The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes in transplant patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wales.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infection has had a significant impact on vulnerable individuals including transplant patients. Socioeconomic deprivation negatively affects outcomes of many health conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection among Welsh transplant patients. METHODS: This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study on the transplant population of Wales. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) was used to assess the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes of Welsh transplant patients who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, rates of hospital and ICU admission, development of acute kidney injury (AKI) and mortality. A logistic binomial regression analysis was used to correlate the various risk factors with the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-six (25%) of regular follow up patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection; of these 55 (20.7%) were admitted, 15 (5.6%) to ICU, 37 (13.9%) developed AKI, and 23 (8.6%) died. In a regression analysis, patients of younger age were associated with more (p = .001) and those with SPK (simultaneous pancreas kidney) transplant less chance of infection (p = .038), whereas social deprivation was not associated with the chance of infection (p = .14). In regression analysis increased social deprivation was associated with higher chance of AKI post SARS-CoV-2 (p = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic deprivation did not affect the rates or severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection apart from the degree of AKI in Welsh Transplant patients. Adherence to the preventive measures for this high-risk population must continue to remain a priority.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Can Lead to an Increase in Tacrolimus Levels in Renal Transplant Patients: A Cohort Study.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on serum tacrolimus levels. Tacrolimus levels of 34 transplant patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 were compared with their pre-infection values and those of a control group with alternative infections. 20 out of 34 (59%) had high levels. At diagnosis, median tacrolimus level in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort was 9.6 µg/L (2.7-23) compared to 7.9 µg/L in the control group (p = 0.07, 95% CI for difference -0.3-5.8). The ratio of post-infection to pre-infection tacrolimus values was higher in the SARS-CoV-2 group (1.7) compared to the control group (1.25, p = 0.018, 95% CI for difference 0.08-0.89). The acute kidney injury rate was 65% (13 of 20) in SARS-CoV-2 patients with a level >8 µg/dl, compared to 29% (4 of 14) in those with lower levels (p = 0.037). Median length of stay was 10 days among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with high tacrolimus levels compared to 0 days in the rest (p = 0.04). Four patients with high levels died compared to 2 in the control group. Clinicians should be aware of this potential effect on tacrolimus levels and take appropriate measures.

Laterality in laparoscopic hand assisted donor nephrectomy - Does it matter anymore? Outcomes of a large retrospective series.

This retrospective study was performed to analyse if laterality of the retrieved living donor kidney had any effect on donor and recipient outcomes after hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). 739 donors who underwent HALDN between January 2006 and January 2018 at a large tertiary transplant centre in the United Kingdom were included. Donor outcomes in individuals undergoing right versus left HALDN were compared with respect to conversion rates, morbidity, warm and cold ischaemia times and recipient failure rates, vascular and ureteric complications. 604 (81.7%) underwent left HALDN and 135 (18.3%) underwent right HALDN, mean age was 47.1 years and 46.8 years respectively with comparable gender distribution. The operative time was shorter for the left side (p = 0.003) and improved during the study for the left but not the right side. In recipients who received left kidneys there were more early technical failures observed (8 versus 1) though not statistically significant. Most centres prefer performing a left nephrectomy and recipient surgeons prefer a left kidney for transplantation primarily because of having a longer vein. This large study provides reassurance that right HALDN nephrectomy is a safe procedure with similar outcomes to left HALDN.

The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes in pancreas transplantation in England: Registry data analysis.

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poorer outcomes in chronic diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes following pancreas transplantation among patients transplanted in England. We included all 1270 pancreas recipients transplanted between 2004 and 2012. We used the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (EIMD) score to assess the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on patient and pancreas graft survival. Higher scores mean higher deprivation status. Median EIMD score was 18.8, 17.7, and 18.1 in patients who received simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), and pancreas transplant alone (PTA), respectively (P = .56). Pancreas graft (censored for death) survival was dependent on the donor age (P = .08), cold ischemic time (CIT; P = .0001), the type of pancreas graft (SPK vs. PAK or PTA, P = .0001), and EIMD score (P = .02). The 5-year pancreas graft survival of the most deprived patient quartile was 62% compared to 75% among the least deprived (P = .013), and it was especially evident in the SPK group. EIMD score also correlated with patient survival (P = .05). When looking at the impact of individual domains of deprivation, we determined that "Environment" (P = .037) and "Health and Disability" (P = .035) domains had significant impact on pancreas graft survival. Socioeconomic deprivation, as expressed by the EIMD is an independent factor for pancreas graft and patient survival.

The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes in pancreas transplantation.

Socioeconomic deprivation is an important factor in determining poor health and is associated with a higher prevalence of many chronic diseases including diabetes and renal failure, with poorer outcomes of their treatments. The influence of deprivation on outcomes following pancreas transplantation has not previously been reported. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to assess the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes for 119 consecutive pancreas transplant recipients from a single center in the United Kingdom, transplanted between 2004 and 2013. Outcomes measured were rate of acute rejection and graft survival. Thirty-five (29.4%) patients experienced at least one episode of acute rejection following their transplant. Rejection rates in least deprived were 37% and most deprived 24% (p = 0.29). Within the individual domains, rejection rate was higher for the "physical environment" domain (least deprived 40% vs. most deprived 17% (p = 0.053). Five-year graft survival for least and most deprived groups was 75% and 88%, respectively (log-rank test p-value 0.24). This study has not demonstrated any significant differences in outcomes following pancreas transplantation in Wales in relation to socioeconomic deprivation with the exception possibly of the "physical environment" domain. Further studies with larger patient population or concentrating on physical environment deprivation would be of interest.

Alemtuzumab in renal transplantation. Reviews of literature and usage in the United Kingdom.

Kidney transplantation has evolved over the years from transplants between identically matched donors and recipients to successfully transplanting allografts across virtually any degree of donor-recipient human leukocyte antigen mismatch and ABO-incompatibility. Integral to these improved outcomes has been the development and deployment of a range of immunosuppressive agents. The addition of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies as a standard part of overall immunosuppression has led to the improved outcomes by providing a robust and focused protection during the first few months of transplantation when allografts are most vulnerable to immune-mediated injury. Alemtuzumab is a recombinant anti-CD52 pan-lymphocyte depleting monoclonal antibody that has been in use for kidney transplantation since the late 1990s. Despite the many years of experience with alemtuzumab, its utilisation in the UK has remained relatively restrained. This may be due to a lack of high-level evidence to support its safety and efficacy in transplantation. Also, long-term outcomes have not been addressed by existing studies. Nevertheless, available evidence suggests that alemtuzumab is associated with a lower risk of acute rejection within the first year of transplantation while exhibiting a comparable safety profile to non-lymphocyte depleting agents. Despite the current economic advantages of alemtuzumab (available free of cost on a named transplant recipient basis), its use in UK transplant centres has remained limited, variating from non-use, through usage in selected high immunologic risk subjects, to use as routine induction immunosuppression. This review discusses the current use of alemtuzumab for immunosuppression induction in kidney transplantation. It describes its evolution from development to its present application in kidney transplantation and reviews the evidence underpinning its utilisation. The role of alemtuzumab in the immunosuppressive protocols individual UK kidney transplant centres is also described.

Thymoglobulin Versus Alemtuzumab Versus Basiliximab Kidney Transplantation From Donors After Circulatory Death.

Introduction: The Campath, Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) reduction, and Chronic allograft nephropathy (3C), a study comparing alemtuzumab versus basiliximab induction immunosuppression in kidney transplants, has found lower acute rejection rate with alemtuzumab but same graft survival. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the effect of induction immunosuppression (thymoglobulin, alemtuzumab, basiliximab) on the outcome of kidneys of donors after circulatory death (DCD). Methods: Data of the 274 DCD patients of the 3C obtained from the sponsor were compounded with the 140 DCD patients who received thymoglobulin in a single center with the same entry criteria as the 3C, giving 414 patients on 3 induction regimes. Results: There were more male donors (P < 0.05) and human leukocyte antigen and DR mismatched patients in the thymoglobulin group (P < 0.001). Death-censored graft survival at 6 months was 98.6% in the thymoglobulin, 95.5% in the alemtuzumab (P = 0.08), and 95.7% in the basiliximab group (P = 0.09) and at 2 years 97.9% versus 94.8% (P = 0.13, hazard ratio [HR] 2.8, 95% CI 0.7-10.9) versus 94.3% (P = 0.06, HR 3.5, 95% CI 0.9-13.6), respectively.The 2-year overall graft survival was 95% in the thymoglobulin versus 88% in the alemtuzumab (unadjusted P = 0.038, adjusted HR 2.4, 95% CI 0.99-5.9) and 91.4% in the basiliximab group (P = 0.21). The 2-year patient survival was numerically less in the alemtuzumab compared with the thymoglobulin group (91.8% vs. 97.1%, P = 0.052, HR 2.90, 95% CI 0.93-9.2). Acute rejection was 17% in the basiliximab, 4.3% in the thymoglobulin, and 6% in the alemtuzumab group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In DCD transplants, thymoglobulin induction may provide advantage over alemtuzumab in patient survival and the same advantage as alemtuzumab over basiliximab in terms of acute rejection. Differing maintenance immunosuppression may contribute to the difference found.

An Analysis of Serological Response and Infection Outcomes Following Oxford-AstraZeneca (AZD1222) and Pfizer-BioNTech (mRNA BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Kidney and Kidney-pancreas Transplants.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with high mortality among transplant recipients. Comparative data that define humoral responses to the Oxford-AstraZeneca (AZ) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines are limited. METHODS: We recruited 920 kidney transplant patients receiving at least 1 dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine, excluding patients with virus pre-exposure. Serological status was determined with the COVID-SeroKlir ELISA (Kantaro-EKF Diagnostics). Patients with a corrected antibody level of <0.7 AU/mL were considered seronegative. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-five AZ and 141 Pfizer patients had a sample analyzed after first dose and 593 after second dose (346 AZ versus 247 Pfizer). After first dose, 25.7% of patients seroconverted (26.6% AZ, 22.8% Pfizer). After second dose, 148 (42.8%) of AZ seroconverted compared with 130 (52.6%) of Pfizer (P = 0.02; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.06). When negative responders were excluded, Pfizer patients were shown to have significantly higher response than AZ patients (median 2.6 versus 1.78 AU/mL, P = 0.005).Patients on mycophenolate had a reduced seroconversion rate (42.2% versus 61.4%; P < 0.001; hazard ratio, 2.17) and reduced antibody levels (0.47 versus 1.22 AU/mL, P = 0.001), and this effect was dose dependent (P = 0.05). Prednisolone reduced the seroconversion from 58.2% to 43.6% (P = 0.03) among Pfizer but not AZ recipients. Regression analysis showed that antibody levels were reduced by older age (P = 0.002), mycophenolate (P < 0.001), AZ vaccine (versus Pfizer, P = 0.001), and male gender (P = 0.02). Sixteen of 17 serious postvaccine infections occurred to patients who did not seroconvert. CONCLUSIONS: Both seroconversion and antibody levels are lower in AZ compared with Pfizer vaccinated recipients following 2 vaccine doses. Mycophenolate was associated with lower antibody responses in a dose-dependent manner. Serious postvaccine infections occurred among seronegative recipients.

High frequency of ulcers, not associated with Helicobacter pylori, in the stomach in the first year after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Although gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are very frequent in organ transplant patients, there is a paucity of data about the endoscopic findings of kidney recipients. METHODS: Two thousand one hundred and thirty-five kidney transplants were performed between 1994 and 2007. During that period, 672 gastroscopies were performed in 543 of those patients. Their mean age was 49.5 years and 56.9% were male. Immunosuppressive combinations included cyclosporine-mycophenolate-steroids, cyclosporine-steroids and tacrolimus-mycophenolate mofetil-steroids. Ninety-eight percent of the patients received acid suppression therapy. RESULTS: The rate of clinically significant endoscopic findings was 84%. Macroscopic findings included inflammation in 46.7%, oesophagitis in 24.7%, ulcer in 16.9% and erosions in 14.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of endoscopies showed ulcer disease more frequently in the first 3 months (P=0.0014) after transplantation than later, and 45.7% of all ulcers developed in the first year. The presence of Helicobacter pylori was verified in 20.9% of cases, less than in the general, and also in the uraemic population (P<0.0001). There was no association between the presence of H. pylori and ulcers (P=0.28). Steroid pulse treatment for rejection was not associated with more ulcers (P=0.11); the use of mycophenolate mofetil increased the risk of erosions by 1.8-fold. CONCLUSION: More than 25% of all kidney recipients required upper endoscopy in their 'post-transplant life'; the prevalence of 'positive findings' and ulcer disease was higher than in the general population (P<0.0001). The most vulnerable period is the first 3 months. Mycophenolate mofetil had an impact on GI complications, whilst the presence of H. pylori in the transplant population is not associated with the presence of ulcers.

Staggered Dual Kidney Transplantation.

We describe a case where a patient received a successful dual kidney transplantation in a staggered fashion. Two kidneys from a deceased donor were accepted for 2 separate primary intended recipients, however, due to unforeseen circumstances, both kidneys were eventually transplanted in a staggered fashion into an alternate single recipient. The intention behind this method was to enhance the patient's renal function and to prevent the wastage of a kidney. Despite the significantly prolonged cold ischemia times, the recipient has excellent dual graft function after 3 years. The positive outcome underpins the effectiveness of donor kidneys even with prolonged cold ischemia times outside established best practice guidelines. It also reinforces the effectiveness of dual kidney transplantation. Transplant professionals encounter complex situations occasionally where an established evidence-base or aids to decision-making are limited. This case reflects challenges in decision-making, patient counselling and consent, especially when the opportunity for the staggered dual kidney transplantation, with potential increased morbidity, came about as another recipient declined a usable kidney. It also highlights the widely differing risk appetites of different patients. Crucially, it optimised the donation process and procurement of 2 kidneys while preventing wastage. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a staggered dual kidney transplantation in a single recipient.

SARS-CoV-2 in Kidney Transplant and Waitlisted Patients During the First Peak: The Welsh Experience.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic has led to many health care services, including transplantation, being temporarily suspended. For transplantation to safely recommence, there is a need to understand the effects of SARS-CoV-2 in transplant and waitlist patients. We identified 21 patients with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (13 transplant; 8 waitlist) during the first peak of coronavirus disease 2019 in Wales. Median patient age was 57 years (range, 24-69), 62% were male, and all were white. Median body mass index was 29 kg/m2 (range, 22-42), and 81% had 1 or more significant comorbidities. Median time from transplant to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 135 months (range, 9-356) and median time since being listed was 17.5 months (range, 5-69) for waitlisted patients. Seventeen patients were admitted to the hospital (81%), 18% (n = 3) in intensive care unit, and 5 patients died (4 transplant recipients and 1 waitlist patient; 24%). Two of the 4 transplant patients who died had recent malignancy. Although the mortality of hospitalized transplant patients was high, their infection rate of 0.87% meant that the overall mortality of transplant patients due to SARS-CoV-2 was low and comparable to that of patients on the waitlist. These data provide confidence in restarting the transplant program, provided that a series of measures aiming to avoid infections in newly transplanted patients are taken.

Induction with ATG in DCD kidney transplantation; efficacy and relation of dose and cell markers on delayed graft function and renal function.

AIM: We aimed to analyse the efficacy of the Thymoglobulin dose used for induction in controlled DCD kidneys, and its initial impact on blood cell and CD3 count, as predictors of efficacy. METHODS: 140 DCD patients who received ATG induction, were analysed. Intended dose was 1.25 mg/kg/day over 5 days, rounded to nearest 25 mg and not exceeding 125 mg/dose. Outcomes included the total dose in relation with rejection, DGF, graft survival, eGFR. The cell count response to ATG was assessed as predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Graft survival, was 96.2%, 92.4%, 85% at 1, 3 and 5 years. Rejection was 7% at 1 year and associated with eGFR at 3 (p = 0.003) and 5 years. ATG dose was not predictive of rejection but was associated with the day5 leucocyte and lymphocyte count (p < 0.001) and negatively with DGF (p = 0.05). In 31 patients day3 CD3 count was available and it was associated with rejection (p = 0.002), less DGF (p = 0.09), and 3 years eGFR (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Thymoglobulin provides excellent results in DCD kidneys that do not significantly differ with small dose variations. In higher doses it reduces DGF. Lymphocytes and CD3 count, may be useful surrogate markers of efficacy and outcome.

Pancreas Donor Risk Index and Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score for Prediction of Pancreas Transplant Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The Pancreas Donor Risk Index and Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score were designed to assist in the evaluation of pancreases for transplant. Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score <17 and PancreasDonor Risk Index ≤1.57 were deemed ideal.We aimed to determine the ability ofthese scores to predict pancreas transplant outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pancreas Donor Risk Index and the Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score were retrospectively calculated from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive pancreas transplants performed during a 13-year period (December 2004 to November 2017). Outcomes measuredwere rejection rate, graft and patient survival, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of 159 pancreas transplants (108 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants, 33 pancreas after kidney transplants, 18 pancreas-only transplants), full data were available for 155 (97%) to calculate Pancreas Donor Risk Indexes and 129 (81%) to calculate Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Scores. Fortyseven patients (30%) experienced at least 1 episode of acute rejection. We calculated Pancreas Donor Risk Indexes for 155 patients, and 19 (23%) and 27 (38%) were in the ≤1.57 and >1.57 groups, respectively (P = .047). We calculated Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Scores for 129 patients, and 12 (21%) and 27 (32%) were in the <17 and ≥17 groups, respectively (P = .202). Donor age and recipientfemale sex were the main predictors forrejection (binary logistic regression, P < .05). One-year graft survival rates were 95% and 81% forthe ≤1.57 and >1.57 PancreasDonor Risk Index groups,respectively, and 95% and 80% forthe <17 and ≥17 Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score groups, respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreas Donor Risk Index and Preprocurement Pancreas Suitability Score were not helpful to predict graft/patient survival in our population. A higher Pancreas Donor Risk Index was associated with higher risk of graft rejection. Further studies with larger cohorts are required.

Monthly variance in UK renal transplantation activity: a national retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether renal transplant activity varies in a reproducible manner across the year. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using NHS Blood and Transplant data. SETTING: All renal transplant centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 24 270 patients who underwent renal transplantation between 2005 and 2014. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Monthly transplant activity was analysed to see if transplant activity showed variation during the year. SECONDARY OUTCOME: The number of organs rejected due to healthcare capacity was analysed to see if this affected transplantation rates. RESULTS: Analysis of national transplant data revealed a reproducible yearly variance in transplant activity. This activity increased in late autumn and early winter (p=0.05) and could be attributed to increased rates of living (October and November) and deceased organ donation (November and December). An increase in deceased donation was attributed to a rise in donors following cerebrovascular accidents and hypoxic brain injury. Other causes of death (infections and road traffic accidents) were more seasonal in nature peaking in the winter or summer, respectively. Only 1.4% of transplants to intended recipients were redirected due to a lack of healthcare capacity, suggesting that capacity pressures in the National Health Service did not significantly affect transplant activity. CONCLUSION: UK renal transplant activity peaks in late autumn/winter in contrast to other countries. Currently, healthcare capacity, though under strain, does not affect transplant activity; however, this may change if transplantation activity increases in line with national strategies as the spike in transplant activity coincides with peak activity in the national healthcare system.

Increased nitric oxide production during acute rejection in kidney transplantation: a useful marker to aid in the diagnosis of rejection.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of acute rejection (AR) relies on biopsy (Bx), with all the noninvasive tests failing to show satisfactory predictive value. Nitric oxide (NO) has been shown to play a role in AR. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between NO and (1) biopsy-proven allograft rejection and (2) other reasons of allograft dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive renal allograft recipients ages 23-72 yrs who were transplanted were prospectively recruited. Blood samples were collected for 3 months. Endogenous serum nitrate (SNO(3)) levels were measured with Griess reagent in 1178 samples. Biopsies were performed as clinically indicated. Tacrolimus levels, urinary cultures, and renal function tests were done as per unit protocol. RESULTS: Fifty recipients (mean+/-SD age 45.2+/-2.18 yrs, 24 men and 6 women) underwent 68 biopsies. Forty-five Bx (66.2%) showed AR in 19 recipients (mean age 47+/-8) and 23 (33.8%) Bx in 13 recipients (mean age 43+/-12) showed no AR. SNO(3) in AR was (73+/-8.89 micromol/L) compared with negative Bx (45+/-4.5 micromol/L; P<0.05). There was also a significant difference in SNO(3) during AR and other causes of allograft dysfunction; delayed graft function (54+/-7.8 micromol/L), urinary tract infection (44+/-2.9 micromol/L), tacrolimus toxicity (51+/-2.86 micromol/L), and increase in serum creatinine (44+/-2.36 micromol/L). CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase of serum nitrate with episodes of acute rejection compared with other causes of renal dysfunction. SNO(3) can therefore aid in the diagnosis of acute rejection.

The role of nutritional assessment and early enteral nutrition for combined pancreas and kidney transplant candidates.

BACKGROUND: Early post-operative enteral nutrition is an important part of perioperative management and is strongly supported by ESPEN Guidelines. However, there is limited evidence into the use of Early Enteral Nutrition (EEN) after combined Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation (PKT). We know malnutrition in type-1 diabetics with end stage renal failure (ESRF) is a common problem and a significant risk factor. Therefore, we introduced EEN in our patients. METHOD: We monitored and recorded nutritional data on 29 PKT recipients who underwent transplantation between Oct 2007 and Jan 2010 without a nutritional assessment or EEN [Monitored Group (MG)] and on 30 PKT recipients between Feb 2010 and Dec 2013 who received a nutritional assessment and EEN (Naso-jejunal feed or oral intake with supplementation, according to their nutritional status) [Fed Group (FG)]. The end-point was to assess patients' daily post-transplant nutritional intake. This was calculated as a percentage of estimated nutritional requirements using the Schofield equation with a 25% added stress factor and relevant activity factor. Following a literature search and realistic targets our aim was to reach >60% requirements: achievement of ≥60% energy requirements by day-7 (7d-60%) and at the time of discharge (total-60%) [13,14]. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between MG and FG patients in cold ischemic time (CIT), recipient-age and donor-age, Length of Stay and donor-creatinine. In contrast, FG patients were less frequently in predialysis status 41.4% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.001; and had higher incidence of BMI <22.5 kg/m2 63.3% vs. 48.3%, p = <0.005. In outcomes, FG patients more frequently achieved a higher average % of nutritional requirements in the first week 39.69% vs. 22.37%, p = <0.005; as well as during whole in-patient stay 57.24% vs. 44.43%, p = <0.005 (Table 3, Figs. 1 and 2). The FG spent a greater proportion during the first week 66.7% vs. 31%, p = <0.005; and of whole their admission 93.3% vs. 75.9%, p = <0.005; meeting more than 60% of nutritional requirements. Most important, the need for parenteral nutrition within the FG was significantly lower, 7.1% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.005 (Table 3). CONCLUSION: Our results show that these patients benefit from planned EEN and receive better nutritional support when compared to the patients managed with the historic, reactive approach to nutritional care. Nutritional intake in the first week as well as during the whole admission was superior in patients receiving active EEN despite a more difficult post-operative course due to higher incidence of re-operations compared to the control group. Also the need for parenteral nutrition was significantly lower in this group. In addition, pre-transplant nutritional assessment is beneficial and accurately highlights those who may be at risk of malnutrition pre and post-operatively.

The impact of distance from transplant unit on outcomes following kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Following transplantation, many patients travel long distances for follow-up care. Many studies have examined the influence of distance from transplant centre on access to transplantation, but few have examined post-transplant outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Distance from transplant centre was calculated for all kidney transplant recipients transplanted over a 5-year period. Outcomes measured were rates of acute rejection, graft and patient survival. RESULTS: Complete follow up data was available for 571 of the 585 kidney transplants performed over the study period. Distance from home to transplant centre ranged from 1.3 to 257.4 km (median 33.7 km). Patients were divided into quartiles according to their distance from the transplant centre. Distance from the transplant centre did not influence rates of acute rejection (p = 0.102). One-year graft survival for 'nearest' and 'farthest' quartiles was 99% and 97% respectively and five-year graft survival was 78% and 89% respectively (log rank p-value of 0.212). There were no differences in patient survival at 1 and 5 years between the 'nearest' and 'farthest' groups. CONCLUSION: Distance from transplant centre does not affect early outcomes following kidney transplantation. The centralized practice which involves a low threshold for rapid assessment and readmission of patients post-transplantation appears to provide good outcomes for kidney transplant recipients.

Impact of expanded criteria variables on outcomes of kidney transplantation from donors after cardiac death.

INTRODUCTION: To expand the donor pool, kidney transplants are being performed using donors who were previously considered unacceptable. We applied the United Network for Organ Sharing criteria to define expanded criteria donors (ECD) within the donation after cardiac death (DCD) and donation after brain stem death (DBD) cohorts. We compared outcomes of DCD and DBD transplants with and without (standard criteria donor [SCD]) the ECD criteria. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of all deceased donor transplants from 2004 to 2010 (n=359). Four groups were identified--DBD-SCD (n=154), DBD-ECD (n=93), DCD-SCD (n=78), and DCD-ECD (n=34). Kaplan-Meier analysis of graft and patient survival and multiple regression analysis of 1-year graft function were performed. RESULTS: One-year and two-year uncensored graft survivals were similar between DCD-ECD and DCD-SCD cohorts (1 year, 90% and 93%; 2 years, 81% and 93% respectively; log-rank test P=0.2). Median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in DCD-ECD recipients at 12 months (41 vs. 53 mL/min, P=0.003) and 24 months (33 vs. 54 mL/min, P<0.001) compared with DCD-SCD recipients. Compared with DBD-ECD recipients also at 24 months, DCD-ECD recipients showed a lower graft function (median, eGFR 33 vs. 47 mL/min; P=0.007) but similar graft survival. Expanded criteria donor status (B=-9.7, P=0.01) was associated with a lower 1-year eGFR within the DCD cohort, with donor age (B=-0.42, P=0.002) being the only significant ECD variable. CONCLUSION: Short-term graft survival in DCD-ECD transplants was comparable to DCD-SCD and DBD-ECD transplants albeit with poorer allograft function at 2 years. Quality-of-life studies are needed to determine the true value of these transplants, particularly when performed to older recipients.