You are here

Home » Content

POSTTRANSPLANT PROTEINURININ PROGNOSTIK ONEMI

THE PROGNOSTIC IMPORTANCE OF POSTTRANSPLANT PROTEINURIA

Journal Name:

  • Türk Nefroloji, Diyaliz ve Transplantasyon Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1997

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study, we reviewed the records 514 pati¬ents, followed-up in our transplantation out-patien clinic from 1983 to 1996 years and significant protei-nuria was detected in 107 (63from living-related, 44 of cadaveric donor origin) of the patients. 56 (11%) patients with good allograft function (serum creatini-ne level below 2 mg/dl) and proteinuria were evalua¬ted retrospectively in this study. We aimed to investi¬gate the effect of both type and amount of procinuria in order to detect which has more pronounced effect, on allograft survival. The mean time interval between transplantation and the appcarence of proteinuria was 23.7 Months (range 0-121 months). Patients with pro-teinuria were classified as Group P (patients with per¬sistent proteinuria; including 16 male, 4female) and Group T (patients with temporary proteinuria; inclu¬ding 29 male and 7 female) according to the type of the proteinuria. Also, considering the amount of the proteinuria , patients were classified as Group M (pa¬tients with massive (more than 3.5 gr/24h) proteinu-ria; including 29 male and 3 female) and Group NM (patients with nonmassive (less than 3.5 gr/24h) prote-inuria; including 16 male, 8 female). The amount (massive or nonmassive) and type (temporary or per¬sistent) of proteinuria did not relate with patients' age, donor source and maintenance immunosuppressi-ve therapy. In terms of the time of the appearance oj proteinuria, there was no statistically significant diffe¬rence between either Group NM or Group P and Gro¬up T. 2 and 5-year allograft survival rates were found to be 85% and 80% in Group M and 95% and 82% in Group NM, respectively and no significant difference was noted between groups N and NM (p=0.24). In terms of type of proteinuria, 2 and 5 year allograft survival rates were found to be 70% and 58% in Gro¬up P and 92% and 87% in Group T, respectively and difference between groups P and T was found to be statistically significant (p-0.02). In conclusion, we found significant relation bet¬ween type and severity of proteinuria. Most of the pa¬tients with massive proteinuria also had persistent type proteinuria at the same time. Type of the post-transplant proteinuria have stronger effect on allog-raft outcome than severity of proteinuria.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada 514 hasta arasında posttransplant dönemde proteinüri saptanan ve grefi fonksiyonları iyi olan 56 hasta retrospektif olarak incelendi. Proteinürinin türünün ve miktarının grefi yaşam süresine etkisinin karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Proteinü-rili hastalar, proteinürinin türüne göre Grup S (sürek¬li proteinürili 20 hasta, E/K: 16/4) ve Grup G (geçici proteinürili 36 hasta, E/K: 29/7) olarak sınıflandırıl¬dı. Ayrıca proteinüri miktarına göre Grup M (massij proteinürili 32 hasta, E/K:29/3) ve Grup NM (non-massif proteinürili 24 hasta, E/K:16/8) olarak sınıf¬landırıldı. Proteinüri miktarı (massif veya nonmassif) ve türü (geçici veya sürekli) hastanın yaşı, donör kay¬nağı ve idame immunsupressif tedavi ile ilişkisiz bu¬lundu. Transplantasyon ile proteinürinin ortaya çıkışı arasındaki ortalama süre 23.7 ay 0 ile 121 ay arasın¬da idi. Grup M ve Grup NM arasında, hem de Grup S ve Grup G arasında istatistiki anlamlı fark saptanma¬dı. İki ve beş yıllık grefi yaşam süreleri sırası ile, Grup M'de %85 ve %80, Grup NM'de %95 ve %82 olarak bulundu ve aradaki fark istatistiki olarak an¬lamlı bulunmadı (p=0.24). Proteinürinin türü açısın¬dan incelendiğinde, 2 ve 5 yıllık greft yaşam süresi Grup S'de %o70 ve %o58, Grup G'de ise %o92 ve %o87 olarak bulundu ve fark istatistiki olarak anlamlı bu¬lundu (p=0.02). Sonuç olarak, transplantasyon sonrası ortaya çı¬kan proteinürinin türünün, greft yaşam süresi üzerine proteinürinin şiddetinden daha kuvvetli etkiye sahip olduğu düşünülmüştür.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon pdf_tndt_166.pdf
  • 1-2
49-52
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Cheigh JS, Mourabian J, Susin M, et al. Kidney transplant nephrotic syndrome: relationship between allograft histopathology and natural course. Kidney Int 1980; 18:3.358-65.
2. First MR, Vaidya PN, Maryniak RK, et al. Proteinuria following transplantation. Correlation with histopatho-logy and outcome. Transplantation 1984; 38:6, 607-12.
3. Jeong HJ, Kim YS, Oh CK, et al. Proteinuria after renal allograft: assesment based on severity and causes.
Transplant. Proc. 1994; 26:4, 2132-2133.
4. Kim HC, Park SB, LeeSH et al. Analysis of 214 percutaneous allograft renal biopsies. Transplant. Proc. 1994; 26;4, 2197-8.
5. Berger BE, Vincenti F, Biava C, et al. De novo and re¬current membranous glomerulopathy following kidney transplantation. Transplantation, 1983 ; 35:315-9.
6. Peterson VP, Olsen TS, Kissmeyer-Nielsen F, et al. Late failure or human renal transplants. An analysis of trans¬plant disease and graft failure among 125 recipients sur¬viving for one to eight years. Medicine, 1975; 54:1,45¬71.
7. Sethik, First MR, Pesce AJ, et al. Proteinuria following renal transplantation. Nephron, 1977;18:1,49-59.
8. Bear RA, Aprile M, Sweet J, et al. Proteinuria in renal transplant recipients, incidence, cause, prognostic impor¬tance. Transplant Proc 1988; 20:6, 1235-6.
9. Castelao AM, Grino JM, Seron D. et al. Pathological differential diagnostic of proteinuria and late failure af¬ter renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 19922; 24:1,110-2.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com