Comparison of time on the deceased donor kidney waitlist versus time on the kidney paired donation registry in the Australian program

In the Australian kidney paired donation (KPD) program matching is based on acceptable mismatches, whereas deceased donor waitlist (DDWL) patients are allocated kidneys based on HLA antigen matching rules. Herein, we compared waiting time for a KPD match to the waiting time on the DDWL and the occurrence of matching in the DDWL for patients who were registered in both programs. Data on first dialysis, matches on the DDWL, KPD program entry, matches and transplant dates were assessed in 26 KPD recipients of the Australian program. There were 22 recipients who were listed in the DDWL and received kidney transplants by KPD. Time on dialysis until KPD transplantation was 808 ± 646 days. Eleven patients had never been matched with a deceased donor (waiting time 345 ± 237 days) and 11 had been matched on average 3 ± 5 times (waiting time 1227 ± 615 days, P < 0.0001 vs. never matched), but did not progress to transplantation because of positive crossmatch or class II donor‐specific antibody. Mean time from registration in the KPD program until kidney transplantation was 153 ± 92 days (P < 0.0001 vs. DDWL). KPD allocation using the acceptable mismatch approach is effective in identifying suitable live donors for some recipients within a relatively short time‐frame.     

Malignancy Prevalence in the Dialyzed Population and in Waitlisted Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients

Malignancy is the second cause of death in the dialyzed population. However, data on the prevalence of cancer are very scarce. Kidney transplantation improves quality of life, prolongs survival, and is cost-effective but bears some serious complications including malignancy. Therefore, active screening for cancer is of utmost importance. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of malignancy in dialyzed patients in relation to status on the on the waiting list and type of dialysis. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 108 hemodialyzed patients (mean age 65 years, 47 women) and 47 peritoneally dialyzed patients (mean age 51 years, 25 women). Among the population studied, 20 patients were actively waitlisted, including 14 peritoneal dialysis patients. Patients who had been active on the cadaver kidney waiting list and not listed did not differ in regard to sex, dialysis vintage, and causes of end-stage renal failure, but were significantly younger. Among hemodialysis patients, 24 of them had a history of malignancy and 10 in the peritoneal dialysis population. The most common were renal cell carcinoma in 6, breast cancer in 4, lung cancer in 3, prostate cancer in 3, hepatocellular cancer in 2, colorectal cancer in 2, esophageal cancer in 2, and others 14. In waitlisted patients, only 2 hemodialysis patients had a history of malignancy. Waitlisted patients represent a very selected and healthier dialyzed population. Malignancy has become a more common comorbidity in dialyzed patients, which may have important clinical implication regarding therapy. Guidelines for cancer screening in potential transplant recipients should be developed, as nowadays there are scarcity of data in this matter.     

Eye Problems in Patients on the Active and Inactive Kidney Transplantation Waiting List

Renal transplant is the best form of treatment for most patients with end-stage renal disease. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of eye problems in patients with end-stage renal disease on the kidney transplantation waiting list in regard to their status (active vs temporarily disqualified).The cross-sectional study was conducted on 90 prevalent patients in 1 regional qualification center. There were 24 peritoneally dialyzed patients, 5 patients registered for preemptive transplantation, and 61 hemodialyzed patients. Average age of patients who had been registered on the cadaver kidney waiting list was 50 (±?14) years, with a balanced sex ratio and median dialysis duration of 38 months. The primary cause of end-stage renal failure was chronic glomerulonephritis in 42 cases, diabetic nephropathy in 10 cases, hypertensive nephropathy in 12 cases, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in 7 cases, and other or unknown in the remaining patients. The major diagnosis was hypertensive angiopathy (related to the presence of long-term hypertension and history of kidney disease) in 56 patients, diabetic retinopathy in 8 patients, blindness in 4 cases (due to solvent intoxication in 1 case), and eyesight abnormalities (myopia, hyperopia, anisometropia) in 7 cases. Cataracts were described in 10 patients in addition to other findings. In 15 patients ophthalmology examination was normal, predominantly in younger patients. Abnormalities were more common in patients on the inactive list.In the vast majority of potential kidney transplant recipients, ophthalmology disturbances are primarily related to the underlying disease. The ophthalmology consult is part of the qualification, but the abnormalities are not the exclusion criteria.     

Predictors of perceived health status in patients after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Patients after kidney transplantation have decreased mortality, morbidity and better quality of life compared to people on dialysis. Major efforts are being directed towards research into graft and patient survival. Research into quality of life is less intensive. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors of perceived health status (PHS) in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Out of 218 patients after kidney transplantation 138 participated in the study. Linear regression analysis was performed to predict PHS, measured with the SF-36 questionnaire, in three age categories (<40, 40-59, >or=60 years). Independent variables included social support (measured with the Social Support List Discrepancies questionnaire), sociodemographic and medical variables, side effects and compliance. RESULTS: Predictors of better PHS in patients<40 years were better social support (P相似文献   

Does pre‐emptive kidney transplantation with a deceased donor improve outcomes? Results from a French transplant network

Large analyses have demonstrated that pre‐emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) leads to significant improvements in patient and graft survival when compared with transplantation performed after a period of dialysis. We analysed 1585 patients who received a first renal transplantation from a deceased donor between 2000 and 2004 in four French transplantation centres. The objective was to compare the characteristics of the deceased donor transplantations with or without previous dialysis and to evaluate the impact of PKT and length of dialysis on patient and graft outcomes. Mean age of recipients was 48.1 ± 13.4 years, 62% were men, and 118 (7.4%) of them received a pre‐emptive transplantation. For the nonpre‐emptive patients, mean time on pretransplant dialysis was 3.4 ± 3.2 years. Pretransplant factors independently related to pre‐emptive transplantation were year of transplantation, centre and recipients characteristics: gender, diabetes history, blood group and donor age. Patients with pretransplant dialysis were three times more likely to have delayed graft function than pre‐emptive transplant patients, and were 10 times more likely to receive post‐transplant dialysis. Five‐year patient survival was 92.9%. Five‐year graft survival was 89.0%. Neither pre‐emptive transplantation nor time on dialysis was significantly associated with patient and/or graft survival.     

Survival improvement among patients with end-stage renal disease: trends over time for transplant recipients and wait-listed patients

Both transplant and dialysis outcomes have improved over recent years. In addition, transplantation has been shown to confer a survival benefit over maintenance dialysis. The study presented here addresses the question of whether the survival benefit of transplantation over maintenance dialysis has changed in the most recent eras. This study was based on data collected by the United States Renal Transplant Scientific Registry and the United States Renal Data System. The study sample consisted of 104,000 patients placed on the renal transplant waiting list between 1988 and 1996, of which 73,707 subsequently received renal transplants. The annualized adjusted mortality rates per 1000 patient-years were calculated by calendar year of placement on the renal transplant waiting list and for kidney transplant recipients. The resulting data were plotted, and linear curve fitting was used to estimate the slope of the change of the adjusted mortality rates by year during the period studied, 1988 to 1996. Overall annual adjusted death rates in the wait-listed patients and transplant recipients per 1000 patient-years decreased for both groups throughout the study period. From 1989 to 1996, the relative risk (RR) for patient death had decreased by 30% for transplant recipients and 23% for wait-listed patients (RR = 0.70 and 0.77; P < 0.0001 each). Slope analysis of the cause-specific mortality rates for cardiovascular disease and infection showed nearly equivalent, linear decreases for both groups. Mortality rates have improved overall and by categories of major cause of death for both renal transplant recipients and patients on the renal transplant waiting list. These favorable trends most likely represent equal advances in transplantation, dialysis, and general medical care.     

Live and Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation in Patients Aged 75 years and Older in the United States

Objective: To examine the outcomes of geriatric ESRD patients selected for kidney transplantation. Design: Data were extracted from the USRDS Standard Analysis Files (SAF). All persons ages 75 and over who received a kidney transplant from 1994 to 2000 were compared with those remaining on dialysis or on a transplant waiting list. Data on mortality or removal from the waiting list were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The main outcome measure was patient and kidney transplant survival. Results: Superior five year survival after kidney transplantation was attained by the geriatric cohort given a live donor transplant (59.9%), compared with recipients of deceased donor kidneys (40.3%), dialysis patients waiting for transplant (29.7%), and those who were not selected for kidney transplantation and remained on dialysis (12.5%). The likelihood of being removed from the waiting list for any reason was higher in this group (over 75) (30.3%) than in the 66–75 age group (26.8%). Their average annual mortality rate on the waiting list was 7.9, compared to 6.6% for those 66–75. Conclusion: Even after the age of 75 years, kidney transplantation provides substantial life prolongation and excellent graft survival. USRDS Disclaimer: The data reported here have been supplied by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as official policy or interpretation of the US government.     

Effect of age and care organization on sources of variation in kidney transplant waiting list registration

Despite national guidelines, medical practices and kidney transplant waiting list registration policies may differ from one dialysis/transplant unit to another. Benefit risk assessment variations, especially for elderly patients, have also been described. The aim of this study was to identify sources of variation in early kidney transplant waiting list registration in France. Among 16 842 incident patients during the period 2016–2017, 4386 were registered on the kidney transplant waiting list at the start of, or during the first year after starting, dialysis (26%). We developed various log-linear mixed effect regression models on three levels: patients, dialysis networks, and transplant centers. Variability was expressed as variance from the random intercepts (± standard error). Although patient characteristics have an important impact on the likelihood of registration, the overall magnitude of variability in registration was low and shared by dialysis networks and transplant centers. Between-transplant center variability (0.23 ± 0.08) was 1.8 higher than between-dialysis network variability (0.13 ± 0.004). Older age was associated with a lower probability of registration and greater variability between networks (0.04, 0.20, & 0.93 in the 18–64, 65–74, and 75–84 age groups). Targeted interventions should focus on elderly patients and/or certain regions with greater variability in waiting list access.     

A comparison of the effects of dialysis and renal transplantation on the survival of older uremic patients

BACKGROUND: Patients over age 60 constitute half of all new patients accepted into the renal replacement therapy programs in Australia. However, the optimal treatment of their end-stage renal disease remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare survival for dialysis and renal transplantation in older patients who were rigorously screened and considered eligible for transplantation. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 174 consecutive patients over 60 who were accepted on to the Queensland cadaveric renal transplant waiting list between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 1997. Follow-up was terminated on October 1, 1998. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-transplant basis using a Cox regression model with time-varying explanatory variables. An alternative survival analysis was also performed, in which patients no longer considered suitable for transplantation were censored at the time of their removal from the waiting list. RESULTS: There were 67 patients receiving a renal transplant, whereas the other 107 continued to undergo dialysis. These two groups were well matched at baseline with respect to age, gender, body mass index, renal disease etiology, comorbid illnesses, and dialysis duration and modality. The overall mortality rate was 0.096 per patient-year (0.131 for dialysis and 0.029 for transplant, P<0.001). Respective 1-, 3- and 5-year survivals were 92%, 62%, and 27% for the dialysis group and 98%, 95%, and 90% (P<0.01) for the transplant group. Patients in the transplant group had an adjusted hazard ratio 0.16 times that of the dialysis group (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.42). If patients were censored at the time of their withdrawal from the transplant waiting list, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.09-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplantation seems to confer a substantial survival advantage over dialysis in patients with end-stage renal failure who are rigorously screened and considered suitable for renal transplantation.     

Significance of urodynamic assessment of lower urinary tract in dialysis patients before renal transplantation

INTRODUCTION: Some dialyzed patients suffer from lower urinary tract (LUT) anatomic and functional disturbances. Complete LUT assessment should be performed to decide whether they can be included on the waiting list, because such disorders, if not diagnosed and properly treated before transplant, may lead to graft loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on data in the medical records of 4170 dialysis patients, 535 were selected for further investigation: 265 patients after undergoing urethrocystography or urethrocystoscopy, were included on the waiting list for transplantation and 145 patients underwent nephroureterectomy owing to reflux, nephrolithiasis, polycystic renal disease, or hydronephrosis. Five patients with urethral or bladder neck stricture underwent urethral dilation or bladder neck incision. These patients were also ultimately listed for transplantation. Twenty-two patients, with serious LUT disease were qualified for kidney transplantation after extra-anatomic urine outflow. Ninety-eight patients underwent a urodynamic study (URD) to assess LUT disturbances. RESULTS: Of 535 studied patients, 460 (86%), including those who underwent surgical or pharmacologic treatment, were ultimately listed for kidney transplantation. Out of 98 patients who underwent a URD, 45 (46%) were included for kidney transplantation, and 47 for transplantation with atypical urinary outflow. Six patients were excluded from transplantation owing to refusal of investigations or serious contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: All potential kidney recipients should undergo proper evaluation of the LUT before being qualified for kidney transplantation. This study allows selection of patients who should undergo surgical and/or pharmacologic treatment before transplantation.     

Ventricular arrhythmia in incident kidney transplant recipients: prevalence and associated factors

Cardiovascular mortality in kidney transplant recipients has shown to be substantially elevated particularly in the first year of transplantation. Complex ventricular arrhythmia (VA) has been pointed as one of the etiologies of sudden death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of VA and to investigate the factors associated with their occurrence in incident kidney transplant recipients. A total of 100 incident kidney transplant recipients were included in the study (39.7 ± 10.1 years, 55% male, 43.6 ± 10.1 days of transplantation, 66% living donors). All the patients underwent 24 h electrocardiogram, echocardiogram and multi‐slice computed tomography. Thirty percent of the patients had VA. Left ventricular hypertrophy was observed in 57% of the patients while heart failure was found in 5%. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) was observed in 26 patients, from which 31% had severe calcification. The group of patients with VA was predominantly male, had been on dialysis therapy for a longer time and had more coronary calcification. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, male gender and CAC score were independently associated with the presence of VA. In conclusion, kidney transplant recipients exhibited a high prevalence of VA and the factors associated with its occurrence were the male gender and the presence of CAC.     

Continuous cognitive improvement 1 year following successful kidney transplant

Successful kidney transplantation was recently shown to lead to improvement in the cognitive performance of patients on chronic dialysis. To examine whether the early cognitive benefits of transplantation continue to develop over time, along with the patients' ongoing recovery, we addressed these questions in a prospective controlled study of 27 dialyzed patients who subsequently received a kidney transplant, 18 dialyzed patients awaiting kidney transplant, and 30 matched controls without kidney disease. Overall, successful kidney transplant contributed to a statistically significant improvement in performance on tests of motor/psychomotor speed, visual planning, memory, and abstract reasoning tested 1 year later. We also studied whether the cognitive performance of patients maintained on dialysis is stable or declines over time and found that it actually declined over this time even in adequately dialyzed patients. Measures of memory functions were particularly affected. This study indicates that the early beneficial effects of transplantation are not transient and were still evident 1 year following transplantation.     

The Impact of Transplantation with Deceased Donor Hepatitis C-Positive Kidneys on Survival in Wait-Listed Long-term Dialysis Patients

Whether transplantation of deceased donor kidney allografts from donors with antibodies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) confers a survival advantage compared with remaining on the kidney transplant waiting list is not yet known. We studied 38,270 USRDS Medicare beneficiaries awaiting kidney transplantation who presented with end-stage renal disease from April 1, 1995 to July 31, 2000. Cox regression was used to compare the adjusted hazard ratios for death among recipients of kidneys from deceased donors, and donors with antibodies against hepatitis C (DHCV+), controlling for demographics and comorbidities. In comparison to staying on the waiting list, transplantation from DHCV+ was associated with improved survival among all patients (adjusted hazard ratio for death 0.76, 95% CI 0.60, 0.96). Of patients receiving DHCV+ kidneys, 52% were themselves hepatitis C antibody positive (HCV+), so outcomes associated with use of these grafts may have particular implications for HCV+ transplant candidates. Recommendations for use of DHCV+ kidneys may require analysis of data not currently collected from either dialysis or transplant patients. However, transplantation of DHCV+ kidneys is associated with improved patient survival compared to remaining wait-listed and dialysis dependent.     

Strategies for prevention and control of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease in the department of kidney transplantation

To summarize measures for the prevention and control of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the department of kidney transplantation. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of outpatients and inpatients in the department of kidney transplantation from January 20 to March 1, 2020, and followed up the in-home kidney transplant recipients and those waiting for kidney transplantation through the Internet platform. Our department had formulated detailed prevention and control measures, mainly including kidney transplant outpatient management, kidney transplantation ward management, management of kidney transplant surgery, dialysis management of patients waiting for kidney transplantation, personal protection of medical staff, and follow-up management of discharged patients after kidney transplantation. During the epidemic period, there were no COVID-19 cases among 68 outpatient examined kidney transplant recipients, 32 hospitalized kidney transplant recipients, 19 patients waiting for kidney transplantation in hospital, and 30 medical staff. There were no COVID-19 cases among 160 follow-up recipients after kidney transplantation and 60 patients waiting for kidney transplantation. During the epidemic period, we implemented strict prevention and control measures and adjusted working methods and procedures to ensure safe and orderly work of the department.     

Death with graft function in elderly patients after cadaveric renal transplantation: effect of waiting time

Survival after kidney transplantation is better than on the waiting list, even in the elderly. However, the effects of a prolonged waiting time for an organ on death with graft function have not been critically examined in this patient group. We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of our cadaveric renal transplant experience in patients older than 60 years who received a kidney between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2003. Besides waiting time, the effects of recipient age, gender, and diabetes were also examined. Cox proportional hazards analysis using patient death as a time-dependent outcome was used to estimate the hazard ratio of death posttransplantation. Using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology, patients with waiting times < or =5 years had significantly better survival times posttransplantation compared with those with waiting times >5 years (6.2 vs 2.8 years; P <.001). Each year of waiting was associated with hazard ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.27) for death. Prolonged waiting time on dialysis is deleterious to patient survival in recipients older than 60 years at transplantation. Early transplantation thus should be strongly encouraged in this group of patients.     

Survival of recipients of cadaveric kidney transplants compared with those receiving dialysis treatment in Australia and New Zealand, 1991-2001.

BACKGROUND: Comparison of mortality rates after kidney transplantation with those treated by dialysis is an important factor is assessing treatment options, but is subject to many pitfalls in selection of appropriate control groups, in particular allowing for varying post-operative risk, and recent changes in mortality rates with better immunosuppression and dialysis techniques. We examined the outcomes following cadaveric renal transplantation and compared them with an appropriate control group of dialysis patients, using contemporary national data from Australia and New Zealand and appropriate statistical methods. In particular, we explicitly addressed the changing risks following transplantation, and looked at both younger (low-risk) and older (higher-risk) recipients, and examined the effect of attribution of deaths in the early period following loss of transplant function to the risk of transplantation. METHODS: We performed a cohort study, initially including 11 560 people aged 15-65 years who began treatment for end-stage renal disease in Australia or New Zealand between 1991 and 2000. Of these, 5144 were recorded at least once as on an active cadaveric transplant waiting list. Survival was analysed with Cox regression, including time-dependent covariates to allow for the violation of proportional hazards with changing mortality risks post-operatively. We also performed stratified analyses on low-risk recipients (<50 years, without co-morbidity) and older recipients. RESULTS: There was a clear difference in survival between those on the active transplant waiting list and those not listed. Of those who were on the cadaveric transplant waiting list, 2362 (46%) were transplanted in the period to 30 September 2001. Cadaveric transplantation was associated with an initial increase in mortality [during the first 3 months post-transplantation, adjusted HR 2.0 (1.5-2.7), P<0.001]. This fell below the dialysis group at 6 months [adjusted HR 0.27 (0.16-0.47), P<0.001] and from 12 months post-transplantation, the reduction in risk of mortality was approximately 80% [adjusted HR 0.19 (0.15-0.24), P<0.001]. A secondary analysis showed the excess risk attributed to the period immediately following transplantation was actually due to deaths in the 60 days after loss of transplant function rather than those occurring with a functioning graft. CONCLUSIONS: As well as improved quality of life, cadaveric renal transplantation in Australia and New Zealand is associated with a survival advantage compared with those remaining on the waiting list.     

Medical and non-medical determinants of access to renal transplant waiting list in a French community-based network of care.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of adult candidates for kidney transplantation diverges from one centre to another. Concurrently, ethnic background, female gender, late referral to a nephrologist, distance from transplantation department and private ownership of a dialysis facility have been associated with poor access to kidney transplantation. We assessed determinants of access to a waiting list in a French community-based network of care. METHODS: From July 1997 to June 2003, 1725 adults living in Lorraine, who started renal replacement therapy in one of the 13 facilities of the network, were included. We compared, first, the patients registered on the waiting list with those not registered and, second, the patients registered before starting dialysis with those registered after. RESULTS: Using logistic regression, registration on the waiting list was exclusively associated with age and medical factors, except for one variable: medical follow-up in the department performing transplantation [odds ratio (OR): 1.67 (95%CI: 1.05-2.67)]. Registration before starting dialysis was not associated with medical factors but with age [OR of patients younger than 45 years vs those older than 65 years: 3.85 (95%CI: 1.05-24.92)] and medical follow-up in the department performing transplantation [OR: 3.56 (95%CI: 1.98-6.67)]. CONCLUSIONS: In a French community-based network, patients followed by the nephrology department performing transplantation are more likely to be registered on the transplant waiting list early in the course of chronic kidney disease. Age over 55 per se is a considerable barrier to access to kidney transplantation. Medical guidelines should allow a standardization of criteria for registration.     

Decreased survival in liver transplant patients requiring chronic dialysis: a Canadian experience

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased mortality among nonrenal organ transplant recipients. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a serious complication after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). It is unclear if the outcomes of these individuals are different from nontransplant patients requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant. METHODS: We report the incidence of ESRD in OLT recipients and compare their outcomes to matched dialysis controls. We analyzed 4186 patients who received an OLT in Canada between January 1981 and December 2002 and 228 matched, nontransplant, chronic dialysis controls. RESULTS: The incidence of ESRD after OLT was 2.9% (n=120). The unadjusted mortality rate for those who required chronic dialysis was 49.2% compared with 26.8% in those who did not develop kidney failure (P<0.0001). The survival of OLT recipients on dialysis was lower than the matched chronic dialysis cohort (log-rank test, P=0.01). A kidney transplant was performed in 24% of the OLT recipients and 21% of the matched dialysis cohort, and their overall survival was similar. The OLT patients who remained on dialysis had a significantly lower survival when compared with matched dialysis patients who did not receive a kidney transplant (log-rank test, P=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was greater for OLT recipients on dialysis than would be expected from a matched, nontransplant, dialysis cohort. Kidney transplantation may abrogate some of this increased mortality risk.     

High mortality in orthotopic liver transplant recipients who require hemodialysis

Zand MS, Orloff MS, Abt P, Patel S, Tsoulfas G, Kashyap R, Jain A, Safadjou S, Bozorgzadeh A. High mortality in orthotopic liver transplant recipients who require hemodialysis.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 213–221. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Acute renal failure is a significant risk factor for death in patients with liver failure. The goal of this study was to analyze the impact of peri‐transplant dialysis on the long‐term mortality of liver transplant recipients. We performed a single‐center, retrospective cohort study of 743 adult liver transplants; patients who received first liver transplants were divided into four groups: those who received more than one dialysis treatment (hemodialysis [HD], continuous veno‐venous hemodialysis [CVVH]) pre‐orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), post OLT, pre‐ and post OLT, and those not dialyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean survival time for patients who were not dialyzed or dialyzed only pre‐OLT. Mean survival times were markedly reduced in patients dialyzed post OLT or both pre‐ and post OLT compared with those never dialyzed. Mortality risk in a Cox proportional hazards model correlated with hemodialysis post OLT, intra‐operative vasopressin or neosynephrine, donor age >50 yr, Cr >1.5 mg/dL at transplant, and need for subsequent retransplant. Risk of post‐OLT dialysis was correlated with pre‐OLT dialysis, intra‐operative levophed, pre‐OLT diabetes, African American race, pre‐OLT Cr >1.5, and male gender. We conclude that renal failure requiring hemodialysis post liver transplant, irrespective of pre‐transplant dialysis status, is a profound risk factor for death in liver transplant recipients.     

Underdiagnosis of diabetes mellitus in chronic dialysis patients on the renal transplant waiting list

In diabetic patients long-term patient and graft survival after renal transplantation is reduced compared to nondiabetic graft recipients. Incidence and prevalence of diabetic patients on dialysis is rising continuously; however, there is a surprisingly low prevalence of patients with known diabetes mellitus on our local renal transplant waiting list. In a retrospective study we clarified the underestimation of diabetic dialysis patients on the transplant waiting list. Our local waiting list includes 46 diabetic patients among 377 (12.2%) candidates. Nine patients had type 1 diabetes and 37 type 2 diabetes. Surprisingly, only 20 of 37 patients (ie, 54%) were initially (at the time of wait-listing) classified as (type 2 diabetes mellitus). Primary renal disease in these 17 diabetic patients was classified in only eight patients, whereas the remaining nine were considered as chronic glomerulonephritis (not biopsy-proven and diabetic nephropathy not excluded). We conclude that among uremic patients on the renal transplant waiting list, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and the number of patients with diabetic nephropathy are notably underdiagnosed.