• Users Online: 419
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 42-47

Issues and concerns in the management of progressive allograft dysfunction: A narrative review


1 Department of Nephrology, Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Nephrology, Global Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Submission07-Sep-2020
Date of Acceptance08-May-2021
Date of Web Publication31-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Urmila Anandh
Department of Nephrology, Yashoda Hospitals, Secunderabad
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijot.ijot_114_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Nephrologists taking care of dialysis patients are increasingly encountering patients returning to dialysis after a failed transplant. These patients have a different pathophysiology and their medical issues differ from transplant-naïve dialysis patients. Prolonged cumulative immunosuppression and long-term exposure to chronic kidney disease (CKD) pathology are major factors responsible for increased complications and mortality. Often, their CKD-related issues are managed suboptimally as the emphasis is mostly on endeavors related to protecting allograft function. Managing their immunosuppression and allograft-related symptomatology poses serious challenges. There is also a dilemma as to whether the failed allograft should be left in situ or not. Considerate and appropriate decisions are required when these kidney allograft failure patients are offered re-transplantation. This review aims to address the major issues faced by transplant nephrologists in managing patients with allograft failure.

Keywords: Allograft failure, allograft nephrectomy, graft intolerance syndrome


How to cite this article:
Anandh U, Deshpande P. Issues and concerns in the management of progressive allograft dysfunction: A narrative review. Indian J Transplant 2022;16:42-7

How to cite this URL:
Anandh U, Deshpande P. Issues and concerns in the management of progressive allograft dysfunction: A narrative review. Indian J Transplant [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 29];16:42-7. Available from: https://www.ijtonline.in/text.asp?2022/16/1/42/342423




  Introduction Top


Over a half of kidney transplants fail long term. Many of them return to dialysis and often are fit enough to be considered for a second transplantation. These patients have a significantly different pathology and often pose a major challenge in clinical care. This review addresses the various issues encountered by practicing nephrologists managing patients with allograft failure requiring dialysis.


  Allograft Failure Magnitude of the Problem Top


As more patients with comorbidities and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)/ABO incompatibility are accepted in national transplant programs, there is an increasing incidence of patients with allograft failure returning to dialysis. The death-censored allograft survival rates in both living donor and deceased donor transplants have improved only marginally over the years.[1] Hence over time, a significant proportion of patients with allograft failure continue to return to dialysis. This number has almost doubled over the last 20 years as reflected in the United States Renal Data System 2011 data.[2] In almost all dialysis programs, approximately 15% of the patients are those who have a failed allograft.


  Chronic Kidney Disease Care in the Patient with a Failing Allograft Top


Progressive renal failure occurs in renal transplant patients and over time, they are destined to develop end-stage kidney disease.[3],[4] Studies have postulated a slower decline of renal function in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5T;[5] however, large registry data (UK Renal registry) have shown that 50% of patients in CKD 4-5T go on to dialysis within 1 year.[6]

CKD management is often neglected in these patients. Guidelines specific for CKD management in transplant patients are not factored in the overall management of these patients.[7] Patients still continue to be seen in the transplant clinic where the major emphasis is on immunosuppression and other therapeutic interventions aimed at protecting the allograft function. Often issues related to complications arising from renal dysfunction are overlooked. These patients fail to achieve their desired blood pressure, anemia, lipid profile, and CKD mineral bone disease (CKD-MBD) targets.[8] Reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) often worsens the CKD-MBD issues. These patients have a superimposed risk of osteoporosis (secondary to chronic glucocorticoid use) aggravating their bone mineral abnormalities. They also have a higher incidence of tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Besides the regular evaluation of their CKD status, these patients also need assessment of their bone mineral density. Evaluation and emphasis on disease progression, particularly cardiovascular comorbidities, are also not considered.[9] Medications in the form of angiotensin-converting enzymes and angiotensin receptor blockers, iron, erythropoietin, and phosphate binders are used suboptimally.[10],[11]

Another area of concern is that majority of transplant patients who return to dialysis do so with a temporary access. Approximately two-third of the patients had a central venous catheter (CVC) as the initial access. About 51.4% of these patients do not have a concomitant arteriovenous (AV) fistula or an AV graft placed before dialysis initiation.[12],[13] Other authors have also shown that access surgery in patients with allograft failure was not very common.[14] This negative bias may be because of a slower decline in the renal function in these patients. Also because of previous use, there might be nonavailability and/or exhaustion of access sites.


  Dialysis Issues Top


Compared to the CKD patients who are initiated on dialysis, renal transplant patients returning to dialysis have a higher mortality.[15],[16] This risk is highest in the early phase of initiation and is often owing to infections. There is a threefold higher risk of developing sepsis in kidney allograft failure (KAF) patients when they return to dialysis.[17] The quality of life is also comparatively poorer than transplant-naïve dialysis patients.[18]

The difference in the mortality is because of the difference in age (more elderly patients), gender (more males), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease), use of CVC (more infections), and other confounding variables.[19],[20] Factoring these variables, a propensity score matching shows no difference in mortality. In fact, KAF patients have a better survival than transplant-naïve patients after 3 years onto dialysis when their underlying chronic inflammatory state subsides.[21] This observation has also been substantiated in a French study.[22]

The impact of modality of dialysis in KAF patients has also been studied. Most patients usually return back to hemodialysis (HD). Some studies have shown lower rates of septicemia in patients who were started on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In addition, residual renal function is better preserved with PD. These factors can contribute to a survival advantage in PD patients.[23],[24]

In a registry-based study, there was no statistically significant difference between the initial dialysis modality and survival.[25]

At what estimated glomerular filtration rate the patient should be re-initiated on dialysis is not very clear. Early retrospective registry data had shown that delayed initiation had a negative impact on survival.[26]

Recent studies have not shown any statistical difference between survival and GFR at the initiation of renal replacement therapy.[27]

Often, planning of dialysis is difficult as in most patients, the terminal decline of GFR in KAF patients is quite rapid.[28]


  Issues Regarding Immunosuppression Top


Most nephrologists caring for these patients are faced with the dilemma of whether to continue immunosuppression or not.

There are many questions regarding the use of immunosuppression in a failed allograft:

  1. How much immunosuppression contributes to the mortality?
  2. Should we taper/stop or continue immunosuppression?
  3. Does the cause and timing of graft failure matter in decision-making?
  4. What is the impact of stopping immunosuppression on the future transplant?


There are a lot of advantages in continuing immunosuppression [Table 1]. Preservation of the residual renal function has been shown to have a survival benefit in both HD and PD patients.[29],[30] A study conducted in Toronto revealed a beneficial effect on preservation of residual renal function on continuation of immunosuppression in kidney allograft patients on PD.[31] The study showed a survival benefit. However, the results of this study were based on a mathematical modeling and may not represent real-world scenario.
Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of weaning of immunosuppression

Click here to view


Another benefit of continuation of immunosuppression may be the mitigation of the risk of allosensitization. Many studies have shown a higher risk of sensitization when transplant immunosuppression is tapered or withdrawn.[32],[33] Weaning of immunosuppression is associated with the clinical syndrome of fever, malaise, hematuria, and graft tenderness. This syndrome of graft intolerance is discussed in a later section of this review.

There are many disadvantages of continuation of immunosuppression in a transplant recipient with a failed allograft, the most important being the increased risk of infections. Many studies have implicated infections as the major cause of mortality in these patients.[34] Hospitalizations in these patients who are on immunosuppression are double that of patients off immunosuppression.[35]

Continuation of immunosuppression often increases the long-term adverse metabolic complications of steroid use. Patients on immunosuppression have higher rates of uncontrolled hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia.[36] Cardiovascular events were more common leading to higher mortality risk. Osteoporosis is also common in this subset of patients [Table 1].

Continuation of immunosuppression also allows uncontrolled viral replication leading to a higher risk of malignancies and viral infections. Registry data have shown an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (Epstein–Barr Virus) and Kaposi's sarcoma (human herpesvirus 8) which is rapidly reversible with the discontinuation of immunosuppression.[37],[38],[39] In the vulnerable population, a higher incidence of skin cancers is noted in patients continuing immunosuppression.[40],[41]

Based on the evidence, earlier recommendations were to continue low-dose steroids (2.5–5 mg/day) in all allografts. There is no consensus in literature about the continuation of immunosuppression, but current understanding veers toward taper/discontinuation except in patients who have a prospect of an early re-transplantation.[42] There are hospital-specific protocols of weaning of immunosuppression. Most centers taper calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) to 50% and subsequently stop the antiproliferative agents. Over the next few months, the CNIs are stopped completely. In a subset of patients who had an early graft loss or still has an ongoing subclinical rejection, gradual immunosuppression weaning may be advisable.[33],[43] Continuation of immunosuppression may also be considered if the graft loss was secondary to recurrent or de novo glomerular disease.


  Graft Intolerance Syndrome Top


Withdrawal of immunosuppression can lead to an inflammatory reaction and can provoke symptomatic rejection episodes. This may manifest with fever, reduced urine output hematuria, and allograft tenderness. Abrupt withdrawal may precipitate a graft rupture necessitating allograft nephrectomy.[44] A cohort of KAF patients on dialysis develop a chronic inflammatory state characterized by fever, malaise, and allograft tenderness. Investigations reveal anemia, high C-reactive protein levels, low albumin, high ferritin, and high erythropoietin resistance.[45] This syndrome is called the graft intolerance syndrome and is seen in 40% of patients in the 1st year of dialysis re-initiation and can also occur later.[46] Management of this syndrome requires increasing the dose of steroids and anti-inflammatory agents. In difficult to manage cases, allograft embolization and/or allograft nephrectomy are required.

Vascular embolization is less invasive and can have a high success rate (65%–100%) in experienced hands. Intra-arterial embolization is done with inert microparticles like polyvinyl microspheres.[47],[48],[49] Following embolization, patients may develop an inflammatory state (postembolization syndrome) secondary to allograft necrosis. This is usually managed with increasing the corticosteroid dose.[50] A small percentage may fail embolization and may need an allograft nephrectomy. There is a small but significant risk of allosensitization following this procedure which needs further investigation.[51]


  Allograft Nephrectomy Top


Whether an asymptomatic failed allograft should be removed or not remains a contentious issue and depends on the individual clinical situation. Allograft nephrectomy has its own advantages and disadvantages [Table 2]. The surgical procedure is also not devoid of risks. The impact of allograft nephrectomy on overall patient survival is also not clear.[52],[53]
Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of allograft nephrectomy

Click here to view


Studies have shown the average rate of allograft nephrectomy varies between 9.2% and 74%.[54],[55] The allograft is often removed through the extracapsular approach. The kidney is removed in toto along with its pedicle. If the allograft has been in situ for a longer period, the graft is removed via an intra or subcapsular approach. The kidney is accessed through the old incision in both the procedures.[56] The complication rates vary between 17% and 60%. The major complications are infection and bleeding.[57],[58] Uncontrolled infection leading to sepsis is also noted in some studies. The risk of complication is often double when the nephrectomy is performed on an emergency basis.[54]

The immunological impact of allograft removal may reduce the continuous antigenic stimulus leading to decreased allosensitization. A large observational study showed that patients who had an allograft nephrectomy had a higher chance of getting a new kidney and a better overall survival.[59]

Other studies have shown that allosensitization risk was higher in patients who had undergone a nephrectomy for their failed graft.[60] Donor-specific antibodies level rise after allograft nephrectomy when immunosuppression is stopped.[61] The allograft acts as a “sink” and mops up circulating anti-HLA antibodies [Table 2].

Allosensitization risk is higher in patients who underwent nephrectomy because of symptoms compared to those with elective allograft nephrectomy. It appears allograft loss due to nephrectomy in cases with surgical complications have lesser risk of allosensitization compared to graft loss secondary to immunological issues. Rapid withdrawal of immunosuppression along with allograft nephrectomy also increases allosensitization.

Overall, allograft nephrectomy has a deleterious impact on allosensitization long term.

Unless forced to, the current recommendation is to leave the allograft in situ unless there is a high risk of infection.

The indications of allograft nephrectomy are given in [Table 3]. Removal of the allograft is often considered in a situation where there is a possibility of a graft rupture secondary to surgical complications (vascular thrombosis of the allograft). It is also required when there is persistent allograft intolerance syndrome which is not amenable to medical therapy (increased immunosuppression, anti-inflammatory agents, etc.). Allograft nephrectomy in cases with early graft failure is associated with better re-transplantation results. Allograft nephrectomy in patients with BK virus nephropathy has not been shown to prevent a recurrence. It may be considered if there is persistent BK viremia at the time of re-transplantation [Table 3].
Table 3: Indications of graft nephrectomy

Click here to view



  Re-transplant Considerations Top


Patients with failed allograft are candidates for re-transplant. Re-transplantation over the years has resulted in improved outcomes, but the second graft survival does not match with the initial transplantation results.[62]

There are certain issues that need to be addressed when a re-transplant is considered. They include increased risk of rejections, infections, malignancies, hospitalizations, and mortality.[63] There is also the risk of the recurrence of the initial disease. The re-transplant surgery is also a surgically difficult compared to the first operation [Table 4].[69]
Table 4: Re-transplant considerations

Click here to view


These issues need to be discussed with the patient and their caregivers. A second transplant should be considered when all risks are considered and appropriate measures are taken.


  Conclusions Top


KAF patients are a special group of patients. They need a multidisciplinary approach in their management. Addressing their issues and concerns appropriately leads to a successful re-transplant outcome.[70]

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, Gustafson SK, Wilk AR, Castro S, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2017 annual data report. Am J Transplant 2019;19:19-123.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Pham PT, Everly M, Faravardeh A, Pham PC. Management of patients with a failed kidney transplant: Dialysis reinitiation, immunosuppression weaning, and transplantectomy. World J Nephrol 2015;4:148-59.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Karthikeyan V, Karpinski J, Nair RC, Knoll G. The burden of chronic kidney disease in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2004;4:262-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Gill JS, Pereira BJ. Chronic kidney disease and the transplant recipient. Blood Purif 2003;21:137-42.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Woo YM, Pereira BJ, Gill JS. Chronic kidney disease progression in native and transplant kidneys. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2004;13:607-11.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ansell D, Udayaraj UP, Steenkamp R, Dudley CR. Chronic renal failure in kidney transplant recipients. Do they receive optimum care? Data from the UK renal registry. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1167-76.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transpalnt 2009;9:S1-31.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Djamali A, Kendziorski C, Brazy PC, Becker BN. Disease progression and outcomes in chronic kidney disease and renal transplantation. Kidney Int 2003;64:1800-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ducloux D, Kazory A, Chalopin JM. Predicting coronary heart disease in renal transplant recipients: A prospective study. Kidney Int 2004;66:441-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Lewis JB, Helderman JH. Is it time for ACE inhibitors in chronic allograft nephropathy? Am J Kidney Dis 2000;35:154-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Thomas MC, Cooper ME. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: Better late than never. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;43:1113-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Perl J. Kidney transplant failure: Failing kidneys, failing care? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014;9:1153-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chan MR, Oza-Gajera B, Chapla K, Djamali AX, Muth BL, Turk J, et al. Initial vascular access type in patients with a failed renal transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014;9:1225-31.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Dawoud D, Harms J, Williams T, Kumar V, Allon M. Predialysis vascular access surgery in patients with failing kidney transplants. Am J Kidney Dis 2013;62:398-400.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Rao PS, Schaubel DE, Jia X, Li S, Port FK, Saran R. Survival on dialysis post-kidney transplant failure: Results from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 2007;49:294-300.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Rao PS, Schaubel DE, Saran R. Impact of graft failure on patient survival on dialysis: A comparison of transplant-naive and post-graft failure mortality rates. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:387-91.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Johnston O, Zalunardo N, Rose C, Gill JS. Prevention of sepsis during the transition to dialysis may improve the survival of transplant failure patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;18:1331-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Perl J, Zhang J, Gillespie B, Wikström B, Fort J, Hasegawa T, et al. Reduced survival and quality of life following return to dialysis after transplant failure: The dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:4464-72.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Brar A, Markell M, Stefanov DG, Timpo E, Jindal RM, Nee R, et al. Mortality after renal allograft failure and return to dialysis. Am J Nephrol 2017;45:180-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Laham G, Pujol GS, Vilches A, Cusumano A, Diaz C. Nonprogrammed vascular access is associated with greater mortality in patients who return to hemodialysis with a failing renal graft. Transplantation 2017;45:180-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Varas J, Pérez-Sáez MJ, Ramos R, Merello JI, de Francisco AL, Luño J, et al. Returning to haemodialysis after kidney allograft failure: A survival study with propensity score matching. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2019;34:667-72.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Mourad G, Minguet J, Pernin V, Garrigue V, Peraldi MN, Kessler M, et al. Similar patient survival following kidney allograft failure compared with non-transplanted patients. Kidney Int 2014;86:191-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
de Jonge H, Bammens B, Lemahieu W, Maes BD, Varenterghem Y. Comparison of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis after transplant failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1669-74.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Davies SJ. Peritoneal dialysis in the patient with a failing renal allograft. Perit Dial Int 2001;21:S280-4.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Perl J, Hasan O, Bargman JM, Jiang D, Na Y, Gill JS, et al. Impact of dialysis modality on survival after kidney transplant failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6:582-90.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Molnar MZ, Streja E, Kovesdy CP, Hoshino J, Hatamizadeh P, Glassock RJ, et al. Estimated glomerular filtration rate at reinitiation of dialysis and mortality in failed kidney transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:2913-21.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Park JT, Yoo TH, Chang TI, Lee JH, Lee DH, Kim BS, et al. Predictors of mortality in patients returning to dialysis after allograft loss. Blood Purif 2010;30:56-63.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Sleiman J, Garrigue V, Vetromile F, Mourad G. Return to dialysis after renal allograft loss: Is dialysis treatment initiated too late? Transplant Proc 2007;39:2597-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Shemin D, Bostom AG, Laliberty P, Dworkin LD. Residual renal function and mortality risk in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;38:85-90.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bargman JM, Golper TA. The importance of residual renal function for patients on dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:671-3.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Jassal SV, Lok CE, Walele A, Bargman JM. Continued transplant immunosuppression may prolong survival after return to peritoneal dialysis: Results of a decision analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:178-83.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Augustine JJ, Woodside KJ, Padiyar A, Sanchez EQ, Hricik DE, Schulak JA. Independent of nephrectomy, weaning immunosuppression leads to late sensitization after kidney transplant failure. Transplantation 2012;94:738-43.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Casey MJ, Wen X, Kayler LK, Aiyer R, Scornik JC, Meier-Kriesche HU. Prolonged immunosuppression preserves nonsensitization status after kidney transplant failure. Transplantation 2014;98:306-11.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Smak Gregoor PJ, Zietse R, van Saase JL, op de Hoek CT, IJzermans JN, Lavrijssen AT, et al. Immunosuppression should be stopped in patients with renal allograft failure. Clin Transplant 2001;15:397-401.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Woodside KJ, Schirm ZW, Noon KA, Huml AM, Padiyar A, Sanchez EQ, et al. Fever, infection, and rejection after kidney transplant failure. Transplantation 2014;97:648-53.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Huscher D, Thiele K, Gromnica-Ihle E, Hein G, Demary W, Dreher R, et al. Dose-related patterns of glucocorticoid-induced side effects. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1119-24.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Le J, Durand CM, Agha I, Brennan DC. Epstein-Barr virus and renal transplantation. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2017;31:55-60.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Zmonarski SC, Boratyńska M, Puziewicz-Zmonarska A, Kazimierczak K, Klinger M. Kaposi's sarcoma in renal transplant recipients. Ann Transplant 2005;10:59-65.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
van Leeuwen MT, Webster AC, McCredie MR, Stewart JH, McDonald SP, Amin J, et al. Effect of reduced immunosuppression after kidney transplant failure on risk of cancer: Population based retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c570.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Hartevelt MM, Bavinck JN, Kootte AM, Vermeer BJ, Vandenbroucke JP. Incidence of skin cancer after renal transplantation in the Netherlands. Transplantation 1990;49:506-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Jensen P, Møller B, Hansen S. Skin cancer in kidney and heart transplant recipients and different long-term immunosuppressive therapy regimens. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:307-12.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Andrews PA; Standards Committee of the British Transplantation Society. Summary of the British transplantation society guidelines for management of the failing kidney transplant. Transplantation 2014;98:1130-3.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Rao SB, Perez S, Pastan S, Gebel H, Chami A. Gradual vs rapid withdrawal of immunosuppression after kidney allograft failure results in less allosensitisation, decreased rate of de-novo donor specific antibody and reduced need for allograft nephrectomy.(abstract). Am J Transplant 2013;13-8.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Askandarani S, Aloudah N, Enaji H, Alsaad KO, Altamini A. Late renal allograft rupture assocaited with cessation of immunosuppression following graft failure. Case Rep Transplant 2011:2011:512893.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Lopez-Gomez JM, Perez-Flores I, Jofre R, Carretero D, Rodríguez-Benitez P, Villaverde M, et al. Presence of a failed kidney transplant in patients who are on hemodialysis is associated with chronic inflammatory state and erythropoeitin resistance. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:2494-501.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Singh P, Feld RL, Colombe BW, Farber JL, Herman JH, Gulati R, et al. Sensitisation, pathologic, and imaging findings comparing symptomatic and quiescent failed renal allografts. Clin Transpl 2014;28:1424-32.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Delgado P, Diaz F, Gonzalez A, Sanchez E, Gutierrez P, Hernandez D, et al. Intolerance syndrome in failed renal allografts: Incidence and efficacy of percutaneous embolization. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:339-44.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Pérez Martínez J, Gallego E, Juliá E, Llamas F, López A, Palao F, et al. Embolization of non-functioning renal allograft: Efficacy and control of systemic inflammation. Nefrologia 2005;25:422-7.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Solinas A, De Giorgi F, Frongia M. Ablation of non functioning renal allograft by embolization: A valid alternative to graft nephrectomy? Arch Ital Urol Androl 2005;77:99-102.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Cofan F, Real MI, Vilardell J, Montanya X, Blasco J, Martin P, et al. Percutaneous renal artery embolisation of non-functioning renal allografts with clinical intolerance. Transpl Int 2002;15:149-55.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Al Badaai G, Pernin V, Garrigue V, Monnin V, Murez T, Fadli SE, et al. Renal graft intolerance syndrome in late graft failure patients: Efficacy and safety of embolization as first-line treatment compared to surgical removal. Transpl Int 2017;30:484-93.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Sumrani N, Delaney V, Hong JH, Daskalakis P, Sommer BG. The influence of nephrectomy of the primary allograft on retransplant graft outcome in the cyclosporine era. Transplantation 1992;53:52-5.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Yagmurdur MC, Emiroglu R, Ayvaz I, Sozen H, Karakayali H, Haberal M, et al. The effect of graft nephrectomy on long term graft function and survival in kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005;37:2957-62.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Secin FP, Rovegno AR, del Rosario Brunet M, Marrugat RE, Dávalos Michel M, Fernandez H. Cumulative incidence, indications, morbidity and mortality of transplant nephrectomy and the most appropriate time for graft removal: Only nonfunctioning transplants that cause intractable complications should be excised. J Urol 2003;169:1242-6.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Johnston O, Rose C, Landsberg D, Gourlay WA, Gill JS. Nephrectomy after transplant failure: Current practice and outcomes. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1961-7.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Morris PJ, Knechtle S. Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsiever; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Mazzucchi E, Nahas WC, Antonopoulos IM, Piovesan AC, Ianhez LE, Arap S. Surgical complications of graft nephrectomy in the modern transplant era. J Urol 2003;170:734-7.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
O'Sullivan DC, Murphy DM, McLean P, Donovan MG. Transplant nephrectomy over 20 years: Factors involved in associated morbidity and mortality. J Urol 1994;151:855-8.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Ayus JC, Achinger SG, Lee S, Sayegh MH, Go AS. Transplant nephrectomy improves survival following a failed renal allograft. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;21:374-80.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Fadli SE, Pernin V, Nogue E, Macioce V, Picot MC, Ramounau-Pigot A, et al. Impact of graft nephrectomy on outcomes of second kidney transplantation. Int J Urol 2014;21:797-802.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Del Bello A, Congy-Jolivet N, Sallusto F, Guilbeau-Frugier C, Cardeau-Desangles I, Fort M, et al. Donor-specific antibodies after ceasing immunosuppressive therapy, with or without an allograft nephrectomy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;7:1310-9.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Pour-Reza-Gholi F, Nafar M, Saeedinia A, Farrokhi F, Firouzan A, Simforoosh N, et al. Kidney retransplantation in comparison with first kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005;37:2962-4.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Heaphy EL, Poggio ED, Flechner SM, Goldfarb DA, Askar M, Fatica R, et al. Risk factors for retransplant kidney recipients: Relisting and outcomes from patients' primary transplant. Am J Transplant 2014;14:1356-67.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Florit EA, Bennis S, Rodriguez E, Revuelta I, De Sousa E, Esforzado N, et al. Pre-emptive retransplantation in patients with chronic kidney graft failure. Transplant Proc 2015;47:2351-3.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS, Hurdle JF, Baird BC, Stoddard G, Wang Z, Scandling JD, et al. The role of pre-emptive retransplant in graft and recipient outrcome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1355-64.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Johnston O, Rose CL, Gill JS, Gill JS. Risks and benefits of preemptive second kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2013;95:705-10.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Ooms LS, Roodnat Jl, Dor FJ, Tran TC, Kimenai HJ, Ijzermans JN, et al. Kidney retransplantation in the ipsilateral fossa; A surgical challenge. Am J Transplant 2015;15:2947-54.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Matar D, Naqvi F, Racusen LC, Carter-Monroe N, Montgomery RA, Alachkar N. Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome recurrence after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2014;98:1205-12.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Hirsch HH, Ramos E. Retransplantation after polyoma virus – Associated nephropathy: Just do it? Am J Transplant 2006;6:7-9.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Caillard S, Cellot E, Dantal J, Thaunat O, Provot F, Janbon B, et al. A french cohort study of kidney retransplantation after post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:1663-70.  Back to cited text no. 70
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Allograft Failur...
Chronic Kidney D...
Dialysis Issues
Issues Regarding...
Graft Intoleranc...
Allograft Nephre...
Re-transplant Co...
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed412    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded68    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal