Renal failure · 2026
Renal replacement therapy after kidney graft loss: redefining the role of peritoneal dialysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alonso Mozo Marta, Villanego Fernández Florentino, Amaro Martin José Manuel, Torrado Masero Julia, Vigara Sánchez Luis Alberto, Cazorla López Juan Manuel, Singh Singh Arshdeep, Serrano Muñoz Blanca, Arnáiz Pérez Marina, García Álvarez Teresa, Castro de la Nuez Pablo, Mazuecos Blanca Auxiliadora
Аннотация
Introduction: The role of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after kidney transplant (KT) failure is not well established.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all KT recipients in Andalusia (1978-2023) who resumed dialysis after graft loss. Patients were stratified by dialysis modality-hemodialysis (HD) or PD-and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. Preemptive re-transplantation cases were excluded. A second analysis compared PD patients with and without prior KT. Predictors of mortality and technique failure were identified through multivariate Cox regression. Results: Of 11,718 KT recipients, 2,536 (21.6%) resumed dialysis after first graft loss: 2,253 started HD and 201 PD; 82 underwent preemptive re-KT. PD patients were younger (p < 0.001), more frequently had glomerular disease (p = 0.038), and often had prior PD before KT (52.7% vs 8.1%; p < 0.001). Patient survival was similar between modalities (p = 0.256). Multivariate analysis identified age, male sex, and diabetes mellitus (DM) as mortality predictors, but not dialysis modality. When comparing post-KT PD patients (n = 201) to de novo PD patients (n = 5312), the former were younger (p < 0.001), remained longer on PD (p = 0.003), and more often withdrew due to re-transplantation (p = 0.002). Peritonitis rates were comparable between groups. Technique survival at 1 and 5 years was comparable (post-KT: 79% and 37.4%; non-KT: 78.2% and 38.6%; p = 0.359). Male sex and DM were associated with reduced technique survival, but prior KT status was not. Conclusions: In conclusion PD after KT failure is a safe and effective modality, with similar survival and technique outcomes to de novo PD, supporting its broader implementation in post-transplant care.