Early Renal Protocol Biopsies: For Some But Not For All Renal Transplant Patients?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Navarro, D
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Ferreira, AC, Caeiro, F, Nolasco, F, Cotovio, P, Aires, I, Silva, C, Remédio, F, Ferreira, A, Viana, H, Carvalho, F
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3122
Resumo: 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_bbe58c9c75843c1d593248fc316c0867
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.min-saude.pt:10400.17/3122
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Early Renal Protocol Biopsies: For Some But Not For All Renal Transplant Patients?Biópsias Renais Protocoladas Precoces: Uma Ferramenta Útil em Alguns Mas Não em Todos os Transplantados Renais?Protocol BiopsyRenal Allograft BiopsyRenal TransplantSubclinical RejectionHCC NEFSubclinical 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.Sociedade Portuguesa de NefrologiaRepositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPENavarro, DFerreira, ACCaeiro, FNolasco, FCotovio, PAires, ISilva, CRemédio, FFerreira, AViana, HCarvalho, F2018-12-04T10:55:24Z20152015-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3122engPort J Nephrol Hypert 2015; 29(4): 316-322info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-03-10T09:41:21Zoai:repositorio.chlc.min-saude.pt:10400.17/3122Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T17:20:27.515351Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Early Renal Protocol Biopsies: For Some But Not For All Renal Transplant Patients?
Biópsias Renais Protocoladas Precoces: Uma Ferramenta Útil em Alguns Mas Não em Todos os Transplantados Renais?
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, D
Protocol Biopsy
Renal Allograft Biopsy
Renal Transplant
Subclinical Rejection
HCC NEF
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, D
author_facet Navarro, D
Ferreira, AC
Caeiro, F
Nolasco, F
Cotovio, P
Aires, I
Silva, C
Remédio, F
Ferreira, A
Viana, H
Carvalho, F
author_role author
author2 Ferreira, AC
Caeiro, F
Nolasco, F
Cotovio, P
Aires, I
Silva, C
Remédio, F
Ferreira, A
Viana, H
Carvalho, F
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPE
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Navarro, D
Ferreira, AC
Caeiro, F
Nolasco, F
Cotovio, P
Aires, I
Silva, C
Remédio, F
Ferreira, A
Viana, H
Carvalho, F
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Protocol Biopsy
Renal Allograft Biopsy
Renal Transplant
Subclinical Rejection
HCC NEF
topic Protocol Biopsy
Renal Allograft Biopsy
Renal Transplant
Subclinical Rejection
HCC NEF
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
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
2018-12-04T10:55:24Z
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://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3122
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3122
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Port J Nephrol Hypert 2015; 29(4): 316-322
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
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 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799131300670472192