Perigraft fluid collections after kidney transplantation: Does the type of donor (uncontrolled donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death) have a role?

Abstract

IntroductionPerigraft fluid collection (PFC) is a common complication after kidney transplant. Its etiology is not clear and not all the causes have been identified. The influence of the type of donor has never been evaluated. Our aim was to compare the incidence, severity and management of PFC in recipients of grafts from uncontrolled donors after circulatory death (DCD) with normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (NECMO) versus recipients of grafts from donors after brain death (DBD).Material and methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 300 kidney transplants performed in our center between 2007 and 2012. Patients were divided in two groups: 150 recipients of Maastricht II DCD graft and 150 recipients of the DBD graft. Incidence, severity according to Clavien scale and management were analyzed in both groups, and comparison was carried out using Chi-square.ResultsOf the 300 kidney recipients analyzed, 93 (31.4%) suffered PFC, showing no difference between DBD (32.0%) and DCD (30.8%) groups (p = 0.9). Complicated PFC rate (defined as a PFC generating vascular compression, fever or urinary tract obstruction) was 22.9% in the DBD group versus 22.2% in the DCD group (p = 1); most complicated PFC were due to urinary tract obstruction (81%), with no difference between the groups (p = 1). Concerning Clavien scale, 78.5% of the PFC in our series were Clavien I, 19.4% Clavien IIIa and 2.2% Clavien IIIb, with no difference between both groups (p = 1).ConclusionsPFC is a frequent complication that appears in a third of our patients, showing no difference in the incidence or severity between DBD and uncontrolled DCD graft recipients.