In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 18, No. 7 ( 2023-7-18), p. e0284152-
Abstract:
The result of published studies on the clinical outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after kidney allograft failure is conflicting. There are also few published data on the outcome of patients who had PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure. Methods We reviewed 100 patients who were started on PD after kidney allograft failure between 2001 and 2020 (failed transplant group); 50 of them received PD before transplant. We compared the clinical outcome to 200 new PD patients matched for age, sex, and diabetic status (control group). Results The patients were followed for 45.8 ± 40.5 months. the 2-year patient survival rate was 83.3% and 87.8% for the failed transplant and control groups, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.2). The corresponding 2-year technique survival rate 66.5% and 71.7% (p = 0.5). The failed transplant and control groups also had similar hospitalization rate and peritonitis rate. In the failed transplant group, there was also no difference in patient survival, technique survival, hospitalization, or peritonitis rate between those with and without PD before transplant. In the failed transplant group, patients who had PD before transplant and then returned to PD after allograft failure had substantial increase in D/P4 (0.585 ± 0.130 to 0.659 ± 0.111, paired t-test, p = 0.032) and MTAC creatinine (7.74 ± 3.68 to 9.73 ± 3.00 ml/min/1.73m 2 , p = 0.047) from the time before the transplant to the time after PD was resumed after failed allograft. Conclusions The clinical outcome of PD patients with a failed kidney allograft is similar to other PD patients. However, patients who have a history of PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure have increased peritoneal transport parameters.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.t004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.t005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0284152.r006
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2023
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Permalink