Kidney transplant in diabetic patients: modalities, indications and results

Surgical Management of Lower Extremity Wounds in the Solid Organ Transplant Patient Population: Surgeon Beware

Objective: To evaluate our institutional outcomes of surgical management of lower extremity (LE) wounds in the solid organ transplant recipient population. Approach: An 8-year retrospective review was conducted for all solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients with LE wounds necessitating surgical management at our tertiary limb salvage center. Outcomes of interest included wound healing, surgical treatment, progression to amputation, and amputation level. Factors contributing to amputation progression were analyzed. The article adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Results: Sixty-four SOT recipients underwent surgical management for their LE wounds between 2010 and 2018. Median number of surgeries per patient was 5 (interquartile range = 2-8); 47 of 64 patients (73.4%) underwent amputation, and 17 of 64 patients (26.6%) underwent nonamputation surgical management. In the amputation group, the majority of primary amputations were minor (42/47, 89.4%); 24 of 42 (57.1%) patients progressed to a higher amputation level, 16 of 42 (38.1%) healed after their index procedure, and 2 of 42 (4.8%) were lost to follow-up (LTFU) after their primary minor amputation. Five of 47 (10.6%) patients undergoing amputations required primary below-knee amputations. In the nonamputation group, 15 of 17 (88.2%) healed, 1 of 17 (5.9%) expired, and 1 of 17 (5.9%) was LTFU. Innovation: To identify the outcomes of patients undergoing surgical management for LE wounds after SOT and elucidate clinical factors that impact the rate of limb salvage. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive analysis of LE wounds in the transplant population. Our analysis indicates high rates of failed minor amputation, and frequent progression to major amputation in SOT patients. Preexisting comorbidities and immunosuppressive regimens complicate limb salvage; therefore, further research is warranted to optimize surgical LE wound management in this population.

Long-term graft outcomes and patient survival are lower posttransplant in patients with a primary renal diagnosis of glomerulonephritis

Glomerulonephritis (GN) is the primary diagnosis in 20% to 40% of patients receiving a renal transplant. Here we studied patient survival and graft outcomes in patients with GN transplanted in the UK. UK Renal Registry data were used to analyze patient survival and graft failure in incident transplant patients between 1997 to 2009 who had a diagnosis of primary GN, in comparison to patients transplanted with adult polycystic kidney disease (APKD) or diabetes. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, donor type, ethnicity, donor age, time on dialysis, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, cold ischemic time, and graft failure (for patient survival). Patients were followed up through December 2012. Of 4750 patients analyzed, 2975 had GN and 1775 APKD. Graft failure was significantly higher in membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN) type II (hazard ratio: 3.5, confidence interval: 1.9-6.6), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (2.4, 1.8-3.2), MPGN type I (2.3, 1.6-3.3), membranous nephropathy (2.0, 1.4-2.9), and IgA nephropathy (1.6, 1.3-2.0) compared to APKD. Survival was significantly reduced in patients with MPGN type II (4.7, 2.0-10.8), and those with lupus nephritis (1.8, 1.1-2.9). Overall graft failure for patients with GN was similar to those with diabetes. Thus, in comparison to outcomes in APKD, graft survival is significantly lower in most GNs, with variation in outcomes between different GNs. This information should assist in pretransplant counseling of patients. Further study is required to understand the reduced survival seen in lupus nephritis and MPGN type II, and to improve overall graft outcomes.

Inflammatory biomarkers, glycemic variability, hypoglycemia, and renal transplant outcomes: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that compared to standard glycemic control [blood glucose (BG): 70-180 mg/dL], patients randomized to intensive glycemic control (BG: 70-110 mg/dL) were at increased risk of graft rejection in renal transplantation. However, the underlying mechanisms that associate the effect of intensive glycemic control with renal transplant outcomes have not been identified.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of 93 participants (n=44 intensive, n=49 control) was conducted using data from a previous randomized controlled clinical trial. We examined inflammatory biomarkers, glycemic variability, hypoglycemia, and hyperglycemia as potential contributing etiologies by assessing the effect of intensive glycemic control on these characteristics, and evaluate the association of these variables with graft rejection.

RESULTS

Intensive glycemic control had no appreciable effect on highly sensitive C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, IL-1β, or IL-10 levels at all time points after transplantation. Moreover, neither inflammatory biomarkers nor increased glycemic variability were associated with graft rejection. However, intensive treatment increased the risk of hypoglycemia (BG <70 mg/dL, 84% vs. 25%, P<0.001). In sub-analysis, compared to non-rejecters, rejecters demonstrated higher rates of blood glucose below 70 mg/dL (90% vs. 49%, P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Inflammatory biomarkers and increased glycemic variability lack correlation with clinical outcomes in renal transplant, but importantly, increased perioperative hypoglycemic episodes (BG <70mg/dL) may be a salient etiology that contributed to the increased risk for acute allograft rejection related to intensive glycemic control. Further research is needed to confirm a causal association.

Allergic reaction related to ramipril use: a case report

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are widely prescribed for patients with diabetes as a nephroprotector drug or to treat hypertension. Generally they are safe for clinical practice, but the relationship between these drugs and angioedema is known. The exact mechanism for ACE inhibitors-induced angioedema is not clear and it is still a matter of discussion.

CASE REPORT

We reported a case of a 23-year-old black female with an 11 year history of type 1 diabetes, regularly monitored in the department of diabetes, in use of 0,98 UI/kg/day of human insulin, which presented an allergic reaction 24 h after ramipril use. The drug had been prescribed to treat diabetic nephropathy. There was no previous history of drug induced or alimentary allergy. The patient was instructed to discontinue the use of ramipril and oral antihistaminic drug and topical corticosteroid were prescribed. Skin biopsies were performed and confirmed the clinical hypothesis of pharmacodermy. The evaluation of ACE polymorphism identified DD genotype. Six months after the withdrawal of ramipril the patient was prescribed the angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) losartan as nephroprotector. She remained well without adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

ACE inhibitors-induced angioedema is uncommon and the clinical presentation is variable with lips, tongue, oropharinge, and larynge as the most common locations. The presence of angioedema during treatment requires the immediate cessation of treatment due to the risk of possible severe complications. The case reported presented moderate symptoms, with the development of early onset edema in uncommon regions. ACE DD genotype had been associated with angioedema-ACE inhibitors induced. In patients who have experienced ACE inhibitor-related angioedema, ARB should be used cautiously used. However in the case of our patient, the prescription of losartan as nefroprotector did not result in any recurrent adverse effect.