The Impact of Combined Warm and Cold Ischemia Time on Post-transplant Outcomes.

Background: Prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT) and cold ischemia time (CIT) are independently associated with post-transplant graft failure; their combined impact has not been previously studied. We explored the effect of combined WIT/CIT on all-cause graft failure following kidney transplantation. Methods: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to identify kidney transplant recipients from January 2000 to March 2015 (after which WIT was no longer separately reported), and patients were followed until September 2017. A combined WIT/CIT variable (excluding extreme values) was separately derived for live and deceased donor recipients using cubic splines; for live donor recipients, the reference group was WIT 10 to <23 minutes and CIT >0 to <0.42 hours, and for deceased donor recipients the WIT was 10 to <25 minutes and CIT 1 to <7.75 hours. The adjusted association between combined WIT/CIT and all-cause graft failure (including death) was analyzed using Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included delayed graft function (DGF). Results: A total of 137 125 recipients were included. For live donor recipients, patients with prolonged WIT/CIT (60 to ≤120 minutes/3.04 to ≤24 hours) had the highest adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for graft failure (HR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-2.29 relative to the reference group). For deceased donor recipients, a WIT/CIT of 63 to ≤120 minutes/28 to ≤48 hours was associated with an adjusted HR of 1.35 (95% CI = 1.16-1.58). Prolonged WIT/CIT was also associated with DGF for both groups although the impact was more driven by CIT. Conclusions: Combined WIT/CIT is associated with graft loss following transplantation. Acknowledging that these are separate variables with different determinants, we emphasize the importance of capturing WIT and CIT independently. Furthermore, efforts to reduce WIT and CIT should be prioritized.

Contexte: La période prolongée d'ischémie à chaud (WIT­warm ischemia time) et la période prolongée d'ischémie à froid (CIT­cold ischemia time) ont été associées de façon indépendante à une défaillance du greffon post-transplantation, mais leur effet combiné n'a jamais été étudié. Nous avons examiné l'effet combiné WIT/CIT sur la défaillance du greffon toutes causes confondues après une transplantation rénale. Méthodologie: Le Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients a été utilisé pour identifier les receveurs d'une greffe de rein entre janvier 2000 et mars 2015 (date après laquelle la WIT n'a plus été rapportée séparément). Les patients ont été suivis jusqu'en septembre 2017. Une variable combinée WIT/CIT (excluant les valeurs extrêmes) a été dérivée de façon isolée pour les donneurs vivants et les donneurs décédés à l'aide d'une fonction spline cubique. La WIT du groupe référence pour les donneurs vivants se situait entre 10 et <23 minutes, et la CIT entre 0 et <0,42 heure; pour les donneurs décédés, la WIT se situait entre 10 et <25 minutes, et la CIT entre 1 et <7,75 heures. L'association corrigée entre une combinaison WIT/CIT et la défaillance du greffon toutes causes confondues (y compris le décès) a été analysée à l'aide de la régression de Cox. Les résultats secondaires incluaient une reprise retardée de la fonction du greffon (RRFG). Résultats: Un total de 137 125 receveurs d'un rein a été inclus. Dans le groupe des receveurs d'un organe provenant d'un donneur vivant, les patients avec une WIT/CIT prolongée (60 à ≤120 minutes/3,04 à ≤24 heures) présentaient un risque relatif corrigé plus élevé de défaillance du greffon (RRc: 1,61; IC 95 %: 1,14-2,29) par rapport au groupe de référence. Dans le groupe des receveurs d'un organe provenant d'un donneur décédé, une combinaison WIT/CIT de 63 à ≤120 minutes/28 à ≤48 heures a été associée à un RRc de 1,35 (IC 95 %: 1,16-1,58). La WIT/CIT prolongée a également été associée à une RRFG pour les deux groupes, bien que cet effet ait été davantage influencé par la CIT. Conclusion: La combinaison WIT/CIT est associée à la perte du greffon après la transplantation. Sachant qu'il s'agit de variables distinctes avec des déterminants différents, nous soulignons l'importance de rapporter la WIT et la CIT de façon indépendante. Qui plus est, les efforts visant à réduire la WIT et la CIT devraient être prioritaires.

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.

The Association of Pre-Transplant C-Peptide Level with the Development of Post-Transplant Diabetes: A Cohort Study.

Background: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is an important complication after kidney transplantation that results in reduced patient and allograft survival. Although there are established risk factors for PTDM, whether pretransplant C-peptide levels associate with PTDM is unknown. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to examine the association of pretransplant C-peptide levels with PTDM. Methods: This was a cohort study of nondiabetic adult patients who underwent kidney transplant in Nova Scotia, Canada, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021, with fasting C-peptide levels measured before transplant. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association of pretransplant C-peptide (dichotomized around the median) with PTDM at 1 year post transplant. Given the known association between pretransplant obesity and PTDM, we repeated our primary analysis in a cohort restricted to a BMI of 20-35 kg/m2. Results: The median C-peptide value was 3251 (Q1 2480, Q3 4724); pretransplant C-peptide level was dichotomized at 3000 pmol/L. PTDM occurred in 25 (19%) individuals. Thirty percent of patients in the high and only 2% of patients in the low C-peptide groups developed PTDM (P<0.001). A C-peptide level ≥3000 pmol/L was strongly associated with PTDM in multivariable analysis (OR=18.9, 95% CI, 2.06 to 174.2). In a restricted cohort with a BMI of 20-35 kg/m2, an elevated pretransplant C-peptide remained independently associated with the risk of PTDM (OR=15.7, 95% CI, 1.64 to 150.3). C-peptide was the only factor independently associated with PTDM in this restricted BMI cohort. Conclusions: A pretransplant C-peptide level ≥3000 pmol/L was associated with a nearly 20-fold increased odds of PTDM at 1 year post kidney transplantation. Identifying patients with high pretransplant C-peptide levels may therefore help identify those at risk for PTDM who may benefit from focused preventative and therapeutic interventions and support.

The windows of opportunity.

Models to predict survival after kidney transplantation have been developed, which have assisted clinicians in the selection of patients suitable for kidney transplant wait-listing. However, these models have ignored the competing problem of delisting and wait-list mortality, which are equally important in the decision-making process for determining transplant suitability. This commentary focuses on a newly introduced concept that integrates and quantifies the probability of wait-list survival versus receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant.

Comparing the Net Benefits of Adult Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation for a Patient on the Preemptive Waiting List vs a Patient Receiving Dialysis.

Importance: Preemptive kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for end-stage kidney disease. However, deceased donor (DD) kidneys are limited, and the net benefit of allocating kidneys to a preemptively waitlisted patient rather than to a patient receiving dialysis is unclear. Objective: To estimate the net benefit and costs of allocating kidneys to preemptively waitlisted patients vs those receiving dialysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This medical decision analytical model used data from the 2020 US Renal Data System to calculate patient survival among waitlisted patients who received a DD kidney transplant. Four patients were simulated, with similar characteristics: (1) a patient on the preemptive waiting list receiving a DD transplant, (2) a patient on the preemptive waiting list never receiving a transplant, (3) a waitlisted patient already receiving dialysis (dialysis vintage <1 year) receiving a transplant, and (4) a waitlisted patient already receiving dialysis (dialysis vintage <1 year) never receiving a transplant. Annual probability of initiating dialysis (for patients 1 and 2) and duration of dialysis (for patients 3 and 4) were varied in sensitivity analyses. Exposures: Allocating a DD kidney to a patient on the preemptive waiting list vs the same kidney to a patient receiving dialysis for less than 1 year, with similar recipient characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in projected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs. Results: In a simulated patient with a mean start age of 50 years (range, 30-64 years), the patient receiving a preemptive DD transplantation experienced 10.58 (95% CI, 10.36-10.80) QALYs, and the patient on the preemptive waiting list never transplanted experienced 6.83 (95% CI, 6.67-6.99) QALYs. The patient receiving DD transplantation after less than 1 year of dialysis experienced 10.33 (95% CI, 10.21-10.55) QALYs, and the patient receiving dialysis who remained on the waiting list experienced 6.20 (95% CI, 6.04-6.36) QALYs; allocating a DD kidney to the preemptive patient added 3.75 (95% CI, 3.57-3.93) QALYs, whereas allocating the kidney to the patient already receiving dialysis added 4.13 (95% CI, 3.92-4.31) QALYs. While the estimated posttransplant survival was longest for the preemptive transplant recipient, preferentially allocating the kidney to the preemptive patient results in 0.39 (95% CI, 0.49-0.29) fewer QALYs. The net cost of preemptive transplantation was $54 100 (95% CI, $44 100-$64 100) more than transplantation to a waitlisted patient. If the rate of transitioning to dialysis was 20 (rather than 33) events per 100 patient waiting list-years, the net QALYs were -0.67 (95% CI, -0.78 to -0.56). If the patient was receiving dialysis for 3 to 4 years (vs <1 year) the net benefit was not significantly different; however, net costs were considerably higher for the preemptive option. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytic model study, although allocating DD kidneys to patients preemptively was the best option from a patient perspective, allocating DD kidneys to patients receiving dialysis was a better use of a scare resource from a societal perspective.

Disparities in Access to Preemptive Repeat Kidney Transplant: Still Missing the Mark?

Background: The need for repeat transplant due to failing kidney allografts is increasing over time. The benefit of preemptive kidney retransplant (PKre-T) is controversial. Marginalized populations are less likely to undergo their first transplant preemptively; however, whether inequities exist for those undergoing PKre-T is unknown. Methods: We performed a cohort study of adult patients undergoing live and deceased kidney transplant in the United States from 2000 to 2018 identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and we identified patients with first preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) and PKre-T. In the primary analysis, a multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of PKre-T. In secondary analyses, multivariable Cox models were used to determine the association of PKre-T with death-censored and all-cause graft loss. Results: In total, 4910 (15.5%) patients underwent PKre-T, and 43,293 (19.1%) underwent first PKT. Inequities in access to PKre-T persisted (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55 for unemployed versus full time; OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.25 for graduate school versus not completing high school; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.70 for Black versus White race); 7.1% of all transplanted Black patients received PKre-T versus 17.4% of White patients. Women were more likely to undergo PKre-T than men (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.57). PKre-T was associated with superior graft survival relative to retransplant after a period of dialysis (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80 for all-cause graft failure; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.81 for death-censored graft loss). Conclusions: Despite improved patient and graft survival, inequities in access to PKre-T persist. Patients with lower education, patients with reduced employment status, patients of Black race, and men are less likely to receive PKre-T.

Optimal Sequencing of Deceased Donor and Live Donor Kidney Transplant Among Pediatric Patients With Kidney Failure.

Importance: In the US, live donor (LD) kidney transplant rates have decreased in pediatric recipients. Pediatric patients with kidney failure will likely need more than 1 kidney transplant during their lifetime, but the optimal sequence of transplant (ie, deceased donor [DD] followed by LD or vice versa) is not known. Objective: To determine whether pediatric recipients should first receive a DD allograft followed by an LD allograft (DD-LD sequence) or an LD allograft followed by a DD allograft (LD-DD sequence). Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model examined US pediatric patients with kidney failure included in the US Renal Data System 2019 Report who were waiting for a kidney transplant, received a transplant, or experienced graft failure. Interventions: Kidney transplant sequences of LD-DD vs DD-LD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in projected life-years between the 2 sequence options. Results: Among patients included in the analysis, the LD-DD sequence provided more net life-years in those 5 years of age (1.82 [95% CI, 0.87-2.77]) and 20 years of age (2.23 [95% CI, 1.31-3.15]) compared with the DD-LD sequence. The net outcomes in patients 10 years of age (0.36 [95% CI, -0.51 to 1.23] additional life-years) and 15 years of age (0.64 [95% CI, -0.15 to 1.39] additional life-years) were not significantly different. However, for those aged 10 years, an LD-DD sequence was favored if eligibility for a second transplant was low (2.09 [95% CI, 1.20-2.98] additional life-years) or if the LD was no longer available (2.32 [95% CI, 1.52-3.12] additional life-years). For those aged 15 years, the LD-DD sequence was favored if the eligibility for a second transplant was low (1.84 [95% CI, 0.96-2.72] additional life-years) or if the LD was no longer available (2.49 [95% CI, 1.77-3.27] additional life-years). Access to multiple DD transplants did not compensate for missing the LD opportunity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the decreased use of LD kidney transplants in pediatric recipients during the past 2 decades should be scrutinized. Given the uncertainty of future recipient eligibility for retransplant and future availability of an LD transplant, the LD-DD sequence is likely the better option. This strategy of an LD transplant first would not only benefit pediatric recipients but allow DD kidneys to be used by others who do not have an LD option.

In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program.

BACKGROUND: Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient's donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A. METHODS: This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ. RESULTS: Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain 1.201.521.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain 0.931.031.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A's kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE. CONCLUSION: This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.

CONTEXTE: La transplantation d'un rein provenant d'un donneur vivant (DV) est la meilleure option pour les patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale terminale (IRT). Il est toutefois possible que ce ne soit pas la meilleure option lorsque le donneur est plus âgé et de beaucoup plus faible poids que le patient. Un patient (A) jumelé à un donneur moins qu'idéal (donneur A) pourrait être inscrit à un programme de dons croisés avec donneurs vivants (DCDV) dans l'espoir d'obtenir un organe plus approprié. Un deuxième patient (B), déjà inscrit au programme de DCDV, pourrait quant à lui bénéficier ou non de cet échange avec le donneur A. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Cette analyse des décisions médicales examine les conditions favorisant l'entrée du patient A dans le programme de DCDV comparativement à l'acceptation directe d'un rein du donneur prévu. On souhaitait également examiner les circonstances où un patient B bénéficie lui aussi de l'acceptation d'un organe de moindre qualité. RÉSULTATS: Dans certaines circonstances, un don croisé pourrait bénéficier aux deux patients. Par exemple, un patient de 30 ans (A) jumelé à un donneur de moins bonne qualité pourrait gagner 1,201,521,84 années de vie pondérée par la qualité (AVPQ) en entrant dans un programme de DCDV pour obtenir un rein de meilleure qualité, tandis qu'un patient de 60 ans (B) pourrait gagner 0, 931,031,13 AVPQ en acceptant le rein du donneur A plutôt que d'attendre plus longtemps dans le programme. Le bénéfice net (perte) d'une participation à un programme de DCDV diffère selon l'âge du receveur, la qualité de l'organe du donneur, la probabilité que le patient B soit transplanté dans le programme et la probabilité que le patient A trouve un donneur idéal dans le programme. CONCLUSION: Cette étude montre qu'il existe des moyens d'accroître l'utilisation et l'efficacité des donneurs vivants. Ces moyens nécessitent cependant des recherches plus poussées et de possibles changements dans le processus de dons croisés avec donneurs vivants.

Panic in the Pandemic: When Should Kidney Transplant Programs Close?

BACKGROUND: Pandemics greatly interfere with overall health care delivery as resources are diverted to combat the crisis. Kidney transplantation programs were closed temporarily during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the critical shortage of organs, their short shelf life, and their overall importance to improving length and quality of life for those with kidney disease, this analysis examines the impact of discarding deceased donor organs. METHODS: The net benefit (or harm) of discarding deceased donor organs was measured in projected life years from a societal and individual perspective using a Markov model. A wide range of infection rates, pandemic durations, and case fatality rates associated with infection in wait listed and transplant recipients were examined. RESULTS: Overall, patient life expectancy fell for both wait listed and transplant recipients as the pandemic conditions became more unfavorable. However, the overall net benefit of a transplant during the pandemic was preserved. For example, prior to the pandemic, the net benefit of a kidney transplant over dialysis was calculated to be 6.25 life years (LYs) or 8.24 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a 40-year old recipient. This fell to 5.86 LYs (7.78 QALYs) during the pandemic. Even assuming plausible but higher relative case fatality rates and risks of nosocomial and donor transmission in transplant recipients compared to wait listed patients, the net benefit remained >4 years for most deceased donor organs. CONCLUSION: As long as hospitals have adequate resources to deal with the pandemic and can limit nosocomial infection, kidney transplantation should not be curtailed.

Prevalence of Frailty in Patients Referred to the Kidney Transplant Waitlist.

Background: Comparisons between frailty assessment tools for waitlist candidates are a recognized priority area for kidney transplantation. We compared the prevalence of frailty using three established tools in a cohort of waitlist candidates. Methods: Waitlist candidates were prospectively enrolled from 2016 to 2020 across five centers. Frailty was measured using the Frailty Phenotype (FP), a 37-variable frailty index (FI), and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The FI and CFS were dichotomized using established cutoffs. Agreement was compared using κ coefficients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the FI and CFS (treated as continuous measures) with the FP. Unadjusted associations between each frailty measure and time to death or waitlist withdrawal were determined using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of 542 enrolled patients, 64% were male, 80% were White, and the mean age was 54±14 years. The prevalence of frailty by the FP was 16%. The mean FI score was 0.23±0.14, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (score of ≥0.25). The median CFS score was three (IQR, 2-3), and the prevalence was 15% (score of ≥4). The κ values comparing the FP with the FI (0.44) and CFS (0.27) showed fair to moderate agreement. The area under the ROC curves for the FP and FI/CFS were 0.86 (good) and 0.69 (poor), respectively. Frailty by the CFS (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.24) and FI (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.21) was associated with death or permanent withdrawal. The association between frailty by the FP and death/withdrawal was not statistically significant (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.71). Conclusion: Frailty prevalence varies by the measurement tool used, and agreement between these measurements is fair to moderate. This has implications for determining the optimal frailty screening tool for use in those being evaluated for kidney transplant.

Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: (1) To provide commentary on the 2017 update to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD); (2) to apply the evidence-based guideline update for implementation within the Canadian health care system; (3) to provide comment on the care of children with chronic kidney disease (CKD); and (4) to identify research priorities for Canadian patients. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The KDIGO 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of CKD-MBD. METHODS: The commentary committee co-chairs selected potential members based on their knowledge of the Canadian kidney community, aiming for wide representation from relevant disciplines, academic and community centers, and different geographical regions. KEY FINDINGS: We agreed with many of the recommendations in the clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of CKD-MBD. However, based on the uncommon occurrence of abnormalities in calcium and phosphate and the low likelihood of severe abnormalities in parathyroid hormone (PTH), we recommend against screening and monitoring levels of calcium, phosphate, PTH, and alkaline phosphatase in adults with CKD G3. We suggest and recommend monitoring these parameters in adults with CKD G4 and G5, respectively. In children, we agree that monitoring for CKD-MBD should begin in CKD G2, but we suggest measuring ionized calcium, rather than total calcium or calcium adjusted for albumin. With regard to vitamin D, we suggest against routine screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults with CKD G3-G5 and G1T-G5T and suggest following population health recommendations for adequate vitamin D intake. We recommend that the measurement and management of bone mineral density (BMD) be according to general population guidelines in CKD G3 and G3T, but we suggest against routine BMD testing in CKD G4-G5, CKD G4T-5T, and in children with CKD. Based on insufficient data, we also recommend against routine bone biopsy in clinical practice for adults with CKD or CKD-T, or in children with CKD, although we consider it an important research tool. LIMITATIONS: The committee relied on the evidence summaries produced by KDIGO. The CSN committee did not replicate or update the systematic reviews.

JUSTIFICATION: (1) Commenter les recommandations du KDIGO 2017 (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) sur les bonnes pratiques cliniques pour le diagnostic, l'évaluation et le traitement des troubles du métabolisme minéral osseux associés aux maladies rénales chroniques (TMO-MRC); (2) appliquer les lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur les données probantes en vue de leur mise en œuvre dans le système de soins de santé canadien; (3) commenter les soins prodigués aux enfants atteints d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) et (4) définir les priorités de recherche des patients Canadiens. SOURCES: Les recommandations du KDIGO 2017 (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) sur les bonnes pratiques cliniques pour le diagnostic, l'évaluation et le traitement des troubles du métabolisme minéral osseux associés aux maladies rénales chroniques (TMO-MRC). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les coprésidents du comité ont sélectionné les membres potentiels sur la base de leur connaissance du secteur de la santé rénale au Canada, tout en visant une bonne représentation de toutes les disciplines concernées, des centres universitaires et communautaires et des différentes régions géographiques. PRINCIPAUX COMMENTAIRES: Nous approuvons un grand nombre des recommandations du KDIGO. Cependant, compte tenu de la rareté des anomalies du calcium et du phosphate et de la faible probabilité d'anomalies graves de la PTH (hormone parathyroïde), nous déconseillons le dépistage et la surveillance des taux de calcium, de phosphate, de PTH et de phosphatase alcaline chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3. Nous suggérons de mesurer ces paramètres chez les adultes de stade G4 et nous le recommandons pour les patients de stade G5. Chez les enfants, nous appuyons la recommandation de commencer la surveillance des TMO-MRC dès le stade G2, mais nous suggérons de mesurer le calcium ionisé plutôt que les taux de calcium total ou de calcium corrigé en fonction de l'albumine. En ce qui concerne la vitamine D, nous déconseillons le dépistage de routine des carences chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3 à G5 et G1T à G5T; nous suggérons plutôt de suivre les recommandations visant la population générale pour un apport adéquat en vitamine D. Nous recommandons que la mesure et la prise en charge de la densité minérale osseuse (DMO) se fassent en suivant les recommandations pour la population générale chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3 et G3T, mais nous déconseillons les tests de DMO de routine chez les adultes de stades G4-G5 et G4T-G5T, de même que chez les enfants atteints d'IRC. En raison de données insuffisantes, nous déconseillons également la pratique systématique d'une biopsie osseuse chez les adultes atteints d'IRC ou d'IRC-TMO, ainsi que chez les enfants atteints d'IRC, bien que nous la considérions comme un important outil de recherche. LIMITES: Le comité s'est appuyé sur le résumé des preuves rédigé par le KDIGO. Le comité de la SCN n'a pas reproduit ou mis à jour les revues systématiques.

Prolonged Cold Ischemia Time Offsets the Benefit of Human Leukocyte Antigen Matching in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of prolonging cold ischemia time (CIT) to facilitate HLA matching in kidney transplantation are not known. METHODS: Patients with a history of kidney transplant in the United States (2000-2016) with 0 HLA mismatch (MM) were categorized based on CIT (< 10; 10 to < 15; 15 to < 20; 20 to < 25; 25 to < 30; and ≥ 30 hours). Time to graft loss was compared for each CIT category to a reference group of individuals with > 0 HLA MM and short CIT (< 10 hours) using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The adjusted risk of graft failure was significantly lower for 0 HLA MM with the shortest CIT compared to the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94), and this survival advantage persisted to a threshold of < 20 hours of CIT. No survival advantage was observed for the 0 HLA MM group once CIT was > 20 hours. This trend persisted after excluding highly sensitized recipients (panel reactive antibody > 98%) where shipping of organs occurs to achieve more equitable access to organs rather than optimize HLA match. CONCLUSIONS: CIT > 20 hours offsets the benefit of 0 HLA MM in kidney transplantation. This may have implications in organ shipping to facilitate immunologic match.

A contemporary description of patients' estimated blood losses from diagnostic phlebotomy in a census of hospital episodes from a Canadian tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Phlebotomy for diagnostic testing is among the commonest hospital procedures, but hospital-wide surveys of all inpatients characterizing blood draw volumes have not been published. The objectives were to characterize the daily blood volumes drawn for diagnostic testing from patients discharged from a Canadian tertiary care center, describe the daily distributions of phlebotomy volumes across service locations, and describe changes in hemoglobin (Hb) and transfusion across service locations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were obtained on all patients discharged between 2012 and 2014 using linked discharge abstract and laboratory data. Cumulative daily blood volume and draw frequency were reported by service and days since admission. Changes in Hb and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rates were reported for nontransfused and transfused patients. RESULTS: Data were included on 59,715 subjects. Mean daily estimated blood loss varied from 8.5 ± 6.5 mL/day onward to 27.2 ± 20.0 mL/day in the intensive care unit (ICU; p < 0.001). Phlebotomy volumes were highest on the first day of admission and declined thereafter (p < 0.001). For nontransfused individuals in the first week of admission, Hb levels decreased by the highest percentage in the ICU. The rate of RBC unit transfusion was highest in the ICU (232.4 units/1000 patient-days; 95% confidence interval, 225.8-239.2; p < 0.0001 compared with all other locations). CONCLUSION: Considerable variation was observed in estimated blood loss due to diagnostic phlebotomy across different services within one teaching hospital. Thi information is foundational for planning interventions to minimize estimated blood loss from phlebotomy.

Nonimmunologic Donor-Recipient Pairing, HLA Matching, and Graft Loss in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In kidney transplantation, nonimmunologic donor-recipient (D-R) pairing is generally not given the same consideration as immunologic matching. The aim of this study was to determine how nonimmunologic D-R pairing relates to independent donor and recipient factors, and to immunologic HLA match for predicting graft loss. METHODS: Seven D-R pairings (race, sex, age, weight, height, cytomegalovirus serostatus, and HLA match) were assessed for their association with the composite outcome of death or kidney graft loss using a Cox regression-based forward stepwise selection model. The best model for predicting graft loss (including nonimmunologic D-R pairings, independent D-R factors, and/or HLA match status) was determined using the Akaike Information Criterion. RESULTS: Twenty three thousand two hundred sixty two (29.9%) people in the derivation data set and 9892 (29.7%) in the validation data set developed the composite outcome of death or graft loss. A model that included both independent and D-R pairing variables best predicted graft loss. The c-indices for the derivation and validation models were 0.626 and 0.629, respectively. Size mismatch (MM) between donor and recipient (>30 kg [D < R} and >15 cm [D < R]) was associated with poor patient and graft survival even with 0 HLA MM, and conversely, an optimal D-R size pairing mitigated the risk of graft loss seen with 6 HLA MM. CONCLUSIONS: D-R pairing is valuable in predicting patient and graft outcomes after kidney transplant. D-R size matching could offset the benefit and harm seen with 0 and 6 HLA MM, respectively. This is a novel finding.

Effectiveness of a Web-Based eHealth Portal for Delivery of Care to Home Dialysis Patients: A Single-Arm Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving a patient's experience with their care through an online interface for communication (an eHealth patient portal) has been shown to be beneficial in some studies of chronic disease populations. However, little is known about the effectiveness of an eHealth portal for delivery of care to home dialysis patients. OBJECTIVES: Primary: To determine whether an eHealth portal is effective at improving a patient's experience with their home dialysis care. Secondary: (1) To determine whether an eHealth portal improves health-related quality of life for home dialysis patients, (2) to assess patient satisfaction with an eHealth portal and perceived impact on aspects of their home dialysis therapy and health, (3) to determine the acceptability of the eHealth portal software, and (4) to determine the change in telephone usage for communication after patient adoption of an eHealth portal. DESIGN: Single-arm pilot trial with recruitment over a 4-month period. SETTING: The multidisciplinary home dialysis clinic in Halifax Nova Scotia Canada. PATIENTS: Adults (>18 years) receiving either home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. MEASUREMENTS: Consumer quality index (CQI), health-related quality of life using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D), acceptability of the eHealth portal software (using the Acceptability E-scale), and satisfaction/perceived impact (using a modified questionnaire). METHODS: A web-based application (McKesson, Canada, RelayHealth®) allowed patients and health care workers to communicate through a secure, password-protected online portal that permitted visualization of the messaging history by patient and provider. Patients and the home dialysis health care team had the ability to send messages related to patient care at any time including proposed changes to medication, instructions after a clinic visit, times of new appointments, upcoming investigations, or questions about care. Patient experience with home dialysis care using the CQI, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D, acceptability of the eHealth portal software, and satisfaction/perceived impact were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (where applicable). Total minutes of telephone communication was assessed prior to and after adoption of the portal. RESULTS: Of the 41 patients who consented to join the portal, 27 (66%) created an online account. At baseline, patients had a positive experience for the care and communication provided by their nephrologist (CQI: 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.50-3.76) and this did not change significantly over the study period. Similar results were observed for the care provided by other nephrology health care team members. Health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D score was 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.71-0.83) at baseline and this also did not significantly change over the study period. Patients were satisfied with the eHealth portal (mean Likert scale score of 6.5 ± 0.6 in overall satisfaction, scale ranging from 1 completely dissatisfied to 10 completely satisfied), but only a minority (N = 12) completed a satisfaction questionnaire. Median monthly phone usage decreased from 12.5 to 10 minutes (P = .02) after adoption of the portal. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by the small sample size, high rate of patient dropout, and limited response rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of home dialysis patients, we identified that an eHealth communication did not lead to significant improvements in patient experience with home dialysis care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02128347.

CONTEXTE: Le recours à un outil de communication en ligne (un portail santé destiné aux patients) pour améliorer l'expérience des patients en regard de leurs soins s'est avéré bénéfique dans quelques études sur des populations de patients atteints de maladies chroniques. Cependant, on en sait peu sur l'efficacité d'un tel portail pour la prestation de soins aux patients dialysés à domicile. OBJECTIFS: Principal ­ Déterminer si un portail de santé en ligne se montre efficace pour améliorer l'expérience des patients en matière de soins de dialyse à domicile. Secondaires ­ a. Déterminer si ce portail améliore la qualité de vie liée à la santé des patients dialysés à domicile; b. évaluer la satisfaction des patients à l'égard de l'outil en ligne et connaître son incidence sur certains aspects de leur santé générale et de leurs traitements; c. avoir une idée du niveau d'acceptation du logiciel du portail; d. évaluer les changements dans l'usage du téléphone comme outil de communication, une fois le portail en ligne adopté par le patient. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Un essai pilote à un seul bras pour lequel le recrutement s'est étalé sur une période de quatre mois. CADRE: La clinique multidisciplinaire de dialyse à domicile d'Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse) au Canada. SUJETS: Des patients adultes recevant des traitements de dialyse à domicile (hémodialyse ou dialyse péritonéale). MESURES: La qualité de l'expérience des patients à l'égard de leurs soins a été évaluée avec le Consumer Quality Index ou CQI (norme néerlandaise mesurant l'expérience des patients à l'égard des soins de santé). On a mesuré le score de qualité de vie liée à la santé à l'aide du questionnaire EQ-5D (EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire); et l'acceptation du logiciel du portail de santé par l'entremise de l'AES (Acceptability E-scale). Enfin, la satisfaction des patients et l'incidence perçue sur la santé et les traitements ont été évaluées à l'aide d'un questionnaire modifié. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une application sur le Web (McKesson, Canada, RelayHealth®) a permis aux patients et aux professionnels de la santé de communiquer par le biais d'un portail en ligne sécurisé et protégé par un mot de passe. L'historique des messages envoyés par le patient et le fournisseur de soins était visible sur le portail. Les patients et les membres de l'équipe de soins avaient en tout temps la possibilité d'envoyer des messages liés aux soins du patient. Les messages concernaient notamment des changements proposés dans la médication, des instructions à la suite d'une visite en clinique, les dates et heures de rendez-vous, les enquêtes à venir ou des questions générales relatives aux soins. L'expérience du patient en regard de la dialyse à domicile, évaluée par le CQI; la qualité de vie liée à la santé, évaluée par le questionnaire EQ-5D; l'acceptation du logiciel, de même que la satisfaction générale et l'incidence perçue sur la santé et les traitements ont été mesurées au début de l'étude et après six mois et douze mois de suivi (lorsque possible). La durée des communications téléphoniques a été évaluée avant et après l'adoption du portail. RÉSULTATS: Des 41 patients ayant accepté de joindre le portail, 27 (66 %) ont créé un compte en ligne. Au début de l'étude, les patients disaient avoir une expérience positive en regard des soins offerts et de la communication avec leur néphrologue (CQI : 3,63; IC 95 % : 3,50-3,76) et cette perception est demeurée sensiblement la même tout au long de l'étude. Des résultats similaires ont été observés pour les soins offerts par les autres membres de l'équipe de soins en néphrologie. Le score de la qualité de vie relative à la santé, mesuré par le questionnaire EQ-5D, était de 0,80 (ÉIQ : 0,71-0,83) au début de l'étude et n'a pas varié de façon significative au cours de la période de l'étude. De manière générale, les répondants se sont dits satisfaits du portail de santé en ligne, avec un score moyen de 6,5 ±0,6 sur l'échelle de Likert pour la satisfaction générale (échelle allant de 1, pour « pas du tout satisfait ¼, à 10, pour « entièrement satisfait ¼). Par contre, seule une minorité de patients (n=12) a rempli le questionnaire évaluant la satisfaction. L'utilisation mensuelle médiane du téléphone pour les communications avait diminué à la suite de l'adoption du portail, passant de 12,5 minutes initialement, à 10 minutes après l'adoption. LIMITES: Les constatations de cette étude sont limitées par le très faible échantillon de sujets, par le faible taux de réponse aux questionnaires et par le taux élevé d'abandon des patients. CONCLUSION: Dans cette étude, menée auprès de patients dialysés à domicile, nous avons constaté que le recours à un outil de communication en ligne n'a pas amélioré de façon significative l'expérience des patients en matière de soins de dialyse à domicile.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Warm Ischemia Time Among Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT) is associated with graft failure and mortality, however less is known about factors associated with prolonged WIT. METHODS: In a cohort of United States deceased donor kidney transplant recipients identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (Jan 2005-Dec 2013), we identified factors associated with prolonged WIT (defined as ≥ 30 minutes versus 10-30 minutes) using hierarchical multilevel models adjusting for center effect, and WIT as a continuous variable using multiple linear regression of log-transformed data. RESULTS: Among 55 829 patients, potentially modifiable risk factors associated with prolonged WIT included increased recipient body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-1.72 for BMI > 35), right donor kidney (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19), and a prolonged cold ischemic time (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.33 for cold ischemia time > 24 hours). Transplanting a right kidney into an obese recipient further prolonged WIT (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; for BMI > 35), increasing overall WIT by 11.0%. There was no correlation between median WIT for a given center and annual center transplant rate (pairwise correlation coefficient, 0.0898). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, several modifiable factors are associated with prolonged WIT and may represent strategies to improve WIT and subsequent posttransplant outcomes.

Lifetime risks of kidney donation: a medical decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the potential loss of life and the lifetime cumulative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from live kidney donation. DESIGN: Markov medical decision analysis. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: 40-year-old live kidney donors of both sexes and black/white race. INTERVENTION: Live donor nephrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Potential remaining life years lost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost and added lifetime cumulative risk of ESRD from donation. RESULTS: Overall 0.532-0.884 remaining life years were lost from donating a kidney. This was equivalent to 1.20%-2.34% of remaining life years (or 0.76%-1.51% remaining QALYs). The risk was higher in male and black individuals. The study showed that 1%-5% of average-age current live kidney donors might develop ESRD as a result of nephrectomy. The added risk of ESRD resulted in a loss of only 0.126-0.344 remaining life years. Most of the loss of life was predicted to be associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not ESRD. Most events occurred 25 or more years after donation. Reducing the increased risk of death associated with CKD had a modest overall effect on the per cent loss of remaining life years (0.72%-1.9%) and QALYs (0.58%-1.33%). Smoking and obesity reduced life expectancy and increased overall lifetime risks of ESRD in non-donors. However the percentage loss of remaining life years from donation was not very different in those with or without these risk factors. CONCLUSION: Live kidney donation may reduce life expectancy by 0.5-1 year in most donors. The development of ESRD in donors may not be the only measure of risk as most of the predicted loss of life predates ESRD. The study identifies the potential importance of following donors and treating risk factors aggressively to prevent ESRD and to improve donor survival.

Frailty in end-stage renal disease: comparing patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with poor outcomes for patients on dialysis and is traditionally measured using tools that assess physical impairment. Alternate measurement tools highlight cognitive and functional domains, requiring clinician, patient, and/or caregiver input. In this study, we compared frailty measures for incident dialysis patients that incorporate patient, clinician, and caregiver perspectives with an aim to contrast the measured prevalence of frailty using tools derived from different conceptual frameworks. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of incident dialysis patients was conducted between February 2014 and June 2015. Frailty was assessed at dialysis onset using: 1) modified definition of Fried Phenotype (Dialysis Morbidity Mortality Study definition, DMMS); 2) Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); 3) Frailty Assessment Care Planning Tool (provides CFS grading, FACT-CFS); and 4) Frailty Index (FI). Measures were compared via correlation and sensitivity/specificity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients participated (mean age of 61 ± 14 years). Participants were primarily Caucasian (91%), male (58%), and the majority started on hemodialysis (83%). The median score for both the CFS and FACT-CFS was 4 (interquartile range of 3-5). The mean FI score was 0.31 (standard deviation ± 0.16). The DMMS identified 78% of patients as frail. The FACT-CFS demonstrated highest correlation (r = 0.71) with the FI, while the DMMS was most sensitive (97%, 100%) and a CFS ≥ 5 most specific (100%, 77%) at corresponding FI cutoff values (>0.21, >0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessments of incident dialysis patients that include clinician, caregiver and patient perspectives have moderate to strong correlation with the FI. At specified FI cutoff values, the FACT-CFS and DMMS are highly sensitive measures of frailty. The CFS and FACT-CFS may represent viable alternative screening tools in dialysis patients.

Donor-Recipient Weight and Sex Mismatch and the Risk of Graft Loss in Renal Transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Relatively smaller kidney donor to recipient size is proposed to result in higher graft loss due to nephron underdosing and hyperfiltration injury, but the potentially additive effect of sex and weight mismatch has not been explored in detail. The purpose of this study was to determine if concurrent donor and recipient absolute weight and sex mismatch was associated with graft loss in a cohort of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The association of kidney donor and recipient absolute weight and sex difference with death-censored graft loss was explored using a cohort of United States deceased donor recipients between 2000 and 2014 through the Scientific Registry of Transplants Recipients. Donor-recipient sex pairings (male donor-male recipient; female donor-female recipient; male donor-female recipient; female donor-male recipient) were further stratified by donor and recipient absolute weight difference (>30 or 10-30 kg [donorrecipient] or <10 kg [donor=recipient]) resulting in 20 weight and sex pairings. Time to death-censored graft loss for each pairing was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for donor, immunologic, surgical, and recipient predictors of graft loss compared with the reference group of male donor-male recipients with no weight mismatch (<10 kg difference). RESULTS: Of 115,124 kidney transplant recipients, 21,261 developed death-censored graft failure (median graft survival time was 3.8 years; quartile 1 to 3, 0.0 to 14.8 years). After multivariable adjustment, the highest relative hazards for graft failure were observed for female recipients of male donor kidneys and male recipients of female donor kidneys in situations where the recipient was >30 kg larger than donor (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 1.70; hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.45, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A concurrent mismatch in donor-recipient weight (donor