scholarly journals Screening, Management, and Acceptance of Patients with Aorto-Iliac Vascular Disease for Kidney Transplantation: A Survey among 161 Transplant Surgeons

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Elsaline Rijkse ◽  
Hendrikus J.A.N. Kimenai ◽  
Frank J.M.F. Dor ◽  
Jan N.M. IJzermans ◽  
Robert C. Minnee
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Vascular Surgeon ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Cardiovascular Comorbidity ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Transplant Candidates ◽  
Vascular Procedure

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Aorto-iliac vascular disease (AVD) is frequently found during the workup for kidney transplantation. However, recommendations on screening and management are lacking. We aimed to assess differences in screening, management, and acceptance of these patients for transplantation by performing a survey among transplant surgeons. Second, we aimed to identify center- and surgeon-related factors associated with decline or acceptance of kidney transplant candidates with AVD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A survey was sent to transplant surgeons and urologists. The survey contained general questions (part I) and 2 patient-based cases (part II) with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) D and B AVD supported with videos of their CT scans. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred ninety-one (20.3%) participants responded; 171 were currently involved in kidney transplantation: 161 (94.2%) completed part I and 145 (84.8%) part II. Screening for AVD was often (38.5%) restricted to high-risk patients. The majority of respondents (67.7%) rated “technical problems” as the most important concern in case of AVD, followed by “increased mortality risk because of cardiovascular comorbidity” (29.8%). Pretransplant vascular interventions to facilitate transplantation were infrequently performed (71.4% mentioned &#x3c;10 per year). Ninety (64.3%) respondents answered that an open vascular procedure should preferably be performed prior to kidney transplantation while 42 (30.0%) respondents preferred a simultaneous open vascular procedure. The decline rate was higher in the TASC D case compared to the TASC B case (26.9% and 9.7%, respectively). Respondents from centers with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions were more likely to accept both patients with TASC D and B for transplantation. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> There is no uniformity in the screening, management, and acceptance of patients with AVD for transplantation. If a center declines a patient with AVD because of technical concerns, the patient should be referred for a second opinion to a tertiary center with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions. Multidisciplinary meetings including a vascular surgeon and a cardiologist could help optimize these patients for transplantation.

scholarly journals P1622GROWTH DIFFERENTIATION FACTOR 15: A BIOMARKER WITH HIGH CLINICAL POTENTIAL IN THE EVALUATION OF KIDNEY TRANSPLANT CANDIDATES

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina De Cos Gomez ◽  
Adalberto Benito Hernandez ◽  
M Angeles Ramos Barron ◽  
Covadonga Lopez del Moral Cuesta ◽  
Jaime Mazon Ruiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Kidney Transplant ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Differentiation Factor ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Transplant Candidates

Abstract Background and Aims Kidney transplantation results a significant improvement in patient survival. Nevertheless, mortality the first years after transplant remains relatively high, being mostly related to cardiovascular (CV) events. The selection of patients for kidney transplantation includes a general assessment focused on CV status. In spite of that, due to the complexity and heterogeneity of mechanisms leading to vascular disease in this population (not exclusively related to traditional CV risk factors and pathogenesis), this evaluation remains insufficient and not particularly effective. During the last years different strategies have been studied to stratify potential receptors better and optimize organ allocation, including the development of clinical prognostic scores and novel biomarkers. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a stress-responsive member of the TGF-β family. Although its mechanism of action is not completely understood, it acts as a cytokine with effects in regulation of inflammation, metabolism and senescence. In the recent years, interest has arisen regarding its use as a biomarker for diagnosis, prognosis and risk stratification in multiple scenarios. Encouraging results have shown its utility as a biomarker of mortality (all cause and CV), heart failure and acute coronary syndrome in different populations. The aim of this work is to assess the utility of GDF-15 to predict survival in kidney transplant candidates. Method 395 kidney transplant recipients between 2005 and 2015 were included. GDF-15 measurements were performed from stored serum samples obtained pretransplant. The concentration of GDF-15 was analyzed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Quantikine, R&D Systems). Results Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median GDF-15 was 5331.3 (50.49-16242.3) pg/ml. After a mean of 90.6 ± 41.5 months of follow up 82 (20.8%) patients died. Patients were stratified in tertiles according to GDF-15 levels: low (GDF-15 ≤ 4612.1 pg/ml), medium (GDF-15 4612.1-6296.5 pg/ml) and high risk tertile (GDF-15 &gt; 6296.5 pg/ml). Higher GDF-15 concentrations were significantly associated with mortality: HR 2.16 95%CI (1.14-1.44), p = 0.018 for medium tertile and HR 3.28 95%CI (1.79-6.1), p &lt;0.001 for high risk tertile (Figure 1). After adjusting for age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, non-renal solid organ transplant and dialysis at the time of transplant, the relation between survival and GDF-15 was significant (HR 2.24 95%CI (1.2-4.16), p = 0.011 for high risk tertile). After adjusting by EPTS (Estimated Post Transplant Survival score) the association with GDF-15 remained significant: HR 3.24 95%CI (1.2-8.8), p = 0.021 for medium risk tertile and HR 4.3 95%CI (1.65-11.54), p = 0.003 for high risk tertile (calculated only in first renal transplants). Mortality at 3 years was 6.9% (27 patients) and it was only related to coronary artery disease and GDF-15 (OR 7.1 95%CI (1.6-32.1), p = 0.01 for high risk tertile) after adjustment. Conclusion In our cohort, higher GDF-15 levels were independently associated with mortality in kidney transplant candidates. This study suggests that GDF-15 may be useful in stratifying recipient risk, adding value to the prognostic tools already available in clinical practice. Further work is needed to confirm these findings and elucidate the mechanisms linking this protein with mortality and CV disease in patients with CKD.

scholarly journals Abdominal Panniculectomy Can Simplify Kidney Transplantation in Obese Patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Dominik Promny ◽  
Theresa Hauck ◽  
Aijia Cai ◽  
Andreas Arkudas ◽  
Katharina Heller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Kidney Transplant ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Patient Cohort ◽  
Transplant Candidates ◽  
Stage Renal Disease

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Obesity is frequently present in patients suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, overweight kidney transplant candidates are a challenge for the transplant surgeon. Obese patients tend to develop a large abdominal panniculus after weight loss creating an area predisposed to wound-healing disorders. Due to concerns about graft survival and postoperative complications after kidney transplantation, obese patients are often refused in this selective patient cohort. The study aimed to analyze the effect of panniculectomies on postoperative complications and transplant candidacy in an interdisciplinary setting. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A retrospective database review of 10 cases of abdominal panniculectomies performed in patients with ESRD prior to kidney transplantation was conducted. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The median body mass index was 35.2 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (range 28.5–53.0 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) at first transplant-assessment versus 31.0 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (range 28.0–34.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) at panniculectomy, and 31.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (range 30.3–32.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) at kidney transplantation. We observed no major postoperative complications following panniculectomy and minor wound-healing complications in 2 patients. All aside from 1 patient became active transplant candidates 6 weeks after panniculectomy. No posttransplant wound complications occurred in the transplanted patients. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Abdominal panniculectomy is feasible in patients suffering ESRD with no major postoperative complications, thus converting previously ineligible patients into kidney transplant candidates. An interdisciplinary approach is advisable in this selective patient cohort.

Angioplasty and Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis With Nitinol Stent: Factors Affecting Technical Success and Patient Safety

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. ons104-ons113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Chun Ho Yu ◽  
Thomas Wai Hong Leung ◽  
Esther Hiu Yee Hung ◽  
Kwok Tung Lee ◽  
Lawrence Ka Sing Wong
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
End Points ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Vascular Morphology ◽  
Initial Failure ◽  
Angioplasty And Stenting

Abstract BACKGROUND: Angioplasty and stenting using nitinol stents is a recognized treatment option for intracranial atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVE: To identify procedure-related factors that may affect patient safety and technical outcome. METHODS: In this prospective study of 57 consecutive patients, the primary end points were intraprocedural technical problems, periprocedure morbidity, and complications. Major periprocedure complication was defined as all stroke or death at 30 days. Technical failure was defined as the inability to complete the procedure because of technical or safety problems. Procedure failure was defined as a procedure outcome of technical failure or major periprocedure complication. Secondary end points were procedure-related factors that may affect patient safety and technical outcome. RESULTS: Procedure failure rate was 12.3% (7/57) (major periprocedure complication rate, 5.3% [3/57]; technical failure rate, 7% [4/57]). Initial failure in tracking of balloon or stent occurred in 20 patients, other technical problems occurred in 11 patients, including kinking or trapping of balloon catheter (2 cases), difficulty in unsheathing of stent (3 cases), forward migration of stent during deployment (4 cases), trapping of nose cone after stent deployment (1 case), fracture of delivery system (2 cases), and guidewire fracture (1 case). Unfavorable vascular morphology signified by the presence of 2 or more reverse curves along the access path was found to associate with initial failure in the tracking of instruments (OR = ∞), and occurrence of other technical problems (OR = 25). CONCLUSION: Procedure-related factors could be identified and lead to improvements in patient safety and technical outcome. Tortuous vascular morphology is a key factor to be overcome.

scholarly journals Cognitive Function, Access to Kidney Transplantation, and Waitlist Mortality Among Kidney Transplant Candidates With or Without Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia M. Chu ◽  
Zhan Shi ◽  
Christine E. Haugen ◽  
Silas P. Norman ◽  
Alden L. Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Kidney Transplant ◽  
Transplant Candidates ◽  
Waitlist Mortality

Epidemiology of cancer-associated venous thrombosis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (10) ◽  
pp. 1712-1723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmijn F. Timp ◽  
Sigrid K. Braekkan ◽  
Henri H. Versteeg ◽  
Suzanne C. Cannegieter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Treatment Measures ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cancer Types

Abstract Cancer-associated venous thrombosis is a common condition, although the reported incidence varies widely between studies depending on patient population, start and duration of follow-up, and the method of detecting and reporting thrombotic events. Furthermore, as cancer is a heterogeneous disease, the risk of venous thrombosis depends on cancer types and stages, treatment measures, and patient-related factors. In general, cancer patients with venous thrombosis do not fare well and have an increased mortality compared with cancer patients without. This may be explained by the more aggressive type of malignancies associated with this condition. It is hypothesized that thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients might improve prognosis and quality of life by preventing thrombotic events. However, anticoagulant treatment leads to increased bleeding, particularly in this patient group, so in case of proven benefit of thromboprophylaxis, only patients with a high risk of venous thrombosis should be considered. This review describes the literature on incidence of and risk factors for cancer-associated venous thrombosis, with the aim to provide a basis for identification of high-risk patients and for further development and refinement of prediction models. Furthermore, knowledge on risk factors for cancer-related venous thrombosis may enhance the understanding of the pathophysiology of thrombosis in these patients.

scholarly journals Successful Kidney Transplantation in a Recipient Coinfected with Hepatitis C Genotype 2 and HIV from a Donor Infected with Hepatitis C Genotype 1 in the Direct-Acting Antiviral Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Farmakiotis ◽  
Zoe Weiss ◽  
Amy L. Brotherton ◽  
Paul Morrissey ◽  
Reginald Gohh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Kidney Graft ◽  
Genotype 1 ◽  
Direct Acting Antiviral ◽  
First Case ◽  
Genotype 2 ◽  
Transplant Candidates

Despite significant advances in transplantation of HIV-infected individuals, little is known about HIV coinfected patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes other than genotype 1, especially when receiving HCV-infected organs with a different genotype. We describe the first case of kidney transplantation in a man coinfected with hepatitis C and HIV in our state. To our knowledge, this is also the first report of an HIV/HCV/HBV tri-infected patient with non-1 (2a) HCV genotype who received an HCV-infected kidney graft with the discordant genotype (1a), to which he converted after transplant. Our case study highlights the following: (1) transplant centers need to monitor wait times for an HCV-infected organ and regularly assess the risk of delaying HCV antiviral treatment for HCV-infected transplant candidates in anticipation of the transplant from an HCV-infected donor; (2) closer monitoring of tacrolimus levels during the early phases of anti-HCV protease inhibitor introduction and discontinuation may be indicated; (3) donor genotype transmission can occur; (4) HIV/HCV coinfected transplant candidates require a holistic approach with emphasis on the cardiovascular risk profile and low threshold for cardiac catheterization as part of their pretransplant evaluation.

Validation of the new proposed histological criteria for the diagnosis of porto-sinusoidal vascular disease in a single tertiary center

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. S552
Author(s):  
Oana Nicoara-Farcau ◽  
Rusu Ioana ◽  
Iulia Flueraru ◽  
Horia Stefanescu ◽  
Marcel Tantau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Histological Criteria ◽  
Tertiary Center

MANAGEMENT OF HYPERPARATHYROIDISM IN KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION CANDIDATES: A NEED FOR CONSENSUS

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hubert Golingan ◽  
Shenae K. Samuels ◽  
Pauline Camacho ◽  
Darshana M. Dadhania ◽  
Fernando E. Pedraza-Taborda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Parathyroid Hormone ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Transplant ◽  
American Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Endocrine Surgery ◽  
Transplant Candidates

Objective: To assess the evolving standards of care for hyperparathyroidism in kidney transplant candidates. Methods: An 11-question, Institutional Review Board–approved survey was designed and reviewed by multiple institutions. The questionnaire was made available to the American Society of Transplantation's Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice membership via their online hub from April through July 2019. Results: Twenty percent (n = 41) of kidney transplant centers responded out of 202 programs in the United States. Forty-one percent (n = 17) of respondents believed medical literature supports the concept that a serum parathyroid hormone level greater than 800 pg/mL could endanger the survival of a transplanted kidney and therefore makes transplantation in an affected patient relatively or absolutely contraindicated. Sixty-six percent (n = 27) said they occasionally recommend parathyroidectomy for secondary hyperparathyroidism prior to transplantation, and 66% (n = 27) recommend parathyroidectomy after transplantation based on persistent, unsatisfactory posttransplantation parathyroid hormone levels. Forty-six percent (n = 19) prefer subtotal parathyroidectomy as their choice; 44% (n = 18) had no standard preference. Endocrine surgery and otolaryngology were the most common surgical specialties consulted to perform parathyroidectomy in kidney transplant candidates. The majority of respondents (71%, n = 29) do not involve endocrinologists in the management of kidney transplantation candidates. Conclusion: Our survey shows wide divergence of clinical practice in the area of surgical management of kidney transplantation candidates with hyperparathyroidism. We suggest that medical/surgical societies involved in the transplantation care spectrum convene a multidisciplinary group of experts to create a new section in the kidney transplantation guidelines addressing the collaborative management of parathyroid disease in transplantation candidates. Abbreviations: AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; AAES = American Association of Endocrine Surgeons; AHNS = American Head and Neck Society; CKD = chronic kidney disease; CKD-MBD = chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder; ESRD = end-stage renal disease; HPT = hyperparathyroidism; KDIGO = Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes; KT = kidney transplantation; KTC = kidney transplant candidate; PTH = parathyroid hormone; PTX = parathyroidectomy; US = ultrasonography

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document