including different patient cohorts and censoring definitions. We included adults from Ontario, Canada with advanced chronic kidney disease between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We created 4 unique incident patient cohorts, varying the eligibility by the risk of progression to kidney failure and whether individuals had a recorded contraindication to kidney transplant (eg, home oxygen use). We explored the effect of 4 censoring event definitions. Across the 4 cohorts, size varied substantially from 20 663 to 9598 patients, with the largest reduction (a 43% reduction) occurring when we excluded patients with ≥1 recorded contraindication to kidney transplantation. The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of pre-emptive living donor kidney transplant varied across cohorts from 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.14) for our most inclusive cohort to 2.21 (95% CI: 1.96-2.49) for the most restrictive cohort. Our methods can serve as a framework for developing other quality indicators in kidney transplantation and monitoring and improving access to pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants in health care systems.

Adapting Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: Blood Pressure Management and Kidney Replacement Therapy in Adults and Children in the Saudi Arabian Context Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-ADOLOPMENT Methodology

This practice guideline was developed by the chronic kidney disease (CKD) Task Force, which was composed of clinical and methodological experts. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health and its health holding company commissioned this guideline project to support the realization of Vision 2030's health-care transformation pillar. The synthesis of these guidelines was guided by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)- ADOLOPMENT methodology. The final guidelines addressed 12 clinical questions on the management of blood pressure in patients with CKD through a set of recommen-dations and performance measures. The recom-mendations included antihypertensive agents in children; renin- angiotensin system inhibition (RASi) versus non-RASi in adults; intensive versus standard blood pressure targets; early versus late assessment for kidney replacement therapy (KRT); late versus early preparation strategies for KRT; CKD symptoms during assessment for KRT or conservative manage-ment; initiation of KRT in patients with deteriorating CKD; choice of KRT modality or conservative management in certain CKD patient groups; changing or discontinuing KRT modalities; the frequency of reviews for KRT or conservative management; and information, education, and support. These conditional recommendations were based on a low to very low certainty of evidence, which highlights the need for high-quality randomized trials com-paring different antihypertensive agents in patients with CKD.

What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Opting for a preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) can help avoid costs and morbidity associated with dialysis. However, while multiple studies have shown clinical benefits of PKT, other studies have not demonstrated this, leading to controversy in the literature regarding the exact benefits of PKT. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation (nPKT) in adult patients. Multiple databases were searched up to May 4, 2022. Independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Eighty-seven studies including 859,715 adult kidney transplant patients were included the review. The risk of patient death (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.60-0.91]) was significantly lower in PKT versus nPKT patients for living donor (LD) transplants, whereas the risk of overall graft loss was significantly lower in PKT compared to nPKT patients for both LD (0.72 [0.62-0.83]) as well as deceased donor (DD) transplants (0.80 [0.69-0.92]). The evidence suggests that LD PKT patients have a lower risk of patient death and graft loss compared to nPKT patients, and DD PKT patients have a lower risk of graft loss than nPKT patients.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: why, when, and how?

Among renal replacement therapies, preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) presents the best clinical, social, and economic results. However, it is still infrequently chosen as first therapy for patients with irreversible kidney failure. Initiatives in different parts of the world were developed to identify the reasons why PKT is still not widely used and to facilitate the access of patients with end-stage kidney disease to the advantages associated with it. This article addresses the main advantages and difficulties of PKT and discusses when it should be indicated and how to prepare potential recipients for PKT.

Transplante renal preemptivo: por que, quando e como?

Resumo Entre as terapias renais substitutivas, o transplante renal preemptivo (TRP) apresenta os melhores resultados clínicos, sociais e econômicos. No entanto, ainda é raramente escolhido como primeira terapia para pacientes com falência renal irreversível. Foram desenvolvidas iniciativas em diferentes partes do mundo para identificar as razões pelas quais o TRP ainda não é amplamente utilizado e para facilitar o acesso de pacientes com doença renal em estágio terminal às vantagens associadas ao mesmo. Este artigo aborda as principais vantagens e dificuldades do TRP e discute quando ele deve ser indicado e como preparar potenciais receptores para o TRP.

Is Preemptive Kidney Transplantation Associated With Improved Outcomes when Compared to Non-preemptive Kidney Transplantation in Children? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Main Problem: Preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) is performed prior to dialysis initiation to avoid dialysis-related morbidity and mortality in children and adolescents. We undertook a systematic review to compare clinical outcomes in PKT versus kidney transplantation after dialysis initiation in paediatric patients.

Methods: The bibliographic search identified studies that compared paediatric recipients of a first or subsequent, living or deceased donor PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplant. Methodological quality was assessed for all studies. Data were pooled using the random-effects model.

Results: Twenty-two studies (n = 22,622) were included. PKT reduced the risk of overall graft loss (relative risk (RR) .57, 95% CI: .49–.66) and acute rejection (RR: .81, 95% CI: .75–.88) compared to transplantation after dialysis. Although no significant difference was observed in overall patient mortality, the risk of patient death was found to be significantly lower in PKT patients with living donor transplants (RR: .53, 95% CI: .34–.83). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of delayed graft function.

Conclusion: Evidence from observational studies suggests that PKT is associated with a reduction in the risk of acute rejection and graft loss. Efforts should be made to promote and improve rates of PKT in this group of patients (PROSPERO).

Systematic Review Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, CRD42014010565

Declining trend of preemptive kidney transplantation and impact of pretransplant dialysis: a Korean nationwide prospective cohort study

We evaluated the temporal trend of preemptive kidney transplantation (KT) and the effect of pretransplant dialysis duration on post-transplant outcomes. This was a nationwide cohort study of the first-time 3392 living donor KT (LDKT) recipients (2014-2019). The annual changes in proportion of preemptive KT, factors associated with preemptive KT, and post-transplant outcomes were analyzed. Preemptive KT was performed in 816 (24.1%) patients. Annual trend analysis revealed gradual decrease in preemptive KT over time (P = 0.042). Among the underlying causes of preemptive KT, the proportion of diabetes increased and that of glomerulonephritis decreased during the study period. Glomerulonephritis as the primary renal disease was a predictor of preemptive KT. Patients with pretransplant dialysis >6 months showed increased graft failure risk than preemptive KT in the subdistribution of hazard model for competing risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-5.87; P = 0.031) and in propensity score-matched analysis (aHR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.02-5.92; P = 0.034); however, pretransplant dialysis ≤6 months showed comparable graft survival with preemptive KT in both analyses. Preemptive KT declined over successive years, associated with an increase in diabetes and a decrease in glomerulonephritis as underlying causes of KT. Short period of dialysis less than 6 months does not affect graft survival compared with preemptive KT; however, longer dialysis decreases graft survival.

Supplemented Low-Protein Diet May Delay the Need for Preemptive Kidney Transplantation: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Although several studies suggest the benefit of a low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids and keto acids (sLPD) in delaying the initiation of hemodialysis, evidence on whether these nutritional approaches could delay the timing of preemptive transplantation is lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective nationwide cohort study, from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients having undergone a first preemptive kidney transplantation between 2001 and 2017 were identified and divided into two groups according to the presence of sLPD treatment or not. The primary outcome was the time between the diagnosis of advanced CKD and transplantation. Secondary outcomes were post-transplantation adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients who received their first preemptive kidney transplantation were identified from the nationwide database; 63 of them had been on an sLPD prior to transplantation (sLPD group). The duration between the day of advanced CKD diagnosis and the day of transplantation was significantly longer in the sLPD group compared with the non-sLPD group (median duration: 345 vs. 220 days, p = 0.001). The risk of post-transplantation adverse events did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of its observational, retrospective design, this is the first study to suggest that nutritional management with sLPDs can safely delay the timing of preemptive kidney transplantation.

Prolonged dialysis duration is associated with graft failure and mortality after kidney transplantation: results from the French transplant database

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Preemptive KT (PKT) should be considered when glomerular filtration rate is <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 but European reports on the results of PKT and the effect of pretransplant dialysis are scarce.

METHODS

We analysed all first kidney-only transplants performed in adults in France between 2002 and 2012. A Cox multivariable model was used to investigate the association of PKT and of pretransplant dialysis time with the hazard of graft failure defined as death, return to dialysis or retransplant, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

We included 22 345 patients, with a mean ± SD age at KT of 50.5 ± 13.4 years; 61.9% were men and 3112 (14.0%) received a PKT. Median time of follow-up was 4.7 years. Graft failure occurred in 4952 patients up to 31 December 2013. After adjustment for recipients' age and sex, primary kidney disease, donor type (living or deceased donor, expanded criteria donor), HLA mismatches, cold ischaemia time, centre and year of transplantation, PKT was associated with a decreased hazard of graft failure when compared with pretransplant dialysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.63], whatever the duration of dialysis, even in the first 6 months. The effect of PKT on the hazard of graft failure was stronger in living kidney donors (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In France, PKT was associated with a lower risk of graft failure than KT performed after the initiation of dialysis, whatever the duration of dialysis.

Quantifying lead time bias when estimating patient survival in preemptive living kidney donor transplantation

Preemptive kidney transplantation is the preferred initial renal replacement therapy, by avoiding dialysis and reportedly maximizing patient survival. Lead time bias may account for some or all of the observed survival advantage, but the impact of this has not been quantified. Using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, we included adult recipients of living donor kidney transplants during 1998-2017. Patients were transplanted preemptively (n = 1435) or after receiving up to 6 months of dialysis (n = 712). We created a matched cohort using propensity scores, and accounted for lead time (dialysis and estimated predialysis) using left-truncated Cox models with the primary outcome of patient survival. The median eGFR at transplantation was 6.9 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the non-pre-emptive, and 9.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the preemptive group. In the matched cohort (n = 1398), preemptive transplantation was not associated with a survival advantage hazard ratio (HR) for preemptive vs non-pre-emptive 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.61). Accounting for lead time moved the point estimates toward a survival disadvantage for preemptive transplantation (eg, HR assuming 4 mL/min per 1.73 m² /year eGFR decline, 1.21 [0.85, 1.73]), but in all cases the 95% CIs crossed 1. The optimal timing of preemptive living donor kidney transplantation requires further study.

Influence of Peritoneal or Hemodialysis on Results of Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplant

OBJECTIVES

The influence of peritoneal dialysis on outcomes after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant is still vague. In addition, whether peritoneal dialysis leads to a higher risk of infectious complications and higher mortality rates in these transplant patients has not been unambiguously confirmed. In this study, our aim was to verify whether dialysis type determined outcomes on the pancreas graft and whether dialysis type was a risk factor for graftectomy or recipient death.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study group included 44 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant patients. Analyzed parameters included type and duration of dialysis treatment, age, sex, long-term pancreas graft survival and patient survival, overall mortality, and number of graftectomies.

RESULTS

Of 44 patients, 3 (7%) required a graftectomy. Mortality rate of the group was 5%. Of 44 patients, 33 had hemodialysis and 11 had peritoneal dialysis. In those who had hemodialysis, the mean duration of renal replacement therapy was 30.5 months, which was significantly longer than duration for those who had peritoneal dialysis (20.4 mo; P < .01). There were 3 graftectomies and 1 death in the hemodialysis group. In the peritoneal dialysis group, there were no graftectomies and 1 death, with no significant differences in the number of graftectomies and mortality rates between the groups. Long-term survival also did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that type of dialysis did not affect outcomes in our group of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant patients. Before transplant, each patient requires an individual approach to treatment. The type of dialysis performed should not be viewed as a contradiction for transplant.

Starting Renal Replacement Therapy: Is It About Time?

BACKGROUND

Studies of the timing of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have primarily defined "early" versus "late" initiation of dialysis using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-based criteria. Our objective was to determine the theoretical time that could be spent in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 prior to reaching a conservative eGFR threshold of 5 mL/min/1.73 m2 compared to the actual time spent in CKD stage 5 by risk factors of interest.

METHODS

Eight-hundred and seventy Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort participants with CKD stage 5 who started renal replacement therapy (RRT) were included for retrospective study. We used mixed models to estimate the person-specific trajectory of renal function. We then used these individual trajectories to estimate the amount of time that would be spent in CKD stage 5 (between eGFR of 15 and 5 mL/min/1.73 m2) and compared this estimate to the actual time spent in CKD stage 5 prior to ESRD (between eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ESRD).

RESULTS

We found the median observed time between eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 to RRT was 9.6 months, but the median predicted time between eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 to eGFR of 5 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 17.7 months. Some of the largest differences between the predicted and actual amount of time spent in CKD stage 5 were noted among those with systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg (9.7 months longer predicted compared to actual), proteinuria <1 g/g (9.1 months), and serum albumin ≥3.5 g/dL (9.0 months).

CONCLUSION

We found marked differences between the actual and predicted time spent in CKD stage 5 based on risk factors of interest. We believe that placing timing of dialysis initiation in the perspective of time is novel and may identify subgroups of patients who may derive particular benefit from a more concerted effort to delay RRT.

Slow Progression of Aortic Calcification Is a Potential Benefit of Pre-emptive Kidney Transplantation

PURPOSE

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) is expected to improve graft and cardiovascular event-free survival compared with standard kidney transplantation. Aortic calcification is reported to be closely associated with renal dysfunction and cardiovascular events; however, its implication in PKT recipients remains incompletely explored. This aim of this study was to evaluate whether PKT confers a protective effect on aortic calcification, renal function, graft survival, and cardiovascular event-free survival.

METHODS

One hundred adult patients who underwent renal transplantation between January 1996 and March 2016 at Hirosaki University Hospital and Oyokyo Kidney Research Institute were included. Among them, 19 underwent PKT and 81 patients underwent pretransplant dialysis. We retrospectively compared pretransplant and post-transplant aortic calcification index (ACI), renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), and graft and cardiovascular event-free survivals between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The median age of this cohort was 45 years. Preoperative ACI was significantly lower in PKT recipients. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding postoperative eGFR, graft survival, and cardiovascular event-free survival. However, the ACI progression rate (ΔACI/y) was significantly lower in PKT recipients than in those who underwent pretransplant dialysis. Higher ACI was significantly associated with poor cardiovascular event-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

PKT is beneficial in that it contributes to the slow progression of after transplantation. Although we could not observe significant differences in graft and cardiovascular event-free survivals between the 2 groups, slow progression of aortic calcification showed a potential to decrease cardiovascular events in PKT recipients during long-term follow-up.

Reassessing Preemptive Kidney Transplantation in the United States: Are We Making Progress?

BACKGROUND

Preemptive kidney transplantation (preKT) is associated with higher patient survival, improved quality of life, and lower costs. However, only a minority of patients receives preKT. The aim of this study was to examine changes over the past decade in rates of preKT, focusing on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and specifically recipients who underwent kidney transplantation within 1 year of initiating dialysis.

METHODS

Using United Network of Organ Sharing data, we examined retrospectively all kidney transplant candidates (n = 369 103) and recipients (n = 141 254) from 2003 to 2012 in the United States focusing on LDKT (n = 47 108). Predictors of preKT were examined, and patient and graft survival were compared for preKT, pretransplant dialysis less than 1 year, and pretransplant dialysis recipients of 1 year or longer.

RESULTS

PreKT occurred in only 17% of recipients overall and 31% of LDKT recipients. Medicare patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.28-0.31), diabetics (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and minorities (Hispanics OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.57-0.68 and African Americans OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) were less likely to receive preKT. Dialysis recipients for less than 1 year comprised 30% of nonpreemptive LDKT. Dialysis recipients of less than 1 year had similar patient survival to preKT (5 years: preKT, 94%; dialysis < 1 year, 94%; dialysis ≥ 1 year, 89%; P < 0.01), but decreased death-censored graft survival (5 years: preKT, 93%; dialysis < 1 year, 89%; and dialysis ≥ 1 year, 89%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PreKT remains an unrealized goal for the majority of recipients. Medicare patients, diabetics, and minorities are less likely to receive preKT. Almost one third of nonpreemptive LDKT recipients were dialyzed for less than 1 year, highlighting an important target for improvement.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: a propensity score matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The reasons for improved outcomes associated with preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) are incompletely understood, and post-transplant complications have been scarcely investigated.

METHODS

We evaluated the outcomes of PKT in both unmatched (n = 1060) and propensity score matched cohorts (n = 186) of adults who underwent living kidney transplant between 2000 and 2014. Outcomes were estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), biopsy-proven rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), cardiovascular disease (CVD), graft failure (non-censored for death), and malignancy. Primary endpoint was post-transplant renal function assessed with eGFR.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients (9.0 %) underwent PKT. The 2-week mean eGFR after transplant was comparable between the matched PKT and non-PKT groups (45.2 vs. 46.5 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively, P = 0.56). Sensitivity analysis using various formulas did not change the results. PKT was not superior to non-PKT in reducing the risk of biopsy-proven rejection, CMV, PTDM, and malignancy, regardless of matching. The risk of graft failure and CVD was significantly reduced in the unmatched PKT group (ARR, -6.2 %; 95 % CI, -8.6 to -0.7; P = 0.03, and ARR, -6.7 %; 95 % CI, -9.6 to -0.7, P = 0.03, respectively); nevertheless, the corresponding ARRs were -3.2 % (95 % CI, -10.0 to 2.9; P = 0.44) and -2.2 % (95 % CI, -9.1 to 4.4; P = 0.72) after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

PKT was associated with neither improvement of post-transplant renal function nor a lower rate of common post-transplant complications than non-PKT among patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent living KT.

Does pre-emptive transplantation versus post start of dialysis transplantation with a kidney from a living donor improve outcomes after transplantation? A systematic literature review and position statement by the Descartes Working Group and ERBP

This position statement brings up guidance on pre-emptive kidney transplantation from living donors. The provided guidance is based on a systematic review of the literature.

Estimating time to ESRD using kidney failure risk equations: results from the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK)

BACKGROUND

Planning for renal replacement therapy, such as referral for arteriovenous fistula placement and transplantation, often is guided by level of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The use of risk equations might enable more accurate estimation of time to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), thus improving patient care.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

1,094 participants in the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) cohort.

PREDICTOR

Age, sex, urine protein-creatinine ratio ≥ 1g/g, APOL1 high-risk status, and 3-year antecedent eGFR decline.

OUTCOME

Cumulative incidence of ESRD from 5 different starting points: eGFR of 30 and 15mL/min/1.73m(2) and 1-year ESRD risk of 5%, 10%, and 20%, estimated by a published 4-variable kidney failure risk equation.

RESULTS

566 participants developed eGFR of 30mL/min/1.73m(2), 244 developed eGFR of 15mL/min/1.73m(2), and 437, 336, and 259 developed 1-year ESRD risks of 5%, 10%, and 20%, respectively. The 1-year cumulative incidence of ESRD was 4.3% from eGFR of 30mL/min/1.73m(2), 49.0% from eGFR of 15mL/min/1.73m(2), 6.7% from 5% ESRD risk, 15.0% from 10% ESRD risk, and 29% from 20% ESRD risk. From eGFR of 30mL/min/1.73m(2), there were several risk factors that predicted ESRD risk. From eGFR of 15mL/min/1.73m(2), only level of proteinuria did; median time to ESRD was 9 and 19 months in those with higher and lower proteinuria, respectively. Median times were less variable from corresponding ESRD risk thresholds. For example, median times to ESRD from 20% ESRD risk were 22 and 25 months among those with higher and lower proteinuria, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively homogeneous population of African Americans with hypertensive kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present study suggest the potential benefit of incorporating kidney failure risk equations into clinical care, with selection of a specific threshold guided by its intended use.

Association between pre-transplant dialysis modality and patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have found inconsistent associations between pre-transplant dialysis modality and subsequent post-transplant survival. We aimed to examine this relationship using the instrumental variable method and to compare the results with standard Cox regression.

METHODS

We included 29 088 patients (age >20 years) from 16 European national or regional renal registries who received a first kidney transplant between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2008 and were on dialysis before transplantation for a period between 90 days and 10 years. Standard multivariable Cox regression examined the association of individually assigned pre-transplant dialysis modality with post-transplant patient and graft survival. To decrease confounding-by-indication through unmeasured factors, we applied the instrumental variable method that used the case-mix adjusted centre percentage of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as predictor variable.

RESULTS

Standard analyses adjusted for age, sex, primary renal disease, donor type, duration of dialysis, year of transplantation and country suggested that PD before transplantation was associated with better patient [hazard ratio, HR (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.76-0.91)] and graft survival (HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.84-0.96)) when compared with haemodialysis (HD). In contrast, the instrumental variable analysis showed that a 10% increase in the case-mix adjusted centre percentage of patients on PD was neither associated with post-transplant patient survival [HR (95% CI = 1.00 (0.97-1.04)] nor with graft survival [HR (95% CI) = 1.01 (0.98-1.04)].

CONCLUSIONS

The instrumental variable method failed to confirm the associations found in standard Cox regression between pre-transplant dialysis modality and patient and graft survival after transplantation. The lack of association in instrumental variable analysis may be due to better control of residual confounding.

Patient and graft survival after pre-emptive versus non-pre-emptive kidney transplantation: a single-center experience from Turkey

OBJECTIVE

We sought to report the graft and patients survival of pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive kidney transplantations performed in our center.

METHODS

The 859 subjects showed a mean age of 36.1 years and included 64.6%; males, who received grafts from living (n = 665) or deceased (n = 194) donors between January 2008 and June 2011. We reviewed their medical records retrospectively, to separately pre-emptive versus non-pre-emptive recipients for year transplant outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 859 patients, 153 (17.8%) underwent pre-emptive and 706 (82.2%), non-pre-emptive kidney transplantations. The rate of living donors was higher in the pre-emptive group (97.4% vs 73%, respectively). The 1-year graft survivals were 99.3% and 95.8% in pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive transplantation groups, respectively (P > .05). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to patient survival at 1 year (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, graft and patient survival rates between pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive kidney transplantation cases were comparable at 1 year. Pre-emptive kidney transplantation, which eliminates hemodialysis costs and complications, should be preferred as the optimal renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients.

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation to improve survival in patients with type 1 diabetes and imminent risk of ESRD

Despite significant improvements in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy over the past 20 years, patients with type 1 diabetes are at high risk of developing end-stage renal disease and high mortality once end-stage renal disease develops. Type 1 diabetic patients treated with predialysis (pre-emptive) transplantation have a lower death rate than type 1 diabetic patients treated with dialysis. Living donor kidney transplantation is possible before starting dialysis and is associated with better kidney and patient outcomes as compared with transplantation while on dialysis. In addition, a variety of potential donors can be used, not just young, well-matched family members. Through paired kidney donation, blood group ABO-incompatible transplants and transplants across the barrier of anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies, diabetic patients can receive living donor kidney transplants even if their intended donor is not a good match for them. Despite these expanded options making living donation possible, only a minority of type 1 diabetic patients receive a pre-emptive kidney transplant. Multiple barriers remain that prevent type 1 diabetic patients from enjoying the reduced risk of death afforded by a pre-emptive kidney transplant, including lack of knowledge by primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and nephrologists; late referral for transplantation; patient and family misconceptions about timing of transplantation; and who can be a donor. The vast majority of type 1 diabetic patients are listed for kidney transplantation after the initiation of dialysis. Of these patients, thousands subsequently receive a live donor kidney transplant. We believe that the appropriate agencies and societies should address the barriers to pre-emptive kidney transplantation through nationwide educational initiatives and study the causes of failure to be transplanted before dialysis initiation.

Preemptive deceased donor kidney transplantation: considerations of equity and utility

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There exists gross disparity in national deceased donor kidney transplant availability and practice: waiting times exceed 6 years in some regions, but some patients receive kidneys before they require dialysis. This study aimed to quantify and characterize preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant recipients and compare their outcomes with patients transplanted shortly after dialysis initiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database, first-time adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients between 1995 and 2011 were classified as preemptive, early (on dialysis ≤1 year), or late recipients. Random effects logistic regression and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression were used to identify characteristics of preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant and evaluate survival in preemptive and early recipients, respectively.

RESULTS

Preemptive recipients were 9.0% of the total recipient population. Patients with private insurance (adjusted odds ratio=3.15, 95% confidence interval=3.01-3.29, P<0.001), previous (nonkidney) transplant (adjusted odds ratio=1.94, 95% confidence interval=1.67-2.26, P<0.001), and zero-antigen mismatch (adjusted odds ratio=1.45, 95% confidence interval=1.37-1.54, P<0.001; Caucasians only) were more likely to receive preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant, even after accounting for center-level clustering. African Americans were less likely to receive preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant (adjusted odds ratio=0.44, 95% confidence interval=0.41-0.47, P<0.001). Overall, patients transplanted preemptively had similar survival compared with patients transplanted within 1 year after initiating dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio=1.06, 95% confidence interval=0.99-1.12, P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive deceased donor kidney transplant occurs most often among Caucasians with private insurance, and survival is fairly similar to survival of recipients on dialysis for <1 year.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: has it come of age?

The benefits of preemptive kidney transplantation are manifold. By avoiding complications associated with dialysis, preemptive kidney transplantation offers significant benefits in terms of patient welfare and societal cost-saving. Patients transplanted preemptively also tend to enjoy better patient and graft survival, especially when done with a living-donor organ. While dialysis exposure limited to 6 to 12 months may not significantly impact post-transplant outcomes, longer period of dialysis has been shown to increase the risk of mortality, delayed graft function, acute rejection, and death-censored graft loss. The benefits of preemptive transplantation also extend to different age groups and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) diagnoses. However, multiple barriers have prevented wider adoption of preemptive transplantation as the primary treatment of ESKD around the world. Timely preparation for ESKD and identification of living donors should be encouraged in all patients with advanced chronic kidney disease to increase the chance of preemptive transplantation.

The kidney-first initiative: what is the current status of preemptive transplantation?

Preemptive kidney transplant (PKT)-defined as transplant before dialysis-has numerous advantages as a treatment approach for patients with advanced renal disease. In the past 15 years, PKT has become more common and has been performed at higher levels of estimated glomerular filtration rate, particularly among recipients of live-donor transplants, among whom timing of transplantation is easier to control. However, recent studies have raised important new concerns about unintended consequences of early versus late PKT. In this article, we review the convincing evidence that PKT offers diverse advantages for patients, discuss potential problems that might emerge from PKT at higher levels of renal function, examine the feasibility of a "just-in-time" PKT strategy for transplant centers, and discuss whether a new kidney allocation system could affect rates of PKT.

Preemptive renal transplant candidate survival, access to care, and renal function at listing

BACKGROUND

Preemptive transplantation is associated with better survival and transplant outcomes than transplantation after dialysis has been started. The purpose of this study is to examine associations between candidate characteristics, likelihood of preemptive transplant, candidate survival and renal function (RF) at the time of listing.

METHODS

We looked at 57 677 solitary renal transplant candidates from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database listed prior to dialysis from 2000 to 2009. Using multivariable models, we measured associations between candidate characteristics, likelihood of preemptive transplantation, candidate survival and RF at listing.

RESULTS

Candidates with higher RF at listing were more likely to be male, Caucasian, diabetic, be a prior transplant recipient and have more education. Higher RF at listing was strongly associated with greater likelihood of receipt of preemptive transplant [adjusted odds ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-1.51] and conferred a significant survival advantage [adjusted hazards ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.89, per 5 mL/min/1.73 m(2)].

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics associated with higher RF at listing suggest differences in access to care. Given that higher RF at the time of listing was also significantly associated with greater likelihood of preemptive transplantation and better survival prior to transplantation, our results suggest that listing at higher levels of RF may improve transplant candidate outcomes.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: experience in two centers

INTRODUCTION

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a prevalent, important cause of death. Transplantation increases survival and improves the quality of life of patients with ESRD while long-term dialysis is related to poor outcomes even among patients who undergo subsequent transplantations.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the advantages of preemptive procedures with kidney transplants among patients on renal replacement therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed in two Córdoba city transplantation centers. Patients were divided into three groups: preemptive kidney transplant (PKT), patients on hemodialysis who received living donor kidney transplants (LDT), and subjects who received grafts from deceased donors (DDT). Serum creatinine, delayed graft function (DGF), subclinical rejection, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) were evaluated at 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included: PKT (n = 28), LDT (n = 27), DDT (n = 25) mean age 29, 30, and 35 years, respectively. Women predominated among PKT and men in the other groups. In all groups, cyclosporine was the calcineurin inhibitor mostly used. Creatinine at 6 months was lower in the living donor groups (1.26 mg/dL PKT and 1.32 mg/dL LDT; P = NS) in relation to the deceased donor group (1.96 mg/dL; P < .05). DDT had the highest rate of DGF: 44% DDT versus 11.5% LDT vs 0% PKT (P < .05). Subclinical rejection was significantly lower among preemptive transplantations: PKT 7.6% versus LDT 18.5% versus DDT 24% (P < .05). IF/TA was higher in transplants from deceased donors: PKT 11.1%; LDT 11.5%; DDT 32%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive kidney transplantation offered the advantages of a lower creatinine, no DGF, as well as a reduced incidence of subclinical rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy at 6 months posttransplantation.

Trends in the timing of pre-emptive kidney transplantation

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation is considered the best available renal replacement therapy, but no guidelines exist to direct its timing during CKD progression. We used a national cohort of 19,471 first-time pre-emptive kidney transplant recipients between 1995-2009 to evaluate patterns and implications of transplant timing. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) at the time of pre-emptive transplant increased significantly over time, from 9.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 1995 to 13.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 2009 (P<0.001). Patients with eGFR ≥ 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) represented an increasing proportion of pre-emptive transplant recipients, from 9% in 1995 to 35% in 2009; the trend for patients with eGFR ≥ 10 was similar (30% to 72%). We did not detect statistically significant differences in patient survival or death-censored graft survival between strata of eGFR at the time of transplant, either in the full cohort or in subgroup analyses of patients who might theoretically benefit from earlier pre-emptive transplantation. In summary, pre-emptive kidney transplantation is occurring at increasing levels of native kidney function. Earlier transplantation does not appear to associate with patient or graft survival, suggesting that earlier pre-emptive transplantation may subject donors and recipients to premature operative risk and waste the native kidney function of recipients.

Preemptive transplantation and the transplant first initiative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) is the focus of a new initiative, 'Transplant First'. This initiative focuses on increasing patient transition to transplantation prior to the need for dialysis. This review will evaluate the benefits of PKT and means to accomplish this goal.

RECENT FINDINGS

Outcomes data show PKT significantly improves long-term survival for the recipient and the allograft. In addition quality of life is improved. This also holds true for children and particularly for adolescents. In 2008, 5.7% of incident patients with end-stage renal disease were placed on the waiting list before beginning dialysis and 0.8% underwent preemptive living donor transplant before wait listing. If patients are evaluated before starting dialysis and are acceptable candidates, up to 40% will receive a preemptive transplant. Recent articles stress that patients want information from their physician; important impediments to PKT remain provider and patient education, insurance coverage and patient reluctance to ask for living donation.

SUMMARY

Preemptive transplant saves lives. Increased education focused on providers, patients and entire communities is key, as is an increase in living donation. Furthermore, to maximize the impact of transplant first, increased living donor protections and immunosuppression coverage for the life of the allograft are essential.

Indications for and barriers to preemptive kidney transplantation: a review

Preemptive kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Compared with nonpreemptive transplantation, preemptive transplantation is significantly associated with improved kidney allograft survival in recipients of either cadaver or living-donor transplants. This seems to be related to better patient survival. It can be proposed to all patients, but still needs to be evaluated for repeat transplantation. The main barriers are organ-allocation policies and late referral of patients to transplantation centers.