Steroid-free immunosuppression since 1999: 129 pediatric renal transplants with sustained graft and patient benefits.

Despite early promising patient and graft outcomes with steroid-free (SF) immunosuppression in pediatric kidney transplant recipients, data on long-term safety and efficacy results are lacking. We present our single-center experience with 129 consecutive pediatric kidney transplant recipients on SF immunosuppression, with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Outcomes are compared against a matched cohort of 57 concurrent recipients treated with steroid-based (SB) immunosuppression. In the SF group, 87% of kidney recipients with functioning grafts remain corticosteroid-free. Actual intent-to-treat SF (ITT-SF) and still-on-protocol SF patient survivals are 96% and 96%, respectively, actual graft survivals for both groups are 93% and 96%, respectively and actual death-censored graft survivals for both groups are 97% and 99%, respectively. Unprecedented catch-up growth is observed in SF recipients below 12 years of age. Continued low rates of acute rejection, posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), hypertension and hyperlipidemia are seen in SF patients, with sustained benefits for graft function. In conclusion, extended enrollment and longer experience with SF immunosuppression for renal transplantation in low-risk children confirms protocol safety, continued benefits for growth and graft function, low acute rejection rates and reduced cardiovascular morbidity.

What is the optimal approach for the end-stage diabetic nephropathy patient considering simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation?

This case-based discussion regards two very different patients with end-stage diabetic nephropathy (ESDN) who are considering transplantation. What is the best approach for each individual: pancreas-kidney transplant or kidney transplant alone? Suppose a live kidney donor is available? What are the risks and benefits of each approach? In the candidate evaluation process, medical issues, such as uncorrectable coronary artery disease, are investigated and may preclude transplantation altogether or dictate the optimal approach. Similarly, a careful psychosocial profile is important to tailor the approach to the patient. The multidisciplinary transplant team has an obligation to provide informed consent, foster realistic expectations, and advise the candidate based on collective expertise. Ultimately, the decision as to the best course-pancreas-kidney, kidney transplant alone, or no transplantation-is the result of a collaborative effort between the patient and the transplant team.

Utilization of the older donor for renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The persistent shortage of ideal donor organs has resulted in increased transplantation of kidneys from older donors (age > 60 years). The overall experience with this donor subgroup indicates decreased graft survival. METHODS: The records of 413 renal transplants performed between July 1991 and July 1995 were reviewed in a retrospective fashion to determine those patients who had received a cadaveric (CT > 60; n = 17) or living donor (LT > 60; n = 7) renal transplant from an older donor. Control groups consisted of randomly selected patients who received cadaveric (CT < 50; n = 20) or living related (LT < 50; n = 20) renal transplants from donors less than 50 years of age. RESULTS: In the CT > 60 group, 1-year graft survival was 57.4%, significantly less than in those of the LT < 50 (100%), LT > 60 (100%), and CT < 50 (89%) groups. Mean recipient serum creatinine in the CT > 60 group was twofold greater than that of other groups at 1, 6, and 12 months following transplantation. Cold ischemia time and creatinine clearance correlated highly with graft survival. Stepwise regression analysis showed creatinine clearance to be the sole independent predictor of graft survival. A calculated donor creatinine clearance < 50 mL/minute was associated with ultimate graft loss. CONCLUSION: Age alone should not be an exclusion criterion to renal organ donation. When considering the older renal donor, creatinine clearance should be included within the decision algorithm.

Assessment of living renal donors with spiral CT.

PURPOSE: To determine whether spiral computed tomography (CT) can be used to evaluate potential living renal donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve potential living renal donors underwent spiral CT and conventional arteriography. CT angiography was performed with 30-second spiral acquisition during injection of 150 mL of nonionic iodinated contrast material into an antecubital vein at 5 mL/sec. Five minutes after injection, a frontal abdominal scout projection was obtained to assess the renal collecting system. Results of blinded interpretations of axial CT angiograms, three-dimensional CT angiograms, and conventional arteriograms were correlated with intraoperative findings in 11 cases. RESULTS: Axial and three-dimensional CT angiography were 100% sensitive for identifying seven accessory renal arteries and 14% and 93% sensitive for identifying five prehilar renal artery branches. Renal venous anomalies were confirmed in three patients at surgery. Operative management changed in four of 11 patients who underwent donor nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT holds promise as a single examination for anatomic assessment of living renal donors.