Background: The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was derived in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) from the United States to predict the risk of total graft failure. There are important differences in patient demographics, listing practices, access to transplantation, delivery of care, and posttransplant mortality in Canada as compared with the United States, and the generalizability of the LKDPI in the Canadian context is unknown. Objective: The purpose of this study was to externally validate the LKDPI in a large contemporary cohort of Canadian KTR. Design: Retrospective cohort validation study. Setting: Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Patients: A total of 645 adult (≥18 years old) living donor KTR between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 with follow-up until December 31, 2017 were included in the study. Measurements: The predictive performance of the LKDPI was evaluated. The outcome of interest was total graft failure, defined as the need for chronic dialysis, retransplantation, or death with graft function. Methods: The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relation between the LKDPI and total graft failure. The Cox proportional hazards model was also used for external validation and performance assessment of the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model performance. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell’s C statistic and calibration was assessed graphically, comparing observed versus predicted probabilities of total graft failure. Results: A total of 645 living donor KTR were included in the study. The median LKDPI score was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.1, 29.9). Higher LKDPI scores were associated with an increased risk of total graft failure (hazard ratio = 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.02; P = .02). Discrimination was poor (C statistic = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.48-0.61). Calibration was as good at 1-year posttransplant but suboptimal at 3- and 5-years posttransplant. Limitations: Limitations include a relatively small sample size, predicted probabilities for assessment of calibration only available for scores of 0 to 100, and some missing data handled by imputation. Conclusions: In this external validation study, the predictive ability of the LKDPI was modest in a cohort of Canadian KTR. Validation of prediction models is an important step to assess performance in external populations. Potential recalibration of the LKDPI may be useful prior to clinical use in external cohorts.
Objectives: To examine the practice patterns and perceptions of primary care physicians in the management of chronic diseases in kidney recipients, assess care provided to recipients, and identify barriers to the optimal delivery of primary care to recipients. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire on the primary care of kidney recipients was developed and implemented. The survey investigated physician comfort and practice patterns in providing preventive and chronic care to recipients, patient self-management support, and physician perceptions on communication with transplant centers and barriers to ideal care. Results: A total of 210 physicians completed the survey (response rate of 22%). Among the respondents, 73% indicated they were currently providing care to kidney recipients. The majority of physicians specified that they rarely (57%) or never (20%) communicate with transplant centers. Most physicians felt comfortable providing care to recipients for non-transplant-related issues (92.5%), vaccinations (85%), and periodic health examinations (94%). The majority (75.3%) of physicians felt uncomfortable managing the immunosuppressive medications of recipients. Physicians’ most commonly stated barriers to delivering optimal care to recipients were insufficient guidelines provided by the transplant center (68.9%) and lack of knowledge in managing recipients (58.8%). Suggested resources by physicians to improve their comfort level in managing recipients included guidelines and continuing medical educational activities related to transplantation. Conclusions: Our results suggest that there are barriers to delivering optimal primary care to kidney recipients. The approach to providing resources needed to bridge the knowledge gap for physicians in the management of recipients requires further exploration.
Introduction: Proteinuria is recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in kidney transplant recipients, but previous studies have not considered the impact of changes in urine protein over time. Research Question and Design: We used time-dependent, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in this observational cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients to evaluate whether proteinuria measured by dipstick on random spot urine samples starting from 1-month post-transplant was associated with the risk of major adverse cardiac events and graft loss. Results: A total of 144 major adverse cardiac events, defined as acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, revascularization, or all-cause mortality, were observed in 1106 patients over 5728.7 person-years. Any level of proteinuria greater or equal to trace resulted in a two-fold increase in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 2.00 [95% confidence interval 1.41, 2.84]). This relationship was not found to be dose-dependent (hazard ratios of 2.98, 1.76, 1.63, and 1.54 for trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+ urine protein, respectively). There was an increased risk of graft failure with greater urine protein concentration (hazard ratios 2.22, 2.85, 6.41, and 19.71 for trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+, respectively). Conclusion: Urine protein is associated with major adverse cardiac events and graft loss in kidney transplant recipients. The role of interventions to reduce proteinuria on decreasing the risk of adverse cardiovascular and graft outcomes in kidney transplant recipients requires further study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.