What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Opting for a preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) can help avoid costs and morbidity associated with dialysis. However, while multiple studies have shown clinical benefits of PKT, other studies have not demonstrated this, leading to controversy in the literature regarding the exact benefits of PKT. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation (nPKT) in adult patients. Multiple databases were searched up to May 4, 2022. Independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Eighty-seven studies including 859,715 adult kidney transplant patients were included the review. The risk of patient death (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.60-0.91]) was significantly lower in PKT versus nPKT patients for living donor (LD) transplants, whereas the risk of overall graft loss was significantly lower in PKT compared to nPKT patients for both LD (0.72 [0.62-0.83]) as well as deceased donor (DD) transplants (0.80 [0.69-0.92]). The evidence suggests that LD PKT patients have a lower risk of patient death and graft loss compared to nPKT patients, and DD PKT patients have a lower risk of graft loss than nPKT patients.

Transplant Trial Watch.

To keep the transplantation community informed about recently published level 1 evidence in organ transplantation ESOT (https://esot.org/) the Centre for Evidence in Transplantation (www.transplantevidence.com) has developed the Transplant Trial Watch. The Transplant Trial Watch is a monthly overview of 10 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. This page of Transplant International offers commentaries on methodological issues and clinical implications on two articles of particular interest from the CET Transplant Trial Watch monthly selection. For all high-quality evidence in solid organ transplantation, visit the Transplant Library: www.transplantlibrary.com.

The Value of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are generally regarded as sitting atop the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The unbiased summary of current evidence that a systematic review provides, along with the increased statistical power from larger numbers of patients, is invaluable in guiding clinical decision-making and development of practice guidelines. Surgical specialties have historically lagged behind other areas of medicine in the application of evidence-based medicine, perhaps due to the unique challenges faced in the conduct of surgical clinical trials. These challenges extend to the conduct of systematic reviews, due to issues with the quality and heterogeneity of the underlying literature. SUMMARY: Recent years have seen an improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgical topics and an explosion in the publication of systematic reviews. This review explores recent trends in systematic reviews in surgery and discussed some of the aspects in conducting and interpreting reviews that are unique to surgical topics, including blinding, surgical heterogeneity and learning curves, patient and clinician preference, and industry involvement. Key Messages: Clinical trials, and therefore systematic reviews, of surgical interventions pose unique challenges which are important to consider when conducting them or applying the findings to clinical practice. Despite the challenges, systematic reviews still represent the best level of evidence for development of surgical practice guidelines.

A systematic review and meta-analyses of regional perfusion in donation after circulatory death solid organ transplantation.

In donation after circulatory death (DCD), (thoraco)abdominal regional perfusion (RP) restores circulation to a region of the body following death declaration. We systematically reviewed outcomes of solid organ transplantation after RP by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Eighty-eight articles reporting on outcomes of liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, and lung transplants or donor/organ utilization were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Methodological quality was assessed using National Institutes of Health (NIH)-scoring tools. Case reports (13/88), case series (44/88), retrospective cohort studies (35/88), retrospective matched cohort studies (5/88), and case-control studies (2/88) were identified, with overall fair quality. As blood viscosity and rheology change below 20 °C, studies were grouped as hypothermic (HRP, ≤20 °C) or normothermic (NRP, >20 °C) regional perfusion. Data demonstrate that RP is a safe alternative to in situ cold preservation (ISP) in uncontrolled and controlled DCDs. The scarce HRP data are from before 2005. NRP appears to reduce post-transplant complications, especially biliary complications in controlled DCD livers, compared with ISP. Comparisons for kidney and pancreas with ISP are needed but there is no evidence that NRP is detrimental. Additional data on NRP in thoracic organs are needed. Whether RP increases donor or organ utilization needs further research.