Identifying specific causes of kidney allograft loss

The causes of kidney allograft loss remain unclear. Herein we investigated these causes in 1317 conventional kidney recipients. The cause of graft loss was determined by reviewing clinical and histologic information the latter available in 98% of cases. During 50.3 ± 32.6 months of follow-up, 330 grafts were lost (25.0%), 138 (10.4%) due to death with function, 39 (2.9%) due to primary nonfunction and 153 (11.6%) due to graft failure censored for death. The latter group was subdivided by cause into: glomerular diseases (n = 56, 36.6%); fibrosis/atrophy (n = 47, 30.7%); medical/surgical conditions (n = 25, 16.3%); acute rejection (n = 18, 11.8%); and unclassifiable (n = 7, 4.6%). Glomerular pathologies leading to failure included recurrent disease (n = 23), transplant glomerulopathy (n = 23) and presumed nonrecurrent disease (n = 10). In cases with fibrosis/atrophy a specific cause(s) was identified in 81% and it was rarely attributable to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity alone (n = 1, 0.7%). Contrary to current concepts, most cases of kidney graft loss have an identifiable cause that is not idiopathic fibrosis/atrophy or CNI toxicity. Glomerular pathologies cause the largest proportion of graft loss and alloinmunity remains the most common mechanism leading to failure. This study identifies targets for investigation and intervention that may result in improved kidney transplantation outcomes

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p<0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p<0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Surveillance of arteriovenous hemodialysis access: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: Hemodialysis centers regularly survey arteriovenous (AV) accesses for signs of dysfunction. In this review, we synthesize the available evidence to determine to what extent proactive vascular access monitoring affects the incidence of AV access thrombosis and abandonment compared with clinical monitoring. Methods: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) and sought references from experts, bibliographies of included trials, and articles that cited included studies. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) across studies and conducted subgroup analyses to explain heterogeneity. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials. Results: Nine studies (1363 patients) compared a strategy of surveillance vs clinical monitoring. A vascular intervention to maintain or restore patency was provided to both groups if needed. Surveillance followed by intervention led to a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of access thrombosis (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16; I2 = 37%) and access abandonment (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51-1.25; I2 = 60%). Three studies (207 patients) compared the effect of vascular interventions vs observation in patients with abnormal surveillance result. Vascular interventions after an abnormal AV access surveillance led to a significant reduction of the risk of access thrombosis (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.76) and a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of access abandonment (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37). Conclusion: Very low quality evidence yielding imprecise results suggests a potentially beneficial effect of AV access surveillance followed by interventions to restore patency. This inference, however, is weak and will require randomized trials of AV access surveillance vs clinical monitoring for rejection or confirmation. © 2008 The Society for Vascular Surgery

Timing of referral for vascular access placement: A systematic review

Objective: This review was conducted to determine the optimal timing for referring patients with end-stage renal disease to vascular surgery for access placement. Methods: A systematic review of the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science) was conducted through March 2007. Randomized and observational studies were eligible if they compared an early referral cohort with a late referral cohort in terms of patient-important outcomes such as death, access-related sepsis, and hospitalization related to access complications. Results: We found no studies that fulfilled eligibility criteria. Conclusion: At the present time, the optimal timing for referral to vascular surgery for vascular access placement is based on expert opinion and choices made by patients and physicians. © 2008 The Society for Vascular Surgery

Autogenous versus prosthetic vascular access for hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The autogenous arteriovenous access for chronic hemodialysis is recommended over the prosthetic access because of its longer lifespan. However, more than half of the United States dialysis patients receive a prosthetic access. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the best available evidence comparing the two accesses types in terms of patient-important outcomes. Methods: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and SCOPUS) and included randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies. We pooled data for each outcome using a random effects model to estimate the relative risk (RR) and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI). We estimated inconsistency caused by true differences between studies using the I2 statistic. Results: Eighty-three studies, of which 80 were nonrandomized, met eligibility criteria. Compared with the prosthetic access, the autogenous access was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; I2 = 48%, 27 studies) and access infection (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; I2 = 93%, 43 studies), and a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of postoperative complications (hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm and steal syndrome, RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; I2 = 65%, 31 studies) and length of hospitalization (pooled weighted mean difference -3.8 days; 95% CI, -7.8 to 0.2; P = .06). The autogenous access also had better primary and secondary patency at 12 and 36 months. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence from inconsistent studies with limited protection against bias shows that autogenous access for chronic hemodialysis is superior to prosthetic access. © 2008 The Society for Vascular Surgery