Dialysis modality and delayed graft function after cadaveric renal transplantation

Risk Factor Analysis for Long-Term Graft Survival Following Pediatric Kidney Transplantation: The Importance of Pretransplantation Time on Dialysis and Donor/Recipient Age Difference

Recognizing risk factors that may negatively affect long-term graft survival following pediatric kidney transplantation is a key element in the decision-making process during organ allocation. We retrospectively reassessed all cases of pediatric kidney transplantation performed in our center in the last 20 years with the aim of determining baseline characteristics that could be identified as prognostic risk factors for long-term graft survival. Between 2001 and 2020, a total of 91 kidney transplantations in children under the age of 18 years were undertaken in our center. Early graft failure was observed in six of the 91 patients (7%). The median follow-up of the remaining 85 children was 100 months, and the overall kidney graft survival rates at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years were 85.2%, 71.4%, 46.0% and 30.6%, respectively. Small children with a body surface area of <1 m2 were significantly associated with better long-term graft survival outcomes, while adolescents aged more than twelve years showed poorer graft survival rates than younger children. Body surface area of the recipient of ≥1 m2, pretransplantation duration of the recipient on dialysis ≥18 months, hemodialysis prior to transplantation and donor/recipient age difference of ≥25 years were significantly associated with poorer long-term graft survival.

Association Between Pretransplant Dialysis Modality and Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The benefits and disadvantages of different pretransplant dialysis modalities and their posttransplant outcomes remain unclear in contemporary kidney transplant care.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence of the association of different pretransplant dialysis modalities, including hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis (PD), with posttransplant outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, and gray literature were searched from inception to March 18, 2022 (updated to April 1, 2022), for relevant studies and with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized observational (case-control and cohort) studies that investigated the association between pretransplant dialysis modality and posttransplant outcomes regardless of age or donor sources (living or deceased) were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines, 2 reviewers independently extracted relevant information using a standardized approach. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio and 95% CI.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, overall graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and delayed graft function. Secondary outcomes included acute rejection, graft vessel thrombosis, oliguria, de novo heart failure, and new-onset diabetes after transplant.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 26 nonrandomized studies (1 case-control and 25 cohort), including 269 715 patients (mean recipient age range, 14.5-67.0 years; reported proportions of female individuals, 29.4%-66.9%) whose outcomes associated with pretransplant hemodialysis vs pretransplant PD were compared. No significant difference, with very low certainty of evidence, was observed between pretransplant PD and all-cause mortality (13 studies; n = 221 815; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.01]; P = .08) as well as death-censored graft failure (5 studies; n = 96 439; HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.85-1.14]; P = .81). However, pretransplant PD was associated with a lower risk for overall graft failure (10 studies; n = 209 287; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]; P = .02; very low certainty of evidence) and delayed graft function (6 studies; n = 47 118; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.70-0.76]; P < .001; low certainty of evidence). Secondary outcomes were inconclusive due to few studies with available data.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of the study suggest that pretransplant PD is a preferred dialysis modality option during the transition to kidney transplant. Future studies are warranted to address shared decision-making between health care professionals, patients, and caregivers as well as patient preferences.

The Role of Peritoneal Dialysis in Different Phases of Kidney Transplantation

The utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been increasing in the past decade owing to various government initiatives and recognition of benefits such as better preservation of residual renal function, quality of life, and lower cost. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the utilization of home therapies such as PD and kidney transplantation to treat end stage kidney disease (ESKD). A natural consequence of this development is that more patients will receive PD, and many will eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Therefore, it is important to understand the effect of pretransplant PD on posttransplant outcomes such as delayed graft function (DGF), rejection, thrombosis, graft, and patient survival. Furthermore, some of these patients may develop DGF, which raises the question of the utility of PD during DGF and its risks. Although transplant is the best renal replacement therapy option, it is not everlasting, and many transplant recipients must go on dialysis after allograft failure. Can PD be a good option for these patients? This is another critical question. Furthermore, a significant proportion of nonrenal solid organ transplant recipients develop ESKD. Is PD feasible in this group? In this review, we try to address all of these questions in the light of available evidence.

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

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

Renal transplantation outcomes in obese patients: a French cohort-based study

Background

Whilst there are a number of publications comparing the relationship between body mass index (BMI) of kidney transplant recipients and graft/patient survival, no study has assessed this for a French patient cohort.

Methods

In this study, cause-specific Cox models were used to study patient and graft survival and several other time-to-event measures. Logistic regressions were performed to study surgical complications at 30 days post-transplantation as well as delayed graft function.

Results

Among the 4691 included patients, 747 patients were considered obese with a BMI level greater than 30 kg/m². We observed a higher mortality for obese recipients (HR = 1.37, p = 0.0086) and higher risks of serious bacterial infections (HR = 1.24, p = 0.0006) and cardiac complications (HR = 1.45, p < 0.0001). We observed a trend towards death censored graft survival (HR = 1.22, p = 0.0666) and no significant increased risk of early surgical complications.

Conclusions

We showed that obesity increased the risk of death and serious bacterial infections and cardiac complications in obese French kidney transplant recipients. Further epidemiologic studies aiming to compare obese recipients versus obese candidates remaining on dialysis are needed to improve the guidelines for obese patient transplant allocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02278-1.

The probability of receiving a kidney transplantation in end-stage kidney disease patients who are treated with haemodiafiltration or haemodialysis: a pooled individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials

Background

Due to a critical shortage of available kidney grafts, most patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5) require bridging dialysis support. It remains unclear whether treatment by different dialysis modalities changes the selection and/or preparation of a potential transplant candidate. Therefore, we assessed whether the likelihood of receiving kidney transplant (both living or deceased kidney donors) differs between haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with CKD5D.

Methods

Individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials comparing online HDF with HD were used. Information on kidney transplant was obtained during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant was compared between HD and HDF, and evaluated across different subgroups: age, sex, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, albumin, dialysis vintage, fistula, and level of convection volume standardized to body surface area. Hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with a random effect for study.

Results

After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1 to Q3: 1.9–3.0), 331 of the 1620 (20.4%) patients with CKD5D received a kidney transplant. This concerned 22% (n = 179) of patients who were treated with online HDF compared with 19% (n = 152) of patients who were treated with HD. No differences in the likelihood of undergoing a kidney transplant were found between the two dialysis modalities in both the crude analyse (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86–1.33) and adjusted analysis for age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular history, albumin, and creatinine (HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.92–1.44). There was no evidence for a differential effect across subgroups based on patient- and disease-characteristics nor in different categories of convection volumes.

Conclusions

Treatment with HD and HDF does not affect the selection and/or preparation of CKD5D patients for kidney transplant given that the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant does not differ between the dialysis modalities. These finding persisted across a variety of subgroups differing in patient and disease characteristics and is not affected by the level of convection volume delivered during HDF treatment sessions.

The Role of Peritoneal Dialysis as the First-Line Renal Replacement Modality

Twenty years after its introduction, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a well-established alternative to hemodialysis (HD) as a modality of renal replacement therapy. Much debate and research is apparent in the literature, comparing hemodialysis and PD as “opposite” modalities and trying to ascertain which modality should be more optimal.

In our opinion, HD and PD are two distinct modalities, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. In addition, it is clear that for both HD and PD, rates of technique failure are high, causing patients to transfer between modalities. The question is thus not which modality is best, but rather, which flow-chart of modalities makes best use of the advantages of each modality, while avoiding its disadvantages. In this respect, HD and PD appear to be complementary modalities.

The better preservation of residual renal function, lower risk of infection with hepatitis B and C, better outcome after transplantation, preservation of vascular access, and lower costs are arguments to promote PD as a good initial treatment. When PD-related problems arise (adequacy, ultrafiltration, peritonitis, patient burnout), a timely transfer to HD has to be planned.

This editorial tries to review arguments supporting the complementary nature of both modalities, and especially the role of PD as the first-line renal replacement therapy.

Peritoneal Dialysis: Better than, Equal to, or Worse than Hemodialysis? Data Worth Knowing before Choosing a Dialysis Modality

Technological advances such as those that allow the delivery of an adequate dialysis dose to a larger percentage of patients, minimization of peritoneal membrane damage with more biocompatible solutions, and lower peritonitis rates will undoubtedly improve retention of patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) for longer periods. Currently, only 15% of the world dialysis population is managed by PD. Peritoneal dialysis has many advantages over hemodialysis, and if end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are fully informed about them, the proportion of patients who would prefer this treatment would rise to 25% – 30%. An integrated approach to the treatment of ESRD could start with PD in a large percentage of patients, especially those who will receive a kidney transplant within 2 – 3 years. With the present epidemic of ESRD, this approach could lead to a significant saving, relieve the pressure on dialysis units, and allow a larger number of ESRD patients to be treated.

Taking Peritoneal Dialysis beyond the Year 2000

Over the past 25 years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) has steadily improved so that now its outcomes, in the form of patient survival, are equivalent to, and at times better than, those for hemodialysis. We now have a better understanding of the pathophysiology of peritoneal membrane function and damage and the importance of appropriate prescription to meet agreed-upon targets of solute and fluid removal. In the next millennium, greater emphasis will be put on prescription setting and subsequent monitoring. This will entail an increase in automated PD, especially for lifestyle reasons as well as for patients with a hyperpermeable peritoneal membrane.

To improve outcomes, dialysis should be started earlier than is currently the case. It is easy to do this with PD, where an incremental approach is made easier by the introduction of icodextrin for long-dwell PD. In the future, solutions will be tailored to be more biocompatible and to provide improved nutrition and better cardiovascular outcomes.

Finally, economic considerations favor PD, which is cheaper than in-centre hemodialysis. Thus, for many, PD has become a first-choice therapy, and with further improvements this trend will continue.

Cadaveric renal transplantation: Our experience at a tertiary care centre in India

BACKGROUND

Renal transplantation in developing countries like India is largely live donor transplantation. Cadaveric transplantation comprises <2% of all transplants in India.

METHODS

Ninety-two cadaveric renal transplantations were included. Various donor and recipient characteristics were analysed along with graft and patient survival, using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The mean age of the recipients was 35.5 ± 10.9 years while that of cadaver was 43.9 ± 17.0 years. Proportion of females among recipients was 47.8% while that of donors was 34.8%. The most common underlying pathology was chronic glomerulonephritis (44.6%). Antithymocyte globulin was used as induction in 84.8% of cases. Tacrolimus-based triple-drug regimen was most commonly used as maintenance (80.4%). The mean follow-up time was 39.02 ± 28.24 months. The most common cause of death was sepsis (47%). More than 50% deaths (9/17) occurred within first 3 years, while 61.5% of graft loss occurred 5 years after transplantation. The mean graft survival time was 81.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.8-90.4). Cumulative proportion of graft survival was 91.6% at 3 years and 77.1% at 5 years. Although females have better mean graft survival time (91.6 vs 73.5 months), it was not a significant difference as shown by log-rank test (p value = 0.062). Pretransplant haemodialysis has no significant effect on graft loss, but patients on peritoneal dialysis have significantly higher odds of graft loss (odds: 4.86, p value < 0.05 [0.018]). The mean patient survival time was 99.5 months (95% CI: 84.0-114.9). Cumulative proportion of patient survival was 83.3% at 3 years and 70.8% at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Graft and patient survival rate of cadaveric transplant at our centre was satisfactory. There is need to sensitise and augment the rate of cadaveric transplantation to increase the donor pool.

Perioperative Comparison of Preemptive and Non-Preemptive Renal Transplant Recipients

Objective

Preemptive transplantation cannot be performed for all patients because of the limited number of donors. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative effects of dialysis before renal transplantation.

Methods

In this study, we retrospectively investigated 666 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at our centre. We divided patients into two groups: patients with pre-transplant dialysis (67.3%, n=448) and patients with preemptive transplant (32.7%, n=218). We carried out preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative comparisons between groups.

Results

No difference was observed in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion, crystalloid and colloid requirement, inotropic-vasopressor agent administration and hemodynamic parameters between the patients with pre-transplant dialysis and preemptive transplant. It was observed that dialysis requirement, delayed graft function and acute rejection development were significantly higher during the postoperative period in patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. In patients with non-preemptive transplant, the decrease of serum creatinine levels at the first postoperative month was more prominent when compared to patients with preemptive transplant; however, that difference disappeared in the first year follow-up. No significant difference was found for serum albumin levels and proteinuria alterations of the patients in long-term follow-up. Additionally, patient and graft survival comparisons between patients with non-preemptive and preemptive transplant on three-year follow-up revealed no significant difference.

Conclusion

We think that preemptive transplantation treatment is a better option for patients with end-stage renal failure since patients with preemptive transplantation appear to have less metabolic function impairment, complication risk and more successful outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Association of Dialysis Duration With Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation in the Setting of Long Cold Ischemia Time

Background

There is no mechanism that matches hard-to-place kidneys with the most appropriate candidate. Thus, unwanted kidney offers are typically to recipients with long renal replacement time (vintage) which is a strong risk factor for mortality and graft failure, and in combination with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT), may promote interactive effects on outcomes.

Methods

Consecutive adult isolated kidney transplants between October 2015 and December 2017 were stratified by vintage younger than 1 year and CIT longer than 30 hours.

Results

Long (n = 169) relative to short (n = 93) vintage recipients were significantly more likely to be younger (32.2 years vs 56.9 years, P = 0.02), black race (40.8% vs 18.3%, P = 0.02), have higher estimated posttransplant survival (52.6 vs 42.0, P = 0.04), and have a comorbid condition (45.6% vs 30.1%, P = 0.02); they were less likely to receive a donation after circulatory death kidney (27.8% vs 39.8%, P = 0.05). Long vintage was significantly associated with length of stay longer than 4 days (45.5% vs 30.1%, P = 0.02), and 30-day readmission (37.3% vs 22.6%, P = 0.02) but not additional operations (17.8% vs 15.1%, P = 0.58), short-term patient mortality (3.0% vs 2.2%, P = 0.70), or overall graft survival (P = 0.23). On multivariate logistic regression, long vintage remained an independent risk factor for 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.47); however, there was no interaction of vintage and CIT for this outcome (P = 0.84).

Conclusions

Readmission is significantly associated with pretransplant dialysis duration; however, CIT is not a modifying factor for this outcome.

A Patient Centered Decision Making Dialysis Access Algorithm

Much controversy surrounds the establishment of proper planning, placement and management (the best practice pattern) of dialysis access. These include the dialysis type and modality selection, timing of access placement and who places the access. The lack of and the difficulty of performing randomized studies with multiple confounding factors, in an extremely heterogeneous and rapidly changing ESRD population demographics, only partly explains the dialysis access conundrum. Add to this the rapidly developing and competing technologies, the wide spectrum of the professional experience, bias and socio-economic forces to make the ESRD problems as multivariate and complex as life itself.

This overview describes a dialysis access algorithm approach to the patient needing renal replacement therapy, considering long-term improved patient outcome as the ultimate objective.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Belatacept With Tacrolimus After De Novo Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Belatacept, an inhibitor of the CD28-CD80/86 costimulatory pathway, allows for calcineurin-inhibitor free immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplantation but is associated with a higher acute rejection risk than ciclosporin. Thus far, no biomarker for belatacept-resistant rejection has been validated. In this randomized-controlled trial, acute rejection rate was compared between belatacept- and tacrolimus-treated patients and immunological biomarkers for acute rejection were investigated.

METHODS

Forty kidney transplant recipients were 1:1 randomized to belatacept or tacrolimus combined with basiliximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisolone. The 1-year incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection was monitored. Potential biomarkers, namely, CD8CD28, CD4CD57PD1, and CD8CD28 end-stage terminally differentiated memory T cells were measured pretransplantation and posttransplantation and correlated to rejection. Pharmacodynamic monitoring of belatacept was performed by measuring free CD86 on monocytes.

RESULTS

The rejection incidence was higher in belatacept-treated than tacrolimus-treated patients: 55% versus 10% (P = 0.006). All 3 graft losses, due to rejection, occurred in the belatacept group. Although 4 of 5 belatacept-treated patients with greater than 35 cells CD8CD28 end-stage terminally differentiated memory T cells/μL rejected, median pretransplant values of the biomarkers did not differ between belatacept-treated rejectors and nonrejectors. In univariable Cox regressions, the studied cell subsets were not associated with rejection-risk. CD86 molecules on circulating monocytes in belatacept-treated patients were saturated at all timepoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Belatacept-based immunosuppressive therapy resulted in higher and more severe acute rejection compared with tacrolimus-based therapy. This trial did not identify cellular biomarkers predictive of rejection. In addition, the CD28-CD80/86 costimulatory pathway appeared to be sufficiently blocked by belatacept and did not predict rejection.

Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Infections in Renal Allograft Recipients: Experience of a Tertiary Care Center in Hyderabad, South India

Renal transplantation is an effective and commonly performed procedure for end-stage renal disease. Urinary tract infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant patients. As data on postrenal transplant urinary tract infections from the Indian subcontinent are limited, the present study was conducted to estimate the burden of urinary tract infections in this vulnerable group of patients. This was a prospective study on patients undergoing renal transplantation in 2014 at our tertiary hospital in South India with a follow-up of 2 years to evaluate the risk factors for urinary tract infections. The prevalence of urinary tract infections was 41.9% with a male preponderance of 76.9%. Mean age of the 31 patients was 32.4 ± 10.2 years (range: 16-55 years). Gram-negative bacilli were the most common isolates with Escherichia coli being the predominant pathogen (53.3%). All the infections occurred within 1 year of transplantation with delayed graft function (P < 0.001; confidence interval [CI]: 29.0-96.3) and prolonged hospital stay (P = 0.0281; CI: 42.1-99.6) being the significant risk factors for acquiring urinary tract infections. Carbapenemase production was noted in 33.3% of isolates and all the Gram-negative organisms isolated in the 1st month of transplantation were carbapenem-resistant (CR) E. coli. The high rate of carbapenem-resistant organisms in the early posttransplant period is a point of concern, especially with cadaver transplants. Infection control practices and catheter care need to be strictly monitored to minimize the risk for UTI in the immediate posttransplant period.

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

Previous studies have reported contradictory results regarding the effect of pre-transplant dialysis modality on the outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT). To minimize the confounding effect of donor-related variables, we performed a donor-matched retrospective comparison of 160 patients that received only one modality of pre-transplant dialysis (peritoneal dialysis [PD] and hemodialysis [HD] in 80 patients each) and that subsequently underwent KT at our center between January 1990 and December 2007. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between pre-transplant dialysis modality and primary study outcomes (death-censored graft survival and patient survival). To control for imbalances in recipient-related baseline characteristics, we performed additional adjustments for the propensity score (PS) for receiving pre-transplant PD (versus HD). There were no significant differences according to pre-transplant dialysis modality in death-censored graft survival (PS-adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.25-1.68) or patient survival (aHR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.13-2.68). There were no differences in 10-year graft function or in the incidence of post-transplant complications either, except for a higher risk of lymphocele in patients undergoing PD (odds ratio: 4.31; 95% CI: 1.15-16.21). In conclusion, pre-transplant dialysis modality in KT recipients does not impact short- or long-term graft outcomes or patient survival.

Pretransplant Recipient Circulating CD4+CD127lo/- Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor 2+ Regulatory T Cells: A Surrogate of Regulatory T Cell-Suppressive Function and Predictor of Delayed and Slow Graft Function After Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Delayed graft function (DGF) and slow graft function (SGF) are ischemia-reperfusion-associated acute kidney injuries (AKI) that decrease long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation. Regulatory T (Treg) cells are protective in murine AKI, and their suppressive function predictive of AKI in kidney transplantation. The conventional Treg cell function coculture assay is however time-consuming and labor intensive. We sought a simpler alternative to measure Treg cell function and predict AKI.

METHODS

In this prospective observational cohort study, pretransplant recipient circulating CD4+CD25+CD127lo/- and CD4+CD127lo/- tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (TNFR2)+ Treg cells were measured by flow cytometry in 76 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (DGF, n = 18; SGF, n = 34; immediate graft function [IGF], n = 24). In a subset of 37 recipients, pretransplant circulating Treg cell-suppressive function was also quantified by measuring the suppression of autologous effector T-cell proliferation by Treg cell in coculture.

RESULTS

The TNFR2+ expression on CD4+CD127lo/- T cells correlated with Treg cell-suppressive function (r = 0.63, P < 0.01). In receiver operating characteristic curves, percentage and absolute number of CD4+CD127lo/-TNFR2+ Treg cell predicted DGF from non-DGF (IGF + SGF) with area under the curves of 0.75 and 0.77, respectively, and also AKI (DGF + SGF) from IGF with area under the curves of 0.76 and 0.72, respectively (P < 0.01). Prediction of AKI (DGF + SGF) from IGF remained significant in multivariate logistic regression accounting for cold ischemic time, donor age, previous transplant, and pretransplant dialysis modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant recipient circulating CD4+CD127lo/-TNFR2+ Treg cell is potentially a simpler alternative to Treg cell function as a pretransplant recipient immune marker for AKI (DGF + SGF), independent from donor and organ procurement characteristics.

Risk factors for lung diseases after renal transplantation

Background:

Lung diseases are one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality after renal transplantation. The aim of the study is to define the risk factors for infectious and noninfectious pulmonary complications in kidney transplant patients.

Materials and Methods:

We prospectively studied 267 patients after renal transplantation. The kidney recipients were followed-up for the development of pulmonary complications for a period of 7 years. Different noninvasive and invasive diagnostic tests were used in cases suspected of lung disease.

Results:

The risk factors associated with the development of pulmonary complications were diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 4.60; P = 0.001), arterial hypertension (OR = 1.95; P = 0.015), living related donor (OR = 2.69; P = 0.004), therapy for acute graft rejection (OR = 2.06; P = 0.038), immunosuppressive regimens that includes mycophenolate (OR = 2.40; P = 0.011), azathioprine (OR = 2.25; P = 0.023), and tacrolimus (OR = 1.83; P = 0.041). The only factor associated with the lower risk of complications was a positive serology test for Cytomegalovirus of the recipient before transplantation (OR = 0.1412; P = 0.001).

Conclusion:

The risk factors can be used to identify patients at increased risk for posttransplant lung diseases. Monitoring of higher-risk patients allow timely diagnosis and early adequate treatment and can reduce the morbidity and mortality after renal transplantation.

Spinal surgery following renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

With the improvement in postoperative care for renal transplant patients, the number of patients requiring spinal surgery after renal transplantation has been increasing. However, there have been only a few reports describing the results of spinal surgery in renal transplant recipients. In this study, we investigated the results of spine surgery in renal transplant recipients.

METHODS

A total of 37 renal transplant recipients who underwent spinal surgery in our hospital between April 2003 and July 2012 were included in this study.

RESULTS

Perioperative complications were observed in 6 cases (16.2%). Two of them (5.3%) were general complications including duodenal ulcer and acute renal failure. The other four complications (10.8%) were directly related to surgery, namely, epidural hematoma, neurological deterioration and two surgical site infections. No patient required permanent hemodialysis postoperatively. Twenty-five fusion surgeries were performed and pseudoarthrosis was observed in 3 cases (12.0%).

CONCLUSION

Spinal surgery in renal transplant recipients can be performed without major complications or requirement for permanent hemodialysis postoperatively. Our data also showed a high rate of surgical site infection and pseudoarthrosis after fusion surgery.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for the pediatric recipient population: Risk factors for adverse outcomes

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment of ESRD in children. Some studies have reported inferior outcomes in recipients of LDN allografts who are ≤ 5 yr of age. We performed a retrospective review of pediatric recipient outcomes of 110 LDN allografts at our institution and examined predictors of adverse outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed by dividing recipients into three age categories: 0-5 yr, 6-17 yr, and ≥ 18 yr. There was no significant difference between incidences of DGF or ARE between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated 100% allograft survival in 0- to 5-yr-old recipients, nearly reaching statistical significance (p = 0.07) for outcome superior to that of the two older age groups. Pretransplant HD was associated with increased risk of DGF (p = 0.05). Significant risk factors for ARE were recipient weight >15 kg (p = 0.033) and multiple renal arteries (p = 0.047). Previous ARE was associated with an increased risk of allograft failure (p = 0.02). LDN is not associated with increased risk of DGF, ARE, or allograft failure in the youngest recipients. These findings support an aggressive pursuit of preemptive transplantation even in the youngest pediatric allograft recipients.

Differences in initial treatment modality for end-stage renal disease among glomerulonephritis subtypes in the USA

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), while peritoneal dialysis affords certain benefits over hemodialysis. Distributions and determinants of first ESRD treatment modality have not been compared across glomerulonephritis (GN) subtypes.

METHODS

We identified all adult (18-75 years) patients with ESRD attributed to any of six GN subtypes [focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), IgA nephropathy (IgAN), membranous nephropathy (MN), membranoproliferative GN (MPGN), lupus nephritis (LN) and vasculitis] who were first registered in the US Renal Data System (USRDS) between 1996 and 2011. We used multinomial logistic regression--adjusting for temporal, geographic, demographic, socioeconomic and comorbid factors--to determine odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for transplantation versus hemodialysis, and for peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis, comparing other GN subtypes to IgAN.

RESULTS

Among the 75 278 patients studied, patients with comparator GN subtypes were significantly less likely than those with IgAN to receive either transplantation or peritoneal dialysis. After adjusting for potentially confounding covariates, patients with comparator primary GN subtypes (FSGS, MN, MPGN) were at least as likely to receive transplantation [FSGS OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.93-1.15), MN OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.01-1.39), MPGN OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93-1.26)] or peritoneal dialysis [FSGS OR 1.05 (95% CI 0.98-1.12), MN OR 1.30 (95% CI 1.18-1.43), MPGN OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-1.06)] as patients with IgAN. Conversely, patients with the secondary GN subtypes LN and vasculitis remained significantly less likely to receive either modality [transplantation OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.43-0.56) for LN and 0.27 (95% CI 0.22-0.34) for vasculitis, peritoneal dialysis OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.82) for LN and 0.54 (95% CI 0.48-0.60) for vasculitis].

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in ESRD treatment practice patterns are apparent among GN subtypes. To ensure equitable care for all patients, regardless of GN subtype, reasons for observed disparities should be elucidated and-if appropriate-eliminated.

Peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in patients with delayed graft function

Delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney transplantation affects adverse outcomes. It remains unclear whether the post-transplant dialysis modality alters perioperative or long-term graft outcomes. We performed a retrospective observational quality initiative at two Canadian renal transplant centers, in which DGF occurred in the recipient, necessitating one of peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD). There was no difference in baseline factors between patients with post-transplant PD (n = 14) or HD (n = 63). The use of PD was associated with an increased risk of wound infection/leakage (PD 5/14 vs. HD 6/63, p = 0.024), shorter length of hospitalization (13.7 vs. 18.7 d, p = 0.009) and time requiring dialysis post-operatively (6.5 vs 11.0 d, p = 0.043). There were no differences in readmission to hospital within 6 months (4/14 vs. 23/63, p = 0.759), graft loss (0/14 vs. 2/63, p = 1.000) or acute rejection episodes (1/14 vs. 4/63, p = 1.000) at one yr, and GFR did not differ between the PD or HD groups at 30 d (35.7 vs. 33.8 mL/min/m(2), p = 0.731), six months (46.9 vs. 45.5 mL/min/m(2), p = 0.835) or one yr (46.6 vs. 44.5 mL/min/m(2), p = 0.746). Further research is needed to determine which transplant patients are most appropriate to undergo PD catheter removal at the time of transplantation.

Pretransplant peritoneal dialysis relative to hemodialysis improves long-term survival of kidney transplant patients: a single-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the best option for the treatment of end-stage renal disease in terms of survival and quality of life. These results can be influenced by the pretransplant dialysis modality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the pretransplantation dialysis modality influences patient and allograft survival beyond 10 years and examine the potential risk factors associated with the outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an observational, retrospective, single-center clinical study that included 236 patients [118 undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 118 undergoing hemodialysis (HD)] who proceeded to transplantation during the period December 1990-2002. Donor and recipient data were collected from our hospital's clinical registries. The follow-up period extended to the patient's death, the loss of the allograft, or loss to follow-up. The end date of the study was set at March 2012.

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis, the long-term patient survival rate was higher for the PD group than for the HD group [HR = 2.62 (1.01-6.8); p = 0.04]; however, the allograft survival rate was not significantly different between the two groups [HR = 0.68 (0.41-1.10); p = 0.12].

CONCLUSION

Pretransplantation dialysis modality is associated with long-term patient survival, with outcomes favoring peritoneal dialysis over hemodialysis. However, the pretransplant dialysis modality does not influence long-term graft loss risk.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis Access: Open versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques

Aim

To outline pros and cons with the open and laparoscopic techniques when placing peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters.

Background

Controversy exists regarding which technique, the open and laparoscopic, if any, is superior to the other. In addition, there is the question of which approach is best in rescuing malfunctioning PD catheters.

Results

Rather than promoting one doctrine fits all, philosophically, doing the right thing for the patient by specific criteria is ethically the better model. These specific selection criteria include patient characteristics, the team's skills and knowledge and institutional resources and commitment. Also, the sophistication of a PD unit for training and monitoring of patients is crucial for successful outcomes. Open paramedian and two laparoscopic approaches are described in detail, outlining advantages and disadvantages of each, with suggestions when one method is preferred.

Conclusions

In general, the laparoscopic technique is associated with longer operative times, higher costs and the need to utilize general anesthesia. It is, however, the preferred method when rescuing malfunctioning catheters and may increase the PD patient population in patients with previous abdominal surgeries. The dialysis access surgeon should be familiar with both open and laparoscopic techniques and appropriately choose the ideal method based upon the individual patient and institutional resources.

The mode of pretransplant dialysis does not affect postrenal transplant outcomes in african americans

Background. In previous reports with a majority of Caucasian patients, peritoneal dialysis (PD) before kidney transplantation has been associated with poor outcomes and higher rates of graft thrombosis and infectious complications than hemodialysis (HD). We report our experience on the outcomes of prerenal transplant peritoneal dialysis in predominantly (73%) African American patient population. Methods. A retrospective data analysis of 401 kidney transplants performed at our center from 2000 to 2006 was performed. Adult recipients with at least three months of pretransplant HD or PD were included. Results. There were 339 patients on HD and 62 patients on PD. There was no difference in graft (P = 0.51) and patient survival (P = 0.52) at 1, 3, and 5-years. Patients on HD were more likely to experience delayed graft function than PD (38.8% versus 17.7%, P < 0.005). There was no difference in the incidence of vascular thrombosis or posttransplant infectious complications. When only the African American patients in the two groups were compared, there were no differences in graft or patient survival. Conclusions. Pretransplant peritoneal dialysis is associated with excellent patient and renal allograft outcomes in African Americans and does not predispose them to an increased risk of infectious or thrombotic complications.

Dialysis modality and outcomes in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The influence of pretransplant dialysis modality on post-transplant outcomes is not clear. This study examined associations of pretransplant dialysis modality with post-transplant outcomes in a large national cohort of kidney transplant recipients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Linking the 5-year patient data of a large dialysis organization to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 12,416 hemodialysis and 2092 peritoneal dialysis patients who underwent first kidney transplantation were identified. Mortality or graft failure and delayed graft function risks were estimated by Cox regression (hazard ratio) and logistic regression (odds ratio), respectively.

RESULTS

Recipients treated with peritoneal dialysis pretransplantation had lower (21.9/1000 patient-years [95% confidence interval: 18.1-26.5]) crude all-cause mortality rate than those recipients treated with hemodialysis (32.8/1000 patient-years [30.8-35.0]). Pretransplant peritoneal dialysis use was associated with 43% lower adjusted all-cause and 66% lower cardiovascular death. Furthermore, pretransplant peritoneal dialysis use was associated with 17% and 36% lower unadjusted death-censored graft failure and delayed graft function risk, respectively. However, after additional adjustment for relevant covariates, pretransplant peritoneal dialysis modality was not a significant predictor of death-censored graft failure delayed graft function, respectively. Similar trends were noted on analyses using a propensity score matched cohort of 2092 pairs of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with hemodialysis, patients treated with peritoneal dialysis before transplantation had lower mortality but similar graft loss or delayed graft function. Confounding by residual selection bias cannot be ruled out.

Incremental peritoneal dialysis favourably compares with hemodialysis as a bridge to renal transplantation

Background. The value of incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a bridge to renal transplantation (Tx) has not been specifically addressed. Methods. All consecutive Stage 5 CKD patients with at least 1 year predialysis followup, starting incremental PD or HD under our care and subsequently receiving their first renal Tx were included in this observational cohort study. Age, gender, BMI, underlying nephropathy, residual renal function (RRF) loss rate before dialysis and RRF at RRT start, comorbidity, RRT schedules and adequacy measures, dialysis-related morbidity, Tx waiting time, RRF at Tx, incidence of delayed graft function (DGF), in-hospital stay for Tx, serum creatinine at discharge and one year later were collected and compared between patients on incremental PD or HD before Tx. Results. Seventeen patients on incremental PD and 24 on HD received their first renal Tx during the study period. Age, underlying nephropathy, RRF loss rate in predialysis, RRF at the start of RRT and comorbidity did not differ significantly. While on dialysis, patients on PD had significantly lower epoetin requirements, serum phosphate, calciumxphosphate product and better RRF preservation. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in 12 patients (29%), 1 on incremental PD and 11 on HD. Serum creatinine at discharge and 1 year later was significantly higher in patients who had been on HD. Conclusions. In patients receiving their first renal Tx, previous incremental PD was associated with low morbidity, excellent preservation of RRF, easier attainment of adequacy targets and significantly better immediate and 1-year graft function than those observed in otherwise well-matched patients previously treated with HD.

Association of pretransplant renal replacement therapy duration with outcome in kidney transplant recipients: a prevalent cohort study in Slovenia

The effect of renal replacement therapy (RRT) duration on kidney transplant outcome is controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between pretransplant RRT duration versus patient and graft survival. The study cohort included 445 recipients of a deceased-donor kidney transplant between January 2000 and December 2009. Pretransplant RRT duration as a continuous variable and divided into time categories was the risk factor of interest. Patient and death-censored graft survival were the outcomes. Survival since the onset of RRT was calculated to avoid lead-time bias. Median pretransplant RRT duration was 4.7 years. The duration of RRT was longer in 33 patients who died (median 6.8 vs. 4.6 years; P = 0.022) and 56 patients who lost their graft (5.7 vs. 4.6 years; P = 0.035). Pretransplant RRT duration, as a continuous variable, was associated with a non-significant increase in the risk of recipient death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 per year of RRT; P = 0.09) and death-censored graft loss (HR 1.02; P = 0.12). When RRT was studied as a categorical variable, the mortality risk reached statistical significance when the patient had been on RRT for more than 4.7 years (HR 2.12; P = 0.042). Pretransplant RRT duration was not associated with an increased risk for recipient death if patient survival was calculated since the onset of RRT (HR 0.98 per year; P = 0.21). This study suggests that a longer RRT duration negatively impacts on post-transplant patient and graft survival; however, when pretransplant patient survival is accounted for, RRT duration has no significant effect on patient outcome.

Live donor kidney transplantation: attitudes of patients and health care professionals concerning the pre-surgical pathway and post-surgical follow-up

OBJECTIVES

We surveyed the following groups of individuals concerning their attitudes towards the pathway leading up to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and post-operative follow-up: kidney transplant (deceased and live donor) recipients, live kidney donors and medical and nursing staff caring for end-stage renal disease and dialysis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were recruited within a tertiary renal and transplant centre and invited to complete anonymized questionnaires, be involved in focus groups and undertake structured interviews.

RESULTS

A total of 464 participants completed the questionnaire (36% health care professionals and 64% patients). Most perceived donor risk as small or very small (62%), and 49% stated that a potential donor should be given up to 3 months to reconsider the decision to donate. Participants were almost equally divided as to whether consensus of the donor's family is necessary (46%) or not (44%) in LDKT. Seventy-one percentage of the participants suggested that patients have a greater appreciation of a LDKT if they have been on dialysis; 58% of participants thought that donor and recipient should recuperate beside each other after surgery; 45% thought that the post-operative follow-up for the donor should last up to a year; and 83% thought that donor follow-up should include medical status and quality of life. In the interviews, participants expressed several interesting views.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants believed that LDKT is safe for the donor, and the pathway to surgery and post-operative follow-up should be performed in a way that ensures lack of coercion and includes family support and an extensive post-operative follow-up.

Posttransplantation encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis contributes significantly to mortality after kidney transplantation

Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) is a severe complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and may present after kidney transplantation, a condition known as posttransplantation EPS. The prevalence and impact of posttransplantation EPS on survival after kidney transplantation is unknown. From January 1, 1996 until July 1, 2007, 1241 PD patients were transplanted. Thirty-eight cases of posttransplantation EPS (3%) were identified from the Dutch multicenter EPS study. In EPS patients the mean pretransplant dialysis duration was longer than in the controls (71.4 ± 37.5 months vs. 34.7 ± 25.5, p < 0.0001). The majority of EPS cases were observed within the first 2 years after transplantation, but some cases appeared many years after transplantation. Two hundred and one (16.2%) patients died after transplantation, of which 17 were EPS patients. After infection (23.9%), cardiovascular disease (21.9%) and malignancy (10.9%), EPS (8.5%) was the fourth known cause of death after transplantation. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant decreased survival for transplanted patients with posttransplantation EPS compared to transplanted patients without EPS. In conclusion, posttransplantation EPS is rare but carries a high mortality. A prolonged clinical vigilance and a high index of suspicion for the diagnosis are warranted, specifically in PD patients with a relatively long cumulative pretransplant duration of PD.

Influence of dialysis duration and modality on kidney transplant outcomes

BACKGROUND

The influence of pretransplantation dialysis on kidney transplant outcomes has been the subject of longstanding interest. Although increased time on dialysis prior to kidney transplantation is associated with decreased graft and patient survivals, analyses of the impact of dialysis modality on kidney allograft outcome have produced conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of dialysis duration and modality on the function and survival of renal allografts.

PATIENTS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 421 adults who received first kidney transplantations from cadaveric heart-beating donors performed in our unit from May 1989 to May 2007. Three hundred seventy-four patients (88.8%) were on hemodialysis (HD) prior to kidney transplantation, including 247 patients (58.7%) on treatment for at least 24 months.

RESULTS

Patients with a dialysis duration > or =24 months were significantly older (45.9 vs 42.8 years; P = .013). Renal function at 3, 12, 60, and 96 months was similar between the 2 groups. Longer duration on dialysis was associated with poorer overall graft and patient survivals. No differences were observed in renal function or graft and patient survivals comparing HD or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Multivariate analysis confirmed the lack of correlation between dialysis duration or modality and allograft failure.

CONCLUSION

Longer dialysis duration influenced overall graft and patient survival. However, dialysis modality showed no influence on graft function or survival.

Anaesthesia for renal transplant surgery

Renal transplantation is the preferred therapeutic option for patients with end-stage renal disease. Survival rates are much higher in patients who receive a transplant. Patients with renal failure have significant concomitant medical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. This article provides an overview of the important issues to be considered in patients undergoing renal transplant, and discusses the anaesthetic management of these patients.

The role of pretransplantation renal replacement therapy modality in kidney allograft and recipient survival

BACKGROUND

The effect of pretransplantation renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality on allograft and recipient survival outcome is not well understood.

METHODS

We studied allograft and recipient survival by using US Renal Data System records from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1999, with a follow-up period through December 31, 2000 (n = 92,844; 60% males; 70% white; 23% black). Pretransplantation and predominant RRT modality during the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) period and number and specific combinations of RRT modalities were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), a Cox model showed that peritoneal dialysis (PD) immediately before transplantation predicts a 3% lower risk for graft failure (P < 0.05) and 6% lower risk for recipient death (P < 0.001). When predominant RRT modality was analyzed (modality used for > 50% of the ESRD time), PD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; P < 0.05) had a protective effect for graft survival compared with HD. Better recipient survival also was associated with PD (HR, 0.96; P < 0.05). Increased number of RRT modalities during the ESRD course was associated with increased risk for graft failure (HR, 1.04 per additional modality used; P < 0.005) and recipient death (HR, 1.11 per additional modality used; P < 0.001). Any combination or any single modality (except for PD + HD for graft survival and PD + HD and PD + HD + transplantation for recipient survival) had protective effects on graft and recipient survival compared with HD.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that compared with PD, HD as an RRT modality immediately before transplantation or as a predominant RRT modality during the ESRD course, used alone or in combination with other RRT modalities, is associated with increased risks for graft failure and recipient death. Increased number of RRT modalities used during the ESRD course is associated with worsening of graft and recipient survival.

Le choix entre dialyse péritonéale et hémodialyse : une revue critique de la littérature

In France, incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are increasing, requiring a more rational use of available replacement therapies. To help practitioners make their choice between treatment modalities of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), critical appraisal of relevant literature has been conducted. Although few absolute or relative contraindications for PD and HD exist, arguments in favour of one versus the other dialysis technique can be made. When patients receive adequate and complete information, their preference is neutral between PD and HD. To date, no trial presenting a convincing level of evidence has been published which demonstrates the superiority of one technique compared to the other. Relative to mortality, it appears that no difference can be observed between the two modalities. However, in those instances where patients expect a rapid transplantation, PD is the preferred technique. This analysis suggests that peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis are not competitive but rather complementary treatments. It is therefore interesting to identify the reasons supporting the various choices between the two different treatment modalities amongst France's regions. Access to transplant, economic or organizational factors must be considered.

Peritoneal Dialysis: A Viable Renal Replacement Therapy Option

The number of patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis has increased markedly over the last decade and continues to grow at an alarming rate in the United States. Of the currently available dialysis options for end-stage renal disease (hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis), peritoneal dialysis (PD) is underutilized in the United States for nonmedical reasons. In fact, PD is the less expensive dialysis modality and may provide a survival advantage over hemodialysis in first 2 to 4 years of treatment, but that advantage is not as robust with increasing age and with the presence of diabetes. Moreover, the initial survival advantage is lost in long-term PD, mainly owing to changes in the peritoneal membrane from the use of conventional bio-incompatible PD solutions. Current data suggest that not many patients continue on PD beyond 10 years. The recent development of a more biocompatible PD solution should help to preserve membrane function, promote ultrafiltration, improve nutritional status, and, it is hoped, prolong the survival advantage of PD. Identification of molecular mechanisms involved in cellular responses leading to peritoneal fibrosis and angiogenesis evokes new therapeutic strategies that might protect the peritoneal membrane against the consequences of long-term PD.