Ku Elaine, Adey Deborah B, Lopez Isabelle, Lee Brian K, Lin Feng, Whelan Adrian M, McCulloch Charles E, Weir Matthew R, Chen Ling-Xin, Ahearn Patrick, Gill John, Kim Sang Joseph, Johansen Kirsten L
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Kidney Med. 2025 Jul 17;7(9):101072. doi: 10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101072. eCollection 2025 Sep.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: There is known variability in the management of kidney transplant recipients facing graft failure. We hypothesized that variations in the timing of care transitions, immunosuppression weaning, and re-evaluation processes would be associated with differential access to retransplantation and relisting.
An observational study.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Survey directed at medical directors of US transplant centers.
Transplant center-reported practices.
Time to retransplantation (and secondarily, relisting) after graft failure.
Adjusted proportional hazards models with clustering by transplant center.
Of the 178 surveyed centers, 77 unique transplant centers (43%) responded. Respondents reported significant variability in the timing of transition of patients back to general nephrologists (ranging from within 1 year of transplantation to never), weaning of immunosuppression with graft failure, and approach to assessments of frailty and adherence during the evaluation for relisting. Transplant centers that transitioned patients back to general nephrologists >3 to <5 years after transplant had lower likelihood of retransplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.88) and relisting (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) compared with centers that transitioned patients earlier (between 1-3 years of transplantation). Transplant centers that did not oversee weaning of immunosuppression after graft failure had patients with a lower likelihood of retransplantation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99) and relisting (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95) compared with centers that oversaw this weaning. Withdrawal of immunosuppression 12-24 months after return to dialysis was associated with a higher likelihood of retransplantation (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43) and relisting (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26) compared with withdrawal of immunosuppression within 6 months of graft failure.
Observational nature of data and potential for residual confounding.
There is significant variation in the management of patients with graft failure across US transplant centers during the transition of care, and this variation was associated with differential access of patients to retransplantation and relisting.
已知面临移植肾失功的肾移植受者的管理存在差异。我们假设护理过渡时间、免疫抑制减撤以及重新评估过程中的差异与再次移植和重新列入等待名单的不同机会相关。
一项观察性研究。
针对美国移植中心医疗主任的调查。
移植中心报告的做法。
移植肾失功后再次移植的时间(其次是重新列入等待名单的时间)。
采用按移植中心聚类的调整后比例风险模型。
在178个接受调查的中心中,77个不同的移植中心(43%)做出了回应。受访者报告称,患者转回普通肾病科医生的时间(从移植后1年内到从未转回)、移植肾失功时免疫抑制的减撤以及重新列入等待名单评估期间对虚弱和依从性的评估方法存在显著差异。与在移植后1至3年更早将患者转回普通肾病科医生的中心相比,在移植后3至5年将患者转回普通肾病科医生的移植中心再次移植(风险比[HR],0.80;95%置信区间[CI],0.73 - 0.88)和重新列入等待名单(HR,0.80;95% CI,0.75 - 0.85)的可能性较低。与监督移植肾失功后免疫抑制减撤情况的中心相比,不监督移植肾失功后免疫抑制减撤情况的移植中心的患者再次移植(HR,0.89;95% CI,0.79 - 0.99)和重新列入等待名单(HR,0.88;95% CI,0.82 - 0.95)的可能性较低。与在移植肾失功后6个月内撤减免疫抑制相比,恢复透析12至24个月后撤减免疫抑制与再次移植(HR,1.28;95% CI,1.14 - 1.43)和重新列入等待名单(HR,1.15;95% CI,1.06 - 1.26)的可能性更高相关。
数据的观察性质以及残留混杂的可能性。
在美国各移植中心,移植肾失功患者在护理过渡期间的管理存在显著差异,这种差异与患者再次移植和重新列入等待名单的不同机会相关。