Home and Office Blood Pressure Monitoring in Renal Transplant Recipients

Background. Arterial hypertension in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is associated with increased morbid mortality. In the general population, home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was found to be superior to office blood pressure (OBP) in identifying true hypertensive patients. The aim of this study was to investigate HBPM for the assessment of blood pressure profile in RTR. Methodology and Principal Findings. We included prospectively 87 stable RTR. Sitting OBP was measured during the outpatient clinic. HBPM was performed by measuring BP every morning and night for 4 days. The accepted limits for the OBP and HBPM, were respectively, 140/90 mmHg and 135/85 mmHg. Patients were classified as “normotensive,” “uncontrolled,” “white-coat hypertensive” and “masked hypertensive”, (OBP below the limit and HBPM above). During the study, 81 patients (55 males, age 48.5 ± 14 years) were available for analysis. The mean OBP and HBP were 138/83 ± 14/10 mmHg and 133/79 ± 14/8 mmHg; 29% of patients were uncontrolled, 28% normotensive, 21% white coat, and 21% masked hypertensive. Age, glycemia, and number of antihypertensive drugs were associated with hypertension. Conclusion and Significance. In RTR, HBPM is well accepted and better define BP profile since there is 42% discrepancy between OBPM and HBPM. Whether this discrepancy is associated with worst outcome in the long term remains to be demonstrated

Hemodialysis without systemic anticoagulation: a prospective randomized trial to evaluate 3 strategies in patients at risk of bleeding.

In this clinical trial, we aimed to compare three means of performing chronic hemodialysis in patients with contra-indication to systemic heparinization.This open-label monocentric randomized « n-of-one » trial, conducted in a single tertiary care center, recruited chronic hemodialysis patients with a contra-indication to systemic heparinization for at least 3 consecutive sessions. All patients underwent hemodialysis with an AN69ST dialyzer, and were administered three alternative dialysis procedures in a random sequence: intermittent saline flushes, constant saline infusion, or pre-dialysis heparin coating of the membrane. The primary outcome was the need to interrupt the dialysis session because of clotting events due to either (i) a complete coagulation of the circuit; (ii) a partial coagulation of the circuit; (iii) a>50% rise over baseline in the venous pressure.At the end of the inclusion period (May, 2007 to December, 2008), the number of patients to include (n=75) was not reached: only 46 patients were included and underwent randomization. The study was terminated, and statistical analysis took into account 224 hemodialysis sessions performed in 44 patients with analyzable data. Heparin adsorption was associated with a significant reduction of the need to interrupt the dialysis session because of clotting events: odds ratio 0.3 (CI 95% 0.2 to 0.6; p3 h dialysis sessions and for having complete blood restitution. There were no significant effects of the dialysis procedure on weight loss, online ionic dialysance, and adverse events.Heparin-coated AN69ST dialysis membrane is a safe and effective method to avoid or delay per-dialytic clotting events in patients with contra-indication to systemic anticoagulation. However, results are not generalizable safely to patients with active bleeding, since weak heparinemia, not assessed in this study, may occur.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00473109

Clinical Study Home and Office Blood Pressure Monitoring in Renal Transplant Recipients

Background. Arterial hypertension in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is associated with increased morbid mortality. In the general population, home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was found to be superior to office blood pressure (OBP) in identifying true hypertensive patients. The aim of this study was to investigate HBPM for the assessment of blood pressure profile in RTR. Methodology and Principal Findings. We included prospectively 87 stable RTR. Sitting OBP was measured during the outpatient clinic. HBPM was performed by measuring BP every morning and night for 4 days. The accepted limits for the OBP and HBPM, were respectively, 140/90 mmHg and 135/85 mmHg. Patients were classified as "normotensive," "uncontrolled," "white-coat hypertensive" and "masked hypertensive", (OBP below the limit and HBPM above). During the study, 81 patients (55 males, age 48.5 ± 14 years) were available for analysis. The mean OBP and HBP were 138/83 ± 14/10 mmHg and 133/79 ± 14/8 mmHg; 29% of patients were uncontrolled, 28% normotensive, 21% white coat, and 21% masked hypertensive. Age, glycemia, and number of antihypertensive drugs were associated with hypertension. Conclusion and Significance. In RTR, HBPM is well accepted and better define BP profile since there is 42% discrepancy between OBPM and HBPM. Whether this discrepancy is associated with worst outcome in the long term remains to be demonstrated

Dialysis efficiency and tolerance.

<p>CI: confidence interval. OR: Odd Ratio, RC: Regression coefficient, ref: reference OR were computed using a two levels hierarchical logistic mixed model and regression coefficient with a two levels hierarchical linear mixed mode.</p><p>*missing data for 48 sessions;</p><p>**missing data for 23 sessions.</p><p>***p = 0.69 by Fisher’s exact test.</p

Flow Diagram.

<p>Flow Diagram.</p

Characteristics of the 44 patients at inclusion.

<p>Characteristics of the 44 patients at inclusion.</p

Comparison of machine perfusion versus cold storage in kidney transplant recipients from expanded criteria donors: a cohort-based study

International audienceBackground Most studies comparing the efficacy of hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) versus static cold storage (SCS) are based on short-term outcomes. We aimed to better evaluate the mid-term impact of HMP in patients receiving expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. Methods The analyses were based on the French Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation (DIVAT) observational cohort. Patients aged ≥45 years transplanted for the first or second times from an ECD donor since 2010 were studied. Our study reported the graft and/or patient survivals and the incidence of acute rejection episode. The Cox models and the Kaplan–Meier estimators, weighted on the propensity score, were used to study the times-to-events. Results Among the 2019 included patients, 1073 were in the SCS group versus 946 in the HMP group. The mean life expectancy with functioning graft was 5.7 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4–6.1] for the HMP cohort followed-up for 8 years post-transplantation versus 6.0 years (95% CI 5.7–6.2) for the SCS group. These mid-term results were comparable in the patients receiving grafts from donors aged ≥70 years and in the transplantations with cold ischaemia time ≥18 h. Conclusions Our study challenges the utility of using HMP to improve mid-term patient and graft survival. Nevertheless, the improvement of the short-term outcomes is indisputable. It is necessary to continue technological innovations to obtain long-term results