No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRenal transplantation is the ideal method for management of end-stage renal disease. The use of living donors for renal transplantation was critical for early development in the field and preceded the use of cadaveric donors. Most donors are related genetically to the recipients, like a parent, a child, or a sibling of the recipient, but there are an increasing percentage of cases where donors are genetically unrelated like spouses, friends, or altruistic individuals. Donor shortages constitute the major barrier for kidney transplantation, and much effort has been made to increase the supply of living donors. The impact of donor source on the outcome of renal transplantation is not adequately studied in our country.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of donor source on the outcome of live donor kidney transplantation.Patients and MethodsFrom March 1976 to December 2013, the number of patients that underwent living renal transplantation sharing at least one HLA haplotype with their donors was 2,485. We divided these patients into two groups: (1) 2,075 kidney transplant recipients (1,554 or 74.9% male and 521 or 25.1% female) for whom the donors were living related, (2) 410 kidney transplant recipients (297 or 72.4% male and 113 or 27.6% female) for whom the donors were living unrelated. All patients received immunosuppressive therapy, consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor, mycophenolate mofetil, or azathioprine and prednisolone. We compared acute rejection and complication rates, as well as long-term graft and patient survival of both groups. Demographic characteristics were compared using the chi-square test. Graft survival and patient survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsThe percentages of patients with acute vascular rejection were significantly higher in the unrelated group, while percentages of patients with no rejection were significantly higher in the related group, but there were no significant differences regarding patient and graft survivals between both groups.ConclusionsKidney transplant recipients who received their grafts either from live related donors or live unrelated donors had comparable patient and graft survival outcomes.

No abstract

Induction therapy after kidney transplantation is intensive immunosuppression in the initial days after transplant when the immune system of the recipient has the first contact with donor antigens. Initial intensive immunosuppression may be required to prevent acute rejection and graft loss, and subsequent immuno-suppression may be decreased to minimize adverse events associated with immunosuppressive drugs. Induction agents include lymphocyte-depleting antibodies such as rabbit antithymocyte globulin, alemtuzumab, muromonab-CD3, rituximab, and bortezomib; lymphocytenondepleting antibodies such as interleukin 2 receptor antibodies; and other discontinued or investigational agents such as efalizumab and alefacept. Induction therapy may be adjusted for special situations such as living-donor kidney transplant, pediatric transplant, hepatitis C virusseropositive recipients, recipients who require desensitization, patients who are at risk for developing delayed graft function, and old donors. The optimal immunosuppressive regimen may vary, and clinical practice guidelines are available.

Introduction COVID‐19 is an ongoing pandemic with high morbidity and mortality and with a reported high risk of severe disease in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Aim We aimed to report the largest number of COVID‐19‐positive cases in KTR in a single center and to discuss their demographics, management, and evolution. Methods We enrolled all the two thousand KTR followed up in our center in Kuwait and collected the data of all COVID‐19‐positive KTR (104) from the start of the outbreak till the end of July 2020 and have reported the clinical features, management details, and both patient and graft outcomes. Results Out of the one hundred and four cases reported, most of them were males aged 49.3 ± 14.7 years. Eighty‐two of them needed hospitalization, of which thirty‐one were managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main comorbidities among these patients were hypertension in 64.4%, diabetes in 51%, and ischemic heart disease in 20.2%. Management strategies included anticoagulation in 56.7%, withdrawal of antimetabolites in 54.8%, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) withdrawal in 33.7%, the addition of antibiotics in 57.7%, Tocilizumab in 8.7%, and antivirals in 16.3%. During a follow‐up of 30 days, the reported number of acute kidney injury (AKI) was 28.7%, respiratory failure requiring oxygen therapy 46.2%, and overall mortality rate was 10.6% with hospital mortality of 13.4% including an ICU mortality rate of 35.5%. Conclusion Better outcome of COVID‐19‐positive KTR in our cohort during this unremitting stage could be due to the younger age of patients and early optimized management of anticoagulation, modification of immunosuppression, and prompt treatment of secondary bacterial infections. Mild cases can successfully be managed at home without any change in immunosuppression.

No abstract

No abstract