Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2020 (2)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
- allocation (1)
- child (1)
- fourth (1)
- graft (1)
- kidney (1)
- loss (1)
- re-transplantation (1)
- repeated (1)
- survival (1)
- third (1)
Institut
- Medizin (2)
Consensus on definition and severity grading of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation
(2020)
Background: The incidence of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation varies considerably in the literature. This is partly because a universally accepted definition has not been established. This study aimed to propose an acceptable definition and severity grading system for lymphatic complications based on their management strategy.
Methods: Relevant literature published in MEDLINE and Web of Science was searched systematically. A consensus for definition and a severity grading was then sought between 20 high-volume transplant centres.
Results: Lymphorrhoea/lymphocele was defined in 32 of 87 included studies. Sixty-three articles explained how lymphatic complications were managed, but none graded their severity. The proposed definition of lymphorrhoea was leakage of more than 50 ml fluid (not urine, blood or pus) per day from the drain, or the drain site after removal of the drain, for more than 1 week after kidney transplantation. The proposed definition of lymphocele was a fluid collection of any size near to the transplanted kidney, after urinoma, haematoma and abscess have been excluded. Grade A lymphatic complications have a minor and/or non-invasive impact on the clinical management of the patient; grade B complications require non-surgical intervention; and grade C complications require invasive surgical intervention.
Conclusion: A clear definition and severity grading for lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation was agreed. The proposed definitions should allow better comparisons between studies.
In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re‐transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15‐year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re‐DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re‐DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re‐DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.