Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Survival after graft failure Dr Lynsey Webb Registrar UK Renal Registry UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting.

Published byLeslie Hamilton Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Survival after graft failure Dr Lynsey Webb Registrar UK Renal Registry UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting."— Presentation transcript:

1 Survival after graft failure Dr Lynsey Webb Registrar UK Renal Registry UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting

2 Overview Background Survival after transplant failure (UK) Defining a proxy group European analyses Future work

3 Background In 2009: 23,284 prevalent renal transplant patients 2.9% experienced graft failure (excluding death as cause of graft loss) Evidence (mostly North American) that kidney transplant loss associated with significant mortality and morbidity Why is this important? Growing transplant population Young patients Limited guidelines/ evidence for best practice Some deaths may be preventable Quality of life Financial implications

4 Survival analyses UKRR and NHSBT data Cases = Patients starting dialysis after 1 st transplant failure (>90 days function) 01/01/2000 - 31/12/2008 Controls = Patients starting RRT on dialysis 01/01/2000 - 31/12/2008, and wait-listed for transplantation within 2 years Followed to death, or loss to follow up, or 31/12/2010 Censored if transplanted Exclusions: <18 yrs, missing primary renal diagnosis Hazard ratios (case/control) for specific time periods calculated. Adjusted for age, gender, DM, ethnicity and modality

5 Final cohort UK incident adult RRT patients (1 st Jan 2000 - 31 st Dec 2008) in UK (n= 46,793 ) ControlsCases UK adult patients with failure of 1 st transplant (1 st Jan 2000 – 31 st Dec 2008) (n=3,568) Controls included in analysis (n= 11,742) Cases included in analysis (n=3,059) Pre-emptive transplants (n=1,645) Not listed (n=31,863) Listed >2 years from RRT start (n=1,543) Pre-emptive re- transplants (n=93) 1 st transplant <90days duration (n=416)

6 Demographics CasesControlsP value Number of subjects3,05911,742 Age mean (SD)48.2 (15.0)47.4 (13.5)0.003 Sex (% male)60.961.4n.s. Ethnicity – White (%) Ethnicity – Asian (%) Ethnicity – Black (%) Ethnicity – Other (%) Ethnicity – Missing N (%) 86.3 7.1 4.5 2.1 63 (2.1) 81.4 10.2 5.7 2.7 77 (0.7) <0.0001 Diabetes as PRD (%) Missing PRD N (%) 9.6 34 (1.1) 15.6 160 (1.4) <0.0001 Dialysis modality (% HD)7758<0.0001 Mean duration 1 st transplant (yrs) (SD)9.4 (6.5)N/A Mean duration dialysis pre-transplant (yrs)(SD)1.7 (2.1)N/A Mean duration on dialysis (yrs) (SD)2.3 (1.9)2.2 (1.6)n.s.

7 Demographics CasesControlsP value Number of subjects3,05911,742 Age mean (SD)48.2 (15.0)47.4 (13.5)0.003 Sex (% male)60.961.4n.s. Ethnicity – White (%) Ethnicity – Asian (%) Ethnicity – Black (%) Ethnicity – Other (%) Ethnicity – Missing N (%) 86.3 7.1 4.5 2.1 63 (2.1) 81.4 10.2 5.7 2.7 77 (0.7) <0.0001 Diabetes as PRD (%) Missing PRD N (%) 9.6 34 (1.1) 15.6 160 (1.4) <0.0001 Dialysis modality (% HD)7758<0.0001 Mean duration 1 st transplant (yrs) (SD)9.4 (6.5)N/A Mean duration dialysis pre-transplant (yrs)(SD)1.7 (2.1)N/A Mean duration on dialysis (yrs) (SD)2.3 (1.9)2.2 (1.6)n.s.

8 Survival: UK Hazard ratio (case/ control) Un- adjusted +age+gender+DM and DM*age + ethnicity +modality 0-90 days25.0 (11.1-56.3) 23.9 (10.6-53.8) 23.9 (10.6-53.8) 23.1 (10.2-52.1) 23.4 (10.3-52.8) 17.0 (7.5-38.5) 90-365 days 6.5 (4.7-9.2) 6.3 (4.5-8.9) 6.3 (4.5-8.9) 6.5 (4.6-9.1) 6.3 (4.4-8.8) 5.9 (4.1-8.4) 1-2 years4.0 (3.2-5.1) 4.1 (3.2-5.1) 4.1 (3.2-5.2) 4.3 (3.4-5.5) 4.2 (3.3-5.3) 3.9 (3.0-4.9) 2-3 years2.5 (2.0-3.1) 2.8 (2.2-3.4) 2.8 (2.2-3.5) 3.2 (2.5-4.0) 3.0 (2.4-3.8) 3.1 (2.4-3.9) 3-5 years1.4 (1.1-1.7) 1.7 (1.3-2.0) 1.7 (1.3-2.0) 1.8 (1.5-2.3) 1.8 (1.5-2.2) 1.8 (1.4-2.2) >5 years 0.8 (0.6-1.2) 1 (0.7-1.5) 1 (0.7-1.5) 1.2 (0.8-1.7) 1.3 (0.8-1.7) 1.2 (0.9-1.8)

9 Survival: UK Hazard ratio (case/ control) Un- adjusted +age+gender+DM and DM*age + ethnicity +modality 0-90 days25.0 (11.1-56.3) 23.9 (10.6-53.8) 23.9 (10.6-53.8) 23.1 (10.2-52.1) 23.4 (10.3-52.8) 17.0 (7.5-38.5) 90-365 days 6.5 (4.7-9.2) 6.3 (4.5-8.9) 6.3 (4.5-8.9) 6.5 (4.6-9.1) 6.3 (4.4-8.8) 5.9 (4.1-8.4) 1-2 years4.0 (3.2-5.1) 4.1 (3.2-5.1) 4.1 (3.2-5.2) 4.3 (3.4-5.5) 4.2 (3.3-5.3) 3.9 (3.0-4.9) 2-3 years2.5 (2.0-3.1) 2.8 (2.2-3.4) 2.8 (2.2-3.5) 3.2 (2.5-4.0) 3.0 (2.4-3.8) 3.1 (2.4-3.9) 3-5 years1.4 (1.1-1.7) 1.7 (1.3-2.0) 1.7 (1.3-2.0) 1.8 (1.5-2.3) 1.8 (1.5-2.2) 1.8 (1.4-2.2) >5 years 0.8 (0.6-1.2) 1 (0.7-1.5) 1 (0.7-1.5) 1.2 (0.8-1.7) 1.3 (0.8-1.7) 1.2 (0.9-1.8)

10 Re wait-listing analysis Of the 3,059 cases, 1,610 were listed for repeat transplantation within 2 yrs Hazard ratio (re wait-listed cases/control) AdjustedP value 0-365 days3.1 (1.3-7.3) 0.009 1-2 years1.6 (1.0-2.6) 0.04 2-3 years2.3 (1.6-3.2) <0.0001 3-5 years1.5 (1.1-2.1) 0.007 >5 years0.72 (0.4-1.3) 0.3

11 Discussion As would be predicted the greatest risk of death is in the first few weeks following transplant failure but persists until at least 5 years post transplant failure Even if only patients listed for further transplantation (i.e. fitter cases) are considered, an excess mortality risk is seen Limitations: choice of control group, lack of comorbidity data, data capture issues

12 Proxy group Analyses

13 Background Evolved from plans to undertake a European study ERA-EDTA registry doesn’t normally collect wait-listing data Is it possible (from the data available) to design a “proxy” cohort of patients fit for transplantation? Preliminary analyses using UK data Who would be likely to be fit for transplantation? <50 years old Non-diabetics

14 Cases vs. proxy controls (1) 01/01/2000-31/12/2008 Cases = as before, limiting to patients <50 years, non-diabetic Controls = incident dialysis patients <50 years, non-diabetic HR (Case/control) calculated Adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity and modality at start

15 Cases vs. proxy controls (2) Hazard ratio (case/ control)Adjusted HRP value 0-90 days1.7 (1.3-2.3)0.0002 90-365 days1.5 (1.2-1.9)<0.0001 2-5 years1.0 (0.8-1.3)0.9 Why are the results so different?

16 Cases vs. proxy controls (3) CasesProxy controls P value Number of subjects14748057 Age at dialysis start mean37.037.7n.s Sex (% male)907 (61.5)4,832 (60)n.s GN as PRD (%) Missing as PRD (%) Uncertain as PRD (%) 399 (27.1) 12 (0.8) 301(20.5) 1689 (21.0) 427 (5.3) 1924 (23.9) <0.0001 Dialysis modality (% HD)72.967.0<0.0001 UK wait-listing data used to split proxy group into true and proxy controls

17 Cases vs. proxy controls (4) CasesTrue controls Proxy controls P values Number of subjects147454072681 Age at dialysis start mean (SD)37 (8.7) 39.2 (8.3) Sex (% male)61.560.857.90.02 Ethnicity – White (%) Ethnicity – Missing N (%) 86.3 8 (0.5) 78.3 47 (0.9) 73.7 374 (14.0) <0.0001 GN as PRD (%) HTN as PRD (%) Pyelonephritis as PRD (%) Uncertain as PRD (%) Missing PRD N (%) 27.1 3.9 22.9 20.5 12 (0.8) 25.3 6.8 13.2 23.5 73 (1.4) 15.1 7.1 12.8 28.8 201 (7.5) <0.0001 Dialysis modality (% HD)72.959.283.1<0.0001 % who died (censoring at transplant)12.12.427.5<0.0001 % who died (not censored)13.24.027.8<0.0001

18 KM survival True controls Cases Proxy controls Days post dialysis start Survival function

19 Discussion Very hard to define a proxy group Higher proportion of missing data in non- listed proxy controls (previous UKRR work has shown missing data is associated with poorer outcomes) Accurate clinical reasoning – physicians do well at selecting patients suitable for transplants Local-level audit to generate some ideas

20 European Analyses

21 European analyses ERA-EDTA wait-listing data (1998-2005) for: Norway Netherlands Austria Scotland Group A >18yrs old Starting dialysis after failure of 1 st transplant (>90days function) 01/01/1998-31/12/2003 Group B Incident dialysis patients >18yrs commencing dialysis Wait-listed pre or within 2 yrs of RRT start Censoring: Transplantation/re- transplantation Lost to follow-up End of study 31/12/2008

22 KM survival (adjusted) UK (E&W) Controls (Group B) Cases (Group A) Days Survival function

23 Discussion There appears to be significant variation in outcomes after graft failure between countries Access to transplantation Transplantation practices Survival on dialysis Prevalence of comorbidities (e.g. High DM rate in Austria)

24 Future work

25 Questionnaire examining centre-level practices Service provision and staffing Service design Research and audit IT facilities Explore cause of death data and compare with MRIS death certificate information Funding for a case-control study

26 Acknowledgements Many thanks to: Supervisors (C. Tomson, Y. Ben-Shlomo) Anna Casula (UKRR statistician) UKRR transplant sub-group UK renal centres and patients Scottish Renal Registry Data and systems staff (UKRR) NHS Blood and Transplant ERA-EDTA and other participating registries

Download ppt "Survival after graft failure Dr Lynsey Webb Registrar UK Renal Registry UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting."

Similar presentations

Blood pressure control in children following kidney transplantation in the UK Manish Sinha Evelina Childrens Hospital London UKRR and NHS Kidney Care Audit.

Blood pressure control in children following kidney transplantation in the UK Manish Sinha Evelina Childrens Hospital London UKRR and NHS Kidney Care Audit.
Methodological issues in LS analysis of mortality and fertility by ethnic group Bola Akinwale.

Methodological issues in LS analysis of mortality and fertility by ethnic group Bola Akinwale.
UK Renal Registry 17th Annual Report Figure 5.1. Trend in one year after 90 day incident patient survival by first modality, 2003–2012 cohorts (adjusted.

UK Renal Registry 17th Annual Report Figure 5.1. Trend in one year after 90 day incident patient survival by first modality, 2003–2012 cohorts (adjusted.
UK Renal Registry 16th Annual Report Figure 14.1. Data completeness for key variables, stratified by first modality HD = haemodialysis; PD = peritoneal.

UK Renal Registry 16th Annual Report Figure Data completeness for key variables, stratified by first modality HD = haemodialysis; PD = peritoneal.
The future of haemodialysis in the UK RCP advanced medicine 2013 Cormac Breen Consultant Nephrologist Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals London.

The future of haemodialysis in the UK RCP advanced medicine 2013 Cormac Breen Consultant Nephrologist Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals London.
ESRD Registry Committee, Korean Society of Nephrology*

ESRD Registry Committee, Korean Society of Nephrology*
This Power Point presentation belongs to the Danish Renal Registry, which owns the copyright. It can be freely used for non-commercial study and educational.

This Power Point presentation belongs to the Danish Renal Registry, which owns the copyright. It can be freely used for non-commercial study and educational.
UK Renal Registry 15th Annual Report Figure 5.26. One year death rate per 1,000 patient years by UK country and age group for prevalent dialysis.

UK Renal Registry 15th Annual Report Figure One year death rate per 1,000 patient years by UK country and age group for prevalent dialysis.
UK Renal Registry 15th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Age and gender of PD patients submitted to audit.

UK Renal Registry 15th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Age and gender of PD patients submitted to audit.
Chapter 2: Healthy People 2020 2014 A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.

Chapter 2: Healthy People A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.
Ethnic differences in the incidence of prostate cancer patients in UK A review Presented By Steven L. Young Masters Candidate Florida A&M University COPPS.

Ethnic differences in the incidence of prostate cancer patients in UK A review Presented By Steven L. Young Masters Candidate Florida A&M University COPPS.
UK Renal Registry 16th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Trend in 1 year after 90 day incident patient survival by first modality, 2005–2011 cohort (adjusted to.

UK Renal Registry 16th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Trend in 1 year after 90 day incident patient survival by first modality, 2005–2011 cohort (adjusted to.
Chapter 5: Mortality 2014 A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.

Chapter 5: Mortality 2014 A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.
Summary of the 2012 ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2014.

Summary of the 2012 ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2014.
UK Renal Registry 17th Annual Report Figure 9.1. Median height z-scores for transplant patients

UK Renal Registry 17th Annual Report Figure 9.1. Median height z-scores for transplant patients
UK Renal Registry 14th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Median haemoglobin for incident dialysis patients at start of dialysis treatment in 2010.

UK Renal Registry 14th Annual Report Figure 8.1. Median haemoglobin for incident dialysis patients at start of dialysis treatment in 2010.
Chronic kidney disease Mr James Hollinshead Public Health Analyst East Midlands Public Health Observatory (EMPHO) UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting.

Chronic kidney disease Mr James Hollinshead Public Health Analyst East Midlands Public Health Observatory (EMPHO) UK Renal Registry 2011 Annual Audit Meeting.
UKRR Annual Informatics Meeting, September 2013 Highlights from the 15 th Annual Report Rishi Pruthi Research Fellow UK Renal Registry.

UKRR Annual Informatics Meeting, September 2013 Highlights from the 15 th Annual Report Rishi Pruthi Research Fellow UK Renal Registry.
Exploring centre variation in RRT provision Dr Clare Castledine UKRR clinical fellow.

Exploring centre variation in RRT provision Dr Clare Castledine UKRR clinical fellow.
Vascular access The KidneyCare Audit. The challenge of vascular access – Renal National Service Framework Standard 3 “All children, young people and adults.

Vascular access The KidneyCare Audit. The challenge of vascular access – Renal National Service Framework Standard 3 “All children, young people and adults.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google