English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Lipofuscin deposition is a characteristic manifestation of aging. There is very limited literature in humans and in animals describing these deposits in native kidneys. Overall, it is thought to be non-pathogenic and successful transplants from a donor with lipofuscin deposits have been reported. We present the case of a patient who underwent a kidney transplant and a for-cause biopsy post-transplantation incidentally revealed lipofuscin deposition.    Case presentation  A 48-year old gentleman with a past medical history of diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and ischemic and then hemorrhagic cardiovascular accident underwent a successful kidney transplant. His donor was an expanded criteria donor with no major past medical history. Post-transplant course was complicated by delayed graft function requiring one dialysis treatment for hyperkalemia. After that he had an uneventful course and achieved a baseline creatinine of 1.2 mg/dL, with no proteinuria. On a routine 19-month follow-up he was noted to have proteinuria and an antibody against the major-histocompatibility-complex class I-related chain A. A graft biopsy revealed acute antibody-mediated rejection and impressive lipofuscin deposition. He was subsequently treated with an antibody-mediated rejection protocol that included high dose steroids, Rituximab, plasmapheresis, and intravenous immunoglobulin, but responded poorly to this regimen. A 6-month follow up biopsy continued to show lipofuscin deposition, with similar microvascular injury scores and 12-months later his creatinine remained stable but his proteinuria worsened. Patient was struggling with recurrent infectious episodes requiring hospitalizations and thus no further diagnostic or therapeutic treatments were pursued.    Conclusions  Lipofuscin deposition has been reported in solid organ transplants but the significance and cause are not well understood. Several physiologic and some pathologic causes to these deposits have been reported including age, diabetes, medications and a genetic syndrome. We propose that immunologic causes such as rejection in the presence of other risk factors could potentiate the oxidative stress leading to excessive lipofuscin deposition in kidney transplants. In the case of our patient, we conclude that these deposits were likely recipient-derived, and postulate that the cumulative burden of inflammation from rejection, and underlying medical conditions led to increased lipofuscin deposition. We speculate them to be an innocent bystander.

bmc nephrology

A case report on lipofuscin deposition in a graft biopsy two years after kidney transplantation: an insignificant bystander or a pathogenic benefactor?