Management of patients with a failed kidney transplant: Dialysis reinitiation, immunosuppression weaning, and transplantectomy

Supportive care in transplantation: A patient-centered care model to better support kidney transplant candidates and recipients

Kidney transplantation (KT), although the best treatment option for eligible patients, entails maintaining and adhering to a life-long treatment regimen of medications, lifestyle changes, self-care, and appointments. Many patients experience uncertain outcome trajectories increasing their vulnerability and symptom burden and generating complex care needs. Even when transplants are successful, for some patients the adjustment to life post-transplant can be challenging and psychological difficulties, economic challenges and social isolation have been reported. About 50% of patients lose their transplant within 10 years and must return to dialysis or pursue another transplant or conservative care. This paper documents the complicated journey patients undertake before and after KT and outlines some initiatives aimed at improving patient-centered care in transplantation. A more cohesive approach to care that borrows its philosophical approach from the established field of supportive oncology may improve patient experiences and outcomes. We propose the "supportive care in transplantation" care model to operationalize a patient-centered approach in transplantation. This model can build on other ongoing initiatives of other scholars and researchers and can help advance patient-centered care through the entire care continuum of kidney transplant recipients and candidates. Multi-dimensionality, multi-disciplinarity and evidence-based approaches are proposed as other key tenets of this care model. We conclude by proposing the potential advantages of this approach to patients and healthcare systems.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Challenges of Glycemic Control in People With Diabetes and Advanced Kidney Disease and the Potential of Automated Insulin Delivery

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease in the world. It is known that maintaining optimal glycemic control can slow the progression of CKD. However, the failing kidney impacts glucose and insulin metabolism and contributes to increased glucose variability. Conventional methods of insulin delivery are not well equipped to adapt to this increased glycemic lability. Automated insulin delivery (AID) has been established as an effective treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and there is emerging evidence for their use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, few studies have examined their role in diabetes with concurrent advanced CKD. We discuss the potential benefits and challenges of AID use in patients with diabetes and advanced CKD, including those on dialysis.

Losing Much More Than a Transplant: A Qualitative Study of Kidney Transplant Recipients' Experiences of Graft Failure

Introduction

Kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are a growing cohort of patients who experience high morbidity and mortality. Limited evidence guides their care delivery and patient perspective to improve care processes is lacking. We conducted an in-depth exploration of how individuals experience graft failure, and the specific research question was: "What impact does the loss of an allograft have on their lives?"

Methods

We adopted an interpretive descriptive methodological design. Semistructured in-depth narrative interviews were conducted with adult recipients who had a history of ≥1 graft failure. Data were collected until data saturation was achieved and analyzed using an inductive and thematic approach.

Results

Our study included 23 participants from 6 provinces of Canada. The majority were on dialysis and not waitlisted for retransplantation (60.9%). Our thematic analysis identified that the lives of participants were impacted by a range of tangible and experiential losses that go beyond the loss of the transplant itself. The themes identified include loss of control, loss of coherence, loss of certainty, loss of hope, loss of quality of life, and loss of the transplant team. Although many perceived that graft failure was inevitable, the majority were unprepared. The confusion about eligibility for retransplantation appears to contribute to these experiences.

Conclusion

Individuals with graft failure experience complex mental and emotional challenges which may contribute to poor outcomes. The number of patients with graft failure globally is increasing and our findings can help guide practices aimed at supporting and guiding them toward self-management and adaptive coping.

Management of Failing Kidney and Pancreas Transplantations

Survival rates for allografts have improved over the last 2 decades, yet failing allografts remains a challenge in the field of transplant. The risks of mortality and morbidity associated with failed allografts are compounded by infectious complications and metabolic abnormalities, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach to management. Management of failing allografts lacks consensus, highlighting the need for unified protocols to guide treatment protocols and minimize risks with postdialysis initiation. The decision to wean off immunosuppression depends on various factors, including living donor availability and infectious risks, necessitating improved coordination of care and a standard guideline. Treatment of failed pancreas focuses on glycemic control, with insulin as the mainstay, while considering surgical interventions such as graft pancreatectomy in advanced symptomatic cases. Navigating the complexities of failed allograft management demands a multidisciplinary approach and standardized stepwise protocol. Addressing the gaps in management plans for failing allografts and employing a systematic approach to transplant decisions will enhance patient outcomes and facilitate informed decision-making.

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

Clinical relevance of HLA-DQ eplet mismatch and maintenance immunosuppression with risk of allosensitization after kidney transplant failure

The optimal immunosuppression management in patients with a failed kidney transplant remains uncertain. This study analyzed the association of class II HLA eplet mismatches and maintenance immunosuppression with allosensitization after graft failure in a well characterized cohort of 21 patients who failed a first kidney transplant. A clinically meaningful increase in cPRA in this study was defined as the cPRA that resulted in 50% reduction in the compatible donor pool measured from the time of transplant failure until the time of repeat transplantation, death, or end of study. The median cPRA at the time of failure was 12.13% (interquartile ranges = 0.00%, 83.72%) which increased to 62.76% (IQR = 4.34%, 99.18%) during the median follow-up of 27 (IQR = 18, 39) months. High HLA-DQ eplet mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing a clinically meaningful increase in cPRA (p = 0.02) and de novo DQ donor-specific antibody against the failed allograft (p = 0.02). We did not observe these associations in patients with high HLA-DR eplet mismatches. Most of the patients (88%) with a clinically meaningful increase in cPRA had both a high DQ eplet mismatch and a reduction in their immunosuppression, suggesting the association is modified by immunosuppression. The findings suggest HLA-DQ eplet mismatch analysis may serve as a useful tool to guide future clinical studies and trials which assess the management of immunosuppression in transplant failure patients who are repeat transplant candidates.

Medical and Surgical Management of the Failed Pancreas Transplant

Despite the continued improvements in pancreas transplant outcomes in recent decades, a subset of recipients experience graft failure and can experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Here, we summarize what is known about the failed pancreas allograft and what factors are important for consideration of retransplantation. The current definition of pancreas allograft failure and its challenges for the transplant community are explored. The impacts of a failed pancreas allograft are presented, including patient survival and resultant morbidities. The signs, symptoms, and medical and surgical management of a failed pancreas allograft are described, whereas the options and consequences of immunosuppression withdrawal are reviewed. Medical and surgical factors necessary for successful retransplant candidacy are detailed with emphasis on how well-selected patients may achieve excellent retransplant outcomes. To achieve substantial medical mitigation and even pancreas retransplantation, patients with a failed pancreas allograft warrant special attention to their residual renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary function. Future studies of the failed pancreas allograft will require improved reporting of graft failure from transplant centers and continued investigation from experienced centers.

Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.

Dialysis after kidney transplant failure: how to deal with this daunting task?

The best treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation, which, if successful provides both a reduction in mortality and a better quality of life compared to dialysis. Although there has been significant improvement in short-term outcomes after kidney transplantation, long-term graft survival still remains insufficient. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who need dialysis again after kidney transplant failure, and increasingly contribute to kidney transplant waiting lists. Starting dialysis after graft failure is a difficult task not only for the patients, but also for the nephrologists and the care team. Furthermore, recommendations for management of dialysis after kidney graft loss are lacking. Aim of this narrative review is to provide a perspective on the role of dialysis in the management of patients with failed kidney allograft. Although numerous studies have reported higher mortality in patients undergoing dialysis following kidney allograft failure, reports are contrasting. A patient-centered, individualized approach should drive the choices of initiating dialysis, dialysis modality, maintenance of immunosuppressive drugs and vascular access.

Risk factors for infection in patients with a failed kidney allograft on immunosuppressive medications

Patients with a failing kidney allograft are often continued on immunosuppression (IS) to preserve residual kidney function and prevent allosensitization. It has been previously accepted that maintaining patients on immunosuppressive therapy results in an increased risk of infection, hospitalization, and mortality. However, as the management of IS in patients with a failed kidney allograft continues to evolve, it is important to review the data regarding associations between infection and specific immunosuppression regimens. We present a review of the literature of failed kidney allograft management and infection risk, and discuss practices for infection prevention. Fifteen studies, published from 1995 to 2022, which investigated the experience of patients with failed allograft and infection, were identified. Infection was most commonly documented as a general event, but when specified, included infections caused by Candida, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Aspergillus. In addition, the definition of reduced "IS" varied from decreased doses of a triple drug regimen to monotherapy, whereas others did not specify which medications patients were receiving. Despite attempts at lowering net immunosuppression, patients with failed allografts remain at risk of acquiring opportunistic and non-opportunistic infections. Although opportunistic infections secondary to IS are expected, somewhat surprisingly, it appears that the greatest risk of infection may be related to complications of dialysis. Therefore, mitigating strategies, such as planning for an arteriovenous (AV) fistula over a hemodialysis catheter placement, may reduce infection risk. Additional studies are needed to provide more information regarding the types and timing of infection in the setting of a failed kidney allograft. In addition, more data are needed regarding specific medications, doses, and timing of taper of IS to guide future patient management and inform strategies for infection surveillance and prophylaxis.

Allograft nephrectomy vs. no nephrectomy for failed renal transplants

The role of allograft nephrectomy (AN) in failed renal transplants is a topic of debate, owing to controversial results reported in the literature and the fact that most of the studies are limited by a retrospective design and small numbers of participants. Allograft nephrectomy is most likely of benefit in the patient with recurrent allograft intolerance syndrome (AIS) following pulse steroids. Immunosuppression weaning in the presence of clinical signs related to a chronic inflammatory state is also reasonable grounds to pursue AN. Studies are mainly inconclusive but suggest that AN has no overall benefit for allograft survival after retransplant. This topic is still of interest in the transplant field and is particularly relevant for patients who are likely to require retransplantation within their lifetime. Further assessment is needed in the form of randomized controlled trials that control for various AN indications and immunosuppression regimens, and have clearly defined survival outcomes.

Continuation of immunosuppression vs. immunosuppression weaning in potential repeat kidney transplant candidates: a care management perspective

Management of immunosuppression in patients with a failing or failed kidney transplant requires a complete assessment of their clinical condition. One of the major considerations in determining immunosuppression is whether or not such an individual is considered a candidate for re-transplantation. Withdrawal of immunosuppression in a re-transplant candidate can result in allosensitization and markedly reduce the chances of a repeat transplant. In this review, we summarize the effects of immunosuppression reduction on HLA sensitization, discuss the impacts of allosensitization in these patients, and explore reduction protocols and future directions. Risks of chronic immunosuppression, medical management of the failing allograft, and the effect of nephrectomy are covered elsewhere in this issue.

Progression of Kidney Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients With a Failing Graft: A Matched Cohort Study

Background

Few studies have assessed outcomes in transplant recipients with failing grafts as most studies have focused on outcomes after graft loss.

Objective

To determine whether renal function declines faster in kidney transplant recipients with a failing graft than in people with chronic kidney disease of their native kidneys.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Alberta, Canada (2002-2019).

Patients

We identified kidney transplant recipients with a failing graft (2 estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] measurements 15-30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ≥90 days apart).

Measurements

We compared the change in eGFR over time (eGFR with 95% confidence limits, LCLeGFRUCL) and the competing risks of kidney failure and death (cause-specific hazard ratios [HRs], LCLHRUCL).

Methods

Recipients (n = 575) were compared with propensity-score-matched, nontransplant controls (n = 575) with a similar degree of kidney dysfunction.

Results

The median potential follow-up time was 7.8 years (interquartile range, 3.6-12.1). The hazards for kidney failure (HR1.101.331.60) and death (HR1.211.592.07) were significantly higher for recipients, while the eGFR decline over time was similar (recipients vs controls: -2.60-2.27-1.94 vs -2.52-2.21-1.90 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year). The rate of eGFR decline was associated with kidney failure but not death.

Limitations

This was a retrospective, observational study, and there is a risk of bias due to residual confounding.

Conclusions

Although eGFR declines at a similar rate in transplant recipients as in nontransplant controls, recipients have a higher risk of kidney failure and death. Studies are needed to identify preventive measures to improve outcomes in transplant recipients with a failing graft.

Perspectives and experiences of kidney transplant recipients with graft failure: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are a rapidly rising cohort of patients who experience high morbidity, mortality, and fragmented transitions of care between transplant and dialysis teams. Current approaches to improving care focus on medical and surgical interventions, increasing re-transplantation, and improving coordination between treating teams with little understanding of patient needs and perspectives.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic literature review of personal experiences of patients with graft failure. Six electronic and five grey literature databases were searched systematically. Of 4664 records screened 43 met the inclusion criteria. Six empirical qualitative studies and case studies were included in the final analysis. Thematic synthesis was used to combine data that included the perspectives of 31 patients with graft failure and 9 caregivers.

RESULTS

Using the Transition Model, we isolated three interconnected phases as patients transition through graft failure: shattering of lifestyle and plans associated with a successful transplant; physical and psychological turbulence; and re-alignment by learning adaptive strategies to move forward. Critical factors affecting coping included multi-disciplinary healthcare approaches, social support, and individual-level factors. While clinical transplant care was evaluated positively, participants identified gaps in the provision of information and psychosocial support related to graft failure. Graft failure had a profound impact on caregivers especially when they were living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review reports patient-identified priorities for improving care and can help inform research and guideline development that strives to improve the care of patients with graft failure.

COVID-19-related arterio-ureteral fistula formation in a post-transplant patient

Arterio-ureteral fistulas (AUF) are extremely rare and are not commonly suspected in the setting of patients with post-renal allograft transplantation. The diagnosis, while uncommon, can be potentially lethal which is only exacerbated by the clinical conundrum associated with their under-recognition and various treatment algorithms. This case identifies a unique patient with a history of 2 failed renal transplants who presents with new onset intermittent hematuria after contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite the patient having his second renal transplant graft embolized, the patient continued to present with refractory hematuria, leading to the realization and identification of an AUF to his right renal graft. This sequence of events brings forth a case of unique significance, underscoring the potential ramifications that COVID-19 poses to the renal transplant population.

Role of failed renal allograft embolization in the treatment of graft intolerance syndrome

Nearly, 20% of renal allografts fail after 5 years resulting in a return to hemodialysis. These patients subsequently undergo withdrawal of immunosuppressant therapy, and the failed allograft is left in situ. However, many patients (40%) develop graft intolerance syndrome, characterized by fever, pain, and hematuria. Conventionally, this is managed with low-dose maintenance immunosuppressant therapy, however, that is not without notable adverse risk. In refractory patients, transplant nephrectomy is the treatment of choice; however, this caries significant morbidity and mortality. Interventional radiology plays a substantial role of treating graft intolerance syndrome while delivering improved patient outcomes.

Can We Predict Graft Intolerance Syndrome After Kidney Transplant Failure? External Validation of a Previously Developed Model

Previously we established a prediction model for graft intolerance syndrome requiring graft nephrectomy in patients with late kidney graft failure. The aim of this study is to determine generalizability of this model in an independent cohort. The validation cohort included patients with late kidney graft failure between 2008 and 2018. Primary outcome is the prognostic performance of our model, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), in the validation cohort. In 63 of 580 patients (10.9%) a graft nephrectomy was performed because of graft intolerance. The original model, which included donor age, graft survival and number of acute rejections, performed poorly in the validation cohort (ROC-AUC 0.61). After retraining of the model using recipient age at graft failure instead of donor age, the model had an average ROC-AUC of 0.70 in the original cohort and of 0.69 in the validation cohort. Our original model did not accurately predict the graft intolerance syndrome in a validation cohort. However, a retrained model including recipient age at graft failure instead of donor age performed moderately well in both the development and validation cohort enabling identification of patients with the highest and lowest risk of graft intolerance syndrome.

Levofloxacin-Associated Bullous Pemphigoid in a Hemodialysis Patient After Kidney Transplant Failure

BACKGROUND Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who require dialysis can develop a variety of skin conditions, such as pruritus, xerosis, skin infections, and autoimmune reactions. Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune bullous disorder with an increasing incidence. It can be caused by over 90 medications, but levofloxacin-induced BP in hemodialysis patients has not yet been reported. This report is of a 27-year-old woman with ESRD on hemodialysis who developed BP after levofloxacin treatment. CASE REPORT A 27-year-old woman with hemodialysis after kidney transplantation failure was started with levofloxacin for suspected urinary tract infection 1.5 months prior to admission. Her urinary tract infection symptoms were improved after 3 weeks of levofloxacin treatment, but a serious rash developed, presenting with progressive bullous throughout the body and facial involvement. A thorough workup showed a remarkably elevated hemidesmosomal antigen, BP180 (116 RU/mL), and cutaneous indirect immunofluorescence on human salt-split skin substrate was positive for serum basement membrane zone IgG with an epidermal pattern. Skin biopsy direct immunofluorescence staining showed continuous linear C3 deposition along the basement membrane zone. Prednisone 60 mg daily was started with a taper schedule. She no longer had new skin rash during a follow-up of over 3 months. CONCLUSIONS To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of levofloxacin-induced BP in a patient undergoing hemodialysis. This report highlights the importance of recognizing skin reactions associated with ESRD in dialysis patients, the correct diagnosis by biopsy and histopathology, and the correct and timely management.

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

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

Transplant Nephrectomy: Current Concepts

Kidney transplantation is the gold standard treatment option for patients with endstage kidney disease. As the number of waitlisted patients increases, the gap between supply and demand for suitable donor kidneys keeps widening. The adoption of novel strategies that expand the donor pool has attenuated this issue to a certain degree, and this has led to a progressive increase in the number of annual transplants performed. As transplanted kidneys have a finite lifespan, there is a reciprocal rise in the number of patients who return to dialysis once their allograft fails. The clinicians involved in the management of such patients are left with the problem of managing the nonfunctioning allograft. The decision to undertake transplant nephrectomy (TN) in these patients is not straightforward. Allograft nephrectomy is a procedure that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It will have implications for the outcomes of the subsequent transplant. In this review, we aimed to compressively discuss the indications, techniques, and outcomes of TN, which is an integral component of the management of a failing allograft.

Kidney Retransplantation after Graft Failure: Variables Influencing Long-Term Survival

Background

There is an increasing demand for kidney retransplantation. Most studies report inferior outcomes compared to primary transplantation, consequently feeding an ethical dilemma in the context of chronic organ shortage.

Objective

To assess variables influencing long-term graft survival after kidney retransplantation. Material and Methods. All patients transplanted at our center between 2000 and 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method, and risk factors were identified using multiple Cox regression.

Results

We performed 1,376 primary kidney transplantations and 222 retransplantations. The rate of retransplantation was 67.8% after the first graft loss, with a comparable 10-year graft survival compared to primary transplantation (67% vs. 64%, p=0.104) but an inferior graft survival thereafter (log-rank p=0.026). Independent risk factors for graft survival in retransplantation were age ≥ 50 years, time on dialysis ≥1 year, previous graft survival <2 years, ≥1 mild comorbidity in the Charlson–Deyo index, active smoking, and life-threatening complications (Clavien–Dindo grade IV) at first transplantation.

Conclusion

Graft survival is comparable for first and second kidney transplantation within the first 10 years. Risk factors for poor outcomes after retransplantation are previous graft survival, dialysis time after graft failure, recipient age, comorbidities, and smoking. Patients with transplant failure should have access to retransplantation as early as possible.

Clinical Events and Renal Function in the First Year Predict Long-Term Kidney Transplant Survival

BACKGROUND

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year post transplantation has been shown to be a strong predictor of long-term graft survival. However, intercurrent events (ICEs) may affect the relationship between eGFR and failure risk.

METHODS

The OPTN and USRDS databases on single-organ kidney transplant recipients from 2012 to 2016 were linked. Competing risk regressions estimated adjusted subhazard ratios (SHRs) of 12-month eGFR on long-term graft failure, considering all-cause mortality as the competing risk, for deceased donor (DD) and living donor (LD) recipients. Additional predictors included recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics. ICEs examined were acute rejection, cardiovascular events, and infections.

RESULTS

Cohorts comprised 25,131 DD recipients and 7471 LD recipients. SHRs for graft failure increased rapidly as 12-month eGFR values decreased from the reference 60 ml/min per 1.73 m². At an eGFR of 20 ml/min per 1.73 m², SHRs were 13-15 for DD recipients and 12-13 for LD recipients; at an eGFR of 30 ml/min per 1.73 m², SHRs were 5.0-5.7 and 5.0-5.5, respectively. Among first-year ICEs, acute rejection was a significant predictor of long-term graft failure in both DD (SHR=1.63, P<0.001) and LD (SHR=1.51, P=0.006) recipients; cardiovascular events were significant in DD (SHR=1.24, P<0.001), whereas non-CMV infections were significant in the LD cohort (SHR=1.32, P=0.03). Adjustment for ICEs did not significantly reduce the association of eGFR with graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve-month eGFR is a strong predictor of long-term graft failure after accounting for clinical events occurring from discharge to 1 year. These findings may improve patient management and clinical evaluation of novel interventions.

Pearls and Pitfalls in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation After 5 Decades

Worldwide, over 1,300 pediatric kidney transplantations are performed every year. Since the first transplantation in 1959, healthcare has evolved dramatically. Pre-emptive transplantations with grafts from living donors have become more common. Despite a subsequent improvement in graft survival, there are still challenges to face. This study attempts to summarize how our understanding of pediatric kidney transplantation has developed and improved since its beginnings, whilst also highlighting those areas where future research should concentrate in order to help resolve as yet unanswered questions. Existing literature was compared to our own data of 411 single-center pediatric kidney transplantations between 1968 and 2020, in order to find discrepancies and allow identification of future challenges. Important issues for future care are innovations in immunosuppressive medication, improving medication adherence, careful donor selection with regard to characteristics of both donor and recipient, improvement of surgical techniques and increased attention for lower urinary tract dysfunction and voiding behavior in all patients.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Solid Organ Transplantation

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) is a life-saving procedure for people with end-stage organ failure. However, patients experience significant symptom burden, complex decision making, morbidity, and mortality during both pre- and post-transplant periods. Palliative care (PC) is well suited and historically underdelivered for the transplant population. This article, written by a team of transplant specialists (surgeons, cardiologists, nephrologists, hepatologists, and pulmonologists), PC clinicians, and an ethics specialist, shares 10 high-yield tips for PC clinicians to consider when caring for SOT patients.

Factors affecting sensitization following kidney allograft failure

INTRODUCTION

Management of immunosuppression in a kidney transplant recipient with a failed allograft is complex; continuation carries infectious and metabolic risks, and discontinuation can lead to sensitization.

METHODS

We evaluated risk factors for sensitization in 89 kidney or simultaneous kidney-pancreas recipients, whose kidney transplant failed after January, 2013 and who were subsequently re-evaluated for kidney transplantation.

RESULTS

Among recipients with pre graft failure cPRA < 50%, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) continuation (OR .11, P = .003) and steroid continuation (OR .17, P = .04) were associated with significantly lower odds of developing an absolute increase in cPRA of ≥50%. Each additional HLA mismatch was associated with OR of 2.16 (P = .02). CNI use was associated with OR of .09 (P = .001) for increase in cPRA to ≥80% if pre graft failure cPRA was <50%, and OR of .08 (P = .02) for increase in cPRA to ≥98% if pre graft cPRA was <80%. Anti-metabolites were continued more often among recipients who had a <50% increase (P = .006); however, the association was lost on multivariate analyses. Weaning off immunosuppression and higher number of HLA mismatches are associated with greater likelihood of sensitization.

CONCLUSION

While both CNI and steroid continuation conferred some protection against increase in cPRA, CNI continuation was the only factor protecting against becoming highly sensitized.

Management of the Failing Kidney Transplant: Challenges and Solutions

The kidneys are the most transplanted organs, and the number of failed kidney transplants that require reinstitution of renal replacement therapy in patients is on the increase. Increased mortality has been noted in patients with failed grafts compared with transplant- naïve patients with chronic kidney disease who are treated with dialysis. Issues such as management of immunosuppression, the need for transplant nephrectomy, addressing the increased risk of cardiovascular events, malignancies, and infections are debatable and often based on individual or hospital practices. The optimal timing and modality of renal replacement therapy to be reinitiated are sometimes blurred, with considerable variations among physician practices. Guidelines are therefore needed to appropriately manage this special population of patients with the aim of improving outcomes. Here, our objective was to review the current practices in managing patients with failing kidney transplants so that recommendations can be made based on the available evidence.

Kidney recipients with allograft failure, transition of kidney care (KRAFT): A survey of contemporary practices of transplant providers

Kidney allograft failure and return to dialysis carry a high risk of morbidity. A practice survey was developed by the AST Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice workgroup and distributed electronically to the AST members. There were 104 respondents who represented 92 kidney transplant centers. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists at academic centers. The most common approach to immunosuppression management was to withdraw the antimetabolite first (73%), while only 12% responded they would withdraw calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) first. More than 60% reported that the availability of a living donor is the most important factor in their decision to taper immunosuppression, followed by risk of infection, risk of sensitization, frailty, and side effects of medications. More than half of respondents reported that embolization was either not available or offered to less than 10% as an option for surgical intervention. Majority reported that ≤50% of failed allograft patients were re-listed before dialysis, and less than a quarter of transplant nephrologists performed frequent visits with their patients with failed kidney allograft after they return to dialysis. This survey demonstrates heterogeneity in the care of patients with a failing allograft and the need for more evidence to guide improvements in clinical practice related to transition of care.

The failing kidney allograft: A review and recommendations for the care and management of a complex group of patients

The return to dialysis after allograft failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This transition is made more complex by the rising numbers of patients who seek repeat transplantation and therefore may have indications for remaining on low levels of immunosuppression, despite the potential increased morbidity. Management strategies vary across providers, driven by limited data on how to transition off immunosuppression as the allograft fails and a paucity of randomized controlled trials to support one approach over another. In this review, we summarize the current data available for management and care of the failing allograft. Additionally, we discuss a suggested plan for immunosuppression weaning based upon the availability of re-transplantation and residual allograft function. We propose a shared-care model in which there is improved coordination between transplant providers and general nephrologists so that immunosuppression management and preparation for renal replacement therapy and/or repeat transplantation can be conducted with the goal of improved outcomes and decreased morbidity in this vulnerable patient group.

Outcomes of an Inpatient Dialysis Start in Patients With Kidney Graft Failure: A Population-Based Multicentre Cohort Study

Background:

The frequency and outcomes of starting maintenance dialysis in the hospital as an inpatient in kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are poorly understood.

Objective:

To determine the frequency of inpatient dialysis starts in patients with kidney graft failure and examine whether dialysis start status (hospital inpatient vs outpatient setting) is associated with all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation.

Design:

Population-based cohort study.

Setting:

We used linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada.

Patients:

We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure from 1994 to 2016.

Measurements:

All-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation.

Methods:

The cumulative incidence function was used to calculate the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation, accounting for competing risks. Subdistribution hazard ratios from the Fine and Gray model were used to examine the relationship between inpatient dialysis starts (vs outpatient dialysis start [reference]) and the dependent variables (ie, mortality or re-transplant).

Results:

We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure. More than half (55.8%) of patients with kidney graft failure, initiated dialysis as an inpatient. Compared with outpatient dialysis starters, inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of mortality and a significantly lower incidence of kidney re-transplantation (P < .001). The 10-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 51.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.4, 56.9%) (inpatient) and 35.3% (95% CI: 31.1, 40.1%) (outpatient). After adjusting for clinical characteristics, we found inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly increased hazard of mortality in the first year after graft failure (hazard ratio: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.43, 3.33]) but at 1+ years there was no significant difference between groups.

Limitations:

Possibility of residual confounding and unable to determine inpatient dialysis starts that were unavoidable.

Conclusions:

In this study we identified that most patients with kidney graft failure had inpatient dialysis starts, which was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for an inpatient dialysis start in this patient population.

Renal artery embolization of non-functioning graft: an effective treatment for graft intolerance syndrome

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous renal artery embolization is a valid non-invasive technique alternative to nephrectomy for patients with symptomatic non-functioning allograft (graft intolerance syndrome-GIS). The purpose of this article is to report the experience of our centre.

METHODS

We analysed retrospectively 15 patients with symptomatic non-functioning renal allograft treated with percutaneous embolization from 2003 to 2017. Occlusion was obtained with the injection of calibrated microspheres of increasing size (from 100 to 900 μm) and completed with 5 to 8 mm metal coils placement in the renal artery.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all cases at the end of the procedure. Clinical success was obtained in 11 patients (73%). In four cases, nephrectomy was necessary: in one case because of septic fever and in three cases because of GIS persistence. In one case, it was possible to perform another procedure to embolize a perirenal collateral from a lumbar artery. Four patients (27%) reported minor complications which spontaneously resolved during the hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the scientific literature, we believe that, in selected patients, percutaneous renal artery embolization is a valid treatment option for GIS thanks to its efficacy, repeatability, minimal invasiveness and the absence of severe complications.

Management of patients with a failed kidney transplant: what should we do?

The number of kidney transplant recipients returning to dialysis after graft failure is steadily increasing over time. Patients with a failed kidney transplant have been shown to have a significant increase in mortality compared with patients with a functioning graft or patients initiating dialysis for the first time. Moreover, the risk for infectious complications, cardiovascular disease and malignancy is greater than in the dialysis population due to the frequent maintenance of low-dose immunosuppression, which is required to reduce the risk of allosensitization, particularly in patients with the prospect of retransplantation from a living donor. The management of these patients present several controversial opinions and clinical guidelines are lacking. This article aims to review the leading evidence on the main issues in the management of patients with failed transplant, including the ideal timing and modality of dialysis reinitiation, the indications for an allograft nephrectomy or the correct management of immunosuppression during graft failure. In summary, retransplantation is a feasible option that should be considered in patients with graft failure and may help to minimize the morbidity and mortality risk associated with dialysis reinitiation.

Transplant nephrectomy with peritoneal window: Georgetown University experience

Objectives

Transplant nephrectomy is a technically challenging procedure with high complication rates. Morbidity and mortality are mostly due to hemorrhage or infection and are reported to be 17-60% and 1-39%, respectively. The most common surgical technique for transplant nephrectomy is sub-capsular, extraperitoneal approach which may result in fluid accumulation and subsequent super-infection. We report that intraperitoneal approach, after assuring hemostasis of the transplant pedicle, allows for passive drainage, decreases hematoma formation and minimizes the subsequent infection risk in the nephrectomy bed.

Material and Methods

From July 2009 to July 2014 a total of 38 transplant nephrectomies were performed using the intraperitoneal window technique at Georgetown University MedStar Transplant Institute (MGTI). Data was collected retrospectively.

Results

Average age at the time of transplant nephrectomy was 43.9 ± 14.3, and the majority were male (55.3%). Mean time to nephrectomy was 71.7 ± 67.4 months following transplantation. Indications for nephrectomy included pain, hematuria, fever, and recalcitrant rejection. Average operative time was 97.1 ± 28.9 minutes, average blood loss was 172.5 ± 213.6 mL. A total of 9 (24%) complications occurred. Postoperative blood transfusion was the most common complication (15.7%) followed by 2 (5.3%) re-interventions; one take back for hematoma and one percutaneous drain placement for symptomatic fluid collection. We had no infection, postoperative sepsis, ICU admissions, or mortality.

Conclusion

Transplant nephrectomy with peritoneal window is a technique with better results compared to the literature. An opening between the transplant cavity and the peritoneum allows for passive drainage of fluid and minimizes the risk of hematoma and abscess formation. This approach does not add significant time to the operation, furthermore it may decrease morbidity and mortality by reducing overall complications, namely hematoma formation and infection, which overall decreases rates of re-interventions and length of hospital stay.

Renal Graft Embolization as a Treatment for Graft Intolerance Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Renal graft intolerance syndrome is an inflammatory process that occurs in up to 40% of patients with graft loss. It is characterized by fever, graft pain, hematuria, and anemia. Traditionally, the treatment has been nephrectomy; however, this procedure is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. As an alternative, graft embolization is associated with success rates of up to 92%. In this study, we describe the graft embolization experience of 1 center, its clinical outcomes and complications.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective study was conducted. It included all patients with graft intolerance syndrome undergoing graft embolization between 2012 and 2018. The success of the procedure was defined by the resolution of the symptoms that motivated the embolization.

RESULTS

We found 12 cases of patients undergoing embolization. The time of presentation of the graft intolerance syndrome after admission to dialysis was 6 months (range, 0.6-13). The main clinical manifestation was pain in the area of the graft and macroscopic hematuria. Except for 1 patient, all continued with the immunosuppressive treatment regimen after graft loss for 4 months (range, 0.6-9), received antibiotics for 5.5 days (range, 2-14), and 10 patients received steroid treatment for 6.5 days (range, 5-10). The main complication, secondary to the procedure, was hematoma at the puncture site in 3 patients. Only 1 patient had postembolization syndrome, which resolved with steroid administration. Two patients required postembolization nephrectomy due to persistent renal blood flow and symptoms such as pain and hematuria. The average hospital stay was 5.5 days (range, 1-24).

CONCLUSIONS

Renal graft embolization is an effective technique as a treatment strategy in patients with clinical signs of intolerance syndrome, with a success rate ≥83.3%, low morbidity, and short hospital stay; furthermore, it avoids the potential complications of a surgical nephrectomy. Graft infection should be ruled out before embolization, and the use of prophylactic antibiotics and steroid therapy is recommended to reduce the risk of postembolization syndrome and infectious complications.

The Failing Kidney Transplant Allograft. Transplant Nephrectomy: Current State-of-the-Art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides a critical literature overview of the risks and benefits of transplantectomy in patients with a failed allograft. Additionally, it offers a summary of related problems, primarily alloantibody sensitization in the event of nephrectomy and immunosuppression weaning.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transplant nephrectomy has high morbidity and mortality rates. The morbidity of transplant nephrectomy (4.3 to 82%) is mostly due to hemorrhage or infection. Mortality rates range from 1.2 to 39%, and most are due to sepsis. Transvascular graft embolization has been described as a less invasive alternative technique for the management of symptomatic graft rejection, with minimal complications compared with transplantectomy. The number of patients with a failed allograft returning to dialysis is increasing. The role of allograft nephrectomy in the management of asymptomatic transplant failure is still controversial and up today continues to depend on the usual clinical practice of each institution. The less invasive transvascular embolization could have applicability in asymptomatic patients with the obvious lower morbidity and mortality rate.

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

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

Clinical Prognosis of Renal Retransplant Patients: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Retransplantation is a treatment option in patients with end-stage renal failure due to graft loss. Outcomes of these patients due to high immunologic risk remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of renal retransplantation patients retrospectively.

METHODS

Renal retransplant patients in our unit were evaluated retrospectively between 2010 and 2018. Patients' demographic characteristics, primary diseases, the causes of prior graft loss, immunologic status, desensitization protocols, the induction and maintenance treatments, the complications during the follow-up period, numbers of acute rejections, and the clinical prognosis were all detected from the patients' files.

RESULTS

We retrospectively evaluated 17 patients who underwent a second or third renal allograft. Of these, 16 received a second and the remaining 1 patient received a third renal allograft. Immunologically, all of the 17 patients had negative flow cytometry crossmatch, 1 patient had a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (Auto 12%), 16 patients had positive panel reactive antibody, the median HLA-mismatch was 3.5, and the score of donor-specific antibody relative intensity score (RIS) was 6.4 ± 6.3. Ten pretransplant patients had desensitization treatment. While scores for HLA-MM and HLA-RIS in the patients who had a desensitization therapy were determined higher, no statistical difference was observed (respectively, P = .28 and .55). No acute rejection episode developed. BK virus DNA viremia was detected in 4 patients during the posttransplant 6th month. We observed no patient death or no graft loss during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Although the retransplant patients who had a graft loss previously have high immunologic risks, retransplantation is reliable in these patients, but they should be followed up carefully in terms of BKV nephropathy.

The Last Year Before Graft Failure Negatively Impacts Economic Outcomes and is Associated With Greater Healthcare Resource Utilization Compared With Previous Years in the United Kingdom: Results of a Retrospective Observational Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Kidney and liver transplantation is the standard of care for end-stage renal or liver disease. However, long-term survival of kidney and liver grafts remain suboptimal. Our study aimed to understand the healthcare resources utilized and their associated costs in the years before graft failure.

Methods.

Two noninterventional, retrospective, observational studies were conducted in cohorts of kidney or liver transplant patients. Once identified, patients were followed using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics databases from the date of transplantation to the date of the first graft failure. Total healthcare costs in the year before graft failure (primary endpoint) and during years 2–5 before graft failure (secondary endpoint) were collected.

Results.

A total of 269 kidney and 81 liver transplant patients were analyzed. The mean total costs were highest for all resource components in the last year before graft failure, except for mean costs of immunosuppressive therapy per patient, which decreased slightly by index date (ie, graft failure). The mean total healthcare costs in the last year before graft failure were £8115 for kidney and £9988 for liver transplant patients and were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than years 2–5 before graft failure. Mean healthcare costs for years 2, 3, 4, and 5 before graft failure were £5925, £5575, £5469, and £5468, respectively, for kidney, and £6763, £7042, £6020, and £5651, respectively, for liver transplant patients.

Conclusions.

Total healthcare costs in the last year before graft failure are substantial and statistically significantly higher than years 2–5 before graft failure, in both kidney and liver transplant patients. Our findings show the economic burden placed on healthcare services in the years before graft failure.

Development and evaluation of dedicated low clearance transplant clinics for patients with failing kidney transplants

BACKGROUND

Recipients with failing kidney transplants (RFKTs) may receive sub-optimal care compared with patients with native kidney disease. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of RFKTs managed in a dedicated low clearance transplant clinic (LCTC) compared with those attending a general transplant clinic.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients with failing kidney transplants comparing two clinics-a LCTC versus a general transplant clinic. Kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR < 20 ml/min were included. A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken of all patients with two consecutive follow-up visits between the dates of January and July 2016 in either clinic, with follow-up to event or December 2017.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 141 kidney transplant recipients; 60 in the LCTC and 81 in the general transplant clinic. More patients in the LCTC cohort were non-white and early transplant recipients. A significantly greater proportion of LCTC versus general transplant patients had received documented discussions regarding their hepatitis vaccine status (63.3% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), counselled regarding dialysis modality (98.3% vs. 55.6%, p < 0.001) and had documented decision regarding re-transplantation (80.0% vs. 58.0%, p = 0.006). No difference was noted in the comparison of any clinical or biochemical parameters. More patients seen in the LCTC lost their kidney allograft (HR: 2.09, 95%CI: 1.17-3.72, p = 0.013) but patient survival was equivalent (p = 0.343).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest the management of RFKTs within LCTCs can focus attention on renal replacement therapy planning and counselling, but further work is warranted to investigate for any benefit in hard outcomes such as survival.

Checkpoint inhibitor use in two heart transplant patients with metastatic melanoma and review of high-risk populations

Due to the unique side-effect profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), groups of patients deemed to be at high risk of complications were excluded from trials that proved the efficacy and safety of these agents in patients with various malignancies. Among these excluded patients were those with prior solid organ transplantation, chronic viral infections and pre-existing autoimmune diseases including paraneoplastic syndromes. We present follow-up on a patient from a previously published case report with an orthotopic heart transplantation who was treated with both cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and PD-1 inhibition safely, without organ rejection. Additionally, we describe the case of a patient with a cardiac allograft who also did not experience organ rejection after treatment with pembrolizumab. Through smaller trials, retrospective analyses, case series and individual case reports, we are accumulating initial data on how these agents are tolerated by the aforementioned groups. Our survey of the literature has found more evidence of organ transplant rejection in patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors than those treated with inhibitors of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. Patients with chronic viral infections, especially hepatitis C, seem to have little to no risk of treatment-related increase in serum RNA levels. The literature contains few documented cases of devastating exacerbations of pre-existing autoimmune disease during treatment with ICIs, and flares seem to be easily controlled by immunosuppression in the vast majority of cases. Last, several cases allude to a promising role for disease-specific antibodies and other serum biomarkers in identifying patients at high risk of developing certain immune-related adverse events, detecting subclinical immune-related adverse event onset, and monitoring treatment response to immunosuppressive therapy in patients treated with ICIs. Though these excluded populations have not been well studied in randomized placebo-controlled trials, we may be able to learn and derive hypotheses from the existing observational data in the literature.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transplant Patients With Failing Renal Allografts

Progress in patient care and immunosuppressive medications has resulted in improved allograft survival in the early posttransplant period; however, substantial graft loss continues in the long term. Therefore, the number of dialysis patients with failed allografts is increasing progressively. These patients have a worse prognosis than naive dialysis patients. Cardiovascular causes are the leading cause of death, followed by infections and malignancies. Delay in return to dialysis, a chronic inflammatory state, infections, and cancer are contributing factors to mortality, whereas type of dialysis modality does not have a significant effect on outcomes. Graft nephrectomy is a risky operation; therefore, it should not be a routine procedure and rather should be performed only when indicated. Overall, most grafts are left in place, whereas graft nephrectomy is performed in atients with graft intolerance syndrome. Management of immunosuppressive drugs after graft failure is controversial. In the case of maintaining immunosuppression, there is increased risk of infections, cardiovascular diseases, and malignancies and also steroid-related adverse effects. On the other hand, discontinuation of immunosuppressants may result in loss of residual allograft function and also acute graft inflammation. Together, immunosuppressive drugs are almost always discontinued in these patients because of their inherent adverse effects. Considering the sequence of cessation, first antiproliferative drugs are stopped, followed by calcineurin inhibitors, and finally steroids. Because many studies show a clear survival benefit, every attempt should be made for a retransplant in patients with failed renal allografts.

Recovery of Renal Function in a Kidney Transplant Patient After Receiving Hemodialysis for 4 Months

Renal transplant is the preferred choice of treatment for end-stage renal diseases. To avoid rejection, increasingly potent immunosuppressants are administered to recipients of kidney transplants. Complications, when there is excess immunosuppression, include possible lethal infections, which reduce allograft survival and compromise patient survival. When there is insufficient immunosuppression, rejections could impair allograft outcomes. Moreover, recurrent primary diseases could also threaten allograft outcomes. Here, we report a case of a patient who underwent ABO-incompatible and living-related renal transplant in which the patient experienced 7 acute kidney injury episodes, including recurrent malignant hypertension, rejection, and infections. After the patient underwent 4 months of hemodialysis (with serum creatinine level of 17 mg/dL), which was later terminated, no adverse effects were found for 1 year (serum creatinine level of 3.7 mg/dL). Therefore, renal function recovery may be longer in patients with renovascular diseases with hypertension. For recipients undergoing hemodialysis with allograft failure, we suggest that the treatment should be not completely withdrawn of immunosuppressants so that acute kidney injuries are minimized. Even after prolonged hemodialysis (eg, for 4 months), recipients may still be able to recover renal function.

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

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