Push toward pre-emptive kidney transplantation - for sure?

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Clinical Kidney Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-09 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfae335
Orsolya Cseprekal, Christian Jacquelinet, Ziad Massy
{"title":"Push toward pre-emptive kidney transplantation - for sure?","authors":"Orsolya Cseprekal, Christian Jacquelinet, Ziad Massy","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfae335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) has long been considered the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) seeking the most favourable long-term outcomes. However, the significant growth in transplant procedures over recent decades has led to a notable increase in wait-listed patients and a disproportionate demand for donor organs. This situation necessitates a re-evaluation of transplantation timing and the establishment of rational indications from both societal and clinical perspectives. An increasing number of retrospective analyses have challenged the universal benefit of PKT, suggesting that premature indications for living or deceased donor PKT may not always yield superior hard outcomes compared with non-PKT approaches. Conventional predictive models have shown limitations in accurately assessing risks for certain subpopulations, potentially leading to significant disparities among wait-listed patients. To address these challenges, we propose the following considerations. Prediction models should not only optimize the distribution of our limited donor resources, but should also illuminate foreseeable risks associated with a potentially 'unsuccessful' PKT. Therefore, this article seeks to underscore the necessity for further discourse on the smouldering concept of when and for whom living or deceased donor PKT should be considered. Is it universally beneficial, or should the clinical paradigm be re-evaluated? In the endeavour to attain superior post-PKT survival outcomes compared with non-PKT or conservative treatment, it seems critical to acknowledge that other treatments may provide more favourable results for certain individuals. This introduces the intricate task of effectively navigating the complexities associated with 'too early' or 'unsuccessful' PKT.</p>","PeriodicalId":10435,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Kidney Journal","volume":"17 12","pages":"sfae335"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Kidney Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae335","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) has long been considered the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) seeking the most favourable long-term outcomes. However, the significant growth in transplant procedures over recent decades has led to a notable increase in wait-listed patients and a disproportionate demand for donor organs. This situation necessitates a re-evaluation of transplantation timing and the establishment of rational indications from both societal and clinical perspectives. An increasing number of retrospective analyses have challenged the universal benefit of PKT, suggesting that premature indications for living or deceased donor PKT may not always yield superior hard outcomes compared with non-PKT approaches. Conventional predictive models have shown limitations in accurately assessing risks for certain subpopulations, potentially leading to significant disparities among wait-listed patients. To address these challenges, we propose the following considerations. Prediction models should not only optimize the distribution of our limited donor resources, but should also illuminate foreseeable risks associated with a potentially 'unsuccessful' PKT. Therefore, this article seeks to underscore the necessity for further discourse on the smouldering concept of when and for whom living or deceased donor PKT should be considered. Is it universally beneficial, or should the clinical paradigm be re-evaluated? In the endeavour to attain superior post-PKT survival outcomes compared with non-PKT or conservative treatment, it seems critical to acknowledge that other treatments may provide more favourable results for certain individuals. This introduces the intricate task of effectively navigating the complexities associated with 'too early' or 'unsuccessful' PKT.

推进先发制人的肾移植——确定吗?
长期以来,预防性肾移植(PKT)一直被认为是寻求最有利长期预后的终末期慢性肾病(CKD)患者的最佳治疗方法。然而,近几十年来,移植手术的显著增长导致了等待名单患者的显着增加和对捐赠器官的不成比例的需求。这种情况需要从社会和临床的角度重新评估移植时机和建立合理的适应症。越来越多的回顾性分析对PKT的普遍益处提出了质疑,表明与非PKT方法相比,活体或已故供体PKT的过早适应症可能并不总是产生更好的硬结果。传统的预测模型在准确评估某些亚群的风险方面显示出局限性,这可能导致候诊患者之间的显著差异。为应对这些挑战,我们提出以下几点建议。预测模型不仅应该优化我们有限的捐助者资源的分配,而且应该阐明与可能“不成功”的PKT相关的可预见风险。因此,本文试图强调有必要进一步讨论何时以及为谁考虑在世或已故捐助者PKT这一悬而未决的概念。它是普遍有益的,还是应该重新评估临床模式?与非pkt或保守治疗相比,在努力获得更好的pkt后生存结果时,认识到其他治疗可能对某些个体提供更有利的结果似乎至关重要。这就引入了有效导航与“过早”或“不成功”PKT相关的复杂性的复杂任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Kidney Journal
Clinical Kidney Journal Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: About the Journal Clinical Kidney Journal: Clinical and Translational Nephrology (ckj), an official journal of the ERA-EDTA (European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association), is a fully open access, online only journal publishing bimonthly. The journal is an essential educational and training resource integrating clinical, translational and educational research into clinical practice. ckj aims to contribute to a translational research culture among nephrologists and kidney pathologists that helps close the gap between basic researchers and practicing clinicians and promote sorely needed innovation in the Nephrology field. All research articles in this journal have undergone peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信