Transplantation proceedings · 2018
Native Nephrectomy in Renal Transplant Recipients With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Jankowska M, Kuźmiuk-Glembin I, Skonieczny P, Dębska-Ślizień A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) represent about 10% of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) and have unique needs regarding acceptance for this procedure. Whether native kidney nephrectomy (NKN) affects kidney transplantation (KT) outcomes remains a matter of debate, and more data is needed to establish a standard approach to KTR with ADPKD.
AIM: To analyze the prevalence, timing, and short- and long-term outcomes of NKN in a cohort of ADPKD recipients in a single institution.
METHOD: Retrospective, observational study.
RESULTS: In the years 1993 to 2016 we identified 162 KTR with ADPKD; of those, 149 had known NKN status. A high proportion of ADPKD KTR (n = 72) underwent NKN, the majority of which (69.4%) were performed before KT. There was no difference in short-term and long-term transplantation outcomes (including death, graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, bacterial and cytomegalovirus [CMV] infection, and post-transplant diabetes mellitus) between NKN and non-NKN groups in a median of 98 months of follow-up. However, we found a significant difference in time on a waiting list, which was longer in the NKN group vs non-NKN.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a consensus regarding indications and timing for NKN in recipients with ADPKD. The systematic acquisition, sharing, and analysis of accessible data on NKN between institutions is an important step toward meeting this need. In our cohort, we found no impact of the NKN procedure on KT impact. However, undergoing NKN significantly prolonged the time on the waiting list.
AIM: To analyze the prevalence, timing, and short- and long-term outcomes of NKN in a cohort of ADPKD recipients in a single institution.
METHOD: Retrospective, observational study.
RESULTS: In the years 1993 to 2016 we identified 162 KTR with ADPKD; of those, 149 had known NKN status. A high proportion of ADPKD KTR (n = 72) underwent NKN, the majority of which (69.4%) were performed before KT. There was no difference in short-term and long-term transplantation outcomes (including death, graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, bacterial and cytomegalovirus [CMV] infection, and post-transplant diabetes mellitus) between NKN and non-NKN groups in a median of 98 months of follow-up. However, we found a significant difference in time on a waiting list, which was longer in the NKN group vs non-NKN.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a consensus regarding indications and timing for NKN in recipients with ADPKD. The systematic acquisition, sharing, and analysis of accessible data on NKN between institutions is an important step toward meeting this need. In our cohort, we found no impact of the NKN procedure on KT impact. However, undergoing NKN significantly prolonged the time on the waiting list.