In kidney recipients from the same deceased donor, discordance in delayed graft function is associated with the worst outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication among deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (DDKTs) and is associated with worse outcomes. The effect on outcomes of concordance versus discordance in DGF between two different recipients of kidneys from the same donor is largely unknown. METHODS: We reviewed all adult DDKTs for which both kidneys were transplanted to two different recipients at our center between 2014-2019. DDKTs were divided into four groups based on the DGF status: concordance no DGF (cc-no-DGF); discordance no DGF(dd-no-DGF); discordance DGF (dd-DGF) and concordance in DGF (cc-DGF). Acute rejection (AR) and death censored graft failure (DCGF) were outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 578 DDKTs fulfilled our selection criteria, 280were in cc-no-DGF, 83 in dd-no-DGF, 83 in dd-DGF, and 132 in cc-DGF. Compared to cc-no-DGF, in univariate analysis, dd-DGF was associated with an increased risk of AR (HR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.0-2.56) but cc-DGF was not (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.63-1.62). dd-DGF was not associated with an increased risk of AR in multivariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, dd-DGF was associated with an increased risk of DCGF (HR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.05-6.93) but cc-DGFwas not (HR: 2.36; 95% CI: 0.97-5.70). CONCLUSION: Discordance in DGF is associated with worse outcomes and may need closefollow-up and monitoring to improve the outcomes.

Blessing and a curse of outpatient management of delayed graft function.

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication occurring most often after deceased donor kidney transplant with several donor characteristics as well as immunologic factors that lead to its development post-transplant. These patients require dialysis and close kidney function monitoring until sufficient allograft function is achieved. This has resulted in limited options for DGF management, either prolonged hospitalization until graft function improves to the point where dialysis is no longer needed or discharge back to their home dialysis unit with periodic follow up in the transplant clinic. DGF is associated with a higher risk for acute rejection, premature graft failure, and 30-d readmission; therefore, these patients need close monitoring, immunosuppression management, and prompt allograft biopsy if prolonged DGF is observed. This may not occur if these patients are discharged back to their home dialysis unit. To address this issue, the University of Wisconsin-Madison created a clinic in 2011 specialized in outpatient DGF management. This clinic was able to successfully reduce hospital length of stay without an increase in 30-d readmission, graft loss, and patient death.

In Kidney Transplant Recipients With a Positive Virtual Crossmatch, High PRA was Associated With Lower Incidence of Viral Infections.

BACKGROUND: There is little information on the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with CMV and BK infections in sensitized patients. METHODS: We examined 254 consecutive kidney transplant recipients with positive virtual crossmatch and negative flow crossmatch. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients (43%) developed CMV disease or BK infection or nephropathy (BKVN). Specifically, 78 patients (30.7%) developed BK infection, 19 (7.5%) had BKVN, and 33 (12.9%) presented with CMV disease. Four patients (1.5%) developed both infections. Mean time from transplant to diagnosis for BK and CMV was 4.07 ± 3.10 and 8.35 ± 5.20 months, respectively. African American (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.37-5.07; P = 0.003), thymoglobulin induction (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.38-3.43; P = 0.0008), DSA greater than 500 MFI at transplant (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.57; P = 0.03), history of diabetes (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01-2.60; P = 0.04), CMV D+/R- (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.06-5.01; P = 0.03), and acute rejection (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.99-2.24; P = 0.05) were associated with increase incident of BK/CMV, whereas rituximab (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91; P = 0.02), peak PRA greater than 80% (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = 0.01), and living donor transplant (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = 0.01) were associated with a lower likelihood of infection. Thymoglobulin induction (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.02-6.13; P = 0.04), and peak PRA greater than 80% (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P = 0.02) remained significant predictors of infection after multivariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Although more than 40% of patients with a positive virtual crossmatch presented with BK infection/CMV disease, high PRA greater than 80% seemed to be protective.

Initial vascular access type in patients with a failed renal transplant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Permanent hemodialysis vascular access is crucial for RRT in ESRD patients and patients with failed renal transplants, because central venous catheters are associated with greater risk of infection and mortality than arteriovenous fistulae or arteriovenous grafts. The objective of this study was to determine the types of vascular access used by patients initiating hemodialysis after a failed renal transplant. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data from the US Renal Data System database on 16,728 patients with a failed renal transplant and 509,643 patients with native kidney failure who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2006, and September 30, 2011 were examined. RESULTS: At initiation of dialysis, of patients with a failed transplant, 27.7% (n=4636) used an arteriovenous fistula, 6.9% (n=1146) used an arteriovenous graft, and 65.4% (n=10,946) used a central venous catheter. Conversely, 80.8% (n=411,997) of patients with native kidney failure initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter (P<0.001). Among patients with a failed transplant, predictors of central venous catheter use included women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.63 to 1.87), lack of referral to a nephrologist (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.72 to 2.33), diabetes (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.22), peripheral vascular disease (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 1.48), and being institutionalized (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.89). Factors associated with lower odds of central venous catheter use included older age (odds ratio, 0.85 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 0.87), public insurance (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 0.80), and current employment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Central venous catheters are used in nearly two thirds of failed renal transplant patients. These patients are usually followed closely by transplant physicians before developing ESRD after a failed transplant, but the relatively low prevalence of arteriovenous fistulae/arteriovenous grafts in this group at initiation of dialysis needs to be investigated more thoroughly.