4.6 Article

Repeat True Surveillance Biopsies in Kidney Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 93, 期 9, 页码 908-913

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318248cab0

关键词

Kidney transplantation; Protocol biopsy; Subclinical rejection; Graft function; Long-term graft survival

资金

  1. Institute for Pathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Protocol biopsies are assigned to fixed points in time after transplantation irrespective of renal function. Usually, it is not known whether there is graft dysfunction at the time of biopsy. This study analyzes repeat protocol biopsies in the absence of any clinical signs of graft dysfunction at the time of biopsy (i.e., true surveillance biopsy''). Methods. Observational single center study. Kidney transplant recipients with protocol biopsies after 3 and 6 months were analyzed. Results. Three hundred seventy patients had protocol biopsies after 3 and 6 months. One hundred forty-eight patients (40%; 296 biopsies) with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (range, 0.95-7.7 years), fulfilled the criteria of repeat true surveillance biopsies. Graft survival censored for death was 100% at 1 year, 96% at the end of follow-up. One hundred eighty-four biopsies (62%) revealed pathological findings, mainly subclinical rejection (3/6 months: 41% vs. 45%; P = 0.2) and chronic lesions (3/6 months: 22% vs. 44%; P<0.001). Grafts with repeat pathological findings at 3 and 6 months had a significant decline in graft function at end of follow-up compared with grafts with no or only singular pathology (median delta estimated glomerular filtration rate: -10.24 vs. -0.19; P = 0.005). Ninety-three of 148 patients (63%) had a therapeutic intervention as a consequence of the biopsy. Conclusions. Less than 50% of protocol biopsies were performed in the absence of any clinical signs of graft dysfunction. A high proportion of these biopsies revealed pathological findings that were associated with a significant decrease in long-term graft function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据