Hany Riad

BACKGROUND: This study determined whether cyclosporine A (CsA)-treated renal allograft recipients with deteriorating renal function ("creeping creatinine") secondary to chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) benefit from the addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to their immunosuppressive regimen, followed by withdrawal of CsA. METHODS: In a controlled, open, multicenter study, CsA-treated renal allograft recipients with progressively deteriorating renal function were randomized to have their CsA discontinued with the concomitant addition of MMF to their regimen (group A) or to continue treatment with CsA (group B). The primary endpoint was the response rate over the 6-month period after withdrawal of CsA in group A or the equivalent time in group B. Response was defined as a stabilization or reduction of serum creatinine (SCr), as evidenced by a flattening or positive slope of the 1/SCr plot and no graft loss. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of acute rejection, graft and patient survival, and changes in selected metabolic parameters. RESULTS: The response rate in the primary intent-to-treat population (n=122) was 58% (36/62) in group A versus 32% (19/60) in group B (P=0.0060). The corresponding percentages of responders in the per-protocol population (n=107) were 60% (36/60) and 26% (12/47), respectively (P=0.0008). There were no acute rejections in group A during the study period. Patients in this group also experienced a significant decrease in total cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with progressively deteriorating renal function secondary to CAN, addition of MMF followed by withdrawal of CsA results in a significant improvement in transplant function without the risk of acute rejection.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized, prospective trial to compare the incidence of early urological complications and health care expenditures in renal transplant recipients with or without ureteral stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving a renal transplant at a single center were randomized preoperatively to undergo Double-J stent or no-stent ureterovesical anastomosis from November 1998 to October 2001. Early urological mechanical complications were recorded, including urinary leakage or obstruction, or urinary tract infections within 3 months of transplantation. Direct health care costs associated with stenting, urological complications and urinary tract infection management were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomized to a stent (112) and a no-stent (89) group. In the no-stent group 11 patients received a stent due to intraoperative findings and were excluded from study. At 3 months there were significantly more cases of urinary leakage (8.9% vs 0.9%, p <0.008) and ureteral obstruction (7.7 % vs 0%, p <0.004) in the no-stent than in the stent group. Mean time of stent removal was 74.3 days. A significant increase in urinary tract infections was observed when stent was left greater than 30 days after transplantation compared to the rate in the no-stent group (p <0.02). An additional cost of 151 UK pounds per patient was incurred in the no-stent group vs the stent group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a ureteral stent at renal transplantation significantly decreases the early urinary complications of urine leakage and obstruction. However, there is a significant increase in urinary tract infections, primarily beyond 30 days after transplantation. Stent removal within 4 weeks of insertion appears advisable.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (case series). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The indications and timing of native nephrectomy in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is controversial, especially for those undergoing renal transplantation. Post-transplant unilateral native nephrectomy appears to be the preferred intervention compared to pre-transplant native nephrectomy. There seems to be substantial additive risk to bilateral over unilateral nephrectomy, especially prior to transplantation. Pre-transplant native nephrectomy should only be carried out when there are clear indications such as massive size preventing allograft placement, severe pain, early satiety, recurrent bleeding and infections, or suspected malignancy. OBJECTIVE: To analyse indications, timing and outcomes of native nephrectomy in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients listed for kidney transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all ADPKD patients who had a native nephrectomy prior to or following transplantation between January 2003 and December 2009 at a single centre, including those undergoing the sandwich technique (removal of the most severely affected native kidney prior to transplantation, and the other afterwards), was undertaken. RESULTS: There were 35 individuals in our cohort (M : F = 16 : 19), with a median age of 51.5 years (range 43-65). Twenty patients were in the pre-transplant nephrectomy group, 12 in the post-transplant group, and three underwent the sandwich technique. Indications for nephrectomy varied but were most commonly pain/discomfort, space for transplantation, ongoing haematuria, recurrent infections, and gastrointestinal pressure symptoms (early satiety). Seven individuals in the pre-transplant group and three in the post-transplant group required critical care admission after nephrectomy. Transient renal graft dysfunction occurred in two post-transplant bilateral nephrectomy patients. Two patients in the bilateral nephrectomy pre-transplant group and one in the bilateral nephrectomy post-transplant group died in the immediate post-operative period. No complications were noted in the sandwich technique group. CONCLUSION: Native nephrectomy in ADPKD is a major undertaking associated with significant morbidity especially in the pre-transplant group. Post-transplant unilateral nephrectomy appears to be the safest approach with fewest complications.