Repeated kidney re-transplantation-the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis.

In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.

Prevalence and nature of potential drug-drug interactions among kidney transplant patients in a German intensive care unit.

Background Complex polypharmacotherapy makes kidney transplant patients vulnerable to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Objective To study prevalence and nature of potential DDIs (pDDIs) in kidney transplant patients. Setting Internal medicine ICU, University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Method In this retrospective observational study, pDDIs were identified in the first week after transplant from 1999 to 2010. Patients aged at least 18 years with prescription of at least two drugs were included. Patients with incomplete data were excluded. Data was originally obtained from medical charts. Two Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) in German language, mediQ and Meona, were used for pDDI identification and severity rating. Main outcome measure PDDIs in each severity level of the CDSSs/100 patient days. Results A total of 252 patients with 37,577 prescriptions were analysed. We found 99 pDDIs from severity levels major/contraindicated in Meona and 299 pDDIs from severity levels clinically relevant/strong in mediQ per 100 patient days. Most important potential consequences of pDDIs in respective severity levels were changes in immunosuppressant drug and potassium levels, nephrotoxicity and cardiac adverse events. Conclusion This study found a high prevalence of pDDIs in the first week after kidney transplant. Medication should be checked for pDDIs to prevent ADEs. It is strongly advisable to closely monitor patients within the first week after transplant for clinical and laboratory parameters and if necessary, change therapy. Physician education on the basis of study findings, DDI check with Clinical Physician Order Entry System/CDSSs and integration of a clinical pharmacist into the ward team should be targeted.

High-urgency kidney transplantation in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System: success or waste of organs? The Eurotransplant 15-year all-centre survey.

BACKGROUND: In the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS), transplant candidates can be considered for high-urgency (HU) status in case of life-threatening inability to undergo renal replacement therapy. Data on the outcomes of HU transplantation are sparse and the benefit is controversial. METHODS: We systematically analysed data from 898 ET HU kidney transplant recipients from 61 transplant centres between 1996 and 2010 and investigated the 5-year patient and graft outcomes and differences between relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Kidney recipients with an HU status were younger (median 43 versus 55 years) and spent less time on the waiting list compared with non-HU recipients (34 versus 54 months). They received grafts with significantly more mismatches (mean 3.79 versus 2.42; P < 0.001) and the percentage of retransplantations was remarkably higher (37.5 versus 16.7%). Patient survival (P = 0.0053) and death with a functioning graft (DwFG; P < 0.0001) after HU transplantation were significantly worse than in non-HU recipients, whereas graft outcome was comparable (P = 0.094). Analysis according to the different HU indications revealed that recipients listed HU because of an imminent lack of access for dialysis had a significantly worse patient survival (P = 0.0053) and DwFG (P = 0.0462) compared with recipients with psychological problems and suicidality because of dialysis. In addition, retransplantation had a negative impact on patient and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Facing organ shortages, increasing wait times and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of HU allocation and propose more restrictive criteria with regard to individuals with vascular complications or repeated retransplantations in order to support patients on the non-HU waiting list with a much better long-term prognosis.