Search

Background Kidney transplantation has established itself as the most appropriate mode of renal replacement therapy for the majority with end-stage kidney disease. Although at present this is applicable for children as well as adults, a few decades back kidney transplantation was not considered a first-line option in children. This was due to inferior outcomes following transplantation in this age group compared to that of adults. These poor results were attributed to challenges in paediatric transplantation such as the shortage of suitable donors, technical difficulties in performing a sound vascular anastomosis and the adverse effects of immunosuppressive medication on growth and development. However, current patient and graft-centred outcomes after paediatric transplantation equal or surpass that of adults. The advances in evaluation and management of specific surgical concerns in children who undergo transplantation, such as pre-transplant native nephrectomy, correction of congenital anomalies of the urinary tract, placement of an adult-sized kidney in a small child and minimizing the risk of allograft thrombosis, have contributed immensely for these remarkable outcomes. Conclusions In this review, we aim to discuss surgical factors that can be considered unique for children undergoing kidney transplantation. We believe that an updated knowledge on these issues will be invaluable for transplant clinicians, who are dealing with paediatric kidney transplantation.

Kidney transplantation is the best health option for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Ideally, a kidney transplant would last for the lifetime of each recipient. However, depending on the age of the recipient and details of the kidney transplant, there may be a need for a second, third, fourth, or even more kidney transplants. In this overview, the outcome of multiple kidney transplants for an individual is presented. Key issues include surgical approach and immunologic concerns. Included in the surgical approach is an analysis of transplant nephrectomy, with indications, timing, and immunologic impact. Allograft thrombosis, whether related to donor or recipient factors merits investigation to prevent it from happening again. Other posttransplant events such as rejection, viral illness (polyomavirus hominis type I), recurrent disease (focal segmental glomerulosclerosis), and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease may lead to the need for retransplantation. The pediatric recipient is especially likely to need a subsequent kidney transplant. Finally, noncompliance/nonadherence can affect both adults and children. Innovative approaches may reduce the need for retransplantation in the future.

Background We describe the safety and efficacy of performing pediatric kidney transplantation with a modified extraperitoneal approach that includes mobilization of the native liver and kidney. Methods We retrospectively identified pediatric renal transplants performed using this technique between 2015 and 2019. Data on patient demographics, surgical technique, and intraoperative details were collected. Outcomes were measured by morbidity and re-operation at 90 days, as well as serum creatinine, allograft survival, and overall survival at 1 year. Results Twenty-one patients with a median age of 5 (IQR 3–9) years, weighing 17.5 (IQR 14.5–24) kg were included. Median donor age was 24 (IQR 19–31) years. No intraoperative complications occurred. One child required a right native nephrectomy to allow sufficient space. Postoperatively, all patients had immediate graft function without urine leak or allograft thrombosis. 90-day morbidity and re-operation rates were zero. Both 1-year allograft and overall survival were 100% (on follow-up of all 21 patients through 1 year post-transplant), with a median serum creatinine of 0.58 (IQR 0.47–0.70) mg/dl at 1 year post-transplant. Conclusions Pediatric kidney transplantation of adult renal allografts using an extraperitoneal approach with native liver and kidney mobilization has promising allograft and patient survival outcomes that eliminates peritoneal violation and may diminish the need for native nephrectomy.

Context: The use of aspirin in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients has been shown to reduce myocardial infarction but may increase major bleeding. However, its effects in kidney transplant recipients are unclear. Evidence Acquisitions: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through September 2016. We included studies that reported odd ratios, relative risks or hazard ratios comparing outcomes of aspirin use in kidney transplant recipients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were assessed using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method. Results: We included 9 studies; enrolling 19 759 kidney transplant recipients that compared aspirin with no treatment. Compared to no treatment, aspirin reduced the risk of allograft failure (4 studies; RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.99), allograft thrombosis (2 studies; RR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.53), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) or mortality (2 studies; RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.88), but not allograft rejection (3 studies; RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.65) or delayed graft function (DGF) (2 studies; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.72) in kidney transplant recipients. The data on risk of major or minor bleeding were limited. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that administration of aspirin in kidney transplant recipients is associated with reduced risks of allograft failure, allograft thrombosis, and MACEs or mortality, but not allograft rejection or DGF. Future studies are needed to assess the risk of bleeding, and ultimately weigh the overall risks and benefits of aspirin use in specific kidney transplant patient populations.

To evaluate the effect of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) on renal allograft outcome after kidney transplantation.A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed databases from inception to July 2018 was run according to PRISMA guidelines; Peto's odds ratio (OR) for rare events was used for the meta-analysis.Our inclusion/exclusion criteria were met by 22 cohort studies having different outcomes: allograft thrombosis (n = 9) and thromboprophylaxis (n = 3), allograft loss from any cause (n = 9), allograft malfunction (n = 3), duration (n = 2), glomerular filtration rate at 1 year (n = 3) and allograft rejection (n = 5). The pooled prevalence of allograft thrombosis and of thrombotic microangiopathy was greater in aPL+ve than negative recipients (10.4% vs 1.7%, p 0.0001 and 10.2% vs 0%, p = 0.005, respectively). The pooled prevalence of allograft thrombosis was 75% in patients not taking anticoagulation whereas none of the anticoagulated recipients developed thrombosis (p 0.0001). The pooled prevalence of allograft loss was greater in aPL+ve recipients (28% vs 18% respectively, p 0.0001); the pooled prevalence of aPL was greater in allograft loss recipients compared to those who did not lose it (51% vs 33%, p 0.0001). The pooled prevalence of allograft malfunction and rejection was similar in aPL-ve and aPL+ve recipients (32.2% vs 40.3% and 14.9% vs 14.4%, respectively) but graft duration was shorter in aPL+ve than aPL-ve recipients (p = 0.001) and glomerular filtration rate at 1 year was lower in aPL + ve than aPL-ve recipients (p 0.0001).APL relate strongly to allograft thrombosis, loss and duration but not to allograft malfunction and rejection. Oral antivitamin K anticoagulants effectively prevent allograft thrombosis in aPL recipients. The debate on the role of aPL in renal transplant is limited by the expression of data as percentage of recipients positive for aPL rather than aPL titres in many studies.

Pancreatic allograft thrombosis (PAT) remains the leading cause of nonimmunologic graft failure. Here, we propose a new computed tomography (CT) grading system of PAT to identify risk factors for allograft loss and outline a management algorithm by retrospective review of consecutive pancreatic transplantations between 2009 and 2014. Triple‐phase CT scans were graded independently by 2 radiologists as grade 0, no thrombosis; grade 1, peripheral thrombosis; grade 2, intermediate non‐occlusive thrombosis; and grade 3, central occlusive thrombosis. Twenty‐four (23.3%) of 103 recipients were diagnosed with PAT (including grade 1). Three (2.9%) grafts were lost due to portal vein thrombosis. On multivariate analysis, pancreas after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation/solitary pancreatic transplantation, acute rejection, and CT findings of peripancreatic edema and/or inflammatory change were significant risk factors for PAT. Retrospective review of CT scans revealed more grade 1 and 2 thromboses than were initially reported. There was no significant difference in graft or patient survival, postoperative stay, or morbidity of recipients with grade 1 or 2 thrombosis who were or were not anticoagulated. Our data suggest that therapeutic anticoagulation is not necessary for grade 1 and 2 arterial and grade 1 venous thrombosis. The proposed grading system can assist clinicians in decision‐making and provide standardized reporting for future studies., The Cambridge Pancreatic Allograft Thrombosis grading system may be used to standardize reports of thrombosis, identify patients who would benefit from therapeutic anticoagulation, provide prognostic information, and allow better comparison of reports from different centers for improved understanding and management of this common condition.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation remains the most effective treatment for providing consistent and long-term euglycemia in patients having type 1 diabetes with renal failure. Thrombosis of the pancreatic vasculature continues to contribute significantly to early graft failure and loss. We compared the rate of thrombosis to graft loss and systematically reviewed risk factors impacting early thrombosis of the pancreas allograft following SPK transplantation. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and PREMEDLINE databases for studies reporting thrombosis following pancreas transplantation. Identified publications were screened for inclusion and synthesized into a data extraction sheet. Sixty-three studies satisfied eligibility criteria: 39 cohort studies, 22 conference abstracts, and 2 meta-analyses. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale appraisal of included studies demonstrated cohort studies of low bias risk; 1127 thrombi were identified in 15 936 deceased donor, whole pancreas transplants, conferring a 7.07% overall thrombosis rate. Thrombosis resulted in pancreatic allograft loss in 83.3% of reported cases. This review has established significant associations between donor and recipient characteristics, procurement and preservation methodology, transplantation technique, postoperative management, and increased risk of early thrombosis in the pancreas allograft. Further studies examining the type of organ preservation fluid, prophylactic heparin protocol, and exocrine drainage method and early thrombosis should also be performed.

Renal allograft thrombosis involving either the renal artery or the veins is a well known entity in clinical practice. This complication of the renal transplant surgery is more common in the early part of the post transplant period and it is usually associated with acute antibody mediated rejection. This more commonly occurs in the paediatric renal transplant and also seems to have some relation to the duration of peritoneal dialysis pretransplant. However, the occurrence of graft thrombosis in isolation without clinical or histological graft rejection is not rare. We encountered a patient in whom the renal allograft thrombosis occurred after 6 weeks of commercial renal transplantation without any histological evidence of rejection.

Background Primary thrombosis and chronic allograft nephropathy are important causes of early and late graft loss, respectively, following renal transplantation. This study examined the potential for aspirin therapy to reduce these complications. Methods A consecutive series of 105 cadaveric renal transplants treated with aspirin 150 mg daily for the first 3 months after transplantation was compared with an untreated historical control group (n = 121). Protocol needle-core biopsies were performed on all transplants in both groups at 1 week and 12 months after transplantation. Needle-core allograft biopsies were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation, and serum creatinine was measured at each outpatient attendance for the duration of follow-up. Results There was a significantly lower rate of primary allograft thrombosis in patients treated with aspirin (none of 105) compared with that in the control group (six (5 per cent) of 121; P = 0·03). There were no differences in renal function or 2-year allograft survival between the two groups. Aspirin-treated patients had a lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy at 1 year than controls although this did not reach statistical significance (16 versus 26 per cent; P = 0·075). There were no major bleeding complications in either group in association with peptic ulcer disease or following renal transplant biopsy. Conclusion Aspirin reduced the rate of early graft thrombosis of renal transplants in this series but did not improve renal function or graft survival. A trend towards a lower rate of chronic allograft nephropathy was noted with aspirin treatment. These findings require confirmation in a prospective randomized trial.

Dialysis modality and the risk of allograft thrombosis in adult renal transplant recipients.BackgroundRenal vascular thrombosis (RVT) is a rare but catastrophic complication of renal transplantation. Although a plethora of risk factors has been identified, a large proportion of cases of RVT is unexplained. Uremic coagulopathy and dialysis modality may predispose to RVT. We investigated the impact of the pretransplant dialysis modality on the risk of RVT in adult renal transplant recipients.MethodsRenal transplant recipients (age 18years or more) who were enrolled in the national registry between 1990 and 1996 (N = 84,513) were evaluated for RVT occurring within 30days of transplantation. Each case was matched with two controls from the same transplant center and with the year of transplantation. The association between RVT and 18 factors was studied with multivariate conditional logistic regression.ResultsForty-nine percent of all cases of RVT (365 out of 743) occurred in repeat transplant recipients with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.72 compared with first transplants (P < 0.001). There were a significantly higher odds of RVT in peritoneal dialysis (PD)-compared with hemodialysis (HD)-treated patients (OR = 1.87, P = 0.001). Change in dialysis modality was an independent predictor of RVT: switching from HD to PD (OR = 3.59, P < 0.001) and from PD to HD (OR = 1.62, P = 0.047). Compared with primary transplant recipients on HD (OR = 1.00), the highest odds of RVT were in repeat transplant recipients treated with PD (OR = 12.95, P < 0.001) and HD (OR = 4.50, P < 0.001). Other independent predictors of RVT were preemptive transplantation, relatively young and old donor age, diabetes mellitus and systemic lupus erythematosus as causes of end-stage renal disease, recipient gender, and lower panel reactive antibody levels (PRAs).ConclusionsThe strongest risk factors for RVT were retransplantation and prior PD treatment. Prevention of RVT with perioperative anticoagulation should be studied in patients who have a constellation of the identified risk factors.

Renal allograft thrombosis remains a preventable cause of early allograft thrombosis. It should not be considered simply an unpredictable and poorly understood consequence of surgery. Extrapolated data from the general population and early data from renal patients supports the concept that the interplay of non-inherited hypercoagulability of renal disease with inherited thrombophilia, and the altered environmental milieu of transplantation predisposes to thrombosis (summarized in Figure 2). We should not accept the inevitability of a constant attrition of grafts to thrombosis and need to continue to identify risk factors and confirm appropriate screening and interventions for its prevention, almost certainly requiring collaborative multicentre trials. In the future, just as we now expand the specificity of HLA gene typing with molecular biology, genotyping for recognized thrombophilia genes in patients at risk will expand our ability to recognize and prevent thrombosis with targeted interventions drawn from the increasing array of anticoagulants now available. The contribution of thrombophilia to non-immune mechanisms of chronic allograft loss is also a potentially important but neglected area of research.

Objective To identify renal transplant patients at a higher risk for allograft thrombosis and develop a risk stratification protocol for post-operative anticoagulation. Background According to the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study data, vascular thrombosis is responsible for 12% of renal transplant failures. Congenital and acquired prothrombotic disorders have recently been found to play a major role in defining outcome of the renal transplants. Methods In 2007, we initiated universal screening for acquired and congenital thrombophilic risk factors for all renal transplant patients prior to transplant. They were assigned a risk category (Level I-IV) based on the presence of thrombophilic risk factors and their post-operative anticoagulation plan was pre-determined based on their risk level (Table). Low-dose unfractionated heparin drip was initiated a few hours after the transplant and titrated to achieve a 1.5 fold aPTT level. Anticoagulation was changed to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on day 2–4, when the risk of major bleed was over, and the serum creatinine had normalized. Result Nine patients have been screened and 8/9 were found to be at high risk for thrombosis (Level II or III). The prothrombotic risk factors identified were Prothrombin gene mutation (2), MTHFR (8), Lupus anticoagulant (2) and low protein S (2). Five patients have undergone renal transplant, and have been treated with LMWH post-operatively as per plan, with successful outcome. No patient has developed allograft thrombosis. 1/5 patients developed a peri-renal hematoma requiring evacuation, but completed prophylactic LMWH therapy. Conclusion Renal allograft thrombosis is preventable. Universal screening can stratify risk and allow an effective intervention to reduce that risk. Our Institution has developed a unique risk stratification protocol to identify patients at high risk for allograft thrombosis and prevent this complication by post-operative anticoagulation. Risk Categorization and Management Plan Risk Level Thrombophilia Management Level I Evidence of Thrombophilia (other than MTHFR) and previous thrombosis Heparin postoperatively and then LMWH bid for 6 months Level II Evidence of Thrombophilia (other than MTHFR), No history of thrombosis Heparin postoperatively, LMWH bid for 3 months, then qd for 3 months Level III MTHFR with normal homocysteine Heparin postoperatively, then LMWH qd for 3 months Level IV No evidence of thrombophilia No anticoagulation