Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited

Chinese Journal of Transplantation(Electronic Edition) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01): 1-4. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3903.2018.01.001

Special Issue:

• Original Article •     Next Articles

The application research of different immune induction therapies in kidney transplantation of donation after cardiac death

Kang Wu1, Ming Cai2,(), Liang Xu2, Hailong Jin2, Congran Li2, Xing Wei2, Qing Yuan2, Shu Sun2, Changqing Chen2, Junnan Xu2   

  1. 1. Second Clinical Medicine, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China
    2. Department of Urology, the 309th Hospital of PLA, Beijing 100091, China
  • Received:2017-10-11 Online:2018-02-25 Published:2018-02-25
  • Contact: Ming Cai
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Cai Ming, Email:

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of three different immunologic induction therapies in kidney transplantation of donation after cardiac death.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out in clinical data of 121 renal transplant recipients who received transplantation in department of urology, the 309th hospital of PLA from January 2014 to January 2016. The recipients were divided into three groups according to the different immunologic induction drugs: basiliximab group (61 cases), rATG group (18 cases) and ATG-F group (42 cases). The occurrence of acute rejection, delayed graft function (DGF) and infection were observed.

Results

Among 121 recipients, a total of 17 recipients occured acute rejection, including 10 recipients in basiliximab group, 2 recipients in rATG group and 5 recipients in ATG-F group, no statistical significance was found on occurrence rate of acute rejection (χ2=0.57, P>0.05). Thirty-two recipients occured DGF, including 16 recipients in basiliximab group, 6 recipients in rATG group and 10 recipients in ATG-F group, no statistical significance was found on occurrence rate of DGF (χ2=0.57, P>0.05). The occurrence rate of infection of basiliximab group , rATG group and ATG-F group were 14.8%, 22.2% and 26.2%, respectively, which had no statistical significance (χ2=2.12, P>0.05); the occurrence rate of CMV infection of rATG group and ATG-F group were both higher than basiliximab group (P all <0.017). The 1-year recipient and graft survival rate of basiliximab group , rATG group and ATG-F group were 96.7% and 95.1%、100.0% and 100.0%, 95.2% and 95.2%, respectively, which had no statistical significance (χ2=0.89, 0.91, P all>0.05).

Conclusions

The efficacy of basiliximab, rATG and ATG-F induction therapy in low-risk DCD transplantation did not different from each other, but rATG and ATG-F induction therapy were associated with an increased risk of CMV infection compared with basiliximab.

Key words: Kidney transplantation, Induction therapy, Acute rejection, Delayed graft function, Infection, Donation after cardiac death

京ICP 备07035254号-20
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Transplantation(Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 0571-87236589 E-mail: yizhi@zju.edu.cn
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd