Introduction Kidney and liver transplants are the most frequent transplantation procedures carried out in Italy. We report the result of an epidemiological study on kidney transplanted patients resident in the Province of Messina (Italy). Methods Seventy-five patients were enrolled between June 2010 march 2011, interviewed and evaluated using an adapted Italian version short-form 36. Socio-economic characteristics, quality of life modifications and involvement in transplant-related charities were studied. The follow-up period was ranging between 52 and 356 months. All subjects gave written informed consent and all results were analysed by chi-square test. Results No statistically significant differences were found between sexes, social and interpersonal relationship modifications. Discussion The benefits obtained on quality of life after trans- plantation is the prerogative of a small percentage of patients and is related to medium and high socio-economic conditions. The possibility of avoiding the haemodialysis represents the primary benefit for the totality of patients

Costantino, G

Famà, Fausto

Gioffrè-Florio, Maria

Linard, C

Micali, E

Venuti, MD

PubMed

Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene (JPMH)

J prev med hyg 2013; 54: 208-211208Introduction Kidney and liver transplants are the most frequent transplantation procedures carried out in Italy. We report the result of an epidemiological study on kidney transplanted patients resident in the Province of Messina (Italy).Methods Seventy-five patients were enrolled between June 2010 march 2011, interviewed and evaluated using an adapted Italian version short-form 36. Socio-economic characteristics, quality of life modifications and involvement in transplant-related charities were studied. The follow-up period was ranging between 52 and 356 months. All subjects gave written informed consent and all results were analysed by chi-square test.Results No statistically significant differences were found between sexes, social and interpersonal relationship modifications.Discussion The benefits obtained on quality of life after trans-plantation is the prerogative of a small percentage of patients and is related to medium and high socio-economic conditions. The possibility of avoiding the haemodialysis represents the primary benefit for the totality of patients.Original articleSocial and interpersonal relationship modifications after renal transplant. A statistic and epidemiologic evaluation F. FAMà, E. MicAli, c. liNARD, M.D. VENUTi, G. cOSTANTiNO, M. GiOFFRè-FlORiOUniversity Hospital of Messina, italyKey wordsHealth-related quality of life • Kidney transplant • Epidemiological studySummaryIntroductionThe incidence and prevalence of chronic renal insuf-ficiency and end-stage renal disease have constantly increased during the last ten years. The number of pa-tients who need kidney transplant and other treatment has also increased. For haemodialysis patients, kidney transplant represent the gold standard of treatment to im-prove quality of life and to extend survival. A problem for renal transplant is organs shortage and consequently a long waiting list [1, 2].Every year approximately 3000 organ transplants are carried out in Italy. In 2010, one thousand five hun-dred and twelve kidney (1512) and one thousand and two liver (1002) transplants (of which, 57 and 58 in Sicily) were performed. These are the most frequent transplants carried out on the Italian national territory. Other transplants in the same year were heart (273), lung (107) and pancreas (74). Generic epidemiological data were derived from the national ministerial internet site [3].To the present date, there are approximately 10000 peo-ple waiting for a transplant: 7048 adults and 103 chil-dren for a kidney transplant, 1485 adults and 30 children for a liver transplant and 869 adults and 29 children for a heart transplant [4].Organ failure represents a serious clinical problem with relevant social and interpersonal implications and oc-cupational disadvantages for patients on a waiting list for a transplant. These patients are often incapacitated by asthenia and malaise because they are forced to live for long periods waiting for an organ, with many dis-comfort disease-related and also life-style limitations (haemodialysis, diet), emotional disturbances such as depression, anxiety, rage and, in some cases, economic difficulties [5]. In clinical practice, kidney transplant from a living do-nor is considered better in increasing the patient’s sur-vival than that from a dead donor, however, only a few studies have previously compared the quality of life in these cohorts of patients [6, 7]. A recent Australian study assessed the comparative survival and economic benefits after kidney transplant from dead donor compared to dialysis [8]. Renal trans-plant, though still controversial in some health pro-grams, has now gained a widespread acceptance about emotional opinions; special interest was devoted to the evaluation of the ethical issues of psychological dis-tress and the improvements of the quality of life [9]. Psychological aspects have become increasingly im-portant, as to a better quality of life is associated with less morbidity and mortality. Quality of life is defined as the value assigned to the lifespan modified by dis-ability, functional conditions, perceptions and social-work opportunities in subjects with illnesses and inju-ries [10, 11]. We report the result of an epidemiological study on kidney transplanted patients resident in the Province of Messina (Sicily, Italy) in order to estimate the socio-economic characteristics, psychological distress and the modifications brought from the transplant to the health-related quality of life.RELATIONSHIP CHANGES AFTER RENAL TRANSPLANT209Material and methodsIn April 2010 the list of kidney transplanted patients, with personal information and telephone numbers, was confidentially transferred to our Department according to the protection of personal data legislation. Between June 2010 and March 2011, a telephone interview was carried out. All transplant patients were included in this study. We recruited 81 kidney transplant patients, that underwent a transplant procedure in Italian and Europe-an hospitals; 6 (7.4%) of these patients were lost to fol-low-up and excluded. Transplants were performed from January 1981 to December 2006. All patients enrolled in this observational study gave written informed consent, and local ethics committee approved the study. Seventy subjects received an organ from a dead donor and five from a living donor. These 75 kidney transplant patients were all regularly followed up by the Nephrology Unit of the University Hospital of Messina. The enquiry form, developed from the Italian version of the short form 36, was adapted and administered, during the follow-up, to all patients. Follow-up period was variable between 52 and 356 months. In this form, the first section enquired about demographic data, disease history and surgical transplant centre details; the second asked about family status, socio-economic conditions, health-related well-being modifications; the final section evaluated chronic pharmacological treatment and recent laboratory tests. In all cases the body mass index was evaluated. The mean value was 28.1 with a standard deviation (SD) of 4.77 and a range between 20 and 38. All results were analysed by chi-square test with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. The most relevant statistical events were also investigated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. ResultsThe group of kidney transplanted patients comprised 75 patients, 46 (61.3%) males (M) and 29 (38.7%) females (F). The mean age was 52.6 years with a SD of 11.71 and a range between 21 and 77 years. In 42 (56%) M and 28 (37.3%) F, the transplanted organs came from a cadaver; only 5 patients (6,7%, 4M and 1F) benefited from a living donor transplant. Sixteen (21.3%) patients had a graft versus host disease that required a second transplant; in particular 14 had a single (9M/5F), and 2 a double transplant rejection. In a case of single immuno-reaction allograft-related, a patient received the second organ from a living donor. For males the mean conven-tional haemodialysis treatment duration was 48 months (range 1-156) before the first transplant, 35 months (1-84 months) before the second transplant and 48 months (12-60) before the third transplant; for females this peri-od was 56 months for the first transplant (7-144) and 53 months (24-120) for the second transplant. Immunosup-pressive and corticosteroid treatment was patient-specif-ic, according to the drug-tolerance. It was an adapted treatment in 41 (54.7%) men and 26 (34.7%) women, exclusively immunosuppressive in 4 (5.3%) men and 3 (4%) women and exclusively corticoid in only 1 (1.3%) man. Mean creatininemia level (normal value 0.5-1.4 mg/dl) was 1.64 (SD = 0.98, CI 95%, range 0.5-4.9) and mean azotemia level (10-50 mg/dl) was 68.75 (SD  =  37.78, CI 95%, range 23-209). Kidney failure causes were: glomerulopathy related to systemic dis-eases (41.3%), chronic glomerulopathy (18.7%), renal malformations and policystic disease (16%), hyperten-sive nephrosclerosis (14.7%), tubulointerstitial nephri-tis (5.3%), and obstructive uropathies and pyelonephri-tis (4%). Co-morbidity (arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus insulino-independent, thyropathies, bradi- and tachyarrhythmias, cholecystopathies and dyslipidemias) was present in 62 patients (82.7%). One male-patient with an elevated level of creatinine-mia returned in conventional haemodialysis and is waiting for a new transplant. Socio-economic char-acteristics, health-related quality of life modifications and involvement in transplant-related charities are de-tailed respectively in Table  I. No statistically signifi-cant differences were found between sexes, social and interpersonal relationship modifications. Subjects with medium and high socio-economic conditions showed higher appreciation in the quality life enquiry form compared to those with low income; however this didn’t reach statistical significant (p>0.5). The results of statistical analysis between pre-transplant depres-sion episodes and social relationship modifications (chi-square = 1.77, P = 0.778, CI 95%) were not casual for absent and sporadic (1-3 episodes per year) events, and casual for frequent (4-6 per year); as well as in as-sociation with interpersonal relationship modifications (chi-square = 2.66, P = 0.616, CI 95%). The correla-tions between absent and sporadic pre-transplant de-pression episodes and social relationship modifications (respectively D = 0.356 > 0.238 and D = 0.484 > 0.361, CI 95%) as well as in association with interpersonal relationship (respectively D  =  0.267  >  0.235 and D = 0.484 > 0.361, CI 95%) better investigated by Kol-mogorov-Smirnov test.Discussion and conclusionDialysis and renal transplant increase survival in patients with chronic renal failure; however it is not possible to compare between these treatments. The main aim of a renal transplant is to improve health-related quality of life and increase survival rates [12, 13]. Renal transplant requires an adequately stable clinical status, necessary to minimise post-operative complications, to reduce ad-verse effects secondary to immunosuppressant and to deal with a potential unsuccessful transplant.Recent literature [14] suggests that renal transplant from a dead donor could improve survival rates in specific groups of patients with chronic renal failure, in patients believed to be adequately clinically and physically sta-ble. On the other hand some studies  [15] suggest that patients who receive an organ from a living donor have longer survival compared to patients undergoing dialysis FAMà et Al.210or those who receive an organ from a dead donor. New advances in immunosuppressive treatment, diagnosis and treatment of infectious complications; studies on ischaemic damage show a progressive improvement of short and long-term outcomes [16]. There is little agree-ment in the literature about quality of life improving fol-lowing a transplant, however a recent cohort study [12] found a significant improvement in the quality of life in non-diabetic patients following a renal transplant from a living donor, compared to patients who were treated with dialysis. Another recent paper focused on psycho-logical correlates (such as mood, anxiety and emotional symptoms) and their relationship with improved renal function following a transplant [17, 18], highlighting in-teresting findings needing replication.Our findings suggest that quality of life after kidney transplant is more improved only for a small percentage of patients, generally with a declared higher income. Life before a transplant, considered by patients as a “forced routine”, with the associated restlessness and anxiety (waiting for the availability of an organ) becomes, in some cases, a post-transplant life with tight dependence on pharmacological treatment. However, in the majority of cases, patients admitted benefits of the transplant and real improvements in quality of life (thanks to not hav-ing to rely on haemodialysis). Patients in this study who received an organ from a live donor, had higher anxiety compared to patients who received an organ from a dead donor; however we could not draw inferences due to the small number of patients in the former group.Tab. I. Socio-economic characteristics of the interviewed patients and health-related quality of life modifications. % Total Males FemalesHousingurban 76% 57 37 20suburban 22.7% 17 9 8rural 1.3% 1 0 1Head of household61.3% 46 39 7Marital statusmarried 72% 54 40 14single 20% 15 4 11widowed 6.7% 5 1 4divorced 1.3% 1 1 0Household incomeLow (< 14000 €) 49.3% 37 20 17middle (> 14000 <30000 €) 41.3% 31 21 10middle-high (> 30000 €) 9.4% 7 5 2Depression episodes (before transplant)absent 60% 45 28 17sporadic (1-3 episodes/year) 25% 19 12 7frequent (4-6 episodes/year) 14% 11 6 5Smoking62.7% 47 28 19Alcohol/Drug abuse0% 0 0 0Convictions0% 0 0 0Social relationships modificationsconsiderable 60% 45 28 17good 4% 3 2 1sufficient 8% 6 5 1insufficient 18.7% 14 9 5none 9.3% 7 2 5Interpersonal relationships modificationsconsiderable 53.4% 40 28 12good 1.3% 1 0 1sufficient 16% 12 6 6insufficient 12% 9 5 4none 17.3% 13 7 6Involvement in transplant-related charities yes 49.3% 37 24 13no 50.7% 38 22 16RELATIONSHIP CHANGES AFTER RENAL TRANSPLANT211References[1] Cameron JS. Renal transplantation in the elderly. Int Urol Nephro 2000;32:193-201.[2] Cortesini R, Renna-Molajoni E, Cinti P, et al. Tailoring of immunosuppression in renal and liver allograft recipients displaying donor specific T-suppressor cells. Hum Immunol 2002;63:1010-8.[3] National Government of Italy, Department of Health, Available from: http://www.trapianti.salute.gov.it/ and http://www.trapi-anti.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_1511_allegato.pdf [4] Pretagostini R, Peritore D, Donadio R, et al. Organizzazione Centro-Sud Trapianti: outcome analysis 1999 to 2002. Trans-plant Proc 2004;36:439-41.[5] Gudex CM. Health-related quality of life in endstage renal fail-ure. Qual Life Res 1995;4:359-66.[6] Voiculescu A, Ivens K, Hetzel GR, et al. Kidney transplanta-tion from related and unrelated living donors in a single Ger-man centre. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18:418-25.[7] Balaska A, Moustafellos P, Gourgiotis S, et al. Changes in health-related quality of life in Greek adult patients 1 year after successful renal transplantation. Exp Clin Transplant 2006;4:521-4.[8] Wong G, Howard K, Chapman JR, et al. Comparative Survival and Economic Benefits of Deceased Donor Kidney Transplan-tation and Dialysis in People with Varying Ages and Co-Mor-bidities. PLoS One 2012;7:e29591.[9] Cornella C, Brustia M, Lazzarich E, et al. Quality of life in re-nal transplant patients over 60 years of age. Transplant Proc 2008;40:1865-6.[10] Han SS, Sun HK, Lee JP, et al. Outcome of renal allo-graft in patients with Henoch-Schönlein nephritis: single-center experience and systematic review. Transplantation 2010;89:721-6.[11] Muehrer RJ, Becker BN. Life after transplantation: new transi-tions in quality of life and psychological distress. Semin Dial 2005;18:124-31. [12] Painter P, Krasnoff JB, Kuskowski M, et al. Effects of mo-dality change on health-related quality of life. Hemodial Int 2012;16:377-86.[13] Látos M, Barabás K, Lázár G, et al. Mental representations of the new organ and posttransplant patients’ anxiety as related to kidney function. Transplant Proc 2012;44:2143-6.[14] Lee AJ, Morgan CL, Conway P, et al. Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1777-83.[15] Callaghan CJ, Bradley JA. Current status of renal transplanta-tion. Methods Mol Biol 2006;333:1-28. [16] Liem YS, Wong JB, Winkelmayer WC, et al. Quantifying the benefit of early living-donor renal transplantation with a simu-lation model of the Dutch renal replacement therapy popula-tion. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:429-34. [17] Yildirim A. The importance of patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2006;38:2831-4.[18] Ogutmen B, Yildirim A, Sever MS, et al. Health-related quality of life after kidney transplantation in comparison intermittent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and normal controls. Trans-plant Proc, 2006;38:419-21.n Received on June 19, 2013. Accepted on November 21, 2013.n Correspondence: Fausto Famà, Complesso MITO - Residenza Ginestre F/2, 98151, Messina, Italy - Tel. +39 090 2402767 - Fax +39 090 2212801 - E-mail: famafausto@yahoo.itIn the last 15 years, the number of transplant procedures for kidney failure have increased despite little progress in organ donation policy development and limited organ availability. Quality of life is a very important determi-nant of long term outcomes following a transplant for patients with a long life expectancy. 

Social and interpersonal relationship modifications after renal transplant. A statistic and epidemiologic evaluation

https://www.jpmh.org/index.php/jpmh/article/download/413/386/

Social and interpersonal relationship modifications after renal transplant. A statistic and epidemiologic evaluation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene (JPMH)