ABSTRACT
Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is a devastating systemic disease most commonly associated with chronic kidney failure. Its hallmark histopathologic features of small-vessel calcification, intimal hyperplasia, and microthrombi lead to microvascular occlusion and tissue necrosis. Clinically, it typically presents with painful cutaneous lesions that may be distal or proximal, with proximal lesions associated with higher mortality. Visceral involvement in this disease process is rare and in such case reports, all patients have coincident active cutaneous lesions. We present a case of a man in his 40s receiving hemodialysis presenting with mesenteric calciphylaxis complicated by ischemic colitis without active cutaneous lesions. Treatment consisted of sodium thiosulfate, vitamin K, and surgical resection. He previously had penile calciphylaxis treated with 3 months of sodium thiosulfate therapy and optimization of his serum calcium, phosphate, and parathyroid hormone levels. His penile calciphylaxis healed 12 months before his presentation with mesenteric calciphylaxis. This is the first known case report of isolated mesenteric calciphylaxis. It raises a number of clinical dilemmas, including duration of sodium thiosulfate use, monitoring for disease activity, and suitability for future kidney transplantation.
ABSTRACT
AIM: Pre-emptive renal transplantation has become the preferred first-line therapy for patients with end-stage kidney failure. This study examines the outcome of allograft and patient survival in pre-emptive transplantation compared with non-pre-emptive transplantation from living donors in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: We have performed a retrospective study using the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry. Allograft and patient survival were compared at 1, 5 and 10 years in pre-emptive transplantation and non-pre-emptive transplantation following a living donor transplant. RESULTS: Allograft survival at 1, 5 and 10 years post pre-emptive transplantation was better than post non-pre-emptive transplantation (multivariate hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.64-0.99], P = 0.036). Pre-emptive transplantation was associated with a significant patient survival advantage over non-pre-emptive transplantation when analysed from the time of transplantation and adjusted for age and gender (multivariate HR 0.46 [0.27-0.80], P = 0.006). Patient survival for pre-emptive transplantation and non-pre-emptive transplantation was 97% [0.95-0.98] and 93% [0.91-0.94] at 5 years and 93% [0.88-0.96] and 84% [0.82-0.87] at 10 years post transplant respectively. There was no difference in the overall rejection rate between pre-emptive transplantation and non-pre-emptive transplantation. Vascular rejection was less common in pre-emptive transplantation (HR 0.70 [0.50-0.98], P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive transplantation from a living donor is associated with both better allograft and patient survival compared with transplantation after a period of dialysis. Pre-emptive transplantation should be the preferred modality of renal replacement therapy in patients who have a living donor.
