Evolution of Native Kidney Function After Pancreas Transplantation Alone

peer reviewedIntroduction. This study investigated changes in kidney function over time among a cohort of patients undergoing pancreas transplantation alone (PTA) from January 2002 to December 2011. Patients and Methods. Ten of eighteen PTA patients bearing functioning grafts for at least 1 year were recruited for the analysis. Primary endpoints were changes in mean serum creatinine (SCr, mg/L) and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the 4-variable Levey-MDRD equation (mL/min/1.73 m2) comparing baseline (pretransplantation) to 6-month, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year posttransplantation values. Mean follow-up time was 75.7 20.5 months (range, 46–106.5). Results. Baseline eGFR was 89.3 27.9 (range, 58–145). eGFR decreased to 75.7 26.2, 71 20.6, 66.5 14.8, and 62.1 11.2 at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years representing 15.2%, 20.5%, 15.8%, and 22.6% percentage decreases respectively (P .05 for all pairwise comparisons). The Baseline SCr was 8.6 2.3 mg/L (range, 5–13). SCr progressively increased to 10.1 3, 10.5 3.1, 10.9 3.1, and 11.3 1.7 at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years a 17.1%, 22%, 16.6%, and 19.9% increase respectively (P .05 for all pairwise comparisons). One of ten, 2/8, and 3/7 patients displayed an eGFR 60 at transplantation versus 3 and 5 years thereafter, respectively. No patient developed a SCr 25 mg/L or eGFR 30 or needed dialysis or kidney transplantation. Five of ten patients had micro-albuminuria or proteinuria before transplantation. Tacrolimus levels were within recommended therapeutic ranges over time. Conclusion. Kidney function deteriorated significantly after PTA. Understanding of risk factors for the development of renal impairment is important to preserve kidney function and to select appropriate candidates for PTA

Nephrectomy in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: A consensus statement of the ERA Genes & Kidney Working Group

\ua9 2025 The Author(s). A substantial number of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) undergo a nephrectomy, especially in workup for a kidney transplantation. Currently, there is no evidence-based algorithm to guide clinicians about which patients should undergo nephrectomy, the optimal timing of this procedure, or the preferred surgical technique. This systematic review-based consensus statement aimed to answer important questions regarding nephrectomy in ADPKD. A literature review was performed and extended to a meta-analysis when possible. For this purpose, PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to May 2024. Fifty-four publications, describing a total of 2391 procedures, were included. In addition, an exploratory questionnaire was sent to urologists, nephrologists, and transplant surgeons. These sources were used to develop practice points about indications, complications, mortality, and timing and technique of nephrectomy. In addition, data on renal embolization as a potential alternative to nephrectomy were explored and summarized. To reach consensus, practice points were defined and improved in three Delphi survey rounds by experts of the European Renal Association Working Group Genes & Kidney and the European Association of Urology Section of Transplantation Urology. A total of 23 practice points/statements were developed, all of which reached consensus. Among others, it was deemed that nephrectomy can be performed successfully for various indications and is an intermediate risk procedure with acceptable mortality and minimal impact on kidney graft function when performed before, in the same session or after transplantation. The complication rate seems to increase when the procedure is performed as an emergency. During the workup for transplantation, patient complaints should be assessed routinely by questionnaires to indicate symptom burden. Deciding on the need for nephrectomy and exploring potential alternatives such as kidney embolization should be a process of shared decision-making, preferably after multidisciplinary consultation

Symposion sur le glaucome : 2-6 septembre 1958

Na port.: Tiré á part de Documenta Ophtalmologica, tome XIII (1959)No verso da cub.: Les Actes de ce Symposion ont été publiés dans les Documenta Ophtalmologica, vol. XIIITexto en francés e inglé

Tight glycemic control in critical care - The leading role of insulin sensitivity and patient variability: A review and model-based analysis.

Tight glycemic control (TGC) has emerged as a major research focus in critical care due to its potential to simultaneously reduce both mortality and costs. However, repeating initial successful TGC trials that reduced mortality and other outcomes has proven difficult with more failures than successes. Hence, there has been growing debate over the necessity of TGC, its goals, the risk of severe hypoglycemia, and target cohorts. This paper provides a review of TGC via new analyses of data from several clinical trials, including SPRINT, Glucontrol and a recent NICU study. It thus provides both a review of the problem and major background factors driving it, as well as a novel model-based analysis designed to examine these dynamics from a new perspective. Using these clinical results and analysis, the goal is to develop new insights that shed greater light on the leading factors that make TGC difficult and inconsistent, as well as the requirements they thus impose on the design and implementation of TGC protocols. A model-based analysis of insulin sensitivity using data from three different critical care units, comprising over 75,000h of clinical data, is used to analyse variability in metabolic dynamics using a clinically validated model-based insulin sensitivity metric (S(I)). Variation in S(I) provides a new interpretation and explanation for the variable results seen (across cohorts and studies) in applying TGC. In particular, significant intra- and inter-patient variability in insulin resistance (1/S(I)) is seen be a major confounder that makes TGC difficult over diverse cohorts, yielding variable results over many published studies and protocols. Further factors that exacerbate this variability in glycemic outcome are found to include measurement frequency and whether a protocol is blind to carbohydrate administration

Delayed Graft Function Does Not Harm the Future of Donation-After-Cardiac Death in Kidney Transplantation

peer reviewedINTRODUCTION: Delayed graft function (DGF) occurs more frequently in kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) than from donation after brain death (DBD). We investigated the effect of DGF on posttransplantation outcomes among grafts from controlled DCD kidneys. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective study recruited 80 controlled DCD kidneys transplanted from January 2005 to December 2011. Mean patient follow-up was 28.5 months. RESULTS: There were no primary nonfunction grafts; the DGF rate was 35.5%. Overall graft survival rates between groups with versus without DGF were 92.4% and 95.2% at 1 year, 92.4% and 87.1% at 3 years, and 84.7% and 87.1% at 5 years, respectively (P = not significant (NS)). Patients with versus without DGF showed the same survival rates at the corresponding time 92.4% vs 97.2%, 92.4% vs 93.9%, and 84.7% vs 93.9% (P = NS). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly lower in the DGF compared with the non-DGF group at hospital discharge (29 vs 42 mL/min; P = .00) and at 6 months posttransplantation (46 vs 52 mL/min; P = .04), but the difference disappeared thereafter: 47 vs 52 mL/min at 1 year, 50 vs 48 mL/min at 3 years, and 54 vs 53 mL/min at 5 years (P = NS). DGF did not increase the risk of an acute rejection episode (29.6% vs 30.6%; P = NS) or rate of surgical complications (33.3% vs 26.5%; P = NS). However, DGF prolonged significantly the length of hospitalization in the DGF versus the non- DGF group (18.9 vs 13 days; P = .00). Donor body mass index (BMI) >/= 30 kg/m(2), recipient BMI >/=30 kg/m(2), and pretransplantation dialysis duration increased the risk of DGF upon multivariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the longer hospital stay, DGF had no deleterious impact on the future of kidney allografts from controlled DCD, which showed comparable graft and patient survivals, renal function, rejection rates, and surgical complications as a group without DGF. Therefore, DGF should no longer be considered to be a medical barrier to the use of kidney grafts from controlled DCD

Delayed graft function does not harm the future of donation-after-cardiac death in kidney transplantation.

peer reviewedINTRODUCTION: Delayed graft function (DGF) occurs more frequently in kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) than from donation after brain death (DBD). We investigated the effect of DGF on posttransplantation outcomes among grafts from controlled DCD kidneys. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective study recruited 80 controlled DCD kidneys transplanted from January 2005 to December 2011. Mean patient follow-up was 28.5 months. RESULTS: There were no primary nonfunction grafts; the DGF rate was 35.5%. Overall graft survival rates between groups with versus without DGF were 92.4% and 95.2% at 1 year, 92.4% and 87.1% at 3 years, and 84.7% and 87.1% at 5 years, respectively (P = not significant (NS)). Patients with versus without DGF showed the same survival rates at the corresponding time 92.4% vs 97.2%, 92.4% vs 93.9%, and 84.7% vs 93.9% (P = NS). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly lower in the DGF compared with the non-DGF group at hospital discharge (29 vs 42 mL/min; P = .00) and at 6 months posttransplantation (46 vs 52 mL/min; P = .04), but the difference disappeared thereafter: 47 vs 52 mL/min at 1 year, 50 vs 48 mL/min at 3 years, and 54 vs 53 mL/min at 5 years (P = NS). DGF did not increase the risk of an acute rejection episode (29.6% vs 30.6%; P = NS) or rate of surgical complications (33.3% vs 26.5%; P = NS). However, DGF prolonged significantly the length of hospitalization in the DGF versus the non- DGF group (18.9 vs 13 days; P = .00). Donor body mass index (BMI) >/= 30 kg/m(2), recipient BMI >/=30 kg/m(2), and pretransplantation dialysis duration increased the risk of DGF upon multivariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the longer hospital stay, DGF had no deleterious impact on the future of kidney allografts from controlled DCD, which showed comparable graft and patient survivals, renal function, rejection rates, and surgical complications as a group without DGF. Therefore, DGF should no longer be considered to be a medical barrier to the use of kidney grafts from controlled DCD