ABSTRACT
Background/Objectives: Potent immunosuppression lowers the incidence of acute graft rejection but increases the risk of infections. In order to decrease either infectious complications or acute rejection, it is necessary to identify risk groups of patients profiting from personalized induction immunosuppressive treatment. The aim of our analysis was to find whether there were higher incidences of infectious complications after kidney transplantation (KT) in groups with different induction immunosuppressive treatment and also to find independent risk factors for recurrent infections. Materials: We retrospectively evaluated all patients with induction treatment with basiliximab after kidney transplantation from 2014 to 2019 at our center relative to age- and sex-matched controls of patients with thymoglobulin induction immunosuppression. Results: Our study consisted of two groups: basiliximab (39) and thymoglobulin (39). In the thymoglobulin group we observed an increased incidence of recurrent infection in every observed interval; however, acute rejection was seen more often in the basiliximab group. A history of respiratory diseases and thrombocytopenia were identified as independent risk factors for recurrent bacterial infections from the first to sixth month after KT. Decreased eGFR from the first month, infections caused by multi-drug-resistant bacteria, and severe infections (reflected by the need for hospitalization) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrent bacterial infections from the first to the twelfth month after KT. Conclusions: We found that in the group of patients with thymoglobulin induction immunosuppressive treatment, infectious complications occurred significantly more often during the entire monitored period with decreased incidence of acute humoral and cellular rejection occurred more often.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of graft rejection relies on the identification of donor-specific antibodies along with histological findings. Borderline changes are particularly challenging, representing non-rejection findings in up to 70% of cases. The analysis aimed to compare the results of histopathological conclusions with the findings from examination using a molecular microscope, which assesses gene expression (whole-genome microarray chip technology). METHODS: Molecular microscope examination (MMDx) was applied to twelve patients (six men and six women) who underwent either indication or protocol graft biopsy. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 46.6 years ± 4.2 (average follow-up from kidney transplantation was 6.1 months ± 1.2). MMDx examination was performed during indication biopsy in 11 patients and protocol biopsy in 1 patient. A total of 33% of the findings matched and 50% did not. Finally, we present a case of a patient with acute cellular rejection findings without clinical and laboratory correlation, where the use of MMDx significantly altered the treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: MMDx examination is suitable for complementing patients with ambiguous histological findings and a clinical picture not corresponding to biopsy results. The limitations of MMDx include cost and its inability to evaluate the potential recurrence of the underlying kidney disease in the graft.
