Search

Trasplante renal de donante vivo; Tratamiento de la enfermedad renal Living donor kidney transplantation; Chronic kidney disease treatment Trasplantament renal de donant viu; Tractament de la malaltia renal El trasplante renal de donante vivo (TRDV) es la opción terapéutica con las mejores expectativas de supervivencia para el injerto y para el paciente con insuficiencia renal terminal; sin embargo, este tipo de trasplantes ha experimentado un descenso progresivo en los últimos años en España. Entre las posibles explicaciones del descenso de actividad se encuentra la coincidencia en el tiempo con un aumento en el número de donantes renales fallecidos, tanto por muerte encefálica como por asistolia controlada, que podría haber generado una falsa impresión de ausencia de necesidad del TRDV. Además, la disponibilidad de un mayor número de riñones para trasplante habría supuesto un incremento en la carga de trabajo de los profesionales que pudiera enlentecer los procesos de donación en vida. Otro posible argumento radica en un posible cambio de actitud hacia posturas más conservadoras a la hora de informar a pacientes y a familiares acerca de esta opción terapéutica, a raíz de los artículos publicados respecto al riesgo de la donación a largo plazo. Sin embargo, existe una importantísima variabilidad en la actividad entre centros y comunidades autónomas, no explicada por el volumen de trasplante procedente de otros tipos de donante. Este dato, unido a que la indicación de donación renal en vida se realiza de manera mayoritaria en situación de enfermedad renal crónica avanzada (ERCA) y que el tiempo en diálisis es un factor pronóstico negativo respecto a la supervivencia postrasplante, permite concluir que el descenso depende además de otros factores. Por este motivo, en la reunión anual de equipos de trasplante renal, celebrada en la sede de la Organización Nacional de Trasplantes (ONT) en 2018, se constituyó un grupo de trabajo formado por equipos de trasplante renal, el grupo de trasplantes de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología (SEN) (SENTRA), la Sociedad Española de Trasplantes (SET) y la ONT, con el objetivo de identificar otras causas que condicionaron el descenso de la actividad de este tipo de trasplantes en España y su posible relación con la gestión del proceso de donación de vivo. El grupo de trabajo diseñó un cuestionario de autoevaluación, que fue cumplimentado por las 33 unidades de trasplante renal de donante vivo activas en España. El cuestionario contiene preguntas sobre las diferentes fases del proceso de donación de vivo: información inicial, estudio del donante vivo e información de los riesgos, consentimiento, recursos humanos (RRHH), nefrectomía, trasplante y seguimiento posterior. El análisis de las respuestas ha dado como resultado la creación de un análisis de debilidades, amenazas, fortalezas y oportunidades (DAFO) del programa a nivel nacional y ha permitido elaborar recomendaciones específicas dirigidas a mejorar cada una de las fases del proceso de donación en vida. El documento, denominado Análisis de situación del trasplante renal de donante vivo y hoja de ruta ha sido también revisado por un panel de expertos en TRDV, representantes de varias sociedades científicas implicadas (Asociación Española de Urología [AEU], Sociedad Española de Enfermería Nefrológica [SEDEN], Sociedad Española de Inmunología [SEI/GETH]), el Grupo de Trabajo Enfermedad Renal Crónica Avanzada (ACERCA), la Asociación de Pacientes para la Lucha Contra la Enfermedad Renal (ALCER) y sometido posteriormente a consulta pública. Tras incluir las mejoras sugeridas, el documento final ha sido adoptado institucionalmente en el Consejo Interterritorial de Trasplantes (CIT) del Sistema Nacional de Salud. El trabajo realizado y las recomendaciones para optimizar el TRVD se describen a lo largo del presente artículo, organizados por los diferentes apartados del proceso de donación. Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years. One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams. Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors. Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spain have adopted the report at institutional level. The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process.

Background: Spain has dramatically increased the number of controlled circulatory death donors (cDCD). The initial selection criteria for considering cDCD for kidney transplantation (KT) have been expanded progressively, with practically no limits in donor age during the last years. We aimed to analyze the early clinical outcomes using expanded (> 65 years) cDCD in comparison with standard ones. Methods: Observational multicenter study including 19 transplant centers in Spain. We performed a systematic inclusion in a central database of every KT from expanded cDCD at each participant unit from January-2012 to January-2017. Surgical procedures and immunosuppressive protocols were based on local practices. Data was analyzed in the central office using logistic and Cox regression or competitive-risk models for multivariate analysis. Median time of follow-up was 18.1 months. Results: 561 KT were performed with kidneys from cDCD, 135 from donors older than 65 years. As expected, recipients from older cDCD were also older (65.8 (SD 8.8) vs 53.7 (SD 11.4) years; p < 0.001) and with higher comorbidity. At 1 year, no differences were found amongst older and younger cDCD KT recipients in terms of serum creatinine (1.6 (SD 0.7) vs 1.5 (SD 0.8) mg/dl; p = 0.29). Non-death censored graft survival was inferior, but death-censored graft survival was not different (95.5 vs 98.2% respectively; p = 0.481). They also presented a trend towards higher delayed graft function (55.4 vs 46.7%; p = 0.09) but a similar rate of primary non-function (3.7 vs 3.1%; p = 0.71), and acute rejection (3.0 vs 6.3%; p = 0.135). In the multivariate analysis, in short follow-up, donor age was not related with worse survival or poor kidney function (eGFR < 30 ml/min). Conclusions: The use of kidneys from expanded cDCD is increasing for older and comorbid patients. Short-term graft outcomes are similar for expanded and standard cDCD, so they constitute a good-enough source of kidneys to improve the options of KT wait-listed patients, This project was co-founded by Public Research Net REDINREN ISCIII 16/009/ 009, Renal Foundation FRIAT & Research Institute Segovia Arana-HU Puerta de Hierro. OLC, PLS and JMP belong to the latter institution (HU Puerta de Hierro). Funding was used for human resources: data manager and statistician support