4.6 Article

Influence of aspirin on early allograft thrombosis and chronic allograft nephropathy following renal transplantation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 261-266

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01671.x

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Primary thrombosis and chronic allograft nephropathy are important causes of early and late graft loss, respectively, following renal transplantation. This study examined the potential for aspirin therapy to reduce these complications. Methods: A consecutive series of 105 cadaveric renal transplants treated with aspirin 150 mg daily for the first 3 months after transplantation was compared with an untreated historical control group (n = 121). Protocol needle-core biopsies were performed on all transplants in both groups at 1 week and 12 months after transplantation. Needle-core allograft biopsies were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation, and serum creatinine was measured at each outpatient attendance for the duration of follow-up. Results: There was a significantly lower rate of primary allograft thrombosis in patients treated with aspirin (none of 105) compared with that in the control group (six (5 per cent) of 121; P = 0.03). There were no differences in renal function or 2-year allograft survival between the two groups. Aspirin-treated patients had a lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy at 1 year than controls although this did not reach statistical significance (16 versus 26 per cent; P = 0.075). There were no major bleeding complications in either group in association with peptic ulcer disease or following renal transplant biopsy. Conclusion: Aspirin reduced the rate of early graft thrombosis of renal transplants in this series but did not improve renal function or graft survival. A trend towards a lower rate of chronic allograft nephropathy was noted with aspirin treatment. These findings require confirmation in a prospective randomized trial.

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