Search

Following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT), survival outcomes are reported as equivalent in patients with detectable pretransplant C-peptide levels (Cp+) and a "type 2″ diabetes mellitus (DM) phenotype compared to type 1 (Cp negative [Cp-]) DM. We retrospectively compared 46 Cp+ patients pretransplant (≥2.0 ng/mL, mean 5.4 ng/mL) to 46 Cp- (level 0.5 ng/mL) case controls matched for recipient age, gender, race, and transplant date. Early outcomes were comparable. Actual 5-year patient survival (91% versus 94%), kidney graft survival (69% versus 86%, p = .15), and pancreas graft survival (60% versus 86%, p = .03) rates were lower in Cp+ versus Cp- patients, respectively. The Cp+ group had more pancreas graft failures due to insulin resistance (13% Cp+ versus 0% Cp-, p = .026) or rejection (17% Cp+ versus 6.5% Cp-, p = .2). Post-transplant weight gain 5 kg occurred in 72% of Cp+ versus 26% of Cp- patients (p = .0001). In patients with functioning grafts, mean one-year post-transplant HbA1c levels (5.0 Cp+ versus 5.2% Cp-) were comparable, whereas Cp levels were higher in Cp+ patients (5.0 Cp+ versus 2.6 ng/mL Cp-). In this matched case-control study, outcomes were inferior in Cp+ compared to Cp- patients following SPKT, with post-transplant weight gain, insulin resistance, and rejection as potential mitigating factors.

Background: African American (AA) recipients of deceased-donor (DD) kidney transplants (KT) have shorter allograft survival than recipients of other ethnic groups. Reasons for this disparity encompass complex interactions between donors and recipients characteristics. Methods: Outcomes from 3,872 AA and 19,719 European American (EA) DDs who had one kidney transplanted in an AA recipient and one in an EA recipient were analyzed. Four donor/recipient pair groups (DRP) were studied, AA/AA, AA/EA, EA/AA, and EA/EA. Survival random forests and Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to rank and evaluate modifying effects of DRP on variables associated with allograft survival. These analyses sought to identify factors contributing to the observed disparities in transplant outcomes among AA and EA DDKT recipients. Results: Transplant era, discharge serum creatinine, delayed graft function, and DRP were among the top predictors of allograft survival and mortality among DDKT recipients. Interaction effects between DRP with the kidney donor risk index and transplant era showed significant improvement in allograft survival over time in EA recipients. However, AA recipients appeared to have similar or poorer outcomes for DDKT performed after 2010 versus before 2001; allograft survival hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.15 (0.74, 1.76) and 1.07 (0.8, 1.45) for AA/AA and EA/AA, compared to 0.62 (0.54, 0.71) and 0.5 (0.41, 0.62) for EA/EA and AA/EA DRP, respectively. Recipient mortality improved over time among all DRP, except unemployed AA/AAs. Relative to DDKT performed pre-2001, employed AA/AAs had HR=0.37 (0.2, 0.69) versus 0.59 (0.31, 1.11) for unemployed AA/AA after 2010. Conclusion: Relative to DDKT performed before 2001, similar or worse overall DCAS was observed among AA/AAs, while EA/EAs experienced considerable improvement regardless of employment status, KDRI, and EPTS. AA recipients of an AA DDKT, especially if unemployed, had worse allograft survival and mortality and did not appear to benefit from advances in care over the past 20 years.

The influence of recipient age on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT) in the modern era is uncertain. METHODS We retrospectively studied 255 patients undergoing SPKT from 11/01 to 8/20. Recipients were stratified according to age group: age

BACKGROUND: Association between the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) and nephropathy has altered the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In addition, donor APOL1 genotypes play important roles in the time to allograft failure in kidneys transplanted from deceased donors and the safety of living kidney donation. METHODS: This manuscript reviews genetic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety. APOL1 genotyping in donors with recent African ancestry is considered. RESULTS: Based on current data, transplant physicians should discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry. Until results from APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplant Outcomes Network (APOLLO) ancillary studies are available, we present practical approaches from our experience for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at-risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy about the gene and possibility of genetic testing early in the donor evaluation, well before scheduling the donor nephrectomy. Transplant programs must weigh risks of performing a donor nephrectomy in those with two APOL1 renal-risk variants (high-risk genotypes), particularly younger individuals. Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same fashion as with risk genotypes in other nephropathy genes. Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuria and reduced kidney function after workup will not possess APOL1 high-risk genotypes, genetic testing is unlikely to markedly increase donor declines and may reassure donors with regard to their long-term kidney outcomes, potentially increasing the number of African American donors.

Key Clinical Message High index of suspicion is required for ischemic nephropathy in renal transplant recipients presenting with unexplained acute kidney injury, as it is potentially reversible. Carbon dioxide (CO2) angiogram is a good alternative to evaluate vasculature in patients with renal dysfunction where iodinated contrast is relatively contraindicated.

A man with kidney failure of unknown cause had a kidney biopsy that revealed oxalate nephropathy. The patient's history revealed habitual daily intake of approximately 16 8-oz glasses of black iced tea (which contains 50 to 100 mg of oxalate per 100 ml), resulting in a very high oxalate intake.