RESUMO
ABSTRACT Introduction: The aim of this study was to analyze the waiting list for kidney transplantation in our hospital according to candidate's panel reactive antibodies (cPRA) and its outcomes. Methods: One thousand six hundred forty patients who were on the waiting list between 2015 and 2019 were included. For the analysis, hazard ratios (HR) for transplant were estimated by Fine and Gray's regression model according to panel reactivity and HR for graft loss and death after transplantation. Results: The mean age was 45.39 ± 18.22 years. Male gender was predominant (61.2%), but the proportion decreased linearly with the increase in cPRA (p < 0.001). The distribution of patients according to panels were: 0% (n = 390), 1% - 49% (n = 517), 50% - 84% (n = 269), and ≥ 85% (n = 226). Transplantation was achieved in 85.5% of the sample within a median time of 8 months (CI 95%: 6.9 - 9.1). The estimated HRs for transplantation during the follow-up were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.51 - 3.34), 2.41(95%CI: 2.07 - 2.80), and 2.45(95%CI: 2.08 - 2.90) in the cPRA range of 0%, 1%-49%, and 50%-84%, respectively, compared to cPRA ≥ 85 (p < 0.001). After transplantation, the HR for graft loss was similar in the different cPRA groups, but the HR for death (0.46 95% CI 0.24-0.89 p = 0.022) was lower in the 0% cPRA group when adjusted for age, gender, and presence of donor specific antibodies (DSA). Conclusion: Patients with cPRA below 85% are more than twice as likely to receive a kidney transplantation with a shorter waiting time. The risk of graft loss after transplantation was similar in the different cPRA groups, and the adjusted risk of death was lower in nonsensitized recipients.
RESUMO Introdução: O objetivo foi analisar a lista de espera para transplante renal em nosso hospital segundo o painel de reatividade de anticorpos (PRAc) do candidato e seus desfechos. Métodos: Incluímos 1.640 pacientes em lista de espera entre 2015 e 2019. Para a análise, estimou-se a razão de risco (HR) para transplante pelo modelo de regressão de Fine e Gray conforme o painel de reatividade e HR para perda do enxerto e óbito após o transplante. Resultados: A idade média foi 45,39 ± 18,22 anos. Sexo masculino foi predominante (61,2%), mas a proporção diminuiu linearmente com o aumento do PRAc (p < 0,001). A distribuição de pacientes conforme os painéis foi: 0% (n = 390), 1% - 49% (n = 517), 50% - 84% (n = 269), e ≥85% (n = 226). O transplante foi realizado em 85,5% da amostra em tempo mediano de 8 meses (IC 95%: 6,9 - 9,1). As HRs estimadas para transplante durante o acompanhamento foram 2,84 (IC 95%: 2,51 - 3,34), 2,41 (IC 95%: 2,07 - 2,80) e 2,45 (IC 95%: 2,08 - 2,90) no intervalo de PRAc de 0%, 1%-49% e 50%-84%, respectivamente, comparadas com PRAc ≥ 85 (p < 0,001). Após o transplante, a HR para perda do enxerto foi semelhante nos diferentes grupos de PRAc, mas HR para óbito (0,46 IC 95% 0,24-0,89 p = 0,022) foi menor no grupo PRAc 0% quando ajustada para idade, sexo e presença de anticorpos doador específico (DSA). Conclusão: Pacientes com PRAc abaixo de 85% têm mais que o dobro de probabilidade de receber transplante renal com tempo de espera menor. Risco de perda do enxerto após o transplante foi semelhante nos diferentes grupos PRAc, e risco ajustado de óbito foi menor em receptores não sensibilizados.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: BKV nephropathy (BKN) causes kidney graft loss, whose specific diagnosis is invasive and might be predicted by the early detection of active viral infection. OBJECTIVE: Determine the BKV-infection prevalence in late kidney graft dysfunction by urinary decoy cell (DC) and viral DNA detection in urine (viruria) and blood (viremia; active infection). METHODS: Kidney recipients with >1 month follow-up and creatinine >1.5 mg/dL and/or recent increasing >20 percent (n = 120) had their urine and blood tested for BKV by semi-nested PCR, DC searching, and graft biopsy. PCR-positive patients were classified as 1+, 2+, 3+. DC, viruria and viremia prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) were determined (Table 2x2). Diagnosis efficacy of DC and viruria were compared to viremia. RESULTS: DC prevalence was 25 percent, viruria 61.7 percent, and viremia 42.5 percent. Positive and negative patients in each test had similar clinical, immunossupressive, and histopathological characteristics. There was no case of viremia with chronic allograft nephropathy and, under treatment with sirolimus, patients had a lower viruria prevalence (p = 0.043). Intense viruria was the single predictive test for active infection (3+; LR = 2.8).1,6-4,9 CONCLUSION: DC, BKV-viruria and -viremia are commun findings under late kidney graft dysfunction. Viremia could only be predicted by intense viruria. These results should be considered under the context of BKN confirmation.