Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2019
Perioperative Comparison of Preemptive and Non-Preemptive Renal Transplant Recipients.
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.
Aytekin Sami, Dinç Bora, Ertuğ Zeki, Hadimioğlu Necmiye, Aytekin Esra Çobankent
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Preemptive transplantation cannot be performed for all patients because of the limited number of donors. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative effects of dialysis before renal transplantation.
METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively investigated 666 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at our centre. We divided patients into two groups: patients with pre-transplant dialysis (67.3%, n=448) and patients with preemptive transplant (32.7%, n=218). We carried out preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative comparisons between groups.
RESULTS: No difference was observed in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion, crystalloid and colloid requirement, inotropic-vasopressor agent administration and hemodynamic parameters between the patients with pre-transplant dialysis and preemptive transplant. It was observed that dialysis requirement, delayed graft function and acute rejection development were significantly higher during the postoperative period in patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. In patients with non-preemptive transplant, the decrease of serum creatinine levels at the first postoperative month was more prominent when compared to patients with preemptive transplant; however, that difference disappeared in the first year follow-up. No significant difference was found for serum albumin levels and proteinuria alterations of the patients in long-term follow-up. Additionally, patient and graft survival comparisons between patients with non-preemptive and preemptive transplant on three-year follow-up revealed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: We think that preemptive transplantation treatment is a better option for patients with end-stage renal failure since patients with preemptive transplantation appear to have less metabolic function impairment, complication risk and more successful outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively investigated 666 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at our centre. We divided patients into two groups: patients with pre-transplant dialysis (67.3%, n=448) and patients with preemptive transplant (32.7%, n=218). We carried out preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative comparisons between groups.
RESULTS: No difference was observed in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion, crystalloid and colloid requirement, inotropic-vasopressor agent administration and hemodynamic parameters between the patients with pre-transplant dialysis and preemptive transplant. It was observed that dialysis requirement, delayed graft function and acute rejection development were significantly higher during the postoperative period in patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. In patients with non-preemptive transplant, the decrease of serum creatinine levels at the first postoperative month was more prominent when compared to patients with preemptive transplant; however, that difference disappeared in the first year follow-up. No significant difference was found for serum albumin levels and proteinuria alterations of the patients in long-term follow-up. Additionally, patient and graft survival comparisons between patients with non-preemptive and preemptive transplant on three-year follow-up revealed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: We think that preemptive transplantation treatment is a better option for patients with end-stage renal failure since patients with preemptive transplantation appear to have less metabolic function impairment, complication risk and more successful outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.