Delayed Graft Function: Risk Factors and the Effects of Early Function and Acute Rejection

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (10S) ◽  
pp. 1026
Author(s):  
M. Miglinas ◽  
L. Supranaviciene ◽  
A. Kubiliene ◽  
K. Mateikaite ◽  
K. Skebas
2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 1363-1367 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Miglinas ◽  
L. Supranaviciene ◽  
K. Mateikaite ◽  
K. Skebas ◽  
A. Kubiliene

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 634-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Moore ◽  
Kay Tan ◽  
Paul Cockwell ◽  
Hari Krishnan ◽  
Dawn McPake ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Pardinhas ◽  
Rita Leal ◽  
Francisco Caramelo ◽  
Teofilo Yan ◽  
Carolina Figueiredo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims As kidney transplants are growing in absolute numbers, so are patients with failed allografts and thus potential candidates for re-transplantation. Re-transplantation is challenging due to immunological barriers, surgical difficulties and clinical complexities but it has been proven that successful second transplantation improves life expectancy over dialysis. It is important to evaluate re-transplantation outcomes since 20% of patients on the waiting list are waiting for a second graft. Our aim was to compare major clinical outcomes such as acute rejection, graft and patient survival, between patients receiving a first or a second kidney transplant. Method We performed a retrospective study, that included 1552 patients submitted to a first (N=1443, 93%) or a second kidney transplant (N=109, 7%), between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients with more than 2 grafts or multi-organ transplant were excluded. Demographic, clinical and histocompatibility characteristics of both groups were registered from our unit database and compared. Delayed graft function was defined has the need of dialysis in the first week post-transplant. All acute rejection episodes were biopsy proven, according to Banff 2017 criteria. Follow-up time was defined at 1st June 2020 for functioning grafts or at graft failure (including death with a functioning graft). Results Recipients of a second graft were significantly younger (43 ±12 vs 50 ± 13 years old, p<0.001) and there were significantly fewer expanded-criteria donors in the second transplant group (31.5% vs 57.5%, p<0.001). The waiting time for a second graft was longer (63±50 vs 48±29 months, p=0.011). HLA mismatch was similar for both groups but PRA was significantly higher for second KT patients (21.6±25% versus 3±9%; p<0.001). All patients submitted to a second KT had thymoglobulin as induction therapy compared to 16% of the first KT group (p<0.001). We found no difference in primary dysfunction or delayed graft function between groups. Acute rejection was significantly more frequent in second kidney transplant recipients (19% vs 5%, p<0.001), being 10 acute cellular rejections, 7 were antibody mediated and 3 were borderline changes. For the majority of the patients (85%), acute rejection occurred in the first-year post-transplant. Death censored graft failure occurred in 236 (16.4%) patients with first kidney transplant and 25 (23%) patients with a second graft, p=0.08. Survival analysis showed similar graft survival for both groups (log-rank p=0.392). We found no difference in patients’ mortality at follow up for both groups. Conclusion Although second graft patients presented more episodes of biopsy proven acute rejection, especially at the first-year post-transplant, we found no differences in death censored graft survival or patients’ mortality for patients with a second kidney transplant. Second transplants should be offered to patients whenever feasible.


2010 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 2422-2426 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.C. Minnee ◽  
W.A. Bemelman ◽  
K.A.M.I. Donselaar-van der Pant ◽  
J. Booij ◽  
S. ter Meulen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S930-S930
Author(s):  
Harry Ross Powers ◽  
Walter Hellinger ◽  
Cherise Cortese ◽  
Hani M Wadei

Abstract Background There are few studies of histologic acute graft pyelonephritis (HAGPN) following kidney transplant (KT). The goals of this study are to determine incidence, identify potential risk factors and describe outcomes of HAGPN in a large cohort of KT recipients. Methods Renal allograft biopsies of all patients undergoing first KT at our medical center between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed. HAGPN was defined as the presence of neutrophils within the interstitium and tubules (casts). Medical charts of patients with HAGPN were reviewed. Episodes of bacteriuria (≥10:5 cfu/mL growth in culture) were classified as urinary tract infection (UTI) or asymptomatic bacteruria (ASB) based upon documented symptoms. An episode of acute rejection was defined as pulse parenteral immunosuppressive therapy for histologic evidence of rejection. Results HAGPN was identified in 43 of 1,391 (3.1%) KT recipients at a median of 298 days post-transplant. There were no significant differences between recipient age or gender, donor age or transplant type (deceased, living related, living unrelated) between recipients with and without HAGPN. Urologic malformation was diagnosed in 14 (33%) by day 30 post-transplant. Twenty-five (58%), 17 (40%), and 13 (30%) sustained one or more episodes of acute rejection, UTI and ASB, respectively, prior to HAGPN. At diagnosis of HAGPN, 28 (65%), 7 (16%), and 16 (37%) had histologic evidence of rejection, UTI and ASB, respectively. Twenty-two (51%) and 37 (86%) were treated with pulse immunosuppression and antibiotics, respectively. Median nadir serum creatinine before HAGPN was 1.1 mg/day while median serum creatinine at 6 and 12 months after HAGPN were 1.5 and 1.6. Three patients (7%) developed graft failure within 1 year after HAGPN. Conclusion HAGPN is an infrequent complication of KT. A majority of patients with HAGPN have histologic evidence of rejection and either UTI or ASB at diagnosis, though over 40% have neither UTI nor ASB. When rejection accompanying HAGPN is routinely treated with pulse immunosuppression and antibiotic therapy is administered, graft function is preserved for most patients but a minority (7%) loses graft function within 1 year. Potential risk factors to be assessed in further study include post-transplant urologic dysfunction, acute rejection and UTI. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document