Transplantation Presented at the Academic Surgical Congress 2017| Volume 163, ISSUE 2, P430-435, February 2018

Incidence and impact of adverse drug events contributing to hospital readmissions in kidney transplant recipients

Published:November 22, 2017DOI:



      The incidence and impact of adverse drug events (ADEs) leading to hospitalization and as a predominant risk factor for late graft loss has not been studied in transplantation.


      This was a longitudinal cohort study of adult kidney recipients transplanted between 2005 and 2010 and followed through 2013. There were 3 cohorts: no readmissions, readmissions not due to an adverse drug event, and adverse drug events contributing to readmissions. The rationale of the adverse drug events contribution to the readmission was categorized in terms of probability, preventability, and severity.


      A total of 837 patients with 963 hospital readmissions were included; 47.9% had at least one hospital readmission and 65.0% of readmissions were deemed as having an ADE contribute. The predominant causes of readmissions related to ADEs included non-opportunistic infections (39.6%), opportunistic infections (10.5%), rejection (18.1%), and acute kidney injury (11.8%). Over time, readmissions due to under-immunosuppression (rejection) significantly decreased (−1.6% per year), while those due to over-immunosuppression (infection, cancer, or cytopenias) significantly increased (2.1% increase per year [difference 3.7%, P = .026]). Delayed graft function, rejection, creatinine, graft loss, and death were all significantly greater in those with an ADE that contributed to a readmission compared the other two cohorts (P < .05).


      These results demonstrate that ADEs may be associated with a significant increase in the risk of hospital readmission after kidney transplant and subsequent graft loss.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Matas A.J.
        • Bartlett S.T.
        • Leichtman A.B.
        • Delmonico F.L.
        Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 1999–2001: survey of United States transplant centers.
        Am J Transplant. 2003; 3: 830-834
        • Chang E.N.
        • Scudamore C.H.
        • Chung S.W.
        Transplantation: focus on kidney, liver and islet cells.
        Can J Surg. 2004; 47: 122-129
        • Lavan A.H.
        • Gallagher P.
        Predicting risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults.
        Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2016; 7: 11-22
        • McGillicuddy J.W.
        • Weiland A.K.
        • Frenzel R.M.
        • et al.
        Patient attitudes toward mobile phone-based health monitoring: questionnaire study among kidney transplant recipients.
        J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15: e6
        • Prendergast M.B.
        • Gaston R.S.
        Optimizing medication adherence: an ongoing opportunity to improve outcomes after kidney transplantation.
        Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010; 5: 1305-1311
        • Englesbe M.J.
        • Dimick J.B.
        • Fan Z.
        • Baser O.
        • Birkmeyer J.
        Case mix, quality and high-cost kidney transplant patients.
        Am J Transplant. 2009; 9: 1108-1114
        • Forster A.J.
        • Murff H.J.
        • Peterson J.F.
        • Gandhi T.K.
        • Bates D.W.
        The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital.
        Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 161-167
        • Jha A.K.
        • Kuperman G.J.
        • Teich J.M.
        • et al.
        Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998; 5: 305-314
        • Naranjo C.A.
        • Busto U.
        • Sellers E.M.
        • et al.
        A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions.
        Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981; 30: 239-245
        • Bates D.W.
        • Leape L.L.
        • Petrycki S.
        Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients.
        J Gen Intern Med. 1993; 8: 289-294
        • US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health
        Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
        National Cancer Institute, 2009
        • Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group
        Special Issue: KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients.
        Am J Transplant. 2009; 9: S1-155
        • Kuypers D.R.
        Immunosuppressive drug monitoring—what to use in clinical practice today to improve renal graft outcome.
        Transpl Int. 2005; 18: 140-150
        • Wallemacq P.
        • Armstrong V.W.
        • Brunet M.
        • et al.
        Opportunities to optimize tacrolimus therapy in solid organ transplantation: report of the European consensus conference.
        Ther Drug Monit. 2009; 31: 139-152
        • Bouamar R.
        • Shuker N.
        • Hesselink D.A.
        • et al.
        Tacrolimus predose concentrations do not predict the risk of acute rejection after renal transplantation: a pooled analysis from three randomized-controlled clinical trials.
        Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1253-1261
        • Fernández-Ruiz M.
        • Kumar D.
        • Humar A.
        Clinical immune-monitoring strategies for predicting infection risk in solid organ transplantation.
        Clin Transl Immunology. 2014; 3: e12
        • Ling X.
        • Xiong J.
        • Liang W.
        • et al.
        Can immune cell function assay identify patients at risk of infection or rejection? A meta-analysis.
        Transplantation. 2012; 93: 737-743
        • Gavalda J.
        • Len O.
        • San Juan R.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for invasive aspergillosis in solid-organ transplant recipients: a case-control study.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 41: 52-59
        • Jordan C.L.
        • Taber D.J.
        • Kyle M.O.
        • et al.
        Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of opportunistic infections in pediatric renal transplant recipients.
        Pediatr Transplant. 2016; 20: 44-48
        • Kritikos A.
        • Manual O.
        Bloodstream infections after solid-organ transplantation.
        Virulence. 2016; 7: 329-340
        • Cervera C.
        • Fernandez-Ruiz M.
        • Valledor A.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology and risk factors for late infection in solid organ transplant recipients.
        Transpl Infect Dis. 2011; 13: 598-607
        • Bulter J.A.
        • Roderick P.
        • Mullee M.
        • Mason J.C.
        • Peveler R.C.
        Frequency and impact of nonadherence to immunosuppressants after renal transplantation: a systematic review.
        Transplantation. 2004; 77: 769-776
        • McGillicuddy J.
        • Gregoski M.
        • Brunner-Jackson B.
        • et al.
        Facilitating medication adherence and eliminating therapeutic inertia using wireless technology: proof-of-concept findings with uncontrolled hypertensives and kidney transplant recipients.
        in: Proceedings of the Conference on Wireless Health. 2012 (New York, NY)
        • McGillicuddy J.W.
        • Taber D.J.
        • Mueller M.
        • et al.
        Sustainability of improvements in medication adherence through a mobile health intervention.
        Prog Transplant. 2015; 25: 217-223
        • Schold J.D.
        • Elfadawy N.
        • Buccini L.D.
        • et al.
        Emergency Department Visits after Kidney Transplantation.
        Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016; 11: 674-683