Impact of early corticosteroid withdrawal on simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant long-term outcomes: Single center experience and comparison to the International Pancreas Transplant Registry.

BACKGROUND: There remains a paucity of modern data comparing early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus chronic corticosteroid (CCS) immunosuppression in simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) transplant recipients with long-term follow-up. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of ESW compared to CCS post-SPK. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center matched comparison with the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR). Patients from University of Illinois Hospital (UIH) represented the ESW group and were compared to those matched CCS patients from the IPTR. Included patients were adult recipients of a primary SPK transplant between 2003 and 2018 within the US receiving rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction. Patients were excluded if they had early technical failures, missing IPTR data, graft thrombosis, re-transplant, or positive crossmatch SPK. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were matched and included in the analysis. Patients were predominantly African American (46.15%) males (64.1%) with Type 1 diabetes etiology (92.31%). Overall pancreas allograft survival (hazard ratio [HR] = .89, 95% confidence interval [CI] .34-2.30, p = .81) and kidney allograft survival (HR = .80, 95%CI .32-2.03, p = .64) were similar between the two groups. Immunologic pancreas allograft loss was statistically similar at 1-year (ESW 1.3% vs. CCS 0%, p = .16), 5-year (ESW 1.3% vs. CCS 7.7%, p = .16), and 10-year (ESW 11.0% vs. CCS 7.7%, p = .99). The 1-year (ESW 2.6% vs. CCS 0%, p > .05), 5-year (ESW 8.3% vs. CCS 7.0%, p > .05), and 10-year (ESW 22.7% vs. CCS 9.9%, p = .2575) immunologic kidney allograft loss were also statistically similar. There was no difference in 10-year overall patient survival (ESW 76.2% vs. CCS 65.6%, p = .63). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between allograft or patient survival post-SPK when comparing an ESW or CCS protocol. Future assessment is needed to determine differences in metabolic outcomes.

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Life Participation: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshop Report.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation confers substantial survival and quality of life benefits for many patients with end-stage kidney disease compared with dialysis, but complications and side effects of immunosuppression can impair participation in daily life activities. Life participation is a critically important patient-reported outcome for kidney transplant recipients but is infrequently and inconsistently measured in trials. We convened a consensus workshop on establishing an outcome measure for life participation for use in all trials in kidney transplantation. METHODS: Twenty-five (43%) kidney transplant recipients/caregivers and 33 (57%) health professionals from 8 countries participated in 6 facilitated breakout group discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. Returning to normality conveyed the patients' goals to fulfill their roles (ie, in their family, work, and community) and reestablish a normal lifestyle after transplant. Recognizing the diverse meaning and activities of "life" explicitly acknowledged life participation as a subjective concept that could refer to different activities (eg, employment, recreation, family duties) for each individual patient. Capturing vulnerability and fluctuations posttransplant (eg, due to complications and side-effects) distinguished between experiences in the first year posttransplant and the long-term impact of transplantation. Having a scientifically rigorous, feasible, and meaningful measure was expected to enable consistent and frequent assessment of life participation in trials in kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: A feasible and validated core outcome measure for life participation is needed so that this critically important patient-reported outcome can be consistently and meaningfully assessed in trials in kidney transplantation to inform decision making and care of recipients.

Impact of Maintenance Steroids versus Rapid Steroid Withdrawal in African-American Kidney Transplant Recipients: Comparison of Two Urban Centers.

BACKGROUND: Rapid steroid withdrawal (RSW) is used increasingly in kidney transplantation but long-term outcomes in African-American (AA) recipients are not well known. We compared 1 and 5 year transplant outcomes in a large cohort of AA patients who were maintained on continued steroid therapy (CST) to those who underwent RSW. METHODS: Post-transplant courses of A as receiving kidney allografts from 2003-2011 at two urban transplant centers in Chicago were followed. Prior to outcome analysis, we used Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW) to match the two groups on a set of baseline risk factors. Graft and patient survival, GFR at 1 and 5 years, incidence and type of rejection, incidence of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), delayed graft function, CMV and BK viremia were compared. RESULTS: There were 150 AA recipients in the CST analytic group and 157 in the RSW analytic group. Graft and patient survival was similar between the two groups. Rates of CMV viremia were higher in the RSW compared to the CST analytic group at 1 year. Biopsy-proven acute rejection and PTDM were similar between the RSW and CST groups. CONCLUSIONS: In AA recipients, RSW has similar long-term outcomes to CST.

Creatinine-based estimations of kidney function are unreliable in obese kidney donors.

Accurate assessment of kidney function by measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is essential to the risk assessment of prospective living kidney donors. We evaluated the performance of various estimating equations for creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault), GFR (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration), and 24-hour urine collections for creatinine clearance in obese potential kidney donors. We evaluated 164 potential kidney donors including 49 with a BMI of 30-35 and 32 with a BMI >35 that have completed a routine living donor evaluation with a measured GFR. All the estimating equations performed poorly in obese donors. While 24-hour urine collections performed better, only 15% had an adequate 24-hour urine collection. Since obese kidney donors may be at higher than average risk for kidney failure, accurate assessment of kidney function in these donors is crucial to ensure their long-term health postdonation.

Management of the kidney transplant patient with chronic hepatitis C infection.

Chronic Hepatitis C (HCV) infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease. Renal transplantation confers a survival advantage in HCV-infected patients. Renal transplant candidates with serologic evidence of HCV infection should undergo a liver biopsy to assess for fibrosis and cirrhosis. Patients with Metavir fibrosis score ≤3 and compensated cirrhosis should be evaluated for interferon-based therapy. Achievement of sustained virological response (SVR) may reduce the risks for both posttransplantation hepatic and extrahepatic complications such as de novo or recurrent glomerulonephritis associated with HCV. Patients who cannot achieve SVR and have no live kidney donor may be considered for HCV-positive kidneys. Interferon should be avoided after kidney transplant except for treatment of life-threatening liver injury, such as fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Early detection, prevention, and treatment of complications due to chronic HCV infection may improve the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with chronic HCV infection.

Diuretics, calciuria and secondary hyperparathyroidism in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Secondary hyperparathyroidism is a common complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD) that is associated with bone disease, cardiovascular disease and death. Pathophysiological factors that maintain secondary hyperparathyroidism in advanced CKD are well-known, but early mechanisms of the disease that can be targeted for its primary prevention are poorly understood. Diuretics are widely used to control volume status and blood pressure in CKD patients but are also known to have important effects on renal calcium handling, which we hypothesized could alter the risk of secondary hyperparathyroidism. METHODS: We examined the relationship of diuretic treatment with urinary calcium excretion, parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels and prevalence of secondary hyperparathyroidism (PTH ≥ 65 pg/mL) in a cross-sectional study of 3616 CKD patients in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort. RESULTS: Compared with no diuretics, treatment with loop diuretics was independently associated with higher adjusted urinary calcium (55.0 versus 39.6 mg/day; P < 0.001), higher adjusted PTH [67.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 65.2-70.7 pg/mL, versus 52.8, 95% CI 51.1-54.6 pg/mL, P < 0.001] and greater odds of secondary hyperparathyroidism (odds ratio 2.1; 95% CI 1.7-2.6). Thiazide monotherapy was associated with lower calciuria (25.5 versus 39.6 mg/day; P < 0.001) but only modestly lower PTH levels (50.0, 95% CI 47.8-52.3, versus 520.8, 95% CI 51.1-54.6 pg/mL, P = 0.04) compared with no diuretics. However, coadministration of thiazide and loop diuretics was associated with blunted urinary calcium (30.3 versus 55.0 mg/day; P <0.001) and odds of hyperparathyroidism (odds ratio 1.3 versus 2.1; P for interaction = 0.05) compared with loop diuretics alone. CONCLUSIONS: Loop diuretic use was associated with greater calciuria, PTH levels and odds of secondary hyperparathyroidism compared to no treatment. These associations were attenuated in patients who were coadministered thiazides. Diuretic choice is a potentially modifiable determinant of secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD.

Immunosuppressive strategies to improve outcomes of kidney transplantation.

The introduction of several immunosuppressive agents over the past decade has reduced the rate of acute rejection significantly and has improved short-term renal allograft survival. However, their impact on long-term outcomes remains unclear. Current immunosuppressive strategies are focused on improving long-term graft and patient survival along with maintaining allograft function. The approval of the new immunosuppressive agents: rabbit antithymocyte globulin, basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and sirolimus, also has facilitated the development of steroid- and calcineurin inhibitor-sparing regimens in kidney transplantation. We discuss the impact of various immunosuppressive regimens on the outcome measures of kidney transplantation: acute rejection episodes, allograft survival, and renal function.

Argatroban and renal replacement therapy in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Argatroban, a direct thrombin inhibitor, is an effective anticoagulant for patients who have heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Anticoagulation is usually required for renal replacement therapy (RRT). OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of argatroban during RRT in hospitalized patients with or at risk for HIT. METHODS: Five patients with known or suspected HIT underwent hemodialysis (n = 4) or continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH, n = 1), while receiving a continuous infusion of argatroban 0.5-2 microg/kg/min. Activated partial thromboplastin times (aPTTs), activated clotting times (ACTs), argatroban concentrations (plasma, dialysate, CVVH effluent), and safety were assessed before, during, and after a 4-hour session of RRT. Systemic and dialytic argatroban clearances were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 4 hemodialysis patients, aPTT, ACT, and plasma argatroban concentrations remained stable during RRT, with respective mean +/- SD values of 74.3 +/- 34.2 seconds, 198 +/- 23 seconds, and 499 +/- 353 ng/mL before RRT, and 70.6 +/- 21.4 seconds, 181 +/- 12 seconds, and 453 +/- 295 ng/mL 2 hours after starting RRT (p values NS). Systemic clearance was 17.7 +/- 12.8 L/h before hemodialysis and 17.0 +/- 9.5 L/h during hemodialysis (n = 2). The dialyzer clearance (dialysate recovery method) was 1.5 +/- 0.4 L/h (n = 4). Generally similar responses occurred in the CVVH patient: systemic argatroban clearance was 4.8 L/h before CVVH and 4 L/h during CVVH. The hemofilter argatroban clearance was 0.9 L/h. No bleeding or thrombosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Argatroban provides effective alternative anticoagulation in patients with or at risk for HIT during RRT. Argatroban clearance by high-flux membranes during hemodialysis and CVVH is clinically insignificant, necessitating no dose adjustment.

A prospective comparison of three argatroban treatment regimens during hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: We prospectively evaluated 3 treatment regimens of argatroban, a direct thrombin inhibitor, for providing adequate, safe anticoagulation in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) during hemodialysis. METHODS: In this randomized, 3-way crossover study, ESRD patients underwent hemodialysis sessions of 3- or 4-hour duration using high-flux membranes and each of 3 argatroban treatment regimens (A: 250-microg/kg bolus, with an additional 250-microg/kg bolus allowed; B: 250-microg/kg bolus followed by 2-microg/kg/min infusion; C: steady-state, 2-microg/kg/min infusion initiated 4 hours before dialysis). Pharmacodynamic effects including activated clotting times (ACTs); hemodialysis efficacy including single-pool Kt/V, urea reduction ratio (URR), and circuit flow; and safety through a 3-day follow-up were monitored. Argatroban pharmacokinetic parameters including dialytic clearance were evaluated during regimen C. RESULTS: Thirteen patients completed 38 hemodialysis sessions (1 patient withdrew consent after 2 sessions). Mean +/- SD ACTs increased from 131 +/- 14 seconds at baseline to 153 +/- 24, 200 +/- 30, and 197 +/- 33 seconds, respectively, after 60 minutes of hemodialysis using regimens A, B, and C. Across regimens, mean Kt/Vs (1.5-1.6) and URRs (70%-73%) were comparable. No dialyzer was changed; 1 session was shortened 15 minutes because of circuit clot formation. Systemic argatroban clearance increased approximately 20% during hemodialysis, without clinically significantly affecting ACTs. Upon argatroban discontinuation, ACTs and plasma argatroban decreased concurrently (elimination half-life, 35 +/- 6 min). No thrombosis, bleeding, serious adverse events, or clinically significant changes in vital signs or routine laboratory measures occurred. CONCLUSION: Argatroban, administered by each treatment regimen, provides safe, adequate anticoagulation to enable successful hemodialysis in ESRD patients. Argatroban dialytic clearance by high-flux membranes is clinically insignificant.

Prevention of perioperative acute renal failure: what works?

Perioperative acute renal failure (ARF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients undergoing cardiac, vascular and major abdominal surgery and those with pre-operative renal insufficiency are at increased risk for developing post-operative ARF. The aetiologies of perioperative ARF are multi-factorial. However, pre-renal azotaemia and ischaemic acute tubular necrosis (ATN) are the predominant causes. Preventive strategies involve identifying patients at risk, optimizing intravascular volume as well as renal function with perioperative haemodynamic monitoring, and avoiding nephrotoxins. Various pharmacological agents have been used to optimize renal perfusion and tubular function. Unfortunately, none has been shown to be effective in randomized placebo-controlled trials. In this chapter, we discuss the prophylactic use of fluids, vasoactive drugs, diuretics and other agents, as well as modification of surgical techniques to reduce the incidence of perioperative ARF.