Wadei, Hani M

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the setting of cirrhosis (hepatorenal syndrome [HRS]–AKI) is a severe and often fatal complication of end‐stage liver disease. The goals of treatment are to reverse renal failure and prolong survival in patients who are critically ill. However, interventions have limited efficacy, and mortality rates remain high. In the United States, the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy consists of the off‐label use of vasoconstrictive agents in combination with plasma expanders, a strategy that produces modest effects. Liver transplantation is the ultimate solution but is only an option in a minority of patients because contraindications to transplantation are common and organ availability is limited. Renal replacement therapy is a temporary option but is known to confer an extremely poor short‐term prognosis in patients with HRS‐AKI and at best serves as a bridge to liver transplantation for the minority of patients who are transplantation candidates. The high mortality rate associated with HRS‐AKI in the United States is a reflection of the suboptimal standard of care. Improved therapeutic options to treat HRS‐AKI are sought. Terlipressin is a drug approved in Europe for treatment of HRS‐AKI and supported by recommendations for first‐line therapy by some liver societies and experts around the world. This review article will discuss the substantial unmet medical need associated with HRS‐AKI and the potential benefits if terlipressin was approved in the United States.

Abstract Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a functional renal failure that develops in patients with advanced hepatic cirrhosis with ascites and in those with fulminant hepatic failure. The prevalence of HRS varies among studies but in general it is the third most common cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in cirrhotic patients after pre-renal azotemia and acute tubular necrosis. HRS carries a grim prognosis with a mortality rate approaching 90% three months after disease diagnosis. Fortunately, different strategies have been proven to be successful in preventing HRS. Although treatment options are available, they are not universally effective in restoring renal function but they might prolong survival long enough for liver transplantation, which is the ultimate treatment. Much has been learned in the last two decades regarding the pathophysiology and management of this disease which lead to notable evolution in the HRS definition and better understanding on how best to manage HRS patients. In the current review, we will summarize the recent advancement in epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of HRS.

Renal vein thrombosis is a rare, but potentially serious complication in patients with renal transplantation as it can lead to non-reversible graft injury and failure. Often this clinical entity is found in the early transplantation period, and the available management strategies are associated with favourable patient outcomes. The incidence, pathophysiology and outcomes for the delayed occurrence of renal vein thrombosis are unknown. The case here describes a unique situation with an excellent clinical outcome related to early diagnosis and appropriate care.

Pre–liver transplantation (LT) renal dysfunction is associated with poor post‐LT survival. We studied whether early allograft dysfunction (EAD) modifies this association. Data on 2,856 primary LT recipients who received a transplant between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died within the first post‐LT week or received multiorgan transplants and previous LT recipients were excluded. EAD was defined as (1) total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 7, (2) international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on POD 7, and/or (3) alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase ≥2000 IU/mL in the first postoperative week. Pre‐LT renal dysfunction was defined as serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or on renal replacement therapy at LT. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD development. Recipients who had both pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD had the worst unadjusted 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year post‐LT patient and graft survival, whereas patients who had neither renal dysfunction nor EAD had the best survival (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple factors, the risk of death was significantly higher only in those with both pre‐LT renal dysfunction and post‐LT EAD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58‐3.03; P < 0.001), whereas those with renal dysfunction and no EAD had a comparable risk of death to those with normal kidney function at LT (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86‐1.45; P = 0.41). Results remained unchanged when pre‐LT renal dysfunction was redefined using different glomerular filtration rate cutoffs. Pre‐LT renal dysfunction negatively impacts post‐LT survival only in patients who develop EAD. Livers at higher risk of post‐LT EAD should be used with caution in recipients with pre‐LT renal dysfunction.

AbstractOptimizing immunity against vaccine‐preventable diseases improves outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) patients (Arora et al,World J Transplant, 2019, 9:1; Sester et al,Transplant Rev, 2008, 22:274; Fishman,N Engl J Med, 2007, 357:2601). The American Society for Transplantation (AST) Clinical Practice Guidelines advises that serologic screening for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) be conducted for all KT candidates, since live‐attenuated vaccines are contraindicated post‐transplantation (Malinis et al,Clin Transplant, 2019, 33:e13548). Our team at Mayo Clinic Florida (MCF) conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative to establish a best MMR screening and immunizations clinical practice in KT candidates using a Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) model. By retrospective chart review of all KT candidates evaluated at our institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, baseline data determining the rate of MMR serologic screening was established. PDSA cycles were implemented to adopt protocol‐driven testing for MMR serologies, immunization documentation, and vaccination in cases of seronegativity to any of the three MMR viruses in all pre‐KT candidates. Two PDSA cycles were completed in 4 months. The study population totaled 447 patients (baseline n = 283, PDSA 1 n = 61, PDSA 2 n = 103). Baseline data showed that 83% (n = 235) of pre‐KT candidates received infectious disease consultation (IDC). Complete MMR (all three viruses) serological screening in KT candidates improved from baseline 3.9%‐87.4% post‐PDSA cycle 2 (P < .001). Necessary immunizations per AST guidelines were ordered in only 41.1% (n = 23) of the control cohort vs 100% (n = 12) and 96.9% (n = 31) of PDSA cycles 1 and 2, respectively (P < .001). The data reflect significant practice improvements in MMR screening and immunization rates among KT candidates by using protocol‐driven orders combined with our pre‐existing IDCs.

Abstract Introduction. COVID-19 presents a special challenge to the kidney transplant population. Methods. A systematic review of articles that examined COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients was performed. Patients’ demographics, clinical, laboratory and radiological presentations, immunosuppression modification, and COVID-19 specific management were abstracted and analyzed. COVID-19 severity was classified into mild, moderate, and severe. Disease outcome was classified by whether the patient was discharged, still hospitalized, or died. Results. 44 articles reporting individual data and 13 articles reporting aggregated data on 149 and 561 kidney transplant recipients respectively with COVID-19 from Asia, Europe and America fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among studies reporting case specific data, 76% of cases had severe disease. Compared to patients with mild/moderate disease, patients with severe disease had higher CRP, LDH, Ferritin, D-dimer and were more likely to have bilateral lung involvement at presentation and longer time since transplantation (P < 0.05 for all). Recipients’ age, gender and comorbidities did not impact disease severity. Patients with severe disease had a more aggressive CNI reduction and more antiviral medications utilization. Outcome was reported on 145 cases, of those 34 (23%) died all with severe disease. Longer duration from transplant to disease diagnosis, hypoxia and higher LDH were associated with mortality (P < 0.05). Different immunosuppression reduction strategies, high dose parenteral corticosteroids use and various antiviral combinations did not demonstrate survival advantage. Similar finding was observed for studies reporting aggregated data. Conclusion. COVID-19 in kidney transplant patients is associated with high rate of disease severity and fatality. Higher LDH and longer time since transplantation predicted both disease severity and mortality. None of the COVID-19 specific treatment correlated with, or improved disease outcome in kidney transplant recipients.

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD‐SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000‐2010) and era 2 (2011‐2018). Improvement in DCD‐SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD‐SLKT. When DCD‐SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity‐matched cohort of DBD‐SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow‐up were not different between the DCD‐SLKT and DBD‐SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD‐SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD‐SLKT. DCD‐SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Renal dysfunction is common in liver transplantation (LT) candidates, but differentiating between reversible and irreversible renal injury can be difficult. Kidney biopsy might be helpful in differentiating reversible from irreversible renal injury, but it is associated with significant complications. We aimed to identify pre‐LT predictors of potentially reversible renal injury using histological information obtained on pre‐LT renal biopsy. Data on 128 LT candidates who underwent pre‐LT kidney biopsy were retrospectively collected and correlated with renal histological findings. Indications for kidney biopsy were iothalamate glomerular filtration rate (iGFR) ≤40 mL/minute, proteinuria >500 mg/day, and/or hematuria. According to the biopsy diagnosis, patients were grouped into the following categories: normal (n = 13); acute tubular necrosis (ATN; n = 25); membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (n = 19); minimal histological changes (n = 24); and advanced interstitial fibrosis (IF) and glomerulosclerosis (GS) (n = 47). Compared with patients having advanced IF/GS, patients with normal biopsies and those with ATN had lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and higher international normalized ratio and total bilirubin levels (<0.05 for all). Both SBP and DBP directly correlated with the degree of IF and GS (R = 0.3, P ≤ 0.02 for all). SBP ≤90 mm Hg was 100% sensitive and 98% specific in correlating with normal biopsies or ATN, whereas SBP ≥140 mm Hg was 22% sensitive and 90% specific in correlating with advanced IF/GS. Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, serum creatinine, iGFR, urinary sodium excretion, and renal size did not correlate with biopsy diagnosis or degree of IF or GS. In conclusion, SBP at the time of LT evaluation correlates with renal histology, and it should be included along with other clinical and laboratory markers in the decision‐making process to list patients with renal dysfunction for LT alone versus simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation.