Ramos AEE, Aragón TAR, Castillo CG

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 202-206
PDF size: 56.63 Kb.

ABSTRACT

They were identified by means of the revision of clinical files of 32 of 37 transplanted patients of cadaverous donor, carried out at the “Centro Médico Nacional del Noreste” from January of 97 to December of 1999, of a total of 190 transplants 31 carried out to this date, trying to identify the current evolution that they have so far. The age, sex, was evaluated causes of renal inadequacy, uses of substitute handlings of the previous renal function to the transplant, antecedents of previous renal transplant, previous sanguine transfusions to the transplant, time of hot and cold ischemia, type of vascular implants, vascular complications, type of urethral re-implant and urological complications. The survival of the implant was evaluated at a week, a month, three months, as well as to one, two three years to recognize how many renal implants they functional remain to the moment of the study, all this by means of studying the serum creatinine and purification creatinine in urine after 24 hours. For the analysis of the implant survival, Kaplan-Meier’s technique of the estimated limit product was used We conclude that the life span of the renal implant observed in our patients is within casuistry described in literature.

REFERENCES

1. Christoph T et al. Delayed graft function in the absence of rejection has no long-term impact. Transplantation 1996; 61(9): 1331-1337.

2. Schnuelle P et al. Donor catecholamine use reduce acute allograft rejection and improves graft survival after cadaveric renal transplantation. Kidney International 1999; 56: 738-746.

3. Shoskes DA et al. Delayed graft function in renal transplantation: Etiology, management and long-term significance. J Urology 1996; 155: 1831-1840.

4. Halloran P et al. Factors influencing early renal function in cadaveric kidney transplants. Transplantation 1988; 45: 122-127.

5. Shoskes DA et al. Deleterious effects of delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplant recipients independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 1998; 66(12): 1697-1701.

6. Rosenthal JT et al. The high cost of delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1991; 51(5): 1115-1139.

7. Ploeq RJ et al. Effect of preservation solution on results of cadaveric kidney transplantation. Lancet 1992; 340: 129-137.

8. Ojo AO et al. Delayed graft function: Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival. Transplantation 1997; 63: 968-974.

9. Aguera FLG y cols. Análisis multivariado de los factores pronósticos, en la supervivencia del injerto renal. Archivos Españoles de Urología 1995; 48: 497-505.

10. Peters TG et al. Cold ischemia and outcome in 17,937 cadaveric kidney transplants. Transplantation 1995; 59(2): 191-196.

11. Hariharam S, Johnson CP et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(9): 605-612.

12. Qvist E et al. Graft function 5-7 years after renal transplantation in early childhood. Transplantation 1999; 67(7): 1043-1049.

13. Filler G, Lindeke A et al. Renal transplantation from donors aged < 6 years into children yields equal graft survival compared to older donors. Pediatr Transplant 1997; 1(2): 119-123.

14. Roodnat JI et al. Renal graft survival in native European recipients. Transpl Int 1999; 12(2): 135-140.

15. Marcen R et al. Delayed graft function, does not reduce the survival of renal transplant allografts. Transplantations 1998; 66(4): 461-466.