Kidney re-transplantation in the ipsilateral iliac fossa: a surgeon's perspective on perioperative outcome.

Background: Compared with primary transplantation, ipsilateral renal re-transplantation is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications and inferior graft outcomes. This study investigates whether an ipsilateral re-transplantation approach per se is an independent risk factor for surgical complications and early graft loss. Methods: In this retrospective, single-centre analysis, surgical complications and early graft outcomes of ipsilateral kidney re-transplantations from January 2007 to December 2017 were compared with primary transplantations and contralateral re-transplantations. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for surgical complications requiring surgical revision and graft loss within the first year after transplantation. Results: Of the 1489 kidney transplantations, 51 were ipsilateral, 159 were contralateral re-transplantations and 1279 were primary transplantations. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the ipsilateral and contralateral re-transplant recipients except for current and highest panel reactive antibody levels. Major complications requiring surgical revision were significantly more frequent in ipsilateral re-transplantations (P = .010) than in primary transplantations but did not differ between ipsilateral and contralateral re-transplantations (P = .217). Graft loss within the first year after transplant was 15.7% in the ipsilateral versus 8.8% in the contralateral re-transplant group (P = .163) versus 6.4% in the primary transplantation group (P = .009). In a multivariate regression model, ipsilateral re-transplantation was not identified as an independent risk factor for complications requiring surgical revision or first-year graft loss. Conclusions: Ipsilateral renal re-transplantation is not a risk factor for inferior outcomes. Graft implantation into a pre-transplanted iliac fossa is a feasible and valid therapeutic option.

Do Infectious Diseases After Kidney Retransplantation Differ From Those After First Kidney Transplantation?

Background: Infectious diseases (IDs) are highly relevant after solid organ transplantation in terms of morbidity and mortality, being among the most common causes of death. Patients undergoing kidney retransplantation (re-K-Tx) have been already receiving immunosuppressive therapy over a prolonged period, potentially facilitating subsequent infections. Comparing ID events after re-K-Tx and first kidney transplantation (f-K-Tx) can delineate patterns and risks of ID events associated with prolonged immunosuppression. Methods: We included adult patients with records on f-K-Tx and re-K-Tx in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. We analyzed ID events after f-K-Tx and re-K-Tx within the same patients and compared infection rates, causative pathogens, and infection sites. Recurrent time-to-event analyses were performed for comparison of infection rates. Results: A total of 59 patients with a median age of 47 years (range, 18-73) were included. Overall, 312 ID events in 52 patients occurred. In multivariable recurrent event modeling, the rate of ID events was significantly lower after re-K-Tx (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). More bacterial (68.9% vs 60.4%) and fungal (4.0% vs 1.1%) infections were observed after f-K-Tx but fewer viral infections (27.0% vs 38.5%) as compared with re-K-Tx (P = .11). After f-K-Tx, urinary and gastrointestinal tract infections were more frequent; after re-K-Tx, respiratory tract and surgical site infections were more frequent (P < .001). Conclusions: ID events were less frequent after re-K-Tx. Affected sites differed significantly after f-K-Tx vs re-K-Tx.

Predictors of graft function and survival in second kidney transplantation: A single center experience.

BACKGROUND: The increasing kidney retransplantation rate has created a parallel field of research, including the risk factors and outcomes of this advanced form of renal replacement therapy. The presentation of experiences from different kidney transplantation centers may help enrich the literature on kidney retransplantation, as a specific topic in the field of kidney transplantation. AIM: To identify the risk factors affecting primary graft function and graft survival rates after second kidney transplantation (SKT). METHODS: The records of SKT cases performed between January 1977 and December 2014 at a European tertiary-level kidney transplantation center were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Beside the descriptive characteristics, the survivals of patients and both the first and second grafts were described using Kaplan-Meier curves. In addition, Kaplan-Meier analyses were also used to estimate the survival probabilities at 1, 3, 5, and 10 post-operative years, as well as at the longest follow-up duration available. Moreover, bivariate associations between various predictors and the categorical outcomes were assessed, using the suitable biostatistical tests, according to the predictor type. RESULTS: Out of 1861 cases of kidney transplantation, only 48 cases with SKT were eligible for studying, including 33 men and 15 women with a mean age of 42.1 ± 13 years. The primary non-function (PNF) graft occurred in five patients (10.4%). In bivariate analyses, a high body mass index (P = 0.009) and first graft loss due to acute rejection (P = 0.025) were the only significant predictors of PNF graft. The second graft survival was reduced by delayed graft function in the first (P = 0.008) and second (P < 0.001) grafts. However, the effect of acute rejection within the first year after the first transplant did not reach the threshold of significance (P = 0.053). The mean follow-up period was 59.8 ± 48.6 mo. Censored graft/patient survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years were 90.5%/97.9%, 79.9%/95.6%, 73.7%/91.9%, and 51.6%/83.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-immediate recovery modes of the first and second graft functions were significantly associated with unfavorable second graft survival rates. Patient and graft survival rates of SKT were similar to those of the first kidney transplantation.

Strategies to Overcome HLA Sensitization and Improve Access to Retransplantation after Kidney Graft Loss.

An increasing number of patients waitlisted for kidney transplantation have a previously failed graft. Retransplantation provides a significant improvement in morbidity, mortality, and quality of life when compared to dialysis. However, HLA sensitization is a major barrier to kidney retransplantation and the majority of the highly sensitized patients are waiting for a subsequent kidney transplant. A multidisciplinary team that includes immunogeneticists, transplant nephrologists and surgeons, and adequate allocation policies is fundamental to increase access to a kidney retransplant. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library was performed on the challenges of kidney retransplantation after graft loss, focusing on the HLA barrier and new strategies to overcome sensitization. Conclusion: Technical advances in immunogenetics, new desensitization protocols, and complex allocation programs have emerged in recent years to provide a new hope to kidney recipients with a previously failed graft.

Outcomes of an Inpatient Dialysis Start in Patients With Kidney Graft Failure: A Population-Based Multicentre Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and outcomes of starting maintenance dialysis in the hospital as an inpatient in kidney transplant recipients with graft failure are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of inpatient dialysis starts in patients with kidney graft failure and examine whether dialysis start status (hospital inpatient vs outpatient setting) is associated with all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: We used linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure from 1994 to 2016. MEASUREMENTS: All-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation. METHODS: The cumulative incidence function was used to calculate the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and kidney re-transplantation, accounting for competing risks. Subdistribution hazard ratios from the Fine and Gray model were used to examine the relationship between inpatient dialysis starts (vs outpatient dialysis start [reference]) and the dependent variables (ie, mortality or re-transplant). RESULTS: We included 1164 patients with kidney graft failure. More than half (55.8%) of patients with kidney graft failure, initiated dialysis as an inpatient. Compared with outpatient dialysis starters, inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of mortality and a significantly lower incidence of kidney re-transplantation (P < .001). The 10-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 51.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.4, 56.9%) (inpatient) and 35.3% (95% CI: 31.1, 40.1%) (outpatient). After adjusting for clinical characteristics, we found inpatient dialysis starters had a significantly increased hazard of mortality in the first year after graft failure (hazard ratio: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.43, 3.33]) but at 1+ years there was no significant difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: Possibility of residual confounding and unable to determine inpatient dialysis starts that were unavoidable. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we identified that most patients with kidney graft failure had inpatient dialysis starts, which was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for an inpatient dialysis start in this patient population.

CONTEXTE: On en sait peu sur la fréquence à laquelle est amorcé un traitement de dialyse d'entretien pendant l'hospitalisation des patients qui subissent une défaillance du greffon rénal. On en sait également peu sur les issues liées à cette procédure. OBJECTIFS: Déterminer la fréquence à laquelle un traitement de dialyse est amorcé pendant l'hospitalisation des patients qui subissent une défaillance du greffon, et vérifier si le statut du patient avant le traitement (hospitalisé vs ambulatoire) est associé à la mortalité toutes causes confondues et à la retransplantation. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Étude de cohorte basée sur la population. CADRE: Nous avons utilisé les bases de données couplées du système de santé de l'Ontario (Canada). SUJETS: Ont été inclus 1 164 patients ayant subi une défaillance du greffon rénal entre 1994 et 2016. MESURES: La mortalité toutes causes confondues et la retransplantation d'un rein. MÉTHODOLOGIE: La fonction d'incidence cumulative a été utilisée pour calculer l'incidence cumulative de la mortalité toutes causes confondues et de la retransplantation, en tenant compte des risques concurrents. Les rapports de risque de sous-distribution du modèle Fine et Gray ont été employés pour examiner le lien entre l'amorce de la dialyse pendant l'hospitalisation (par rapport à l'amorce en ambulatoire [référence]) et les variables dépendantes (mortalité et retransplantation). RÉSULTATS: L'étude porte sur 1 164 patients ayant subi une défaillance du greffon. Plus de la moitié des patients inclus (55,8 %) avaient amorcé la dialyse pendant l'hospitalisation. Comparativement aux patients ayant amorcé la dialyse en ambulatoire, les patients hospitalisés ont montré une incidence cumulative significativement plus élevée de mortalité et une incidence significativement plus faible de retransplantation d'un rein (p<0,001). L'incidence cumulative de mortalité après 10 ans se situait à 51,9 % (IC 95 %: 47,4-56,9 %) pour les patients hospitalisés et à 35,3 % (IC 95 %: 31,1-40,1 %) pour les patients ambulatoires. Après l'ajustement en fonction des caractéristiques cliniques, nous avons constaté que les patients qui avaient amorcé la dialyse à l'hôpital avaient un risque significativement plus élevé de décéder dans l'année suivant la défaillance du greffon (rapport de risque: 2,18 [IC 95 %: 1,43-3,33]), mais aucune différence significative n'était observable entre les deux groupes au-delà d'un an. LIMITES: Possibilité de facteurs de confusion résiduels et incapacité de déterminer les amorces de dialyse inévitables chez des patients hospitalisés. CONCLUSION: Nous avons constaté que la plupart des patients ayant subi une défaillance du greffon avaient amorcé la dialyse pendant l'hospitalisation, et que cette procédure était associée à un risque accru de mortalité. Des recherches supplémentaires sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre les raisons qui mènent à une amorce de dialyse pendant l'hospitalisation chez ces patients.

Long-term outcome of third, fourth and fifth kidney transplantation: technical aspects and immunological challenges.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients on waiting lists for repeated kidney transplantation has increased. However, retransplanted patients have a greater surgical and immunological risk than first-time kidney recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all kidney recipients that underwent third, fourth or fifth kidney transplantation (Group 3+) at the University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany from October 1973 to January 2017. A historical cohort of recipients retransplanted with a second kidney (Group 2) served as the control. Donor and recipient demographic data, cold ischaemia time (CIT), warm ischaemia time, overall operation time and methods, transplantectomy of previous kidney grafts, incidence of surgical and immunological complications as well as patient- and death-censored survival were analysed. RESULTS: We identified 108 recipients transplanted with the third, fourth or fifth renal allograft. Patients with more than one transplantation had significantly higher surgical risk due to atherosclerosis (P = 0.002) and higher immunological risk due to higher panel reactive antibody levels preoperatively (current panel reactive antibody P = 0.004; highest panel reactive antibody value P = 0.0001). Group 3+ patients had more often undergone previous transplant nephrectomy (P = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in CIT (P = 0.009), overall operative time (P = 0.0001) and post-transplantation thrombotic events (P = 0.02). We could not demonstrate any differences in graft and patient survival. CONCLUSION: Third, fourth and fifth transplant recipients are a high-risk patient cohort. Our results suggest that patient survival after more than three renal transplantations is similar to that of second graft recipients. This supports the concept of repeated kidney retransplantations.

Kidney retransplantation from HLA-incompatible living donors: A single-center study of 3rd/4th transplants.

BACKGROUND: The demand for kidney retransplantation following graft failure is rising. Repeat transplantation is often associated with poorer outcomes due to both immunological and surgical challenges. The aim of this study was to compare surgical and functional outcomes of kidney retransplantation in recipients that had previously had at least two kidney transplants with a focus on those with antibody incompatibility. METHODS: We analyzed 66 patients who underwent renal transplantation at a single center between 2003 and 2011. Consecutive patients receiving their 3rd or 4th kidney were case-matched with an equal number of 1st and 2nd transplants. RESULTS: Twenty-two 3rd and 4th kidney transplants were matched with 22 first and 22 seconds transplants. Operative times and length of stay were equivalent between the subgroups. Surgical complication rates were similar in all groups (22.7% in 1st and 2nd transplants, and 27.2% in 3rd/4th transplants). There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival over 5 years. Graft function was similar between transplant groups at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Third and fourth kidney transplants can be performed safely with similar outcomes to 1st and 2nd transplants. Kidney retransplantation from antibody-incompatible donors may be appropriate for highly sensitized patients.

Risk of cancer in retransplants compared to primary kidney transplants in the United States.

Recipients of kidney transplantation have elevated risk of developing cancer. There are limited data on cancer risk in recipients of kidney retransplantation. We used data from the Transplant Cancer Match Study, which links the U.S. transplant registry with 15 cancer registries. Cancer incidence in recipients of kidney retransplantation and primary kidney transplants was compared utilizing Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic and medical characteristics. We assessed 109 224 primary recipients and 6621 retransplants. Compared to primary recipients, retransplants were younger (median age 40 vs. 46 yr), had higher PRA, and more often received induction with polyclonal antibodies (43% vs. 25%). A total of 5757 cancers were observed in primary recipients and 245 in retransplants. Overall cancer risk was similar in retransplants compared with primary recipients (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.93-1.20, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, PRA, and use of polyclonal induction). However, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) occurred in excess among retransplants (adjusted IRR 2.03, 95% CI 1.45-2.77), based on 514 cases in primary recipients and 43 cases in retransplants. Overall cancer risk did not differ in retransplants compared to primary recipients. Increased risk of RCC may be explained by the presence of acquired cystic kidney disease, which is more likely to develop with additional time with kidney disease and time spent on dialysis waiting for retransplantation.

Impact of transplant nephrectomy on peak PRA levels and outcome after kidney re-transplantation.

AIM: To determine the impact of transplant nephrectomy on peak panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels, patient and graft survival in kidney re-transplants. METHODS: From 1969 to 2006, a total of 609 kidney re-transplantations were performed at the University of Freiburg and the Campus Benjamin Franklin of the University of Berlin. Patients with PRA levels above (5%) before first kidney transplantation were excluded from further analysis (n = 304). Patients with graft nephrectomy (n = 245, NE+) were retrospectively compared to 60 kidney re-transplants without prior graft nephrectomy (NE-). RESULTS: Peak PRA levels between the first and the second transplantation were higher in patients undergoing graft nephrectomy (P = 0.098), whereas the last PRA levels before the second kidney transplantation did not differ between the groups. Age adjusted survival for the second kidney graft, censored for death with functioning graft, were comparable in both groups. Waiting time between first and second transplantation did not influence the graft survival significantly in the group that underwent nephrectomy. In contrast, patients without nephrectomy experienced better graft survival rates when re-transplantation was performed within one year after graft loss (P = 0.033). Age adjusted patient survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 94.1% and 86.3% vs 83.1% and 75.4% group NE+ and NE-, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Transplant nephrectomy leads to a temporary increase in PRA levels that normalize before kidney re-transplantation. In patients without nephrectomy of a non-viable kidney graft timing of re-transplantation significantly influences graft survival after a second transplantation. Most importantly, transplant nephrectomy is associated with a significantly longer patient survival.