Live donor kidney transplantation. Situation analysis and roadmap.

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years. One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams. Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors. Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spainhave adopted the report at institutional level. The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process.

Live donor kidney transplantation. Situation analysis and roadmap. / Trasplante renal de donante vivo. Análisis de situación y hoja de ruta.

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years. One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams. Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors. Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spain have adopted the report at institutional level. The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process.

Enhanced recovery after low- and medium-risk liver transplantation. A single-center prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few studies have fully applied an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol to liver transplantation (LT). Our aim was to assess the effects of a comprehensive ERAS protocol in our cohort of low- and medium-risk LT patients. METHODS: The ERAS protocol included pre-, intra-, and post-operative steps. During the five-year study period, 181 LT were performed in our institution. Two cohorts were identified: low risk patients (n = 101) had a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of 20 points or less at the time of LT, received a liver from a donor after brain death, and had a balance of risk score of 9 points or less; medium-risk patients (n = 15) had identical characteristics except for a higher MELD score (21-30 points). In addition, we analyzed the remaining patients (n = 65) who were transplanted over the same study period separately using the ERAS protocol. RESULTS: The low-risk cohort showed a low need for packed red blood cells transfusion (median: 0 units) and renal replacement therapy (1%), as well as a short length of stay both in the intensive care unit (13 h) and in the hospital (4 days); morbidity during one-year follow-up, and probability of surviving to one year (89.30%) and five years (76.99%) were in line with well-established reference data. Similar findings were observed in the medium-risk cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center prospective observational cohort study provides evidence that ERAS is feasible and safe for low- and medium-risk LT.

Clinical profile and post-transplant anaemia in renal transplant recipients restarting dialysis after a failed graft: changing trends between 2001 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical profile, outcome and the prevalence and management of anaemia between two cohorts of renal transplant patients with graft failure restarting dialysis in 2001 and 2009. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational, retrospective and multicentre study of 397 patients in the 2001 cohort and 222 in the 2009 cohort. Data were recorded at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months before the onset of dialysis resumption and during the first 90 days after restarting dialysis (mortality and hospital admission). RESULTS: Patients in the 2009 cohort were older at the time of inclusion in the study and transplantation, and restarted dialysis therapy with a significantly better glomerular filtration rate. In both cohorts, there was a rapid deterioration of renal function with statistically significant differences in serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate between the monthly intervals -12 and 0. The mean haemoglobin value at -12 months was 11.6 g/dL [7.2 mmol/L] in the 2001 cohort when compared with 12.3 g/dL [7.6 mmol/L] in the 2009 cohort, and at the time of restarting dialysis 9.6 g/dL [6.0 mmol/L] versus 10.6 g/dL [6.6 mmol/L]. The percentage of patients treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, at any time during the 12 months before readmission to dialysis, increased significantly from 61.5% in the 2001 cohort to 96% in the 2009 cohort. There were no significant differences between the 2001 and 2009 cohorts in mortality rate (8.8 versus 9.0%) or hospital admission (31.5 versus 31.1%) during the study time. CONCLUSIONS: At restarting dialysis, the proportion of patients with anaemia (and its severity) due to progressive graft nephropathy decreased over the past 8 years, increasing significantly the percentage of patients treated with erythropoietin. Differences in morbimortality after dialysis resumption were not observed, this is probably due to an increase in the age of donors and recipients.