Probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation based on % PRA.

UNLABELLED: Sensitization to HLA antigens creates an obstacle for the accessibility and success of kidney transplantation (KT). Highly sensitized patients have longer waiting times and some may never receive a KT. AIM: To determine the probability of patients on the deceased donor (DD) waiting list to receive a KT based on the panel reactive antibody percentage (% PRA) in our center. METHODS: The DD waiting list from our institution was analyzed from 01/05 to 08/12 documenting the clinical variables from donor and potential recipients (ABO blood group), lymphocyte cross-match [CxM (CDC-AHG)] results, highest % PRA determination, and time on the waiting list. The patients were classified into 4 groups based on the % PRA: 0%, 1-19%, 20-79% and 80-100%. The data was analyzed using odds ratio and logistic regression (significant p<0.05). RESULTS: 58 DD (F:M 34:24, ABO group O=35, A=13, B=10) and 179 potential recipients were analyzed (F:M 98:81, ABO group O=127, A=33, B=19, participating 4.2 ± 3.8 times with different donors to receive KT). The mean PRA for the whole group was 22 ± 32%, median [md] 0 (0-98). A total of 100 patients received KT (mean waiting time 2.2 ± 1.7 years, 12 days-7 years) and their mean % PRA was 11.6 ± 24, md 0 (0-94) vs. 31.4 ± 37 md 8.5 (0-98) in those who have not received a KT. An association between the % PRA group and KT (p<0.003) was observed. The probability of receiving KT with a 0% PRA vs. >0% was higher (OR 2.12, 1.17-3.84). There was no difference between the 0% vs. 1-19% group (OR 1); differences were observed between 0% vs. 20-79% (OR 2.5, 1.18-5.3) and 0% vs. 80-100% (OR 5, 1.67-14.9). For every percent increase in the PRA above 20%, the risk of not receiving a KT increased by 5% (1-9, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The probability of receiving a DD kidney transplant is inversely related to the % PRA although a higher risk for not receiving a KT becomes evident with a PRA >20%.

Fever, haematuria, and acute graft dysfunction in renal transplant recipients secondary to adenovirus infection: two case reports.

We report two cases of adenoviral infection in kidney transplant recipients that presented with different clinical characteristics under similar demographic and posttransplant conditions. The first case presented with fever, gross haematuria, and acute graft dysfunction 15 days following renal transplantation. A graft biopsy, analyzed with immunohistochemistry, yielded negative results. However, the diagnosis was confirmed with blood and urine real-time PCR for adenovirus 3 days after the initial clinical manifestations. The immunosuppression dose was reduced, and ribavirin treatment was started, for which the patient quickly developed toxicity. Antiviral treatment allowed for transient response; however, a relapse occurred. The viral real-time PCR became negative upon immunosuppression reduction and administration of IVIG; graft function normalized. In the second case, the patient presented with fever and dysuria 1 month after transplantation. The initial imaging studies revealed graft enlargement and areas of hypoperfusion. In this case, the diagnosis was also confirmed with blood and urine real-time PCR for adenovirus 3 days after the initial clinical manifestations. Adenoviral nephritis was confirmed through a graft biopsy analyzed with light microscopy, immunohistochemistry, and PCR in frozen tissue. The immunosuppression dose was reduced, and IVIG was administered obtaining excellent clinical results along with a negative real-time PCR.