PLoS ONE (Jan 2012)

Poor long-term outcome in second kidney transplantation: a delayed event.

  • Katy Trébern-Launay,
  • Yohann Foucher,
  • Magali Giral,
  • Christophe Legendre,
  • Henri Kreis,
  • Michèle Kessler,
  • Marc Ladrière,
  • Nassim Kamar,
  • Lionel Rostaing,
  • Valérie Garrigue,
  • Georges Mourad,
  • Emmanuel Morelon,
  • Jean-Paul Soulillou,
  • Jacques Dantal

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047915
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 10
p. e47915

Abstract

Read online

BACKGROUND: Old studies reported a worse outcome for second transplant recipient (STR) than for first transplant recipient (FTR) mainly due to non-comparable populations with numbers confounding factors. More recent analysis, based on improved methodology by using multivariate regressions, challenged this generally accepted idea: the poor prognosis for STR is still under debate. METHODOLOGY: To assess the long-term patient-and-graft survival of STR compared to FTR, we performed an observational study based on the French DIVAT prospective cohort between 1996 and 2010 (N = 3103 including 641 STR). All patients were treated with a CNI, an mTOR inhibitor or belatacept in addition to steroids and mycophenolate mofetil for maintenance therapy. Patient-and-graft survival and acute rejection episode (ARE) were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for all potential confounding factors such as pre-transplant anti-HLA immunization. RESULTS: We showed that STR have a higher risk of graft failure than FTR (HR = 2.18, p = 0.0013) but that this excess risk was observed after few years of transplantation. There was no significant difference between STR and FTR in the occurrence of either overall ARE (HR = 1.01, p = 0.9675) or steroid-resistant ARE (HR = 1.27, p = 0.4087). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of graft failure following second transplantation remained consistently higher than that observed in first transplantation after adjusting for confounding factors. The rarely performed time-dependent statistical modeling may explain the heterogeneous conclusions of the literature concerning second transplantation outcomes. In clinical practice, physicians should not consider STR and FTR equally.