BMC Gastroenterology (Jul 2020)

Outcomes of liver–kidney transplantation in patients with primary hyperoxaluria: an analysis of the scientific registry of transplant recipients database

  • Jie Xiang,
  • Zheng Chen,
  • Fangshen Xu,
  • Shengmin Mei,
  • Zhiwei Li,
  • Jie Zhou,
  • Yinlei Dong,
  • Yangjun Gu,
  • Zhichao Huang,
  • Zhenhua Hu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01349-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Primary hyperoxaluria (PH) is an inherited disease lacking of hepatic oxalic acid metabolic enzymes which could lead to irreverisible renal damage. Currently, liver–kidney transplantation is a curative but highly invasive therapy used to treat patients with PH. However, limited studies have focused on combined liver–kidney transplantation (CLKT) and sequential liver and kidney transplantation (SLKT) in patients with PH. Methods The present study included 201 patients with PH who received both liver and kidney transplants and who were listed on the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 1987 to 2018. According to the liver–kidney transplant procedure, patients were separated into a CLKT group and a SLKT group. Patient demographics and transplant outcomes were assessed in each group. Results Compared with the SLKT group, The CLKT group got a worse pretransplant dialysis condition in both the proportion of patients under pretransplant dialysis (p = 0.048) and the duration of the pretransplant dialysis (p < 0.001). The SLKT group got higher human leukocyte antigen mismatch score of kidney donor (p < 0.001) and liver donor (p = 0.003). The CLKT group utilized higher proportion (98.9%) of organs from a single deceased donor, while the SLKT group utilized 75.0% of organs from deceased liver donors and only 35.0% of organs from deceased kidney donors (p < 0.001). Kidney function measured by serum creatinine concentration before liver transplantation (LT) or CLKT was similar (p = 0.305) between groups. Patient survival was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.717) and liver (p = 0.685) and kidney (p = 0.464) graft outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions SLKT seems to be an alternative option with strict condition for CLKT, further exploration about the SLKT is still required.

Keywords