Search

Background Existing guidelines on the evaluation and preparation of recipients for kidney transplantation target the entire spectrum of patients with end-stage renal disease. Within the ERA-EDTA Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) Working Group, it was proposed that in a subset of relatively young patients (<40 years) without significant comorbidities (such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease), the work-up for transplantation could be restricted to a small set of tests. Methods Aiming for agreement between transplant centres across Europe, we surveyed the opinion of 80 transplant professionals from 11 European states on the composition of a minimal work-up. Results We show that there is a wide agreement among European experts that the work-up for kidney transplantation of the low-risk candidate, as opposed to the standard risk candidate, could include a limited number of investigations. However, there is some disagreement regarding the small number of diagnostic procedures, which is related to geographical location within Europe and the professional background of respondents. Conclusions Based on the results of the survey, published guidelines and expert meetings by the DESCARTES Working Group, we have formulated a proposal for the work-up of low-risk kidney transplant candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two recent matched cohort studies from the USA and Norway published in 2014 have raised some concerns related to the long-term safety of kidney living donation. Further studies on the long-term risks of living donation have since been published. In this position paper, Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) board members critically review the literature in an effort to summarize the current knowledge concerning longterm risks of kidney living donation to help physicians for decision-making purposes and for providing information to the prospective live donors. Long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) can be partially foreseen by trying to identify donors at risk of developing 'de novo' kidney diseases during life post-donation and by predicting lifetime ESRD risk. However, lifetime risk may be difficult to assess in young donors, especially in those having first-degree relatives with ESRD. The study from Norway also found an increased risk of death after living donor nephrectomy, which became visible only after >15 years of post-donation follow-up. However, these findings are likely to be largely the result of an overestimation due to the confounding effect related to a family history of renal disease. DESCARTES board members emphasize the importance of optimal risk-benefit assessment and proper information to the prospective donor, which should also include recommendations on health-promoting behaviour post-donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this position article, DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) board members describe the current strategies aimed at expanding living and deceased donor kidney pools. The article focuses on the recent progress in desensitization and kidney paired exchange programmes and on the expanded criteria for the use of donor kidneys and organs from donors after circulatory death. It also highlights differences in policies and practices across different regions with special regard to European Union countries. Living donor kidney paired exchange, the deceased donor Acceptable Mismatch Programme and kidneys from donors after circulatory death are probably the most promising innovations for expanding kidney transplantation in Europe over the coming decade. To maximize success, an effort is needed to standardize transplant strategies, policies and legislation across European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Histologic evaluation of baseline kidney biopsies is an inconsistent tool to predict graft outcomes, which might be assisted by gene expression analysis.Methods. We evaluated 49 consecutive kidney graft biopsies obtained post-reperfusion in 18 deceased donors (DD) and 31 living donors (LD) at our center. Biopsies were evaluated and scored using Banff criteria. Low-density real-time polymerase chain reaction arrays were used to measure intragraft expression of 95 genes associated with programmed cell death, fibrosis, innate and adaptive immunity and oxidative stress signaling. A pool of 25 normal kidney biopsies was used as control. We applied a stepwise forward selection procedure to build a multiple regression model predicting estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year after transplant using baseline clinical characteristics and gene expression levels.Results. DD grafts displayed a pattern of gene expression remarkably different from LD, including an increased expression of complement protein C3, and chemokines, CXCL1 and CXCL2, consistent with the proinflammatory setting of ischaemia–reperfusion injury. There was no association between any of the reperfusion biopsy histological features and either renal function at 1 year post-transplant or risk of acute rejection. Conversely, older donor age (R2 = 0.17, P < 0.001) and higher integrin β2 gene expression levels (incremental R2 versus Donor Age-only model = 0.23, P < 0.001) jointly predicted lower eGFR at 1 year after transplant (multiple regression R2 = 0.40). Patients with higher ITGβ2 expression levels in baseline biopsies showed lower eGFR, higher levels of proteinuria and more transplant glomerulopathy on the 1-year per-protocol biopsies.Conclusion. ITGβ2 gene expression in reperfusion biopsies may represent a prognostic marker for kidney transplant recipients, potentially helpful in shaping patients’ treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. [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]

This position statement brings up guidance on pre-emptive kidney transplantation from living donors. The provided guidance is based on a systematic review of the literature. [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]

Current proposals for waiting times for a renal transplant after malignant disease may not be appropriate. New data on malignancies in end-stage renal disease and recent diagnostic and therapeutic options should lead us to reconsider our current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metabolic risk factors of cardiovascular disease such as abnormal glucose regulation, obesity and metabolic syndrome, dyslipidaemia, metabolic bone disease, hyperuricaemia and other less traditional abnormalities are common in both kidney transplant candidates and recipients. In kidney transplant candidates, the presence of these risk factors may impede patient access to transplantation by increasing the risk of developing comorbidities while on the waiting list, prolonging the time to wait-listing and, in some patients, eventually jeopardizing their suitability for kidney transplantation or increasing the risk of severe perioperative complications. In transplant recipients, metabolic risk factors may be associated with increased mortality with a functioning graft and with reduced long-term renal graft survival. Although most transplant recipients have no contraindication to the use of drugs that undergo renal excretion, they may be at risk of drug-to-drug pharmacokinetic interactions with anti-rejection medicines. In this review, we have highlighted the main objectives of evaluating the metabolic abnormalities in transplant candidates and recipients, how this evaluation should be carried out in practice and what currently the most valuable treatment strategies are for modifying the associated risks. We conclude that, for every potential transplant candidate, every effort should be made to control metabolic abnormalities causing arterial calcification, which may impede access to transplantation and impair transplant outcome. In transplant recipients, metabolic abnormalities that result from adverse effects of anti-rejection therapy may be effectively controlled by lifestyle changes and judicious use of drugs for the treatment of abnormal glucose metabolism and dyslipidaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Best Practice Guideline group (EBPG) issued guidelines on the evaluation and selection of kidney donor and kidney transplant candidates, as well as post-transplant recipient care, in the year 2000 and 2002. The new European Renal Best Practice board decided in 2009 that these guidelines needed updating. In order to avoid duplication of efforts with kidney disease improving global outcomes, which published in 2009 clinical practice guidelines on the post-transplant care of kidney transplant recipients, we did not address these issues in the present guidelines. The guideline was developed following a rigorous methodological approach: (i) identification of clinical questions, (ii) 0 (0%) recommendations graded '1A', 15 (13%) were '1B', 19 (17%) '1C' and 17 (15%) '1D'. None (0%) were graded '2A', 1 (0.9%) was '2B', 8 (7%) were '2C' and 9 (8%) '2D'. Limitations of the evidence, especially the lack of definitive clinical outcome trials, are discussed and suggestions are provided for future research. We present here the complete recommendations about the evaluation of the kidney transplant candidate as well as the potential deceased and living donor, the immunological work-up of kidney donors and recipients and the perioperative recipient care. We hope that this document will help caregivers to improve the quality of care they deliver to patients. The full version with methods, rationale and references is published in Nephrol Dial Transplant (2013) 28: i1-i71; doi: 10.1093/ndt/ gft218 and can be downloaded freely from http://www. oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ndt/era_edta.html. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT) is a dialysis modality for critically ill patients that in theory combines the superior detoxification and haemodynamic stability of the continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with the operational convenience, reduced haemorrhagic risk and low cost of conventional intermittent haemodialysis. However, the extent to which PIRRT should replace these other modalities is uncertain because comparative studies of mortality are lacking. We retrospectively examined the mortality data from three general intensive care units (ICUs) in different countries that have switched their predominant therapeutic approach from CRRT to PIRRT. We assessed whether this practice change was associated with a change in mortality rate.Methods. Data were analysed from ICUs in New Zealand, Australia and Italy. The study population comprised all patients requiring renal replacement therapy from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2005 (n = 1347), the period of time spanning the change from CRRT to PIRRT in each unit. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the incident rate ratio (IRR) for death, comparing the periods before and after change to PIRRT in each unit. Estimates were adjusted for patient illness severity (APACHE II score) and for the underlying time trend in mortality rate over time.Results. The change from CRRT to PIRRT was not associated with any increase in mortality rate, with an adjusted IRR of 1.02 (0.61–1.71). The IRR was virtually identical in the three ICUs (P-value = 0.63 for the difference in the IRR between ICUs).Conclusions. Switching from CRRT to PIRRT was not associated with a change in mortality rate. Pending the results of a randomized trial, our study provides evidence that PIRRT might be equivalent to CRRT in the general ICU patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]