Impacto de la modalidad de diálisis sobre la morbimortalidad tras el fracaso del injerto renal: análisis con eventos competitivos / Impact of dialysis modality on morbimortality of kidney transplant recipients after allograft failure. Analysis in the presence of competing events

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVO: El número de personas que inician diálisis por el fracaso del injerto aumenta cada día. La modalidad de diálisis mejor para este tipo de pacientes no está bien definida y la mayoría de ellos son derivados a hemodiálisis (HD). El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar el impacto de la modalidad de diálisis sobre la morbilidad y la mortalidad en individuos trasplantados que inician este procedimiento tras el fracaso del injerto. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo observacional y de cohortes que compara la evolución de los pacientes que inician diálisis tras el fracaso del injerto, desde enero del año 2000 a diciembre del 2013. Un grupo lo hace en diálisis peritoneal (DP) y otro en HD. Se realizó un seguimiento a los pacientes hasta el cambio de técnica de diálisis, retrasplante o fallecimiento. Se analizaron datos antropométicos, comorbilidad, el filtrado glomerular (FG) con el que iniciaban la diálisis, la presencia de un acceso óptimo para esta, la presencia de intolerancia al injerto y el retrasplante. Estudiamos el motivo de los 10 primeros ingresos hospitalarios tras el inicio de la diálisis. Para el análisis estadístico, se tuvo en cuenta la presencia de eventos competitivos que dificultaran la aparición del evento de interés, muerte o ingreso hospitalario. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 175 pacientes. En DP 86 y 89 en HD. Los individuos que iniciaron DP eran más jóvenes, tenían menor comorbilidad y lo hacían con FG más bajos que los de HD. El seguimiento medio fue de 34 ± 33 meses, con una mediana de 24 (IQR siete a 50 meses), siendo mayor en los pacientes en HD que en los de DP (35 vs. 18 meses, p = < 0,001). Los factores de riesgo que influyeron en la mortalidad fueron la edad (coeficiente del sub Hazard Ratio [sHR] 1,06 (IC 95%: 1,033 a 1,106, p = 0,000), el uso no óptimo del acceso (sHR 3,00 (IC 95%: 1,507 a 5,982, p = 0,028) y el tipo de diálisis, la DP sHR[DP/HD] 0,36 (IC 95%: 0,148 a 0,890, p = 0,028). Los pacientes en DP tenían menos riesgo de un ingreso hospitalario sHR[DP/HD] 0,52 (IC 95%: 0,369 a 0,743, p = < 0,001) y menos probabilidad de desarrollar una intolerancia al injerto HR 0,307 (IC 95% 0,142 a 0,758, p = 0,009). CONCLUSIONES: Con las limitaciones de un estudio retrospectivo y no randomizado, es la primera vez a nivel nacional que se demuestra que la DP en términos de supervivencia es mejor que la HD cuando fracasa el injerto durante el primer año y medio en diálisis. La presencia de un acceso no óptimo para este procedimiento es un factor de riesgo de mortalidad independiente y modificable. La remisión precoz de los pacientes a las unidades de enfermedad renal crónica avanzada (ERCA) es fundamental para que estos elijan la técnica que más se adapte a sus circunstancias y preparar un acceso óptimo para el inicio de diálisis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of patients who start dialysis due to graft failure increases every day. The best dialysis modality for this type of patient is not well defined and most patients are referred to HD. The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of the dialysis modality on morbidity and mortality in transplant patients who start dialysis after graft failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre retrospective observation and cohort study was performed to compare the evolution of patients who started dialysis after graft failure from January 2000 to December 2013. One group started on PD and the other on HD. The patients were followed until the change of dialysis technique, retransplantation or death. Anthropometric data, comorbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at start of dialysis, the presence of an optimal access for dialysis, the appearance of graft intolerance and retransplantation were analysed. We studied the causes for the first 10 hospital admissions after starting dialysis. For the statistical analysis, the presence of competitive events that hindered the observation of the event of interest, death or hospital admission was analysed. RESULTS: 175 patients were included, 86 in DP and 89 in HD. The patients who started PD were younger, had less comorbidity and started dialysis with lower eGFR than those on HD. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 33 months, with a median of 24 months (IQR 7 - 50 months), Patients on HD had longer follow-up than patients on PD (35 vs. 18 months, p = < 0.001). The mortality risk factors were age sHR 1.06 (95% CI: 1.033 - 1.106, p = 0.000), non-optimal use of access for dialysis sHR 3.00 (95% CI: 1.507 - 5.982, p = 0.028) and the dialysis modality sHR (PD / HD) 0.36 (95% CI: 0.148 - 0.890, p = 0.028). Patients on PD had a lower risk of hospital admission sHR [DP / HD] 0.52 (95% CI: 0.369-0.743, p = < 0.001) and less probability of developing graft intolerance HR 0.307 (95% CI 0.142-0.758, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of a retrospective and non-randomized study, it is the first time nationwide that PD shows in terms of survival to be better than HD during the first year and a half after the kidney graft failure. The presence of a non-optimal access for dialysis was an independent and modifiable risk factor for mortality. Early referral of patients to advanced chronic kidney disease units is essential for the patient to choose the technique that best suits their circumstances and to prepare an optimal access for the start of dialysis

Impact of dialysis modality on morbimortality of kidney transplant recipients after allograft failure. Analysis in the presence of competing events. / Impacto de la modalidad de diálisis sobre la morbimortalidad tras el fracaso del injerto renal: análisis con eventos competitivos.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of patients who start dialysis due to graft failure increases every day. The best dialysis modality for this type of patient is not well defined and most patients are referred to HD. The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of the dialysis modality on morbidity and mortality in transplant patients who start dialysis after graft failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre retrospective observation and cohort study was performed to compare the evolution of patients who started dialysis after graft failure from January 2000 to December 2013. One group started on PD and the other on HD. The patients were followed until the change of dialysis technique, retransplantation or death. Anthropometric data, comorbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at start of dialysis, the presence of an optimal access for dialysis, the appearance of graft intolerance and retransplantation were analysed. We studied the causes for the first 10 hospital admissions after starting dialysis. For the statistical analysis, the presence of competitive events that hindered the observation of the event of interest, death or hospital admission was analysed. RESULTS: 175 patients were included, 86 in DP and 89 in HD. The patients who started PD were younger, had less comorbidity and started dialysis with lower eGFR than those on HD. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 33 months, with a median of 24 months (IQR 7 - 50 months), Patients on HD had longer follow-up than patients on PD (35 vs. 18 months, p = < 0.001). The mortality risk factors were age sHR 1.06 (95% CI: 1.033 - 1.106, p = 0.000), non-optimal use of access for dialysis sHR 3.00 (95% CI: 1.507 - 5.982, p = 0.028) and the dialysis modality sHR (PD / HD) 0.36 (95% CI: 0.148 - 0.890, p = 0.028). Patients on PD had a lower risk of hospital admission sHR [DP / HD] 0.52 (95% CI: 0.369-0.743, p = < 0.001) and less probability of developing graft intolerance HR 0.307 (95% CI 0.142-0.758, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of a retrospective and non-randomized study, it is the first time nationwide that PD shows in terms of survival to be better than HD during the first year and a half after the kidney graft failure. The presence of a non-optimal access for dialysis was an independent and modifiable risk factor for mortality. Early referral of patients to advanced chronic kidney disease units is essential for the patient to choose the technique that best suits their circumstances and to prepare an optimal access for the start of dialysis.

Impact of dialysis modality on morbimortality of kidney transplant recipients after allograft failure. Analysis in the presence of competing events.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of patients who start dialysis due to graft failure increases every day. The best dialysis modality for this type of patient is not well defined and most patients are referred to HD. The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of the dialysis modality on morbidity and mortality in transplant patients who start dialysis after graft failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre retrospective observation and cohort study was performed to compare the evolution of patients who started dialysis after graft failure from January 2000 to December 2013. One group started on PD and the other on HD. The patients were followed until the change of dialysis technique, retransplantation or death. Anthropometric data, comorbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at start of dialysis, the presence of an optimal access for dialysis, the appearance of graft intolerance and retransplantation were analyzed. We studied the causes for the first 10 hospital admissions after starting dialysis. For the statistical analysis, the presence of competitive events that hindered the observation of the event of interest, death or hospital admission was analyzed. RESULTS: 175 patients were included, 86 in DP and 89 in HD. The patients who started PD were younger, had less comorbidity and started dialysis with lower eGFR than those on HD. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 33 months, with a median of 24 months (IQR 7-50 months), Patients on HD had longer follow-up than patients on PD (35 vs. 18 months, p = < 0.001). The mortality risk factors were age sHR 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03-1.106, p = 0.000), non-optimal use of access for dialysis sHR 3.00 (95% CI: 1.507-5.982, p = 0.028) and the dialysis modality sHR (PD/HD) 0.36 (95% CI: 0.148-0.890, p = 0.028). Patients on PD had a lower risk of hospital admission sHR [DP/HD] 0.52 (95% CI: 0.369-0.743, p = < 0.001) and less probability of developing graft intolerance HR 0.307 (95% CI 0.142-0.758, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of a retrospective and non-randomized study, it is the first time nationwide that PD shows in terms of survival to be better than HD during the first year and a half after the kidney graft failure. The presence of a non-optimal access for dialysis was an independent and modifiable risk factor for mortality. Early referral of patients to advanced chronic kidney disease units is essential for the patient to choose the technique that best suits their circumstances and to prepare an optimal access for the start of dialysis.

Derivation and external validation of the SIMPLICITY score as a simple immune-based risk score to predict infection in kidney transplant recipients.

Existing approaches for infection risk stratification in kidney transplant recipients are suboptimal. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a weighted score integrating non-pathogen-specific immune parameters and clinical variables to predict the occurrence of post-transplant infectious complications. To this end, we retrospectively analyzed a single-center derivation cohort of 410 patients undergoing kidney transplantation in 2008-2013 in Madrid. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations, serum immunoglobulin and complement levels were measured at one-month post-transplant. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall and bacterial infection through month six. A point score was derived from a logistic regression model and prospectively applied on a validation cohort of 522 patients undergoing kidney transplantation at 16 centers throughout Spain in 2014-2015. The SIMPLICITY score consisted of the following variables measured at month one after transplantation: C3 level, CD4+ T-cell count, CD8+ T-cell count, IgG level, glomerular filtration rate, recipient age, and infection within the first month. The discrimination capacity in the derivation and validation cohorts was good for overall (areas under the receiver operating curve of 0.774 and 0.730) and bacterial infection (0.767 and 0.734, respectively). The cumulative incidence of overall infection significantly increased across risk categories in the derivation (low-risk 13.7%; intermediate-risk, 35.9%; high-risk 77.6%) and validation datasets (10.2%, 28.9% and 50.4%, respectively). Thus, the SIMPLICITY score, based on easily available immune parameters, allows for stratification of kidney transplant recipients at month one according to their expected risk of subsequent infection.

Reacciones cutáneas debido al uso de icodextrina en pacientes en diálisis peritoneal / Skin reactions with the use of icodextrin in peritoneal dialysis patients

No disponible

Efluente peritoneal turbio debido a un síndrome de intolerancia al injerto renal / Cloudy peritoneal dialysate effluent due to graft intolerance syndrome

No disponible

A Spanish version for the new ERA-EDTA coding system for primary renal disease.

BACKGROUND: The European Renal Association and the European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) have issued an English-language new coding system for primary kidney disease (PKD) aimed at solving the problems that were identified in the list of "Primary renal diagnoses" that has been in use for over 40 years. PURPOSE: In the context of Registro Español de Enfermos Renales (Spanish Registry of Renal Patients, [REER]), the need for a translation and adaptation of terms, definitions and notes for the new ERA-EDTA codes was perceived in order to help those who have Spanish as their working language when using such codes. METHODS: Bilingual nephrologists contributed a professional translation and were involved in a terminological adaptation process, which included a number of phases to contrast translation outputs. Codes, paragraphs, definitions and diagnostic criteria were reviewed and agreements and disagreements aroused for each term were labelled. Finally, the version that was accepted by a majority of reviewers was agreed. RESULTS: A wide agreement was reached in the first review phase, with only 5 points of discrepancy remaining, which were agreed on in the final phase. CONCLUSIONS: Translation and adaptation into Spanish represent an improvement that will help to introduce and use the new coding system for PKD, as it can help reducing the time devoted to coding and also the period of adaptation of health workers to the new codes.

Adaptación en español del nuevo sistema de codificación de enfermedad renal primaria de la European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) / A Spanish version for the new ERA-EDTA coding system for primary renal disease

Antecedentes: La European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) ha publicado, en lengua inglesa, una nueva lista de códigos de enfermedad renal primaria (ERP), con el fin de solventar los problemas detectados en la «Lista de diagnóstico renal primario» que se venía utilizando desde hacía más de 40 años. Objetivos: En el seno del Registro Español de Enfermos Renales (REER) se consideró conveniente traducir y adaptar los términos, definiciones y notas de los nuevos códigos de la ERA-EDTA para facilitar su uso por parte de quienes usan como lengua de trabajo el español. Métodos: Se realizó un proceso de traducción profesional y adaptación terminológica que contó con la participación de nefrólogos bilingües con varias fases de contraste del resultado de la traducción, en las que se revisaron los códigos, literales, definiciones y criterios diagnósticos y se marcaron los acuerdos y discrepancias surgidos para cada término. Finalmente se acordó la versión aceptada por la mayoría de los revisores. Resultados: El acuerdo en la primera fase de revisión fue amplio, con solo 5 puntos de discrepancia que se acordaron en la fase final. Conclusiones: La traducción y adaptación al español representa una mejora para la introducción y uso del nuevo sistema de codificación de ERP, ya que puede contribuir a reducir el tiempo dedicado a la codificación y también el período de adaptación de los profesionales a los nuevos códigos (AU)

Background: The European Renal Association and the European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) have issued an English-language new coding system for primary kidney disease (PKD) aimed at solving the problems that were identified in the list of “Primary renal diagnoses” that has been in use for over 40 years. Purpose: In the context of Registro Español de Enfermos Renales (Spanish Registry of Renal Patients, [REER]), the need for a translation and adaptation of terms, definitions and notes for the new ERA-EDTA codes was perceived in order to help those who have Spanish as their working language when using such codes. Methods: Bilingual nephrologists contributed a professional translation and were involved in a terminological adaptation process, which included a number of phases to contrast translation outputs. Codes, paragraphs, definitions and diagnostic criteria were reviewed and agreements and disagreements aroused for each term were labelled. Finally, the version that was accepted by a majority of reviewers was agreed. Results: A wide agreement was reached in the first review phase, with only 5 points of discrepancy remaining, which were agreed on in the final phase. Conclusions: Translation and adaptation into Spanish represent an improvement that will help to introduce and use the new coding system for PKD, as it can help reducing the time devoted to coding and also the period of adaptation of health workers to the new codes (AU)

Acute rejection and late renal transplant failure: risk factors and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Acute rejection episodes are a major determinant of renal allograft survival, and the improvement of the transplantation results in the last two decades is largely due to a progressive decrease in the incidence of acute rejection. These results are explained by the incorporation of new immunosuppressive agents since the introduction of cyclosporine. Because the detrimental effect of acute rejection on graft survival is not limited to the early post-transplant period, we have focused on the impact of acute rejection episodes on late transplant failure in patients with the graft functioning 1 year after transplantation. METHODS: We have retrospectively analysed in 3365 renal transplants performed in adults in Spain during 1990, 1994 and 1998 the incidence and severity of the acute rejection episodes, their risk factors, and their influence on graft and patient survival. RESULTS: The incidence of rejection episodes in the whole series was 32.5%, decreasing in 1998 (25.1%) compared with the previous years (38%) (P<0.0001). Corticoid-resistant rejection episodes also decreased from 8% in 1990 and 1994 to 3.4% in 1998 (P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients < 60 years old (P<0.0001), sensitized recipients (P = 0.038), patients with delayed graft function (P<0.0001), cytomegalovirus infection (P = 0.0060), and those transplanted in 1990 or 1994 (P<0.0001) had an increased incidence of rejection episodes. In the univariate analysis, induction treatment with antilymphocyte globulines or OKT3 (P = 0.0002), and traumatic donor death (P = 0.042) were associated with a lower incidence of acute rejection. In the univariate analysis of the transplants performed in 1998, addressed to evaluate the effect of the new immunosuppressive agents, treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (P<0.0001) or tacrolimus (P = 0.0067), but not with anti-IL2 antibodies reduced the incidence of acute rejection. Patients with rejection episodes had an increased risk of late graft failure (Cox proportional hazards model, P<0.0001), which was homogeneous in the three periods analysed, with no effect on patient survival (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decreased incidence and severity of acute rejections in 1998, compared with the previous years, acute rejection still remains a powerful risk factor for late transplant failure.