Transplantation · 2010
Assessing and comparing rival definitions of delayed renal allograft function for predicting subsequent graft failure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Moore Jason, Shabir Shazia, Chand Sourabh, Bentall Andrew, McClean Andrew, Chan Winnie, Jham Seema, Benavente David, Sharif Adnan, Ball Simon, Cockwell Paul, Borrows Richard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The traditional definition of delayed graft function (DGF) rests on dialysis requirement during the first postoperative week. Subsequently, a more objective and "functional" definition of DGF (fDGF) has been proposed as an alternative to this dialysis-based definition of DGF (dDGF) and defined as a failure of the serum creatinine to decrease by at least 10% daily on 3 successive days during the first week posttransplantation, irrespective of dialysis requirement. However, an association between fDGF and long-term graft failure has not been fully established, and it is unknown whether fDGF is a better marker of subsequent outcomes than dDGF.
METHODS: We studied 750 adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (1996-2006) and analyzed the association between these two DGF definitions and long-term graft outcome.
RESULTS: Univariable associations with death-censored graft failure were seen for both dDGF and fDGF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-2.18; P=0.004 and HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.26-2.36; P=0.001, respectively). On bivariable analysis (dDGF vs. fDGF), dDGF lost significance, whereas the effect of fDGF persisted (HR 1.52; 95%CI 1.03-2.25; P=0.04). This was also the case in a multivariable model, where fDGF but not dDGF was significantly associated with graft failure (HR 1.47; 95%CI 1.06-2.03; P=0.02). Results were similar for overall graft failure.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the utility of fDGF as an early marker of subsequent inferior allograft outcomes, suggesting superiority over the traditional (often subjective) dialysis-based definition. Wider adoption of the fDGF definition should be considered, both as a risk-stratification tool in clinical practice and a clinical trial endpoint.
METHODS: We studied 750 adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (1996-2006) and analyzed the association between these two DGF definitions and long-term graft outcome.
RESULTS: Univariable associations with death-censored graft failure were seen for both dDGF and fDGF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-2.18; P=0.004 and HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.26-2.36; P=0.001, respectively). On bivariable analysis (dDGF vs. fDGF), dDGF lost significance, whereas the effect of fDGF persisted (HR 1.52; 95%CI 1.03-2.25; P=0.04). This was also the case in a multivariable model, where fDGF but not dDGF was significantly associated with graft failure (HR 1.47; 95%CI 1.06-2.03; P=0.02). Results were similar for overall graft failure.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the utility of fDGF as an early marker of subsequent inferior allograft outcomes, suggesting superiority over the traditional (often subjective) dialysis-based definition. Wider adoption of the fDGF definition should be considered, both as a risk-stratification tool in clinical practice and a clinical trial endpoint.