PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Perit Dial Int 29(Supplement_2): 117-122
2009
© 2009 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caliskan, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Sever, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caliskan, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Sever, M. S.

Part 3: Clinical Experiences

EFFECT OF PRE-TRANSPLANT DIALYSIS MODALITY ON KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION OUTCOME

Yasar Caliskan, Halil Yazici, Numan Gorgulu, Berna Yelken, Turker Emre, Aydin Turkmen, Alaattin Yildiz, Nilgun Aysuna, Semra Bozfakioglu and Mehmet Sukru Sever

Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

Correspondence to: Y. Caliskan, Istanbul School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Capa, Topkapi, Istanbul, Turkey. ykcaliskan{at}yahoo.com

{diamondsuit} Background: The effect of pre-transplant dialysis modality on early graft function is a matter of debate. Although some authors deny the existence of a significant influence, others suggest that peritoneal dialysis (PD) affects early graft function favorably, possibly by contributing to a more physiologic water balance. In the present study, we evaluated the influence of pre-transplant dialysis modality on early and late graft function.

{diamondsuit} Patients and Methods: We studied 745 patients who underwent a first renal transplantation during 1983–2006, comparing the records of 44 PD patients [26 male; mean age: 26 ± 9 years (range: 8–56 years)] who received 36 living related and 8 cadaveric renal transplantations with those of a control group of 44 consecutive hemodialysis (HD) patients [26 male; mean age: 27 ± 11 years (range: 7–49 years)] for the index cases.

{diamondsuit} Results: The groups showed no significant differences in donor type, human leukocyte antigen matching, immunosuppressive protocols, and duration of dialysis. Also, neither group differed significantly with regard to incidence of delayed graft function, acute tubular necrosis, wound infection, systemic viral and bacterial infections, or acute rejection in the early post-transplant period. In the late post-transplant period, incidences of chronic rejection, graft failure, and malignancies were also similar. During the follow-up period, 3 patients in the PD group experienced acute rejection, 2 developed cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, and 5 developed various other infections. In the HD group, 4 patients experienced acute rejection, 1 developed CMV disease, and 8 experienced other infections. Five patients in the PD group and one in the HD group died with functioning grafts (p = 0.09). No differences were noted between the groups in the incidences of post-transplant cardiovascular complications, malignancies, and diabetes mellitus. In the PD group, 33 patients with functioning grafts are still being followed, 6 have returned to dialysis, and 5 have died. In the HD group, 38 patients with functioning grafts are still being followed, 5 have returned to dialysis, and 1 has died.

{diamondsuit} Conclusions: As a pre-transplant dialysis modality, neither HD nor PD affects the outcome of renal transplantation.

KEY WORDS: Chronic allograft nephropathy; hemodialysis; post-transplant complications; renal transplantation.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 2009 by Multimed Inc.