4.6 Article

Comparison of outcomes after delayed graft function: Sirolimus-based versus other calcineurin-inhibitor sparing induction immunosuppression regimens

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 78, Issue 3, Pages 475-480

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000128908.87656.28

Keywords

delayed graft function; kidney transplant; rejection; outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Sirolimus (SRL) may increase the incidence of or prolong delayed graft function (DGF) after cadaveric renal transplantation. This study compares transplant outcomes of SRL-based induction immunosuppression (IS) with other calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI) sparing regimens in the DGF setting. Methods. Adult cadaveric renal-transplant recipients who received transplants between January 1, 1997 and June 30, 2001 and experienced DGF (n=132) were divided into three groups by induction IS: A, depleting antibody (n=41); B, SRL (n=49); and C, neither (n=42). All recipients also received steroids and mycophenolate mofetil with delayed initiation of CNIs when good renal function returned. Patient survival, graft survival, and time to rejection within 1 year of transplantation were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. One-year graft function was compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests. Results. The SRL group had longer DGF duration (P=0.01). The three groups had comparable patient (P=0.27) and graft survival (P=0.69), but the depleting antibody group experienced less rejection (P=0.004). There were no clinically significant differences in 1-year graft function. Conclusions. In our analysis of a large and modern cohort of adult cadaveric transplant recipients with DGF, induction immunosuppression with a depleting antibody preparation reduced rejection, whereas SRL prolonged DGF duration. All three CNI-sparing induction IS regimens resulted in comparable patient survival, graft survival, and graft function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available