Dataset Information

Surgical site complications in kidney transplant recipients: incidence, risk factors and outcomes in the modern era.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgical site complications (SSCs) are an important source of morbidity after kidney transplantation. We assessed the incidence, risk factors, outcomes and economic impact of SSCs in a large, diverse population of kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

We conducted a single-centre, observational cohort study of adult (age ≥ 18 yr) patients who underwent kidney transplantation between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2015, with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Cases of SSC, including infections and wound dehiscence, were determined from patient records. Inpatient and outpatient hospital costs were determined 6 and 12 months after transplantation. We used the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method to determine the cumulative probability of SSCs and other outcomes. We evaluated risk factors and clinical outcomes using Cox proportional hazard ratios. Linear regression models were used to study the effect of SSCs on graft function.

Results

The incidence rate of SSCs within 30 days after transplantation was 4.19 per 100 person-months. The cumulative probability of developing an SSC within 30 days after transplantation was 4.13% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.23%-5.28%). Increased recipient body mass index (BMI) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.11), longer cold ischemic time (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09) and transplantation in 2010-2012 versus 2005-2009 (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.19-4.04) were risk factors for SSC development. In multivariable stepwise Cox proportional hazard models, SSC was a significant risk factor for death-censored graft failure (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.60-5.90) and total graft failure (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.32). Cumulative median hospital costs were $2238.46 greater for patients with an SSC than for those without.

Conclusion

Increased BMI, longer cold ischemic time and the 2010-2012 transplantation period predisposed to SSCs. The development of SSCs was associated with a higher risk of graft failure. Strategies to minimize SSCs may improve outcomes after kidney transplantation and reduce costs.

SUBMITTER: Wong RBK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8711553 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI; cyclosporine, tacrolimus) are critical for kidney transplant immunosuppression, but have multiple potential drug interactions, such as with macrolide antibiotics. Macrolide antibiotics (clarithromycin, erythromycin, and azithromycin) are often used to treat atypical infections. Clarithromycin and erythromycin inhibit CNI metabolism and increase the risk of CNI nephrotoxicity, while azithromycin does not. Objective:To determine the frequency of CNI-macrolide co-prescriptions, the proportion who receive post-prescription monitoring, and the risk of adverse drug events in kidney transplant recipients. Design:Retrospective cohort study. Setting:We used linked health care databases in Alberta, Canada. Patients:We included 293 adult kidney transplant recipients from 2008-2015 who were co-prescribed a CNI and macrolide. Measurements:The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause hospitalization, acute kidney injury (creatinine increase ?0.3 mg/dL or 1.5 times baseline), or death within 30 days of the macrolide prescription. Methods:We identified CNI-macrolide co-prescriptions and compared outcomes in those who received clarithromycin/erythromycin versus azithromycin. We used a linear mixed-effects model to examine the mean change in serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results:Of the 293 recipients who were co-prescribed a CNI and a macrolide, 38% (n = 112) were prescribed clarithromycin/erythromycin while 62% (n = 181) were prescribed azithromycin. Compared with azithromycin users, clarithromycin/erythromycin users were less likely to have outpatient serum creatinine monitoring post-prescription (56% vs 69%, P = .03). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the 2 groups (17% vs 11%, P = .11); however, the risk of all-cause hospitalization was higher in the clarithromycin/erythromycin group (10% vs 3%, P = .02). The mean decrement in eGFR was significantly greater in the clarithromycin/erythromycin versus azithromycin group (-5.4 vs -1.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, P < .05). Limitations:We did not have CNI levels to correlate with the timing of CNI-macrolide co-prescriptions. We also did not have information regarding the indications for macrolide prescriptions. Conclusion:Clarithromycin and erythromycin were frequently co-prescribed in kidney transplant recipients on CNIs despite known drug interactions. Clarithromycin/erythromycin use was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization compared with azithromycin users. Safer prescribing practices in kidney transplant recipients are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplant recipients are given induction therapy to rapidly reduce the immune response and prevent rejection. Guidelines recommend that an interleukin-2 receptor antibody (basiliximab) be the first-line agent and that a lymphocyte-depleting agent (antithymocyte globulin [ATG]) be reserved for those at high immunologic risk.ObjectiveTo determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes for patients who receive both basiliximab and ATG for induction compared to either agent alone.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingWe used the transplant electronic medical record at the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Canada.Patients/samples/participantsWe included incident adult kidney transplant recipients from 2013 to 2018.MeasurementsWe measured baseline characteristics, type, and dose of induction therapy used, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1-year posttransplant, and outcomes of all-cause graft failure, death-censored graft failure, all-cause mortality, and death with a functioning graft.MethodsDifferences between induction groups were compared using chi-square test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling with type of induction therapy as the dependent variable and the case-level factors as the predictors (adjusted odds ratio). We estimated the Kaplan-Meier failure functions and used log-rank tests to assess statistical significance of differences in unadjusted incidence across induction therapy types. We compared cumulative incidence functions using a Fine and Gray competing risk regression model.ResultsIn all, 430 kidney transplant recipients were followed for a mean of 3.9 years (standard deviation 1.5). Of these, 71% (n = 305) received basiliximab alone, 22% (n = 93) received ATG alone, and 7% (n = 32) received both basiliximab and ATG. After adjusting for age and sex, compared to the basiliximab alone group, patients were more likely to receive dual-induction therapy if they were sensitized (calculated panel reactive antibody ≥80%), had diabetes mellitus or peripheral vascular disease, or experienced delayed graft function. Compared to the ATG alone group, the dual-induction therapy group had worse graft function at 1 year (mean eGFR 42 vs. 59 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = .0008) and an increased risk of all-cause graft failure (31% vs. 13%, P = .02) and death-censored graft failure (16% vs. 4%, P = .03).LimitationsThere is a risk of confounding by indication, as patients who received dual-induction therapy likely had worse outcomes due to the indication for dual-induction therapy (such as delayed graft function).ConclusionsIn our study, 1 out of 10 recipients who were treated with basiliximab also received ATG for induction therapy. These patients experienced worse outcomes than those treated with ATG alone.Trial registrationNot applicable (cohort study).