Multicenter trial of one HLA-DR–matched or mismatched blood transfusion prior to cadaveric renal transplantation

Multicenter trial of one HLA-DR–matched or mismatched blood transfusion prior to cadaveric renal transplantation.BackgroundThe beneficial effect of blood transfusions before cadaveric renal transplantation on allograft survival, although previously well documented, has become controversial in light of their adverse effects. Recently, it has been suggested that their clinical benefits are due to HLA-DR sharing between the blood donor and recipient.MethodsIn this prospective study, 144 naive patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of blood matched for one-HLA-DR antigen (N = 49), or one unit of mismatched blood (N = 48), or to remain untransfused (N = 47). Graft survival and acute rejection rate were analyzed in 106 cadaveric renal allograft recipients receiving the same immunosuppressive protocol.ResultsGraft survival was similar in the three groups at one and five years: 91.7 and 80% in untransfused patients, 90.3 and 79.3% in patients transfused with one DR-antigen–matched unit, and 92.3 and 83.7% in patients transfused with HLA-mismatched blood. The difference in the incidence of six-month post-transplant acute rejections was not statistically significant in the three groups: 12 out of 36, 33.3% in nontransfused patients; 6 out of 31, 19.4% in patients transfused with one DR-matched blood; and 13 out of 39, 33.3% in patients transfused with mismatched blood.ConclusionThe results of our prospective randomized trial showed that in a population of naive patients, one transfusion mismatched or matched for one HLA-DR antigen given prior to renal transplantation had no significant effect on the incidence and severity of acute rejection, and did not influence overall long-term graft outcome. Considering the potentially deleterious adverse effects of blood transfusions, the costs, and the considerable logistical efforts required to select and type blood donors, such a procedure cannot be recommended in a routine practice for patients awaiting cadaveric kidney transplantation

Acute respiratory failure in kidney transplant recipients: a multicenter study

International audienceINTRODUCTION: Data on pulmonary complications in renal transplant recipients are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate acute respiratory failure (ARF) in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study in nine transplant centers of consecutive kidney transplant recipients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for ARF from 2000 to 2008. RESULTS: Of 6,819 kidney transplant recipients, 452 (6.6%) required ICU admission, including 200 admitted for ARF. Fifteen (7.5%) of these patients had combined kidney-pancreas transplantations. The most common causes of ARF were bacterial pneumonia (35.5%), cardiogenic pulmonary edema (24.5%) and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (15.5%). Pneumocystis pneumonia occurred in 11.5% of patients. Mechanical ventilation was used in 93 patients (46.5%), vasopressors were used in 82 patients (41%) and dialysis was administered in 104 patients (52%). Both the in-hospital and 90-day mortality rates were 22.5%. Among the 155 day 90 survivors, 115 patients (74.2%) were dialysis-free, including 75 patients (65.2%) who recovered prior renal function. Factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality were shock at admission (odds ratio (OR) 8.70, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.25 to 23.29), opportunistic fungal infection (OR 7.08, 95% CI 2.32 to 21.60) and bacterial infection (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.96). Five factors were independently associated with day 90 dialysis-free survival: renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 1 (OR 0.68/SOFA point, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88), bacterial infection (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90), three or four quadrants involved on chest X-ray (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.91), time from hospital to ICU admission (OR 0.98/day, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and oxygen flow at admission (OR 0.93/liter, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In kidney transplant recipients, ARF is associated with high mortality and graft loss rates. Increased Pneumocystis and bacterial prophylaxis might improve these outcomes. Early ICU admission might prevent graft loss

Effect of sirolimus on malignancy and survival after kidney transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Objective To examine risk of malignancy and death in patients with kidney transplant who receive the immunosuppressive drug sirolimus.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2013.Eligibility Randomized controlled trials comparing immunosuppressive regimens with and without sirolimus in recipients of kidney or combined pancreatic and renal transplant for which the author was willing to provide individual patient level data. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full text reports of potentially eligible trials to identify studies for inclusion. All eligible trials reported data on malignancy or survival.Results the search yielded 2365 unique citations. Patient level data were available from 5876 patients from 21 randomized trials. Sirolimus was associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of malignancy (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.93) and a 56% reduction in the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (0.44, 0.30 to 0.63) compared with controls. the most pronounced effect was seen in patients who converted to sirolimus from an established immunosuppressive regimen, resulting in a reduction in risk of malignancy (0.34, 0.28 to 0.41), non-melanoma skin cancer (0.32, 0.24 to 0.42), and other cancers (0.52, 0.38 to 0.69). Sirolimus was associated with an increased risk of death (1.43, 1.21 to 1.71) compared with controls.Conclusions Sirolimus was associated with a reduction in the risk of malignancy and non-melanoma skin cancer in transplant recipients. the benefit was most pronounced in patients who converted from an established immunosuppressive regimen to sirolimus. Given the risk of mortality, however, the use of this drug does not seem warranted for most patients with kidney transplant. Further research is needed to determine if different populations, such as those at high risk of cancer, might benefit from sirolimus.PfizerOttawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON K1H 7W9, CanadaUniv Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaCairo Univ, Cairo Kidney Ctr, Cairo, EgyptLimites Med Res, Vacallo, SwitzerlandUniv Manitoba, Dept Pediat & Childs Hlth, Winnipeg, MB, CanadaLund Univ, Dept Nephrol & Transplantat, Malmo, SwedenUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Rim & Hipertensao, São Paulo, BrazilAddenbrookes Hosp, Dept Renal Med, Cambridge, EnglandNorthwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USAMaastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Maastricht, NetherlandsSt Louis Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Paris, FranceHosp JW Goethe, Div Nephrol, Frankfurt, GermanyUniv Munich, Dept Surg, Munich, GermanyGoethe Univ Frankfurt, JW Goethe Clin, Clin Dermatol Venerol & Allergol, Frankfurt, GermanyInst Klin Expt Med, Dept Nephrol, Prague, Czech RepublicUniv Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Dept Surg, NIHR Cambridge Biomed Res Ctr, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, EnglandUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Rim & Hipertensao, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Assessment of the Utility of Kidney Histology as a Basis for Discarding Organs in the United States: A Comparison of International Transplant Practices and Outcomes.

peer reviewedBACKGROUND: Many kidneys donated for transplant in the United States are discarded because of abnormal histology. Whether histology adds incremental value beyond usual donor attributes in assessing allograft quality is unknown. METHODS: This population-based study included patients who received a deceased donor kidney that had been biopsied before implantation according to a prespecified protocol in France and Belgium, where preimplantation biopsy findings are generally not used for decision making in the allocation process. We also studied kidneys that had been acquired from deceased United States donors for transplantation that were biopsied during allocation and discarded because of low organ quality. Using donor and recipient characteristics, we fit multivariable Cox models for death-censored graft failure and examined whether predictive accuracy (C index) improved after adding donor histology. We matched the discarded United States kidneys to similar kidneys transplanted in Europe and calculated predicted allograft survival. RESULTS: In the development cohort of 1629 kidney recipients at two French centers, adding donor histology to the model did not significantly improve prediction of long-term allograft failure. Analyses using an external validation cohort from two Belgian centers confirmed the lack of improved accuracy from adding histology. About 45% of 1103 United States kidneys discarded because of histologic findings could be accurately matched to very similar kidneys that had been transplanted in France; these discarded kidneys would be expected to have allograft survival of 93.1% at 1 year, 80.7% at 5 years, and 68.9% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, donor kidney histology assessment during allocation did not provide substantial incremental value in ascertaining organ quality. Many kidneys discarded on the basis of biopsy findings would likely benefit United States patients who are wait listed

Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) 2017 Working Group Meeting Report

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144684/1/ajt14752_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144684/2/ajt14752.pd

The Banff 2019 Kidney Meeting Report (I): Updates on and clarification of criteria for T cell– and antibody-mediated rejection

The XV. Banff conference for allograft pathology was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics in Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and focused on refining recent updates to the classification, advances from the Banff working groups, and standardization of molecular diagnostics. This report on kidney transplant pathology details clarifications and refinements to the criteria for chronic active (CA) T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). The main focus of kidney sessions was on how to address biopsies meeting criteria for CA TCMR plus borderline or acute TCMR. Recent studies on the clinical impact of borderline infiltrates were also presented to clarify whether the threshold for interstitial inflammation in diagnosis of borderline should be i0 or i1. Sessions on ABMR focused on biopsies showing microvascular inflammation in the absence of C4d staining or detectable donor-specific antibodies; the potential value of molecular diagnostics in such cases and recommendations for use of the latter in the setting of solid organ transplantation are presented in the accompanying meeting report. Finally, several speakers discussed the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the potential for use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis and personalized therapeutics in solid organ transplantation

The Role of the Endothelium during Antibody-Mediated Rejection: From Victim to Accomplice

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) of solid organ transplants is characterized by the activation and injury of the allograft endothelium. Histological and transcriptomic studies have associated microvascular inflammation and endothelial lesions with the severity of rejection and poor graft outcomes. The allograft endothelium forms the physical barrier between the donor organ and the recipient; this position directly exposes the endothelium to alloimmune responses. However, endothelial cells are not just victims and can actively participate in the pathogenesis of rejection. In healthy tissues, the endothelium plays a major role in vascular and immune homeostasis. Organ transplantation, however, subjects the endothelium to an environment of inflammation, alloreactive lymphocytes, donor-specific antibodies, and potentially complement activation. As a result, endothelial cells become activated and have modified interactions with the cellular effectors of allograft damage: lymphocytes, natural killer, and myeloid cells. Activated endothelial cells participate in leukocyte adhesion and recruitment, lymphocyte activation and differentiation, as well as the secretion of cytokines and chemokines. Ultimately, highly activated endothelial cells promote pro-inflammatory alloresponses and become accomplices to AMR

Reseau idiotypique et autoanticorps en periode neonatale

SIGLEINIST T 74074 / INIST-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et TechniqueFRFranc

Activation de la cellule endothéliale en conditions xénogéniques et modulation par les immunoglobulines humaines intraveineuses

PARIS7-Bibliothèque centrale (751132105) / SudocSudocFranceF