Long-Term (≥25 Years) Kidney Allograft Survivors: Retrospective Analysis at a Single Center.

INTRODUCTION: Despite great improvements in the short-term patient and kidney graft survival, the long-term morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients still remains a significant problem. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of both donor and transplant recipient factors, as well as renal function indices on the very long-term (>25 years) kidney allograft survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of 41 kidney transplant recipients (KTR), group A: follow-up = 25 years, 20 KTR, 10 male, mean age (mean [M] ± standard deviation [SD]): 34.6 ± 12.6 years, 14 living donors (LD), 6 cadaveric donors (CD); group B: follow-up > 25 years, 21 KTR, 16 male, mean age (M ± SD): 30.86 ± 12.37 years, 14 LD, 7 CD). Kidney graft origin, post-kidney transplantation diabetes mellitus, HLA compatibility, delayed graft function, and acute rejection episodes were also analyzed retrospectively. Statistical analysis with Mann-Whitney test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed (SPSS 20.0 for Windows). RESULTS: The mean age of CDs was lower than that of LDs: CD mean age (M ± SD): 23.84 ± 16.26 years vs LD mean age: 52.75 ± 12.42 years (P < .001). Cadaveric kidney graft was associated with better renal allograft function 10, 15, and 25 years post kidney transplant. None of the other factors analyzed reached statistical significance between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The age of the donor and the kidney graft origin are important co-factors of the very long-term kidney allograft survival.

Association of Double-J Stenting in Renal Transplant Patients With Urinary Tract Colonization and Infections in a Multidrug-resistant Microbe Endemic Nosocomial Environment.

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of ureteral stenting after kidney transplantation with the development of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and/or urinary tract colonization, in a hospital environment considered endemic for multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae. METHODS: Seventy-five recipients of deceased donor grafts were divided in groups A and B. Group A (with subgroups A1 and A2) included 45 transplanted patients without urinary stenting, and group B 30 patients with stenting. Subgroup A1 consisted of 30 patients transplanted before 2006, and A2 of 15 patients transplanted after 2006, when MDR, mainly carbapenem-resistant, Enterobacteriaceae, frequency has risen in our hospital. RESULTS: The incidence and the number of UTIs per patient were significantly higher in patients without stenting compared to those with stenting. (Group A: 32/45 vs group B: 9/30, P < .001, and group A: 2.86 ± 0.43 vs group B: 0.6 ± 0.19, P < .01 respectively). Patients without stenting tended to have a higher frequency of recurrent UTIs compared to those with stenting (group A: 16/45 vs group B: 4/30, P < .05). Asymptomatic bacteriuria was more frequent in the patients with stent (group A: 8/45 vs group B: 14/30, P < .05). Further sub-comparison of the A1 and A2 subgroups with group B did not change the statistical results. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically significant association of ureteral stenting after kidney transplantation with the high frequency of MDR Gram-negative bacteria in our hospital.

New-Onset Diabetes After Transplantation: Comparison Between a Cyclosporine-Based and a Tacrolimus-Based Immunosuppressive Regimen.

INTRODUCTION: New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is a complication of renal transplantation (RT) with an adverse effect on graft survival. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to compare modifiable or non-modifiable clinical and laboratory parameters as well as the course of patients and transplants between 2 groups of RT recipients with NODAT in relation to the use of either a cyclosporine-based (group A) or a tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen (group B). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively comparing 66 renal transplant recipients with NODAT, multiple clinical, and laboratory parameters were investigated. For statistical analysis, the χ2 test, the Student t test, and the patient and graft survival or the Kaplan-Meier analysis from the statistical software SPSS 22.0 for Windows were used. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in association with the majority of the investigated parameters. In group B (tacrolimus [Tac]), more patients had HbA1c >7.2% at 3 years after RT. The mean value of systolic blood pressure was higher in group A (cyclosporine [CsA]) at 6 months and at 1 year after RT. More patients in group A (CsA) experienced at least one acute rejection episode. Finally, greater levels of cold ischemia time were recorded in group B (Tac) and statistically significant difference was found in connection with the patient and graft survival in the fourth year after RT. CONCLUSIONS: NODAT in patients on tacrolimus requires the adjustment of modifiable clinical and metabolic parameters and possible change of the immunosuppressive regimen to a cyclosporine-based one.

Use of everolimus in de novo renal recipients: initial experience in the Greek population.

Although everolimus has proven to be as clinically efficacious as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), there are reports that proliferation signal inhibitors are associated with poor tolerability. This study reported the experience of a Greek transplant center using either everolimus or MMF in de novo renal transplant recipients. In this retrospective study, a cohort of 40 patients who received everolimus after renal transplant was matched for 10 descriptive parameters with a cohort of another 40 patients who received MMF. The primary endpoint was renal function measured by creatinine and its clearance as well as wound dehiscence and opportunistic infections. The mean creatinine clearance at month 3 was 61.03 +/- 16.99 mL/min versus 60.99 +/- 8.03 for living related recipients on everolimus versus MMF, respectively. The mean creatinine clearance at month 3 was 71.24 +/- 12.61 and 62.61 +/- 20.24 mL/min for cadaveric recipients on everolimus versus MMF, respectively. In addition, the incidence of wound dehiscence was 33.34% versus 3.92% and the incidence of cytomegalovirus infection, 8.33% versus 17.64% for the same two groups, respectively.

Impact of double-j ureteric stent in kidney transplantation: single-center experience.

We retrospectively evaluated the use of double-j stent and the incidence of urological complications in 2 groups of patients who received a kidney transplant. From January 2005 to September 2007 we studied 172 patients receiving kidney transplants, 65 and 107 from living and cadaver donors, respectively. From the 172 patients, a total of 34 were excluded due to ureterostomy or Politano-Leadbetter ureterovesical anastomosis. Another 21 patients were excluded from the study due to graft loss due to acute or hyperacute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, or vascular complication. The remaining patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (44 patients) and B (73 patients) with versus without the use of a double-j-stent, respectively. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of donor and recipient gender, ischemia time, and delayed graft function. We failed to observes significant differences between the 2 groups in mean hospital stay (23 +/- 9 and 19 +/- 9), urinary leak (2.3% and 4.1%), and urinary tract infection (20.4% and 19.2%), among groups A and B, respectively. The only difference observed concerned the gravity of the urinary leak; no surgical intervention was needed among the double-j stent group versus 2 patients demanding ureterovesical reconstruction in the nonstent group. In conclusion, our data suggested that the routine use of a double-j stent for ureterovesical anastomosis neither significantly increased urinary tract infection rates, nor decreased the incidence of urinary leaks, but may decrease the gravity of the latter as evidenced by the need for surgical intervention.

The evolution of the role of liver transplantation in treating alcoholic cirrhosis in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation represents the main treatment for alcoholic cirrhosis. The goal of this article is to review the results of liver transplantation for alcoholic cirrhosis in Greece over the last 2 decades. METHODS: Among 247 patients who underwent liver transplantation between 1991 and 2007, 34 (13.7%) experienced alcoholic cirrhosis as the primary diagnosis. We reviewed their demographic data, stage of liver disease, and outcomes regarding survival via a Kaplan-Meier curve. Also we analyzed the causes of death and the postoperative complications. RESULTS: Mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 18.4. Other diagnoses included hepatitis C virus (HCV; 23.5%), hepatitis B virus (HBV; 14.7%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (8.8%). Eleven patients died the most frequent causes being primary graft nonfunction (n = 3), hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 2), sepsis (n = 2), and portal vein thrombosis (n = 2). Complications included rejection (32.4%), infection (26.5%), hepatic graft dysfunction (11.8%), and recurrent HCV, recurrent HBV, and renal failure (8.8% each). Recurrence of alcoholism was observed in 3 patients (8.8%) with mild effects on liver function tests. There has been a significant increase in the number of liver transplantations for alcoholic cirrhosis in the last 6 years, namely 25 patients versus 9 in the previous 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a significant increase in the frequency of alcoholic cirrhosis leading to liver transplantation in the last several years in Greece.

Combined treatment of hypercholesterolemia of renal transplant allograft recipients with fluvastatin and gemfibrozil.

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of combined treatment with fluvastatin (F) and gemfibrozil (G) in hypercholesterolemic renal transplant recipients (RTR). Ten hypercholesterolemic (total cholesterol [TC] > 220 mg/dl) RTR (7 men) with mean age 44 years (range 25-56 years) who remained hypercholesterolemic after 3 months of treatment (period A) with fluvastatin (40 mg/d) continued taking the same dose of F plus G (600 mg/dl) for another 3-month period (B). Serum total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride, serum creatinine (creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), and serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase (SGPT) were measured before treatment and at the end of periods A and B. Mean TC levels were 360.30 +/- 62.42 mg/dl, 324.10 +/- 100.53 mg/dl, 270.80 +/- 67.77 mg/dl; mean LDL-C levels were 259.33 +/- 71.43 mg/dl, 219.60 +/- 81.31 mg/dl, 189.70 +/- 65.51 mg/dl; mean HDL-C levels were 37.10 +/- 11.68 mg/dl, 39.80 +/- 13.21 mg/dl, 41.00 +/- 12.94 mg/dl; mean triglyceride levels were 354.60 +/- 183.29 mg/dl, 349.30 +/- 242.94 mg/dl, 207.00 +/- 85.35 mg/dl before treatment and at the end of periods A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant fall of serum TC (P = 0.002), LDL-C (P = 0.016), and triglyceride (P = 0.029) levels at the end of periods A and B. Kidney and liver function did not change. F and G combined treatment is safe and useful in patients who do not respond satisfactorily to monotherapy with F. Gemfibrozil augments the effect of F on TC, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels.