Export Ready — 

Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Navarro,David
Publication Date: 2015
Other Authors: Ferreira,Ana Carina, Caeiro,Fernando, Cotovio,Patricia, Aires,Ines, Silva,Cecilia, Remedio,Francisco, Ferreira,Anibal, Viana,Helena, Carvalho,Fernanda, Nolasco,Fernando
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007
Summary: Subclinical rejection following renal transplant is associated with worse outcomes, which can be prevented if recognized early. Protocol allograft biopsies have emerged as an option to identify and allow treatment of subclinical rejection, but optimal timing for their performance is not established. We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 52 low immunological risk patients, who were submitted, from 2007 to 2010, to de novo renal transplant. We separated them into two groups depending on performing an early graft protocol biopsy before hospital discharge: Group A - 32 patients (61.5%) performed a protocol biopsy, and group B - 20 patients (38.5%) did not, the biopsy being considered not essential for various reasons. We analysed patients’ demographics, biopsy complications, graft function, rejection episodes, and patient and graft survival for a median follow-up time of 63.3 months (50.3-83.7). Group A and group B differed in gender (more female patients were biopsied), dialysis vintage (higher in group A), human leucocyte antigen mismatch (higher in group A), and induction protocol (more patients submitted to thymoglobulin than to basiliximab in group A). Protocol biopsy detected histological changes in four patients (12.5%) in group A (2 cellular and 2 borderline rejections), and all were treated accordingly. Moderate peri-graft hematoma was reported in two cases (3.9%). Despite the increased risk in group A, renal function at discharge was better than in group B (p < 0.05 for serum creatinine and eGFR). During follow-up, rejection episodes were similar in the two groups. By the end of follow-up (median 63.3 months), proteinuria and renal function were similar between the two groups. Using a multivariate regression model, and despite the initial differences, at the end of follow-up, patients submitted to early protocol biopsies had similar excellent prognosis as the very low-risk patients who were not biopsied. (p = 0.5). Following our results, we propose that timing of early protocol biopsy should be individualized according to the patient’s clinical and immunological risk
id RCAP_f6c67cbeb5241bef8f3a574ca9045fd4
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0872-01692015000400007
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?Protocol biopsyrenal allograft biopsyrenal transplantsubclinical rejectionSubclinical rejection following renal transplant is associated with worse outcomes, which can be prevented if recognized early. Protocol allograft biopsies have emerged as an option to identify and allow treatment of subclinical rejection, but optimal timing for their performance is not established. We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 52 low immunological risk patients, who were submitted, from 2007 to 2010, to de novo renal transplant. We separated them into two groups depending on performing an early graft protocol biopsy before hospital discharge: Group A - 32 patients (61.5%) performed a protocol biopsy, and group B - 20 patients (38.5%) did not, the biopsy being considered not essential for various reasons. We analysed patients’ demographics, biopsy complications, graft function, rejection episodes, and patient and graft survival for a median follow-up time of 63.3 months (50.3-83.7). Group A and group B differed in gender (more female patients were biopsied), dialysis vintage (higher in group A), human leucocyte antigen mismatch (higher in group A), and induction protocol (more patients submitted to thymoglobulin than to basiliximab in group A). Protocol biopsy detected histological changes in four patients (12.5%) in group A (2 cellular and 2 borderline rejections), and all were treated accordingly. Moderate peri-graft hematoma was reported in two cases (3.9%). Despite the increased risk in group A, renal function at discharge was better than in group B (p < 0.05 for serum creatinine and eGFR). During follow-up, rejection episodes were similar in the two groups. By the end of follow-up (median 63.3 months), proteinuria and renal function were similar between the two groups. Using a multivariate regression model, and despite the initial differences, at the end of follow-up, patients submitted to early protocol biopsies had similar excellent prognosis as the very low-risk patients who were not biopsied. (p = 0.5). Following our results, we propose that timing of early protocol biopsy should be individualized according to the patient’s clinical and immunological riskSociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia2015-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007Portuguese Journal of Nephrology &amp; Hypertension v.29 n.4 2015reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007Navarro,DavidFerreira,Ana CarinaCaeiro,FernandoCotovio,PatriciaAires,InesSilva,CeciliaRemedio,FranciscoFerreira,AnibalViana,HelenaCarvalho,FernandaNolasco,Fernandoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:04:50Zoai:scielo:S0872-01692015000400007Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T12:54:26.801818Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
title Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
spellingShingle Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
Navarro,David
Protocol biopsy
renal allograft biopsy
renal transplant
subclinical rejection
title_short Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
title_full Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
title_fullStr Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
title_full_unstemmed Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
title_sort Early renal protocol biopsies: for some but not for all renal transplant patients?
author Navarro,David
author_facet Navarro,David
Ferreira,Ana Carina
Caeiro,Fernando
Cotovio,Patricia
Aires,Ines
Silva,Cecilia
Remedio,Francisco
Ferreira,Anibal
Viana,Helena
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
author_role author
author2 Ferreira,Ana Carina
Caeiro,Fernando
Cotovio,Patricia
Aires,Ines
Silva,Cecilia
Remedio,Francisco
Ferreira,Anibal
Viana,Helena
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Navarro,David
Ferreira,Ana Carina
Caeiro,Fernando
Cotovio,Patricia
Aires,Ines
Silva,Cecilia
Remedio,Francisco
Ferreira,Anibal
Viana,Helena
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Protocol biopsy
renal allograft biopsy
renal transplant
subclinical rejection
topic Protocol biopsy
renal allograft biopsy
renal transplant
subclinical rejection
description Subclinical rejection following renal transplant is associated with worse outcomes, which can be prevented if recognized early. Protocol allograft biopsies have emerged as an option to identify and allow treatment of subclinical rejection, but optimal timing for their performance is not established. We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 52 low immunological risk patients, who were submitted, from 2007 to 2010, to de novo renal transplant. We separated them into two groups depending on performing an early graft protocol biopsy before hospital discharge: Group A - 32 patients (61.5%) performed a protocol biopsy, and group B - 20 patients (38.5%) did not, the biopsy being considered not essential for various reasons. We analysed patients’ demographics, biopsy complications, graft function, rejection episodes, and patient and graft survival for a median follow-up time of 63.3 months (50.3-83.7). Group A and group B differed in gender (more female patients were biopsied), dialysis vintage (higher in group A), human leucocyte antigen mismatch (higher in group A), and induction protocol (more patients submitted to thymoglobulin than to basiliximab in group A). Protocol biopsy detected histological changes in four patients (12.5%) in group A (2 cellular and 2 borderline rejections), and all were treated accordingly. Moderate peri-graft hematoma was reported in two cases (3.9%). Despite the increased risk in group A, renal function at discharge was better than in group B (p < 0.05 for serum creatinine and eGFR). During follow-up, rejection episodes were similar in the two groups. By the end of follow-up (median 63.3 months), proteinuria and renal function were similar between the two groups. Using a multivariate regression model, and despite the initial differences, at the end of follow-up, patients submitted to early protocol biopsies had similar excellent prognosis as the very low-risk patients who were not biopsied. (p = 0.5). Following our results, we propose that timing of early protocol biopsy should be individualized according to the patient’s clinical and immunological risk
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-12-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692015000400007
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Portuguese Journal of Nephrology &amp; Hypertension v.29 n.4 2015
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833593236498677760