Search

Background Publications from the last decade have increased knowledge regarding long-term risks after kidney donation. We wanted to perform a survey to assess how transplant professionals in Europe inform potential kidney donors regarding long-term risks. The objectives of the survey were to determine how they inform donors and to what extent, and to evaluate the degree of variation. Methods All transplant professionals involved in the evaluation process were considered eligible, regardless of the type of profession. The survey was dispatched as a link to a web-based survey. The subjects included questions on demographics, the information policy of the respondent and the use of risk calculators, including the difference of relative and absolute risks and how the respondents themselves understood these risks. Results The main finding was a large variation in how often different long-term risks were discussed with the potential donors, i.e. from always to never. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of end-stage renal disease, while 56% of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of preeclampsia. Twenty percent of respondents answered correctly regarding the relationship between absolute and relative risks for rare outcomes. Conclusions The use of written information and checklists should be encouraged. This may improve standardization regarding the information provided to potential living kidney donors in Europe. There is a need for information and education among European transplant professionals regarding long-term risks after kidney donation and how to interpret and present these risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), Kidney Replacement Therapy (KRT) is an important risk factor for hypophosphataemia. However, studies addressing the development of hypophosphatemia during prolonged intermittent KRT modalities are lacking. Thus, we evaluated the incidence of hypophosphatemia during Sustained Low-Efficiency Dialysis (SLED) in ICU patients; we also examined the determinants of post-SLED serum phosphate level (s-P) and the relation between s-P and phosphate supplementation and ICU mortality. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis on a cohort of critically ill patients with severe renal failure and KRT need, who underwent at least three consecutive SLED sessions at 24–72 h time intervals with daily monitoring of s-P concentration. SLED with Regional Citrate Anticoagulation (RCA) was performed with either conventional dialysis machines or continuous-KRT monitors and standard dialysis solutions. When deemed necessary by the attending physician, intravenous phosphate supplementation was provided by sodium glycerophosphate pentahydrate. We used mixed-effect models to examine the determinants of s-P and Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-varying covariates to examine the adjusted relation between s-P, intravenous phosphate supplementation and ICU mortality. Results We included 65 patients [mean age 68 years (SD 10.0); mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 25 (range 9–40)] who underwent 195 SLED sessions. The mean s-P before the start of the first SLED session (baseline s-P) was 5.6 ± 2.1 mg/dL (range 1.5–12.3). Serum phosphate levels at the end of each SLED decreased with increasing age, SLED duration and number of SLED sessions (P  < .05 for all). The frequency of hypophosphatemia increased after the first through the third SLED session (P  = .012). Intravenous phosphate supplementation was scheduled after 12/45 (26.7%) SLED sessions complicated by hypophosphataemia. The overall ICU mortality was 23.1% (15/65). In Cox regression models, after adjusting for potential confounders and for current s-P, intravenous phosphate supplementation was associated with a decrease in ICU mortality [adjusted hazard ratio: 0.24 (95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.89; P = 0.033)]. Conclusions Hypophosphatemia is a frequent complication in critically ill patients undergoing SLED with standard dialysis solutions, that worsens with increasing SLED treatment intensity. In patients undergoing daily SLED, phosphate supplementation is strongly associated with reduced ICU mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between healthcare demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering the scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience to guide transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to saving as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12–18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2017 version of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines is the most recent international framework for the evaluation and care of living kidneys donors. Along with the call for an integrative approach evaluating the long-term end-stage kidney disease risk for the future potential donor, several recommendations are formulated regarding the pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) adequacy with no or little consideration for the donor candidate's age or for the importance of using reference methods of GFR measurements. Herein, we question the position of the KDIGO guidelines and discuss the rationale and modalities for a more basic, but no less demanding GFR evaluation enabling a more efficient selection of potential kidney donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]