4 files

Supplementary Material for: Screening, Management, and Acceptance of Patients with Aorto-Iliac Vascular Disease for Kidney Transplantation: A Survey among 161 Transplant Surgeons

posted on 30.09.2021, 10:10 by Rijkse E., Kimenai H.J.A.N., Dor F.J.M.F., IJzermans J.N.M., Minnee R.C.
Introduction: Aorto-iliac vascular disease (AVD) is frequently found during the workup for kidney transplantation. However, recommendations on screening and management are lacking. We aimed to assess differences in screening, management, and acceptance of these patients for transplantation by performing a survey among transplant surgeons. Second, we aimed to identify center- and surgeon-related factors associated with decline or acceptance of kidney transplant candidates with AVD. Methods: A survey was sent to transplant surgeons and urologists. The survey contained general questions (part I) and 2 patient-based cases (part II) with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) D and B AVD supported with videos of their CT scans. Results: One hundred ninety-one (20.3%) participants responded; 171 were currently involved in kidney transplantation: 161 (94.2%) completed part I and 145 (84.8%) part II. Screening for AVD was often (38.5%) restricted to high-risk patients. The majority of respondents (67.7%) rated “technical problems” as the most important concern in case of AVD, followed by “increased mortality risk because of cardiovascular comorbidity” (29.8%). Pretransplant vascular interventions to facilitate transplantation were infrequently performed (71.4% mentioned <10 per year). Ninety (64.3%) respondents answered that an open vascular procedure should preferably be performed prior to kidney transplantation while 42 (30.0%) respondents preferred a simultaneous open vascular procedure. The decline rate was higher in the TASC D case compared to the TASC B case (26.9% and 9.7%, respectively). Respondents from centers with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions were more likely to accept both patients with TASC D and B for transplantation. Conclusion: There is no uniformity in the screening, management, and acceptance of patients with AVD for transplantation. If a center declines a patient with AVD because of technical concerns, the patient should be referred for a second opinion to a tertiary center with expertise in pretransplant vascular interventions. Multidisciplinary meetings including a vascular surgeon and a cardiologist could help optimize these patients for transplantation.