Long-Term Survival (>25 Years) of Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients: a Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this preliminary work is to analyze the clinical features of 52 patients with a functional transplanted kidney for >25 years (all first transplant and all deceased donor recipients) and to compare with a similar though more complete study from Hôpital Necker-Paris 2012. METHODS: The mean graft survival at 25 years is 12.7% and at 30 years is 10%. The actual mean serum creatinine concentration is 1.3 mg/L. We analyzed recipient age (mean, 35.9 years) and gender (29 men and 23 women). Donor age was 26.7 ± 10.3 years. Seven patients (13.4%) were transplanted with 1 HLA mismatch, 42.3% with 2 mismatches, and 44.2% with 3 mismatches. Mean cold ischemia time was 15.45 ± 7.7 hours. Of the recipients, 76% had immediate graft function; 38% experienced 1 acute rejection episode and 4 patients had 2 rejection crises. The initial immunosuppressive regimen was azathioprine (AZA) + prednisolone (Pred) in 14 patients, cyclosporin (CSA) + Pred in 13 patients, and CSA + AZA + Pred in 25 patients. Of these patients, 19% maintained their initial regimen, and 54% (28 patients) were very stable on a mixed CSA regimen for >25 years. RESULTS: We present the major complications (diabetes, neoplasia, and hepatitis C virus positivity). CONCLUSION: Our results in deceased donor kidney recipients for >25 years are similar to the mixed population (deceased donors and living donors) presented by the Necker group, although 54% of our patients remain on CSA immunosuppression, contradicting the idea that its use is not compatible with good long-term kidney function in transplant recipients.

Diagnosic Classification: Results from a Clinical Experience of Three Years with DC: 0–3

Infancy and early childhood are characterized by a dynamic and ever changing process. Since the beginning of their clinical work at the Infancy Unit, the authors were concerned with individual assessment and the questions about the role played by parents as well as by babies in pathology and intervention.In this article, the authors begin with a description of the path that led them to the selection of DC 0–3 as a diagnostic classification system and how this has been instrumental in helping them to better define infant psychopathology and guide them in treatment orientations. Next, they present the results of the applicationof Axis I and II of DC: 0–3 in their clinical population in the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The objectives of this study were to learn more about the distribution of mental disorders in a clinical population up tofour years of age. The authors attempted to separate infants at risk for developing psychic disorders from those presenting current psychopathology as well as the possible influence of demographic features on this distribution, to define a target population and design adapted therapeutic measures. The identification of these objectives provides the rationale for the use of a diagnostic tool, like DC: 0–3, which is essential to plan clinical activity, to evaluate therapeutic efficacy, and to develop specific programs.