Quality of care and monitoring in paediatric end stage renal disease
van Huis, M.
Publication date
2016
Document Version
Final published version
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
van Huis, M. (2016). Quality of care and monitoring in paediatric end stage renal disease.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
e v
an Huis
-
Quality of care and monitoring in paediatric end stage renal disease
UITNODIGING
voor het bijwonen van de openbare verdediging van
het proefschrift
Quality of care and monitoring in paediatric
end stage renal disease
op 8 september 2016 om 14:00 in de Agnietenkapel te
Amsterdam
Maike van Huis
Wieringenpad 2 3826 CT Amersfoort m.vanhuis@amc.nl 06-28804222 Paranimfen Lidwien Tjaden 06-22789982 Jolien van Huis
06-18608576
Quality of Care
and Monitoring
in Paediatric End
Stage Renal Disease
Cover and layout: Rens Dommerholt, Persoonlijk Proefschrift Printing: Ipskamp
Copyright M. van Huis
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission from the author. Parts of this thesis are performed as part of the RICH-Q project, which is mainly funded by the Dutch Kidney Foundation. Additional funding was provided by Astellas, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Roche and Shire. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the project, data gathering or interpretation, or in the preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to all patients and the participating centers in the RICH-Q study.
in paediatric end stage renal disease
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctoraan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus
prof. dr. ir. K.I.J. Maex
ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel
op donderdag 8 september 2016, te 14:00 uur door
Maike van Huis
Co-promotores: Dr. J.W. Groothoff Universiteit van Amsterdam Dr. J. H. van der Lee Universiteit van Amsterdam Overige leden: Prof. Dr. F.J. Bemelman Universiteit van Amsterdam
Prof. Dr. N.A. Blom Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. B. Hoppe Universität Bonn
Prof. Dr. K.J. Jager Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. M. Maas Universiteit van Amsterdam Dr. M.R. Lilien Universiteit Utrecht
Chapter 01 General introduction, aim and outline of this thesis
Part I Quality of care
Chapter 02 Policy variation in donor and recipient status in 11 paediatric renal transplantation centres.
Pediatric Nephrology 2013 Jun;28(6):951-7.
Chapter 03 Considerable variations in growth hormone policy and prescription in paediatric end-stage renal disease across European countries-a report from the ESPN/ERA-EDTA registry.
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2016 April;31(4)609-619
Chapter 04 Epidemiology and management of hypertension in paediatric and young adult kidney transplant recipients in The Netherlands
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2016 Epub ahead of print
Part II Monitoring of care
Chapter 05 Low bone mineral density measured with DXA does not predict bone disease in adulthood after childhood renal failure.
BMC Nephrology - submitted
Chapter 06 Impaired Longitudinal Deformation measured by Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in Children with End-Stage Renal Disease.
Pediatric Nephrology 2016 May 17. Ahead of print.
Part III Evaluation of quality of care
Chapter 07 The RICH-Q study: A collaborative network on paediatric end-stage renal disease and quality of care.
British Medical Journal - Quality and Safety - submitted
Part IV General discussion
Part V English summary
Nederlandse samenvatting Portfolio
Publications List of abbreviations
CHAPTER 1
General introduction,
INTRODUCTION
In the Netherlands, each year about 30 children (aged 0-19 years) develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and need to be treated with renal replacement therapy (RRT), haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or pre-emptive kidney transplantation [1, 2]. Although the incidence is low, paediatric ESRD has a high morbidity and mortality [2-7]. A recent study in the United States showed a one-year mortality rate in children on dialysis of 4.31 and 4.52 per 100 person years for haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, respectively [8]. Within Europe, Chesnaye et al. showed a 55-fold higher risk of mortality for children on RRT as compared to the general paediatric population in Europe. Children starting on haemodialysis had an increased risk of mortality as compared to children starting on peritoneal dialysis (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20-2.66) [9, 10]. The Late Effect of Renal Insufficiency in Childhood (LERIC) study showed that young adults with ESRD since childhood frequently suffer from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the most important cause of death in these patients was CVD, reaching up to 41% [5]. Comparable results were seen in another late outcome study from Australia [11]. Furthermore, the LERIC study showed that almost forty percent of the patients suffered from Chronic Kidney Disease – Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD) and a large number of patients experienced a decreased physical quality of life (QOL) [4, 12]. The above illustrates that ESRD is a rare, but life threatening disease with high morbidity in which possibly improvement of outcome can be achieved by improving the quality of care and prevention of CKD-MBD and cardiovascular disease.
In The Netherlands and Belgium, encompassing a relatively small geographical area, paediatric nephrology care is organized in 10 small centres, of which only 4 centres in the Netherlands. Up to 2007 there was no structural consultation or collaboration between these centres. Multiple studies have shown that central registration, collaboration and peer reviewing may lead to improvement of the quality of care [13-15]. In 2007, an initiative for such collaboration was undertaken by initiation of a project called RICH-Q (the Renal Insufficiency in Children – Quality assessment and improvement) project. In this project, all Dutch and Belgian centres for chronic RRT in children declared to collaborate with the primary objective to improve the quality of care for children on RRT. The sequential steps to obtain this goal were as followed: 1. Assessment of current quality of care for children on RRT in the Netherlands and Belgium, 2. Assessment of the effect of registration and peer reviewing, 3. Creating a platform for multi-centre studies, 4. Harmonization of guidelines for RRT in children and searching for best practices. For this, a comprehensive database was created in which In anonymous data on treatment characteristics and physical and psychosocial health outcomes were registered prospectively concerning all children with ESRD treated in the 10 RICH-Q associated hospitals. In the RICH-Q registry data is included of all prevalent Dutch and Belgian patients aged < 19 years on chronic dialysis on October 1st 2007, and all Dutch and Belgian patients aged < 19 years who started RRT or were transplanted from October 1st, 2007 to date. In 2011
1
and 2012, respectively, two German centres, Cologne and Bonn, joined the consortium and included all their incident patients aged <19 years on RRT from that moment. Earlier studies within the RICH-Q framework by Schoenmaker and Tromp already showed that between the RICH-Q centres considerable variations exist on treatment and management policies [13-18]. Furthermore, Schoenmaker et al. showed that within the patients included in RICH-Q disparities exist between children from immigrant parents and children from non-immigrant parents with regards to dialysis treatment and outcome [17]. This has been described in other studies earlier as well [19, 20]. Differences on treatment and management policies are due to a lack of child-specific evidence based guidelines. Overall, children with ESRD suffer from a decreased quality of life [21-24]. On top of that, within RICH-Q, Schoenmaker et al. found that children from immigrant parents with ESRD suffer from a decreased quality of life as compared to the children with ESRD from non-immigrant origin [16]. Furthermore, earlier studies showed that conventional echocardiography is unreliable to monitor cardiovascular disease in paediatric ESRD [25].
For this thesis the following topics of interest were chosen: a. Quality of care with respect to 3 important quality indicators, being transplantation policy, prevention of growth retardation and control of hypertension after transplantation, b. quality of monitoring of 2 of the most important comorbidities, Chronic Kidney Disease related mineral bone disease (CKD— MBD) and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and c. the effect of the RICH Q intervention on quality of care over time.
Schoenmaker and Tromp have already shown that management and treatment policies in dialysis differ [17, 18]. Kidney transplantation is regarded as the most optimal mode of RRT for children to an extent that starting RRT without prospects for transplantation is generally considered unethical for children with ESRD. An optimal transplantation policy that ensures the longest possible RRT time with a good functioning renal graft –in the most ideal situation without prior dialysis treatment- should therefore be one of the major quality aims with regard to RRT treatment in children. We therefore analysed to which extent policies regarding transplantation differed between centres in the Netherlands and Belgium, compared policies with the actual care and analysed the impact of policy and treatment differences on access to transplantation and transplantation outcomes.
CKD-MBD is known to impair longitudinal growth that consequently affects health related quality of life. As growth hormone deficiency plays an important role in the origin of decreased longitudinal growth, treatment with recombinant growth hormone (rGH) is indicated after treatment of other causes of growth retardation. rGH therapy has shown to be safe and effective [26-30]. Nevertheless, recent data of the ESPN/ERA-EDTA database show that over 40% of the European ESRD children still have a moderate and 19% a severe final height deficit (SD< 1.88 and SD < -3.0, respectively) [31]. American and British data suggest that there might be undertreatement of rGH in ESRD children, but to date
no data exists on the situation with respect to rGH in the whole European community [32]. We therefore investigated differences in policies on growth hormone treatment, actual prescription and height outcomes in 28 European countries using data from the ESPN/ERA-EDTA registry.
As the treatment of paediatric ESRD has improved over time, more patients with childhood onset ESRD reach adult life. With increasing age, long-term complications, such as motor disabilities as a result of CKD-MBD arise, as shown by earlier research [2, 4, 33-36]. Currently, evidence based guidelines on the diagnosis and monitoring of CKD-MBR are lacking. Assessment of CKD-MBD consists of imaging of the hand with an X-ray or bone mineral density (BMD) assessment with Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). The assessment of CKD-MBD with the help of DXA in (paediatric) ESRD has been a topic of debate over time. Whilst in healthy, especially post-menopausal women, DXA has shown to be a good discriminator for future fractures [37], in (paediatric) ESRD results are conflicting. A study by Alem et al. [38] showed that in adult patients with ESRD, a low BMD was associated with fracture. Jamal et al [39] found an increased fracture risk (OR 1.56) for BMD at the radius measured by DXA in adult patients (mean age 63.3 years) with CKD stage 3-5. In 2012 Iimori et al. found that total hip BMD together with a low PTH can be used in the prediction of fracture risk in CKD stage 5D patients [40]. The same group also examined 13 studies that were reviewed by the KDIGO CKD-MBD guideline development group. They found highly variable results between the studies assessing the association between fractures and BMD in CKD [40]. A recent review by Babayev and Nickolas stated that the role of DXA in ESRD, especially CKD, is not yet obsolete and needs re-examination[41]. Current existing guidelines still recommend performing DXA scans in paediatric ESRD ranging from no recommendation, every 6-12 months to only on indication [35, 42-48]. In this thesis the ability of DXA to prospectively discriminate subjects at risk for fracture was analysed. Children do not frequently suffer from fractures and children with (moderate) CKD-MBD have low fracture rate.
Therefore, we assessed BMD by DXA in 2000 and signs of bone disease and fracture in the subsequent 10 years in adult patients with childhood onset ESRD. If low BMD by DXA is associated with fractures later in life, the use of DXA in childhood could be of additional value for assessing their fracture risk later in life.
Another long-term complication of ESRD and possible lethal condition is cardiovascular disease. Left ventricular hypertrophy may be due to (chronic) hypertension, ischemia, inflammation and uremic toxins [49-56]. However, Schoenmaker et al showed that the assessment of LVH in children with ESRD by paediatric cardiologists differ and is not reproducible [57]. New, highly reproducible methods of assessment of cardiac dysfunction exist, such as Speckle Tracking Echocardiography (STE) [58-66]. In this thesis the assessment of myocardial mechanics with STE in children on dialysis and children with a functioning graft is presented. STE findings in children with ESRD are compared with results in healthy, age-matched controls.
1
Hypertension in ESRD is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is known to be highly undiagnosed and under treated [67-73]. In children and young adults with a renal transplant, little is known about the prevalence of (uncontrolled) hypertension. Earlier papers reported prevalence of hypertension in these patients varying from 66% in children up to 85% in elderly adults [69, 74-78]. However, to date, no study has been performed to assess prevalence of hypertension in both paediatric and young adult renal transplant recipients and over time. In this thesis a study is presented in which the prevalence of (uncontrolled) hypertension in paediatric (0-19 years) and young adult (19-30 years) patients with a renal transplant has been analysed. Transition, the process of transferring care from the paediatrician to adult care is known to be a risk for treatment adherence. Especially in renal transplant recipients, transition is believed to increase the risk for graft failure [79-82]. Therefore, the influence of transition of care from paediatric to adult nephrology care on the prevalence of hypertension in these patients was assessed. Finally, after 8 years of RICH-Q, the effect of RICH-Q on quality of care with regards to quality indicators, harmonizing care and add on studies was assessed.
AIM OF THIS THESIS
Aim of this thesis is to study the current quality of care in children and young adults with ESRD, regarding transplantation, post-transplant hypertension and growth hormone use. Furthermore, this thesis aims to address the current and new methods of diagnosing CKD-MBD and cardiac dysfunction. Finally, RICH-Q as a quality improvement collaborative is evaluated. The following questions had to be answered:
1. Which guidelines currently exist on the care for paediatric renal transplant recipients? 2. Do Dutch, Belgian and German centres providing renal transplantation have child-specific transplantation policies, on what are these policies based and do the clinicians adhere to the policies?
3. Are there policies on the use of rGH in paediatric ESRD across Europe and to which extent do differences in policies affect health outcome, more specific (final) height? 4. What is the prevalence of (uncontrolled) hypertension after renal transplantation in children and young adults in the Netherlands?
5. Is the prevalence of (uncontrolled) hypertension influenced by transition (the transfer of care from the paediatric to adult nephrologist)?
6. What are current policies in paediatric and adult nephrology centres with regards to post-transplant hypertension?
7. Is DXA a reliable method to assess future fracture risk in young adults with childhood onset ESRD?
8. Does Speckle Tracking Echocardiography enable the paediatric cardiologist to diagnose myocardial dysfunction in paediatric patients with ESRD?
9. Does a collaborative initiative aiming to improve the quality of care for paediatric ESRD in the Netherlands, Belgium and part of German actually improve care?
1
OUTLINE
Chapter 1 provides a short general introduction and aim of this thesis.
Part 1 provides an overview on quality of care by a the assessment of current practices
regarding paediatric renal transplantation in the RICH-Q centres (chapter 2), growth hormone use and (final) height outcome in 28 European countries (chapter 3) and hypertension prevalence and management in paediatric and young adult renal transplant recipients (chapter 4).
Part 2 describes the monitoring of care regarding CKD-MBD and cardiac dysfunction. Chapter 5 present the results of a prospective study on the role of DXA in predicting fracture
risk in young adults with paediatric onset ESRD. In the last chapter (chapter 6) of part 2 the results are presented of the assessment of myocardial dysfunction with the help of Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in paediatric ESRD.
In part 3 an overview is presented with regards to RICH-Q, its achievements, barriers and future perspectives.
Part 4 consists of a discussion of all findings as presented in this thesis. Also, implications for
REFERENCES
1. Harambat, J., et al., Epidemiology of chronic kidney disease in children. Pediatr Nephrol, 2012. 27(3): p. 363-73.
2. Groothoff, J.W., Late effects of renal insufficiency in children. A national long-term follow-up study. 2002.
3. Gruppen, M.P., et al., Cardiac disease in young adult patients with end-stage renal disease since childhood: a Dutch cohort study. Kidney Int, 2003. 63(3): p. 1058-65. 4. Groothoff, J.W., et al., Severe bone disease and low bone mineral density after
juvenile renal failure. Kidney Int., 2003. 63(1): p. 266-275.
5. Groothoff, J.W., et al., Cardiovascular disease as a late complication of end-stage renal disease in children. Pediatr Nephrol, 2005. 20(3): p. 374-9.
6. Groothoff, J.W., et al., Mortality and causes of death of end-stage renal disease in children: a Dutch cohort study. Kidney Int, 2002. 61(2): p. 621-9.
7. Groothoff, J.W., Long-term outcomes of children with end-stage renal disease. Pediatr Nephrol, 2005. 20(7): p. 849-53.
8. Chavers, B.M., et al., One-year mortality rates in US children with end-stage renal disease. Am J Nephrol, 2015. 41(2): p. 121-8.
9. Chesnaye, N., et al., Demographics of paediatric renal replacement therapy in Europe: a report of the ESPN/ERA-EDTA registry. Pediatr Nephrol, 2014. 29(12): p. 2403-10.
10. Chesnaye, N.C., et al., Mortality risk in European children with end-stage renal disease on dialysis. Kidney Int, 2016. 89(6): p. 1355-62.
11. McDonald, S.P. and J.C. Craig, Long-Term Survival of Children with End-Stage Renal Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2004. 350(26): p. 2654-2662. 12. Groothoff, J.W., et al., Quality of life in adults with end-stage renal disease since
childhood is only partially impaired. Nephrol.Dial.Transplant., 2003. 18(2): p. 310-317.
13. Hoffman, K.A., et al., Improving quality of care in substance abuse treatment using five key process improvement principles. J Behav Health Serv Res, 2012. 39(3): p. 234-44.
14. Hulscher, M.E., et al., Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf, 2013. 22(1): p. 19-31.
15. Landon, B.E., et al., Effects of a quality improvement collaborative on the outcome of care of patients with HIV infection: the EQHIV study. Ann Intern Med, 2004. 140(11): p. 887-96.
16. Schoenmaker, N.J., et al., Children of non-Western origin with end-stage renal disease in the Netherlands, Belgium and a part of Germany have impaired health-related quality of life compared with Western children. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2014. 29(2): p. 448-57.
1
17. Schoenmaker, N.J., et al., Disparities in dialysis treatment and outcomes for Dutch and Belgian children with immigrant parents. Pediatr Nephrol, 2012. 27(8): p. 1369-79.
18. Tromp, W.F., et al., Important differences in management policies for children with end-stage renal disease in the Netherlands and Belgium--report from the RICH-Q study. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2012. 27(5): p. 1984-92.
19. Amaral, S., et al., Racial disparities in access to pediatric kidney transplantation since share 35. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2012. 23(6): p. 1069-77.
20. Atkinson, M.A., et al., Disparate outcomes in pediatric peritoneal dialysis patients by gender/race in the End-Stage Renal Disease Clinical Performance Measures project. Pediatr Nephrol, 2008. 23(8): p. 1331-8.
21. Stam, H., et al., Young adult patients with a history of pediatric disease: impact on course of life and transition into adulthood. J Adolesc Health, 2006. 39(1): p. 4-13. 22. Tjaden, L.A., et al., Health-related quality of life in patients with pediatric onset of
end-stage renal disease: state of the art and recommendations for clinical practice. Pediatr Nephrol, 2015.
23. Tjaden, L.A., et al., Long-term quality of life and social outcome of childhood end-stage renal disease. J Pediatr, 2014. 165(2): p. 336-342.e1.
24. Tozzi, A.E., et al., Quality of life in a cohort of patients diagnosed with renal failure in childhood and who received renal transplant. Pediatr Transplant, 2012. 16(8): p. 840-5.
25. Schoenmaker, N.J., et al., Diastolic dysfunction measured by tissue Doppler imaging in children with end-stage renal disease: a report of the RICH-Q study. Cardiol Young, 2014. 24(2): p. 236-44.
26. Benfield, M.R. and E.C. Kohaut, Growth hormone is safe in children after renal transplantation. J.Pediatr., 1997. 131(1 Pt 2): p. S28-S31.
27. Fine, R.N. and D. Stablein, Long-term use of recombinant human growth hormone in pediatric allograft recipients: a report of the NAPRTCS Transplant Registry. Pediatr.Nephrol., 2005. 20(3): p. 404-408.
28. Fine, R.N., et al., Recombinant human growth hormone post-renal transplantation in children: a randomized controlled study of the NAPRTCS. Kidney Int, 2002. 62(2): p. 688-696.
29. Gupta, V. and M. Lee, Growth hormone in chronic renal disease. Indian J.Endocrinol.Metab, 2012. 16(2): p. 195-203.
30. Haffner, D. and D.C. Fischer, Growth hormone treatment of infants with chronic kidney disease: requirement, efficacy, and safety. Pediatr.Nephrol., 2009. 24(6): p. 1097-1100.
31. Harambat, J., et al., Adult Height in Patients with Advanced CKD Requiring Renal Replacement Therapy during Childhood. Clin.J.Am.Soc.Nephrol., 2013.
32. Seikaly, M.G., et al., Use of rhGH in children with chronic kidney disease: lessons from NAPRTCS. Pediatr.Nephrol., 2007. 22(8): p. 1195-1204.
33. Yenchek, R.H., et al., Bone mineral density and fracture risk in older individuals with CKD. Clin.J.Am.Soc.Nephrol., 2012. 7(7): p. 1130-1136.
34. Nickolas, T.L., M.B. Leonard, and E. Shane, Chronic kidney disease and bone fracture: a growing concern. Kidney Int., 2008. 74(6): p. 721-731.
35. Moorthi, R.N. and S.M. Moe, CKD-mineral and bone disorder: core curriculum 2011. Am.J.Kidney Dis., 2011. 58(6): p. 1022-1036.
36. Boot, A.M., et al., Renal transplantation and osteoporosis. Arch.Dis.Child, 1995. 72(6): p. 502-506.
37. http://www.who.int/en/, Assesment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. 1994.
38. Alem, A.M., et al., Increased risk of hip fracture among patients with end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int., 2000. 58(1): p. 396-399.
39. Jamal, S., et al., Bone mineral density by DXA and HR pQCT can discriminate fracture status in men and women with stages 3 to 5 chronic kidney disease. Osteoporos.Int, 2012. 23(12): p. 2805-2813.
40. Iimori, S., et al., Diagnostic usefulness of bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in predicting fracture in CKD stage 5D patients--a single-center cohort study. Nephrol.Dial.Transplant., 2012. 27(1): p. 345-351. 41. Babayev, R. and T.L. Nickolas, Bone Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease: An
Update in Diagnosis and Management. Semin Dial, 2015.
42. http: and http://www.cari.org.au/, Caring for Australians with renal impairment (CARI). 2010.
43. http: and http://www.ispd.org/, International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis. 2011. 44. http: and http://www.renal.org, The Renal association. 2011.
45. http: and http://www.renalmd.org, Renal physicians association. 2011.
46. Jindal, K., et al., Hemodialysis clinical practice guidelines for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. J.Am.Soc.Nephrol., 2006. 17(3 Suppl 1): p. S1-27.
47. Ketteler, M., et al., Revisiting KDIGO clinical practice guideline on chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder: a commentary from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes controversies conference. Kidney Int., 2015. 87(3): p. 502-528.
48. Klaus, G., et al., Pediatr.Nephrol.
49. Daniels, S.R., et al., Left ventricular geometry and severe left ventricular hypertrophy in children and adolescents with essential hypertension. Circulation, 1998. 97(19): p. 1907-1911.
50. Dyadyk, O.I., A.E. Bagriy, and N.F. Yarovaya, Disorders of left ventricular structure and function in chronic uremia: how often, why and what to do with it? Eur.J.Heart Fail., 1999. 1(4): p. 327-336.
51. El-Husseini, A.A., et al., Echocardiographic changes and risk factors for left ventricular hypertrophy in children and adolescents after renal transplantation. Pediatr.Transplant., 2004. 8(3): p. 249-254.
1
52. Foley, R.N., et al., The prognostic importance of left ventricular geometry in uremic cardiomyopathy. J Am Soc Nephrol, 1995. 5(12): p. 2024-31.
53. Johnstone, L.M., et al., Left ventricular abnormalities in children, adolescents and young adults with renal disease. Kidney Int., 1996. 50(3): p. 998-1006.
54. Levin, A., et al., Left ventricular mass index increase in early renal disease: impact of decline in hemoglobin. Am.J.Kidney Dis., 1999. 34(1): p. 125-134.
55. Matteucci, M.C., et al., Left ventricular geometry in children with mild to moderate chronic renal insufficiency. J.Am.Soc.Nephrol., 2006. 17(1): p. 218-226.
56. Mitsnefes, M.M., et al., Left ventricular mass and systolic performance in pediatric patients with chronic renal failure. Circulation, 2003. 107(6): p. 864-868.
57. Schoenmaker, N.J., et al., Low agreement between cardiologists diagnosing left ventricular hypertrophy in children with end-stage renal disease. BMC Nephrol, 2013. 14: p. 170.
58. Amundsen, B.H., et al., Noninvasive myocardial strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography: validation against sonomicrometry and tagged magnetic resonance imaging. J.Am.Coll.Cardiol., 2006. 47(4): p. 789-793. 59. Cikes, M., et al., The role of echocardiographic deformation imaging in hypertrophic
myopathies. Nat Rev Cardiol, 2010. 7(7): p. 384-96.
60. Imbalzano, E., et al., Left ventricular function in hypertension: new insight by speckle tracking echocardiography. (1540-8175 (Electronic)).
61. Koopman, L.P., et al., Comparison between different speckle tracking and color tissue Doppler techniques to measure global and regional myocardial deformation in children. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2010. 23(9): p. 919-28.
62. Kramann, R., et al., Speckle tracking echocardiography detects uremic cardiomyopathy early and predicts cardiovascular mortality in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2014. 25(10): p. 2351-65.
63. Liu, Y.W., et al., Left ventricular systolic strain in chronic kidney disease and hemodialysis patients. Am.J.Nephrol., 2011. 33(1): p. 84-90.
64. Mondillo, S., et al., Speckle-tracking echocardiography: a new technique for assessing myocardial function. J.Ultrasound Med., 2011. 30(1): p. 71-83.
65. Poterucha, J.T., et al., Changes in left ventricular longitudinal strain with anthracycline chemotherapy in adolescents precede subsequent decreased left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2012. 25(7): p. 733-40. 66. Yan, P., et al., 2D-speckle tracking echocardiography contributes to early
identification of impaired left ventricular myocardial function in patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephron Clin.Pract., 2011. 118(3): p. c232-c240.
67. Agarwal, R., et al., Prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension in chronic hemodialysis patients in the United States. The American Journal of Medicine, 2003. 115(4): p. 291-297.
68. Arias-Rodr+¡guez, M., et al., Prevalence and clinical characteristics of renal transplant patients with true resistant hypertension. journal of hypertension, 2015.
69. Beluarte, H.J., et al., Analysis of hypertension in children post renal transplantation--a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS. Pediatric Nephrology, 1994. 8(5): p. 570-573.
70. D+®gi, A., et al., Cardiovascular risk assessment in children following kidney transplantation. Pediatric Transplantation, 2012. 16(6): p. 564-576.
71. Fernando, V., et al., Prevalence and Risk Factors of Noncontrolled and Resistant Arterial Hypertension in Renal Transplant Recipients. Transplantation, 2015. 99(5).
72. Flynn, J.T., Hypertension and future cardiovascular disease in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Pediatric Transplantation, 2006. 10(3): p. 276-278.
73. Herzog, C.A., et al., Cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease. A clinical update from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int, 2011. 80(6): p. 572-586.
74. Dobrowolski, L.C., et al., Treatment Efficacy of Hypertension in Dutch Kidney Transplant Recipients in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 2013. 72(5): p. 258-263.
75. Carpenter, M.A., et al., Inadequacy of cardiovascular risk factor management in chronic kidney transplantation - evidence from the FAVORIT study. Clinical Transplantation, 2012. 26(4): p. E438-E446.
76. Kramer, A.M., et al., Demographics of blood pressure and hypertension in children on renal replacement therapy in Europe. Kidney Int, 2011. 80(10): p. 1092-1098. 77. Seeman, T., Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Pediatric Renal
Transplantation, Current Hypertension Reports. 2012, Current Science Inc. p. 608-618.
78. Cameron, C., et al., An Observational Cohort Study of the Effect of Hypertension on the Loss of Renal Function in Pediatric Kidney Recipients. American Journal of Hypertension, 2013.
79. Akchurin, O.M., et al., Medication adherence in the transition of adolescent kidney transplant recipients to the adult care. Pediatric Transplantation, 2014. 18(5): p. 538-548.
80. van den Heuvel, M.E.N., et al., Transition to the adult nephrologist does not induce acute renal transplant rejection. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2010. 25(5): p. 1662-1667.
81. Watson, A., Problems and pitfalls of transition from paediatric to adult renal care, Pediatric Nephrology. 2005, Springer-Verlag. p. 113-117.
82. Watson, A.R., Non-compliance and transfer from paediatric to adult transplant unit, inPediatric Nephrology. 2000, Springer-Verlag. p. 469-472.
PART I
Quality of care
CHAPTER 2
Maike van Huis, Nikki J. Schoenmaker, Jaap W. Groothoff, Johanna H. van der Lee and Karlien Cransberg
on behalf of the RICH-Q group
Pediatric Nephrology 2013 Jun;28(6):951-7.
Policy variation in donor and
recipient status in 11 paediatric
ABSTRACT
Background
Evidence based guidelines for pediatric renal transplantation (Tx) are lacking. This may lead to unwanted treatment variations. We aimed to quanitfy the variation in treatment policies and its consequences in daily practice in 11 centers that provide renal Tx for children in 3 European countries.
Methods
We surveyed Tx policies in all ten centers in the Netherlands and Belgium and one center in Germany. We compared Tx policies with the actually provided therapies and with recommendations from available published guidelines and existing literature. Information on treatment policies was obtained by a questionnaire; information on actually provided care was registered prospectively from 2007-2011. The clinical guidelines were identified by searches of MEDLINE and websites of paediatric nephrology organizations.
Results
Between centers, we found discrepancies in policies on: the minimum accepted recipient weight (8-12 kilograms), the maximum living and deceased donor age (50-75 and 45-60 years, respectively). HLA-match policies varied between acceptation of all mismatches to at least 1A1B1DR match. Living donor transplantations amounted to 49% in the Netherlands versus 26% in Belgium (p=0.006).
Conclusion
Management policies for renal Tx in children vary considerably between centers and nations. This has a direct impact on the delivered care, and by extrapolation, on health outcome.
2
BACKGROUND
End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) in children is a rare but serious disorder [1;2]. In the Western world, the yearly incidence rate of ESRD in people younger than 19 years is about 6-8 per million age related population. Renal transplantation (Tx) is the preferred chronic renal replacement therapy (RRT) for children with ESRD. The management of patients pre-Tx and following successful pre-Tx is essential to maximize the chance of good long-term graft function [3].
In order to maintain acceptable travel distances to the hospital, patients can choose between several, and consequently all very small, Tx centers, of which there are 4 in the Netherlands, 6 in Belgium and 14 in Germany. The low prevalence of childhood ESRD and the overall small center sizes worldwide both have been a barrier for adequately sized randomized clinical trials necessary for the development of evidence based guidelines for treatment of children with ESRD worldwide. The Renal Insufficiency in Children – Quality assessment and improvement (RICH-Q) [4] project started in 2007 as a collaborative initiative of all four Dutch and six Belgian centers for pediatric RRT. In 2011 one German center in a geographically adjacent area, joined RICH-Q, since then comprising eleven pediatric centers which offer RRT. RICH-Q aims to improve the quality of care (QoC) for children with ESRD by peer review and plenary discussion of prospectively recorded data on treatment characteristics and physical and psychosocial health outcomes, applying the latest scientific evidence and guidelines on RRT in children.
In 2012, we reported on large variation in dialysis management policies between the RICH-Q centres [5]. In this paper, we report on variation in policy of acceptance of donors and recipients in children within the 11 RICH-Q sites. We also compare the reported treatment policies with currently available guidelines and with the actually performed care between 2007 and 2011.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this study information was obtained from 3 sources. A survey was conducted on management policies, a literature search was performed to identify guidelines, and clinical data were collected prospectively as part of the RICH-Q project. Each of the 3 methods of data-collection are described below.
Survey on treatment policies
In October 2011, we asked one pediatric nephrologist per participating center to complete a questionnaire on local Tx policies. The questionnaire was developed with input from all participating pediatric nephrologists, to ensure content validity. The questionnaire included 22 questions on 10 topics within the 2 main topics; pre-transplantation work-up and transplantation.
The questionnaire included one question regarding altruistic donation, which we defined as ‘a situation in which someone chooses to donate an organ to a recipient with whom the
Literature search
Clinical guidelines on the management of children with renal Tx were retrieved by searching MEDLINE using the following MeSH terms and text words combined as “either/or”: “renal transplantation”, “end-stage renal disease”, “guideline”, “child” and “children”. There was no limit for publication date. Furthermore, we searched websites of organizations known to produce guidelines for patients with ESRD (KDIGO [7], KDOQI [8], CARI [9], UK Renal Association [10], CSN Canada [11], Renal Physicians Association [12], ISPD [13] and ESPN [14]). Included were published clinical guidelines, written in English, which concerned children (0-18 years) with renal Tx.
Clinical data collection in the RICH-Q project
In RICH-Q anonymous data on treatment characteristics and physical and psychosocial health outcomes are registered prospectively concerning all children with ESRD treated in the 11 RICH-Q associated hospitals. In the RICH-Q registry we included all prevalent Dutch and Belgian patients aged < 19 years on chronic dialysis on October 1st 2007, and
all Dutch and Belgian patients aged < 19 years who started RRT or were transplanted from October 1st, 2007 to date. Since 2011, all incident patients treated in the centre of Cologne
aged < 19 years are included in the database. For this paper data regarding Tx from the centre of Cologne were collected retrospectively back to 2007. We obtained ethical approval from the ethical boards of all participating hospitals and written Informed Consent from all parents of all participants and the participant themselves if possible. An independent research institute (the Hans Mak Institute [15]) assures the quality of the data by monitoring 10% of all data. Time on dialysis prior to the first non-pre-emptive Tx, weight and age of the recipient at the time of Tx, age of both living donor (LD) and deceased donor (DD) and cold ischemia time (CIT) of the allograft were the variables used for the present analysis.
Statistics
Analyses were performed using SPSS 18. Values are presented as median [range] unless stated otherwise. Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for testing differences in waiting time on dialysis between the Netherland, Belgium, and Cologne and between the Netherlands and Cologne on the one hand and Belgium on the other. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Reported policies and information from the registry
Paediatric nephrologists of all 11 centres completed the questionnaire. All centres reported to have a pre-transplantation protocol. For an overview of all pre-transplantation policies, consultations and imaging see table 1.
All RICH-Q centres stated to strive for pre-emptive transplantation in paediatric ESRD. At all sites, patients are informed about the two donor sources of Tx (LD and DD). In
2
the Belgian centres, living donation is not emphasized as being the first choice for Tx. In contrast, all Dutch centres and the centre of Cologne underline the superiority of LD, over DD Tx with respect to graft survival. Participating centres stated that there were no differences in providing information between different ethnic, cultural and religious groups of patients. From October 2007 up to December 2011, 197 transplantations were recorded in our registry. 44 out of the total of 197 Tx (22%) were pre-emptive and 85 out of 197 Tx (43%) were from living donors.
In the Netherlands and Cologne the proportion of transplantations from LD (72/147, 48%) was significantly larger than in Belgium (13/51, 26%) (p=0.006). We did not find statistically significant differences in time on dialysis before their first non-pre-emptive Tx in children who had received a DD kidney transplant (p=0.81, Table 2a), nor a non-pre-emptive Tx from a LD (p=0.56) (Table 2b) between patients from The Netherlands and Cologne on the one hand and from Belgium on the other. Table 3 shows the reported policies with respect to minimum accepted recipient weight and maximum accepted age in comparison with the actual median weight at Tx as reported in the registry over 2007-2011. Centre policies varied between a recommended minimum weight of 8 and 12 kilograms. Two patients had a lower weight at the moment of Tx than what was accounted as minimal acceptable according to the centre policy. Nevertheless, both were considered suitable for Tx according to the performing surgeons.
In most sites (6/11) of the centres minimum weight prevailed over age. The minimum age for receiving a kidney (derived from either a juvenile or adult donor) as stated in the policies varied between 10 months and 3 years. Accepting an adult kidney in a very small child depended on individual assessment by the performing surgeon. The stated policies with respect to the maximum donor age varied from 50 to 75 years and from 45 to 65 years, for LD and DD, respectively. Table 3 shows the stated policies regarding maximum age of both LD and DD in comparison with the actual median and range of the donor age as recorded in the registry. In three centres the actual LD age had exceeded the maximum donor age as stated in the policy. Upon inquiry this was explained by two factors. First, the age limit was not maintained very strictly, and second, the physical condition of these particular donors was considered excellent. The stated policies with respect to maximum accepted CIT varied between 18 hours (one centre), 24 hours (seven centres) and 36 hours (three centres). In only one case the actual CIT exceeded the centre policy with 3 hours, due to peri-operative complications.
The composition of the transplantation surgery teams varied between centres. In 6 centres the actual procedure was performed by a specialized transplantation surgeon, in 2 by a paediatric surgeon and in 3 by a vascular surgeon. A paediatric urologist assisted the transplantation surgeons on a routine base in 5 centres, while this occurred only on the demand in the other centres. In 2 centres the Tx was performed by both a paediatric surgeon and a vascular surgeon. In all centres the performing paediatric surgeon also participated in the adult Tx program.
Not all centres have the same policy with regard to ABO-incompatible Tx, non-heart-beating Tx, minimum accepted HLA-match and non-related LD Tx. Four centres stated to perform ABO-incompatible transplantations. Transplantation of kidneys from non-heart beating donors is performed in 3 centres. With respect to minimal accepted HLA-matches, policies varied from acceptation of all mismatches to a minimal match of 1A1B1DR. Five centres reported to accept non-related LD. Altruistic non-related donation was accepted in these centres as well, provided that the donor would remain anonymous.
Between October 2007 and December 2011, no ABO-incompatible transplantations were performed. Kidneys of non-related LD were used twice and of DD after cardiac death three times.
Guidelines
One [14] of the 19 potentially relevant guidelines identified by the search met the selection criteria. This guidelines was developed by The European Society for Pediatric Nephrology (ESPN). The ESPN provides paediatric specific guidelines [14] with respect to contra-indications for Tx in children, pre-transplant nephrectomy, pre-Tx vaccination and paediatric recipient age [14]. They recommend a minimum recipient age of 6 months and states that ABO-incompatible Tx is contraindicated in the paediatric patient. None of the guidelines provide specific recommendations with regard to the expertise of the surgeon performing the Tx. The ESPN guidelines recommend performing the paediatric Tx in specialized paediatric centres in multidisciplinary teams.
DISCUSSION
In this paper we demonstrate a considerable variation in Tx policies across the 11 hospitals providing Tx for children in the Netherlands, Belgium and part of Germany. This corresponds to what we previously found in dialysis management policies [5]. This variation implies structural differences in patient care with possible consequences for patient outcome even in a small geographical area. Sometimes physicians deviate from their own reported policies for the management of Tx in children. These deviations may be based on conscious decisions to tailor the treatment to the individual patient, due to practical challenges in adhering to the guidelines, or to uncertainty about the validity of certain clinical recommendations. Here we will discuss some of the most important differences between the various centres as well as between centres and current guidelines and literature.
Differences between centres
Belgian and Dutch centres reported different policies with respect to LD versus DD Tx, which was reflected by the actual number of living and post-mortem donation in both countries as reported in the registry. All Dutch centres actively recommended living donation, whereas the Belgian approach was to inform parents and patients as neutrally as possible on this
2
subject. One of the arguments for not actively promoting living-related transplantation according to most Belgian centres was the advantage of having a LD donor in reserve, since children have a relatively long life expectancy and hence a high probability for the need of a second transplantation.
The different approaches between the two countries may also have been influenced by the higher availability of organ donors in Belgium compared to the other 2 countries, as is reflected by data from Eurotransplant, the allocation authority of DD organs of all 3 countries [16]. In 2011, organs of 29.3 DD per million population were used in Belgium, compared with 13.3 and 14.4 in the Netherlands and Germany, respectively [16]. Both a different legislation on organ donation and different overall death rates are associated with the relatively high availability of organs in Belgium in comparison to the Netherlands and Germany. Since 1987 the Belgian law comprises a presumed consent system which authorizes the removal of the organs of a Belgian citizen or someone who has lived in Belgium for more than 6 months unless this person has declared that his/hers organs cannot be used for donation. This contrasts with the Dutch and German so-called active informed consent system, which is a voluntary system of organ donation whereby relatives give permission at the time of death, usually in the knowledge that the potential donor had expressed a wish to become a donor. As a result, in the Netherlands, 47% of the paediatric transplantations were kidneys originating from DD, whereas in Belgium 72% of all paediatric transplantations were from DD.
Contrary to what would have been expected from the Eurotransplant reports on donor availability of both countries, we did not find a shorter stay on dialysis of Belgian as compared to Dutch children on dialysis. This accounted both for LD and DD transplantations. A Type II error caused by the small number of patients might be one explanation.
Taken into account the overall better outcome of LD Tx versus DD [17-19], we think that under all circumstances, decisions on either LD or DD Tx should be taken together with parents and patients in an open discussion, independent from the availability of DD organs. This will give patients and parents the optimal opportunity to consider what is the best option in their particular situation, either to go immediately for the option with the best forecast or to keep a family organ in reserve.
There were remarkable differences between the centres with regard to the minimum accepted weight of the recipient and the maximum accepted age of the donor. The reasons for these differences are not clear. A minimum threshold of recipient weight or age may be determined by the skills of the local surgeon or paediatric nephrology team. This may lead to a longer waiting time on dialysis for those children who are considered too small or too young for Tx in a particular centre.
Differences between centre policies and current guidelines
There has been much discussion about the minimum accepted recipient age. To date, the ESPN recommends 6 months to be the minimum acceptable recipient age. A prospective cohort study in 321 transplanted children by Humar et al. [20] showed no difference in
delayed graft function and graft survival after living related Tx in children in three different age groups (<1 year, 1 through 4 years, and 5 through 13 years). This may have been due to a type II error cases by the small number (n=30) of patients aged less than 1 year vs. n=122 and n=169 for 1 through 4 years and 5 through 13 years, respectively. In contrast, in a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS), Elshihabi et al. [21] reported a higher risk of graft failure in younger recipients of kidneys from DD, below the age of two years (RR 1.95). The comparability of these reports is limited due to the difference in study designs. However, a minimum accepted recipient age might depend on whether the child is receiving a kidney of either a LD or a DD. In transplanting small children, technical difficulties arise. Therefore, instead of age, body weight might be the decisive factor in accepting a child for Tx. In the RICH-Q centres, the decision about transplantability was more often determined by body weight than by age.
The RICH-Q centres based their maximum accepted donor age on the availability of donor organs, local paediatric guidelines and guidelines used in adult Tx policies. Adult recipients receiving a kidney from older (deceased) donors (>50 years)) are reported to have a high incidence of delayed graft function [3;22;23]. In contrast, some studies found an excellent outcome in adult recipients of DD even over 70 years [24;25]. Thus, the available information about the maximum accepted age of the donor in adult Tx is not consistent. Moreover, it is not known to what extent these results can be extrapolated to paediatric Tx. Fact is that the mean age of the donors in the Eurotransplant area is increasing [16]. Furthermore, until recently, organs from paediatric donors (aged < 18 years) were not preferentially allocated to children. A change in policy in December 2010 resulted in a higher number of paediatric grafts being allocated to children than before.
There is much discussion in the literature regarding the optimal CIT in adult Tx [26;27]. As far as we know, no studies have been performed in paediatric kidney recipients from DD. Despite the fact that the ESPN guideline [14] states that ABO-incompatible Tx is contraindicated in paediatric practice, seven of the 11 centres do provide ABO-incompatible Tx. Not much information concerning ABO-incompatible Tx in children has been published yet. A Japanese study [28] in 52 consecutive ABO-incompatible Tx found no significant difference in long term (15 years) allograft and patient survival between ABO-incompatible and ABO-compatible Tx in children. Given the scarcity of donor organs, ABO-incompatible Tx may be a valid alternative in paediatric Tx in the future.
The above shows that there are large variations in management policies, possibly due to a lack of evidence-based guidelines. Introduction of evidence based guidelines might improve patient outcome, as was shown in a systematic review by Grimshaw and Russel [29].
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
Our observations show that paediatric Tx management policies on the acceptability of donors and recipients vary within a relatively small geographic area. Analysis of the impact of this
2
variation on patient outcome after Tx awaits larger patient numbers and longer follow-up. The differences may be explained by a lack of evidence based paediatric guidelines. Guideline development in this field is hampered by a profound lack of systematically gathered prognostic information that is clearly reported. This emphasizes the need for more multi-centre prospective studies on determinants of health after Tx in children, enabling paediatric nephrologists to generate evidence-based guidelines. Eventually this may lead to better health outcome in paediatric ESRD.
Acknowledgments
This study was performed on behalf of the RICH-Q group. Other authors that contributed to this article are: Antonia H. M. Bouts, Laure Collard, Maria van Dyck, Nathalie Godefroid, Koenraad van Hoeck, Bernd Hoppe, Linda Koster-Kamphuis, Marc R. Lilien, Ann Raes, and Nadedja Ranguelov. RICH-Q is mainly funded by the Dutch Kidney Foundation. Additional funding was provided by Astellas, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Sanovi, Roche and Shire. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the project, data gathering or interpretation, or in the preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to all patients and the participating centres in the RICH-Q study and to Dr. Els Boeschoten, Lucia ten Brinke, Lara Heuveling, Martijn Leegte and Helga Schrijvers from the Hans Mak Institute for their support with data registration and monitoring.
Conflict of interest statement
TABLES
Table 1 Pre-transplantation policies
Number of centres
Policy Yes No Only on indication
Pre-transplantation protocol 11 0 0 Vaccination protocol 10 1 0 Pre-transplantation consultations Surgeon 11 0 0 Urologist 3 1 7 Social worker 7 2 2 Psychologist 9 0 2 Dentist 9 1 1 Pre-transplantation imaging Cardiac ultrasound 11 0 0 Electrocardiogram 10 1 0 X-hand 9 1 1 X-thorax 9 1 1
Kidney, Urinary tract ultrasound 9 1 1
DXA-scan 5 4 2
Vascular ultrasound 8 0 3
Cystography 1 0 10
Pre-transplantation serology
IgG Eppstein Bar Virus 11 0 0
IgG Cytomegaly Virus 11 0 0
IgG Herpes Simplex Virus 9 2 0
IgG Hepatitis C 11 0 0
IgG Toxoplasmosis 8 3 0
IgG measles, mumps, rubella 8 2 1
Factor V leiden 6 3 2
Pre-transplantation surgery
2
Table 2a Time on dialysis (months) before 1st Tx in children older than 2 years, only non-pre-emptivepost- mortem kidney transplantations
Median IQR# N* p
Netherlands 26 11-47 50
Belgium 20 11-34 28 0.704 Cologne 25 15-37 19
Table 2b Time on dialysis (months) before 1st Tx in children older than 2 years
Median IQR# N* p
Netherlands 11 0-33 106
Belgium 13 3-32 47 0.185 Cologne 19 7-34 31
# Inter Quartile Range * Number of transplantations
Table 3 Minimum accepted weight of the recipient (kg) according to policy, median [range] recipient weight reported in registry, and recommendations for recipient weight in guidelines
Centre Policy Median [range] N*
1 12 29 [10-80] 30 2 12 28 [13-74] 27 3 12 31 [13-55] 24 4 12 40 [17-81] 31 5 10 34 [13-44] 4 6 10 33 [13-74] 15 7 10 33 [11-64] 16 8 10 32 [9-47] 10 9 10 42 [20-84] 6 10 10 NA# 0 11 8 28 [8-64] 35 Guideline Minimum weight according to guideline
KDIGO No recommendation EPSN No recommendation
* Number of transplantations # Not applicable
Table 4 Maximum accepted donor age (years) according to policy, median [range] donor age reported in registry, and recommendations in guidelines
Living Donor Post-mortem
Reported Registry Reported Registry
Centre Policy Median [range] N* Policy Median [range] N*
1 65 46 [30-68] 21 55 17 [3-44] 9 2 60 38 [30-67] 14 60 50 [9-58] 13 3 NS 46 [37-60] 8 55 45 [9-35] 15 4 65 50 [22-60] 15 60 45 [14-62] 16 5 60 NA# 0 45 26 [9-38] 4 6 75 44 [19-51] 4 NS† 30 [15-47] 11 7 50 43 [40-47] 5 NS† 23 [4-47] 11 8 55 39 [33-44] 3 50 20 [2-44] 7 9 50 52 1 60 35 [11-41] 5 10 55 NA# 0 45 NA# 0 11 55 45 [35-51] 13 50 42 [13-52] 22 Guideline Maximum age living donor Maximum age post-mortem donor KDIGO No recommendation No recommendation
ESPN No recommendation No recommendation
* Number of transplantations # Not applicable
† Not specified
Table 5 Maximum accepted Cold Ischemia Time (hours) according to policy, median [range] Cold Ischemia Time reported in registry, and recommendations in guidelines
Registry
Centre Policy Median [range] N*
1 36 16 [11-19] 9 2 24 12 [8-27] 13 3 24 14 [9-22] 15 4 24 14 [4-21] 16 5 24 14 [12-21] 4 6 18 15 [5-18] 11 7 24 15 [12-19] 11 8 36 14 [11-16] 7 9 36 11 [5-17] 5 10 24 NA# 0 11 24 14 [4-20] 22 Guideline Maximum accepted Cold Ischemia Time (hours)
KDIGO No recommendation ESPN No recommendation
* Number of transplantations # Not applicable
2
APPENDIX
Appendix I Questionnaire regarding transplantation policies Pre-transplantation work-up
Consultations Is there prior to the transplantation a consultation with the • surgeon? • urologist? • social worker? • transplant coordinator? • transplantation nurse? • psychologist?
Imaging studies Which pre-transplantation imaging/ examination is performed prior to the transplantation?
(e.g. echocardiogram, ECG, X-ray of the hand etc.)
Serology/ laboratory Which serologic and laboratory investigation is performed prior to the transplantation?
(e.g. CMV serology, coagulation) Pre-transplantation
vaccination Which vaccinations are provided prior to the transplantation?
Patient information How do you inform patients about the two types of transplantation (living and deceased)? Do you emphasize the benefits of living transplantation? Do you inform every patient the same (dependent on religion, ethnicity)?
Transplantation
Possibility transplantation type
Do you provide in your centre the possibility of: Non related living donation/ altruistic* donation? ABO incompatible transplantation?
(paediatric) non heart beating transplantation?
Ischaemia time What is the maximum accepted Cold Ischemia Time (hrs) in your centre? HLA-matching What is the minimum accepted HLA match in your centre (e.g. 1A 0B 0DR)? Donor characteristics What is the maximum accepted age of the donor in both living and deceased
donors? Recipient
characteristics What is the minimum accepted age and weight of the recipient in your centre? Operator Which surgeon performs the actual procedure in your centre and does he/
she participate in adult transplantation? Is there an urologist present during the transplantation?
* altruistic donor: Who choose to donate a kidney to a recipient with whom they have neither a genetic nor an emotional relationship6.
REFERENCES
1. Groothoff JW, Gruppen MP, Offringa M, Hutten J, Lilien MR, Van De Kar NJ, Wolff ED, Davin JC, Heymans HS (2002) Mortality and causes of death of end-stage renal disease in children: a Dutch cohort study. Kidney Int 61:621-629
2. McDonald SP, Craig JC (2004) Long-term survival of children with end-stage renal disease. N Engl J Med 350:2654-2662
3. Heidotting NA, Ahlenstiel T, Kreuzer M, Franke D, Pape L (2012) The influence of low donor age, living related donation and pre-emptive transplantation on end-organ damage based on arterial hypertension after paediatric kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:1672-1676
4. http://www.rich-q.nl/ (2012) RICH-Q. Renal Insufficiency in Children - Quality assesment and improvement.
5. Tromp WF, Schoenmaker NJ, van der Lee JH, Adams B, Bouts AH, Collard L, Cransberg K, Van Damme-Lombaerts R, Godefroid N, van HK, Koster-Kamphuis L, Lilien MR, Raes A, Offringa M, Groothoff JW (2012) Important differences in management policies for children with end-stage renal disease in the Netherlands and Belgium--report from the RICH-Q study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:1984-1992 6. Massey EK, Kranenburg LW, Zuidema WC, Hak G, Erdman RA, Hilhorst M,
Ijzermans JN, Busschbach JJ, Weimar W (2010) Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger. Am J Transplant 10:1445-1452
7. Kasiske BL, Zeier MG, Chapman JR, Craig JC, Ekberg H, Garvey CA, Green MD, Jha V, Josephson MA, Kiberd BA, Kreis HA, McDonald RA, Newmann JM, Obrador GT, Vincenti FG, Cheung M, Earley A, Raman G, Abariga S, Wagner M, Balk EM (2010) KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients: a summary. Kidney Int 77:299-311
8. http://www.kidney.org/professionals/kdoqi (2012) National Kidney Foundation. Kidney Disease: Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI)
9. http://www.cari.org.au (2010) Caring for australians with renal impairment (CARI). 10. http://www.renal.org (2011) The Renal association.
11. Knoll GA, Blydt-Hansen TD, Campbell P, Cantarovich M, Cole E, Fairhead T, Gill JS, Gourishankar S, Hebert D, Hodsman A, House AA, Humar A, Karpinski M, Kim SJ, Mainra R, Prasad GV (2010) Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology commentary on the 2009 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 56:219-246
12. http://www.renalmd.org (2011) Renal physicians association.
13. http://www.ispd.org/ (2011) International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis.
14. European best practice guidelines for renal transplantation. Section IV: Long-term management of the transplant recipient (2002) Nephrol Dial Transplant 17 Suppl 4:1-67
2
16. http://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/mediaobject.php (2011) Eurotransplant Annual Report (2011)
17. Binet I, Bock AH, Vogelbach P, Gasser T, Kiss A, Brunner F, Thiel G (1997) Outcome in emotionally related living kidney donor transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12:1940-1948
18. Chkhotua AB, Klein T, Shabtai E, Yussim A, Bar-Nathan N, Shaharabani E, Lustig S, Mor E (2003) Kidney transplantation from living-unrelated donors: comparison of outcome with living-related and cadaveric transplants under current immunosuppressive protocols. Urology 62:1002-1006
19. Dale-Shall AW, Smith JM, McBride MA, Hingorani SR, McDonald RA (2009) The relationship of donor source and age on short- and long-term allograft survival in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 13:711-718
20. Humar A, Arrazola L, Mauer M, Matas AJ, Najarian JS (2001) Kidney transplantation in young children: should there be a minimum age? Pediatr Nephrol 16:941-945 21. Elshihabi I, Chavers B, Donaldson L, Emmett L, Tejani A (2000) Continuing
improvement in cadaver donor graft survival in North American children: the 1998 annual report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Transplant 4:235-246
22. Oppenheimer F, Aljama P, Asensio PC, Bustamante BJ, Crespo Albiach JF, Guirado PL (2004) The impact of donor age on the results of renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19 Suppl 3:iii11-iii15
23. Vivas CA, O’Donovan RM, Jordan ML, Hickey DP, Hrebinko R, Shapiro R, Starzl TE, Hakala TR, Jordan ML (1992) Cadaveric renal transplantation using kidneys from donors greater than 60 years old. Clin Transplant 6:77-80
24. Cravedi P, Ruggenenti P, Remuzzi G (2011) Old donors for kidney transplantation: how old? Gerontology 57:513-520
25. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Perna A, Dimitrov BD, Turturro M, Locatelli G, Rigotti P, Baldan N, Beatini M, Valente U, Scalamogna M, Ruggenenti P (2006) Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from older donors. N Engl J Med 354:343-352 26. Barba J, Zudaire JJ, Robles JE, Tienza A, Rosell D, Berian JM, Pascual I (2011) Is
there a safe cold ischemia time interval for the renal graft?. Actas Urol Esp 35:475-480
27. Quiroga I, McShane P, Koo DD, Gray D, Friend PJ, Fuggle S, Darby C (2006) Major effects of delayed graft function and cold ischaemia time on renal allograft survival. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:1689-1696
28. Shishido S, Hyodo YY, Aoki Y, Takasu J, Kawamura T, Sakai KK, Aikawa AA, Satou H, Muramatsu MM, Matsui Z (2012) Outcomes of pediatric ABO-incompatible kidney transplantations are equivalent to ABO-compatible controls. Transplant Proc 44:214-216
29. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT (1993) Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342:1317-1322
CHAPTER 3
M. van Huis, M. Bonthuis, E. Sahpazova, F. Mencarelli, B. Spasojević, G. Reusz, A. Caldas-Afonso, A. Bjerre, S. Baiko,
K. Vondrak, E.A. Molchanova, G. Kolvek, N. Zaikova, M. Böhm, G. Ariceta , K.J. Jager, F. Schaefer, K.J. van Stralen
and J.W. Groothoff
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2016 April 31(4) 609-619.
Considerable variations in growth
hormone policy and prescription in
paediatric end-stage renal disease
across European countries – a
report from the ESPN/ERA-EDTA
ABSTRACT
Background
Growth retardation in paediatric end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has a serious impact on adult life. It is potentially treatable with recombinant growth hormone (rGH). In this study, we aimed to quantify the variation in rGH policies and actual provided care in these patients across Europe.
Methods
Renal registry representatives of 38 European countries received a structured questionnaire on rGH policy. Cross-sectional data on height and actual use of rGH on children with ESRD aged <18 years were retrieved from the ESPN/ERA-EDTA Registry.
Results
In 21 (75%) out of 28 responding countries rGH is reimbursed for children with ESRD. The specific conditions for reimbursement (minimum age, maximum age and CKD stage) vary considerably. Mean height standard deviation scores (SDS) at RRT [95%CI] were significantly higher in countries where rGH was reimbursed -1.80 [-2.06; -1.53] compared with countries in which it was not reimbursed (-2.34 [-2.49;-2.18], P<0.001). Comparison of the mean height SDS at onset of RRT and final height SDS yielded similar results. Among the 13 countries for which both data on actual rGH use between 2007 and 2011 and data from the questionnaire was available, 30.1% of dialysis and 42.3% of transplanted patients had a short stature, while only 24.1% and 7.6% of those short children used rGH, respectively.
Conclusion
Reimbursement of rGH associates with a less compromised final stature of ESRD children. In many countries with full rGH reimbursement, the actual rGH prescription in growth retarded ESRD children is low and obviously more determined by the doctor’s and patients’ attitude towards rGH therapy than by financial hurdles.
