High Regulatory T-Cell Levels at 1 Year Posttransplantation Predict Long-Term Graft Survival Among Kidney Transplant Recipients

2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 2538-2541 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. San Segundo ◽  
G. Fernández-Fresnedo ◽  
E. Rodrigo ◽  
J.C. Ruiz ◽  
M. González ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Irene Bellini ◽  
Aisling E Courtney ◽  
Jennifer A McCaughan

Background: Failed kidney transplant recipients benefit from a new graft as the general incident dialysis population, although additional challenges in the management of these patients are often limiting the long-term outcomes. Previously failed grafts, a long history of comorbidities, side effects of long-term immunosuppression and previous surgical interventions are common characteristics in the repeated kidney transplantation population, leading to significant complex immunological and technical aspects and often compromising the short- and long-term results. Although recipients’ factors are acknowledged to represent one of the main determinants for graft and patient survival, there is increasing interest in expanding the donor’s pool safely, particularly for high-risk candidates. The role of living kidney donation in this peculiar context of repeated kidney transplantation has not been assessed thoroughly. The aim of the present study is to analyse the effects of a high-quality graft, such as the one retrieved from living kidney donors, in the repeated kidney transplant population context. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the outcomes of the repeated kidney transplant population at our institution from 1968 to 2019. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and stratified according to the number of transplants: 1st, 2nd or 3rd+. The main outcomes were graft and patient survivals, recorded from time of transplant to graft failure (return to dialysis) and censored at patient death with a functioning graft. Duration of renal replacement therapy was expressed as cumulative time per month. A multivariate analysis considering death-censored graft survival, decade of transplantation, recipient age, donor age, living donor, transplant number, ischaemic time, time on renal replacement therapy prior to transplant and HLA mismatch at HLA-A, -B and -DR was conducted. In the multivariate analysis of recipient survival, diabetic nephropathy as primary renal disease was also included. Results: A total of 2395 kidney transplant recipients were analysed: 2062 (83.8%) with the 1st kidney transplant, 279 (11.3%) with the 2nd graft, 46 (2.2%) with the 3rd+. Mean age of 1st kidney transplant recipients was 43.6 ± 16.3 years, versus 39.9 ± 14.4 for 2nd and 41.4 ± 11.5 for 3rd+ (p < 0.001). Aside from being younger, repeated kidney transplant patients were also more often males (p = 0.006), with a longer time spent on renal replacement therapy (p < 0.0001) and a higher degree of sensitisation, expressed as calculated reaction frequency (p < 0.001). There was also an association between multiple kidney transplants and better HLA match at transplantation (p < 0.0001). A difference in death-censored graft survival by number of transplants was seen, with a median graft survival of 328 months for recipients of the 1st transplant, 209 months for the 2nd and 150 months for the 3rd+ (p = 0.038). The same difference was seen in deceased donor kidneys (p = 0.048), but not in grafts from living donors (p = 0.2). Patient survival was comparable between the three groups (p = 0.59). Conclusions: In the attempt to expand the organ donor pool, particular attention should be reserved to high complex recipients, such as the repeated kidney transplant population. In this peculiar context, the quality of the donor has been shown to represent a main determinant for graft survival—in fact, kidney retrieved from living donors provide comparable outcomes to those from single-graft recipients.


Author(s):  
Michał Ciszek ◽  
Krzysztof Mucha ◽  
Bartosz Foroncewicz ◽  
Dorota Żochowska ◽  
Maciej Kosieradzki ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. S59-S60
Author(s):  
Martin Gasser ◽  
Igor Tsaur ◽  
Kai Lopau ◽  
Christoph Germer ◽  
Anil Chandraker ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 1005-1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Tsaur ◽  
Martin Gasser ◽  
Beatriz Aviles ◽  
Jens Lutz ◽  
Lydia Lutz ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Figueiredo ◽  
Rita Leal ◽  
Clara Pardinhas ◽  
Filipe Mira ◽  
Luís Rodrigues ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Histological findings that meet criteria for borderline changes “suspicious” for acute T cell mediated rejection (BR) as defined by the Banff Classification (2017) are frequently seen. However, its clinical significance, as well as the appropriate clinical management, are still controversial. Our goal was to compare clinical outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with biopsy proven BR versus acute T cell mediated rejection (aTCMR) and the influence of treating BR rejection in graft outcomes. Method A retrospective cohort study was performed in all kidney transplant recipients with biopsy proven BR and aTCMR between January 2012 and December 2018. Data related to donor and recipient demographics, treatment and subsequent evolution of serum creatinine, proteinuria and graft survival were collected. Mean time at follow up was 31.2 ± 29.1 months. Results We included 91 patients with biopsy proven T cell rejection of which 34 (37.4%) had a BR and 57 (62.6%) aTCMR: 39 (68.4%) IA, 9 (15.8%) IB, 7 (28.1%) IIA and 2 (3.5%) IIB. There was no difference between groups (BR vs aTCMR) regarding age (45,5 vs 48,1, p=0,38), sex (male 73% vs 60%, p=0,27) or race (Caucasian 100% vs 93%, p=0.114). For both groups, deceased donor was more frequent (82% vs 95%, p=0.074), and there was no difference in cytotoxic PRA (mean 4.5 ± 9.2 vs 3.7 ± 12.8, p=0.762) or number of compatibilities (mean 2.2 ± 1.2 vs 2.4 ± 1.3, p=0.539). At the time of rejection diagnosis, the mean time of transplant was similar between groups (32.9 ± 43.6 vs 42.3 ± 67.4 months, p=0.467), but estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was significantly higher in patients with BR when compared to aTCMR (32.0 ± 22.5 vs 19.9 ± 13.1 ml/min/1.73m2, p=0.009). We found no significant difference in proteinuria at the time of biopsy between the 2 groups. Treatment with steroids was started in 20 (58.8%) patients with BR and all the patients with aTCMR were treated with steroids with or without thymoglobulin, depending on the Banff class. Fourteen (41.2%) patients with BR were followed closely with no acute interventions. At 1-year post biopsy, graft survival was 70%, and we found no significantly statistical difference between the two groups (79.4% vs 64.3%, p=0.129). In patients with preserved graft, there was no difference in GFR (41.9 ± 17.7 vs 37.7 ± 19.8, p=0.401) at 12 months post biopsy for both groups. When performing Kaplan-Meyer survival curves at follow-up, we also found no difference between BR and aTCMR (57.6 ± 7.1 vs 43.6 ± 5.5 months, p=0.157) (Figure 1). When analyzing the BR group (N=34) and comparing the patients that were treated (N=20) versus the patients with conservative approach (N=14), we found no difference in demographic features, sCr at biopsy (3.0 ± 1.1 vs 2.8 ± 2.1 mg/dl, p=0.696) and time post-transplant (28.1 ± 43.2 vs 39.7 ± 44.8 months, p=0.454). Graft survival at 1-year was 80% for treated patients and 79% for non-treated patients, p=0.919 and GFR for patients with preserved graft was not different between groups (43.9 ± 21.0 vs 39.7 ± 13.5 ml/min/1.73m2, p=0.572). When performing survival curves, we found that treated patients had almost the double time with functioning graft compared to non-treated patients (71.9 ± 8.5 vs 41.3 ± 6.2 months, p=0.104), although not statistically different probably due to the small sample size (figure 2). Conclusion Our study showed that despite having better GFR at time of biopsy, patients with BR (overall and treated) did not present better graft survival nor graft function at 1 year post biopsy or at follow up, compared with aTCMR. We also found a tendency to better graft survival in patients with BR treated with steroids compared with conservative approach. These results reinforce the importance of borderline rejection in graft outcomes and that the decision of whether to treat or not can influence long-term outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document