G J Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke1, V B Nieuwenhuijs2,3, M A J Seelen4, S P Berger4, M C van den Heuvel5, J G M Burgerhof6, P J Ottens2, R J Ploeg2,7, H G D Leuvenink2, M M R F Struys1,8. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nephrology. 5. Department of Pathology. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Department of Anaesthesia, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is associated with harmful processes affecting the viability of the graft. One of these processes is associated with the phenomenon of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Anaesthetic conditioning is a widely described strategy to attenuate ischaemia-reperfusion injury. We therefore conducted the Volatile Anaesthetic Protection of Renal Transplants-1 trial, a pilot project evaluating the influence of two anaesthetic regimens, propofol- vs sevoflurane-based anaesthesia, on biochemical and clinical outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation. METHODS: Sixty couples were randomly assigned to the following three groups: PROP (donor and recipient propofol), SEVO (donor and recipient sevoflurane), and PROSE (donor propofol and recipient sevoflurane). The primary outcome was renal injury reflected by urinary biomarkers. The follow-up period was 2 yr. RESULTS: Three couples were excluded, leaving 57 couples for analysis. Concentrations of kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), N -acetyl-β- d -glucosaminidase (NAG), and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) in the first urine upon reperfusion showed no differences. On day 2, KIM-1 concentrations were higher in SEVO [952.8 (interquartile range 311.8-1893.0) pg mmol -1 ] compared with PROP [301.2 (202.0-504.7) pg mmol -1 ]. This was the same for NAG: SEVO, 1.835 (1.162-2.457) IU mmol -1 vs PROP, 1.078 (0.819-1.713) IU mmol -1 . Concentrations of H-FABP showed no differences. Measured glomerular filtration rate at 3, 6, and 12 months showed no difference. After 2 yr, there was a difference in the acute rejection rate ( P =0.039). Post hoc testing revealed a difference between PROP (35%) and PROSE (5%; P =0.020). The difference between PROP and SEVO (11%) was not significant ( P =0.110). CONCLUSIONS: The SEVO group showed higher urinary KIM-1 and NAG concentrations in living donor kidney transplantation on the second day after transplantation. This was not reflected in inferior graft outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01248871.
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is associated with harmful processes affecting the viability of the graft. One of these processes is associated with the phenomenon of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Anaesthetic conditioning is a widely described strategy to attenuate ischaemia-reperfusion injury. We therefore conducted the Volatile Anaesthetic Protection of Renal Transplants-1 trial, a pilot project evaluating the influence of two anaesthetic regimens, propofol- vs sevoflurane-based anaesthesia, on biochemical and clinical outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation. METHODS: Sixty couples were randomly assigned to the following three groups: PROP (donor and recipient propofol), SEVO (donor and recipient sevoflurane), and PROSE (donor propofol and recipient sevoflurane). The primary outcome was renal injury reflected by urinary biomarkers. The follow-up period was 2 yr. RESULTS: Three couples were excluded, leaving 57 couples for analysis. Concentrations of kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), N -acetyl-β- d -glucosaminidase (NAG), and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) in the first urine upon reperfusion showed no differences. On day 2, KIM-1 concentrations were higher in SEVO [952.8 (interquartile range 311.8-1893.0) pg mmol -1 ] compared with PROP [301.2 (202.0-504.7) pg mmol -1 ]. This was the same for NAG: SEVO, 1.835 (1.162-2.457) IU mmol -1 vs PROP, 1.078 (0.819-1.713) IU mmol -1 . Concentrations of H-FABP showed no differences. Measured glomerular filtration rate at 3, 6, and 12 months showed no difference. After 2 yr, there was a difference in the acute rejection rate ( P =0.039). Post hoc testing revealed a difference between PROP (35%) and PROSE (5%; P =0.020). The difference between PROP and SEVO (11%) was not significant ( P =0.110). CONCLUSIONS: The SEVO group showed higher urinary KIM-1 and NAG concentrations in living donor kidney transplantation on the second day after transplantation. This was not reflected in inferior graft outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01248871.
Authors: Nora Jahn; Maria Theresa Völker; Sven Laudi; Sebastian Stehr; Stefan Schneeberger; Gerald Brandacher; Elisabeth Sucher; Sebastian Rademacher; Daniel Seehofer; Hans Michael Hau; Robert Sucher Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Nora A Spraakman; Annemieke M Coester; Arno R Bourgonje; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Jan-Stephan F Sanders; Henri G D Leuvenink; Harry van Goor; Gertrude J Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Rakesh V Sondekoppam; Karim H Narsingani; Trent A Schimmel; Brie M McConnell; Karen Buro; Timur J-P Özelsel Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 6.713
Authors: Gertrude J Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke; Tamar A J van den Berg; Stephan J L Bakker; Marius C van den Heuvel; Michel M R F Struys; Ton Lisman; Robert A Pol Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dita Aditianingsih; Besthadi Sukmono; Tjues A Agung; Willy Y Kartolo; Erika S Adiwongso; Chaidir A Mochtar Journal: Anesthesiol Res Pract Date: 2019-11-29