The impact of donor and recipient diabetes on renal transplant outcomes

The use of diabetic kidneys is increasing worldwide with better outcome than being on waitlist and possible reversal of diabetic changes in transplanted kidneys. But particular caution is warranted in diabetic donor-recipient combination. Total 1223 deceased donor kidney transplants were performed at our center between 2008 and 2018. 689 from non-diabetic donor (NDD) to non-diabetic recipient, 400 from non-diabetic donor to diabetic recipient, 97 from diabetic to non-diabetic recipient, and 32 from diabetic donor (DD) to diabetic recipient. The DD was older than NDDs (median age 48 vs 39 years, P < 0.0001). DD had higher BMI (35.6 vs 26.9, P < 0.0001), higher KDPI (74% vs 37%, P < 0.0001), and higher terminal creatinine (1.10 mg/dl vs 0.95 mg/dl, p 0.0046) than the NDD. Diabetes recipients were comparatively older (57 vs 54, P < 0.001). DD recipients had higher serum creatinine at 6 months (1.70 vs 1.50 mg/dl, p 0.00304) and 2 years post-transplant (1.70 vs 1.50 mg/dl P < 0.0002). DD recipients had more favorable end CPRA than NDD recipients (77.5% at 0% vs 67.4% at 0, P = 0.0074). Ten-year patient and graft survival was best in NDD-recipient pair and worse in DD-recipient pair. Diabetic donor kidneys to diabetic recipients have lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival.     

Prospective Age-Matching in Elderly Kidney Transplant Recipients—A 5-Year Analysis of the Eurotransplant Senior Program

Renal transplantation faces challenges: the organ shortage resulting in extended waiting times and an aging population resulting in death with a functioning graft. The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) allocates kidneys within a narrow geographic area from donors aged ≥65 years to recipients ≥65 years regardless of HLA. This analysis investigates the impact of the ESP on waiting time, graft and patient survival. The ESP group (n = 1406, old to old) was compared to two groups allocated via the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) with either similar donor age (old to any [O/A], donor age ≥65, n = 446) or recipient age (any to old, [A/O], recipient age 60–64, n = 1687). All patients were transplanted between 1999 and 2004. Since initiation of the ESP (1999), availability of elderly donors doubled and waiting time for ESP patients decreased. Local allocation led to shorter cold ischemia time (11.9 vs. >17.0 h, p < 0.001) and less delayed graft function (DGF, ESP 29.7% vs. O/A 36.2%, p = 0.047) but 5–10% higher rejection rates. Graft and patient survival were not negatively affected by the ESP allocation when compared to the standard allocation. The ESP age matching of elderly donors and recipients is an effective allocation system for organs from elderly donors.     

ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation in perspective of deceased donor transplantation and induction strategies: a propensity-matched analysis

Kidney transplant candidates are blood group incompatible with roughly one out of three potential living donors. We compared outcomes after ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation with matched ABO-compatible (ABOc) living and deceased donor transplantation and analyzed different induction regimens. We performed a retrospective study with propensity matching and compared patient and death-censored graft survival after ABOi versus ABOc living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation in a nationwide registry from 2006 till 2019. 296 ABOi were compared with 1184 center and propensity-matched ABOc living donor and 1184 deceased donor recipients (matching: recipient age, sex, blood group, and PRA). Patient survival was better compared with deceased donor [hazard ratio (HR) for death of HR 0.69 (0.49–0.96)] and non-significantly different from ABOc living donor recipients [HR 1.28 (0.90–1.81)]. Rate of graft failure was higher compared with ABOc living donor transplantation [HR 2.63 (1.72–4.01)]. Rejection occurred in 47% of 140 rituximab versus 22% of 50 rituximab/basiliximab, and 4% of 92 alemtuzumab-treated recipients (P < 0.001). ABOi kidney transplantation is superior to deceased donor transplantation. Rejection rate and graft failure are higher compared with matched ABOc living donor transplantation, underscoring the need for further studies into risk stratification and induction therapy [NTR7587, www.trialregister.nl ].     

Recipient age and outcome after pancreas transplantation: a retrospective dual-center analysis

With a later onset of diabetes complications and thus increasing age of transplant candidates, many centers have extended upper age limits for pancreas transplantation. This study investigates the effect of recipient and donor age on outcomes after pancreas transplantation.We retrospectively analyzed 565 pancreas transplants performed at two Eurotransplant centers. The cohort was split at a recipient and donor age of 50 and 40 years, respectively. Median recipient age in old patients (≥50 years; 27.2%) was 54 years and 40 years in young patients (<50 years). Compared to young recipients, old recipients had an inferior patient survival rate (≥50: 5yr, 82.8%; 10yr, 65.6%; <50: 5yr, 93.3%; 10yr, 82.0%; P < 0.0001). Old recipients demonstrated comparable death-censored pancreas (≥50: 1yr, 80.6%; 5yr, 70.2%; <50: 1yr, 87.3%; 5yr, 77.8%; P = 0.35) and kidney graft survival (≥50: 1yr, 97.4%; 5yr, 90.6%; <50: 1yr, 97.8%; 5yr, 90.2%; P = 0.53) compared to young recipients. Besides a lower rate of kidney rejection, similar relative risks for postoperative complications were detected in old and young patients. This study shows that despite an increased mortality in old recipients, excellent graft survival can be achieved similar to that of young patients. Age alone should not exclude patients from receiving a pancreas transplant.     

Long-term patient and graft survival in the eurotransplant senior program: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND: The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) was launched in 1999, targeted to increase the supply of donor kidneys to the elderly. This program requires local allocation of kidneys from cadaveric donors >65 years to recipients >65 years. METHODS: Of all patients >65 years who received a kidney transplant in 1999-2002 at our center, 59 patients were transplanted through the ESP protocol (ESP group), and 44 patients received a transplant from a younger donor (EuroTransplant Kidney Allocation System, ETKAS group). Recipients were followed for up to 5.3 years using the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality and allograft loss. RESULTS: Age, sex, and comorbid conditions did not differ by group. Donor age was higher (69 vs. 36 years; P < 0.001) and cold ischemia time shorter in the ESP group (10 vs. 15 hr; P < 0.001). Number of HLA mismatches was greater in the ESP group (3.8 vs. 3.0; P = 0.003). ESP patients were more likely to receive induction therapy and less likely to receive cyclosporine A. Primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, operative mortality, rate of acute rejection episodes, and length of stay did not differ by group. Although serum creatinine at discharge was higher in ESP patients (1.7 vs. 1.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001), 4-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31-1.49) and graft loss (HR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.29-1.28) tended to be less. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term patient and graft survival were comparable between elderly patients who received their organ via the ESP and the regular ETKAS algorithm.     

An analysis of the survival outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation compared to live donor kidney transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes: a UK Transplant Registry study

Transplant options for patients with type 1 diabetes and end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) include deceased donor kidney, live donor kidney (LDK) and simultaneous pancreas‐kidney (SPK) transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between LDK and SPK for patients with type 1 diabetes and ESRD in the UK. Data on all SPK (n = 1739) and LDK (n = 385) transplants performed between January 2001 and December 2014 were obtained from the UK Transplant Registry. Unadjusted patient and kidney graft survival were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariate analysis of kidney graft and patient survival was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no significant difference in patient (P = 0.435) or kidney graft survival (P = 0.204) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis there was no association between LDK/SPK and patient survival [HR 0.71 (0.47–1.06), P = 0.095]. However, LDK was associated with an overall lower risk for kidney graft failure [HR 0.60 (0.38–0.94), P = 0.025]. SPK recipients with a functioning pancreas graft had significantly better kidney graft and patient survival than LDK recipients or those with a failed pancreas graft. SPK transplantation does not confer an overall survival advantage compared to LDK. However, those SPK recipients with a functioning pancreas have significantly better outcomes.     

The advantage of allocating kidneys from old cadaveric donors to old recipients: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND: In January 1999 a new kidney allocation program was launched by the Eurotransplant Foundation, the 'Eurotransplant Senior Program' (ESP). Cadaveric donors above the age of 65 yr are allocated to kidney transplant recipients of the same age group. METHODS: Using a single-center database, 91 patients who underwent first renal transplantation at the age of 65 yr and older in the years 1999-2002 were identified. Fifty-six patients were transplanted through ESP allocation (study group) and 35 patients (control group) via normal Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) procedure. RESULTS: Age, sex and comorbid conditions did not differ by group. The rate of acute rejection episodes, primary non-function, delayed graft function, perioperative mortality did not differ by group. Serum creatinine was significantly lower in the ETKAS group (1.3 vs. 1.9 mg/dL; p=0.015) from six months after the transplantation on. Overall graft survival at six yr was 56% in the ETKAS group and 52% in the ESP group. With 73% in the ETKAS group and 71% in the ESP group, cumulative patient survival according to the Kaplan-Meier estimation was not statistically different at five yr. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a relevant difference in the outcome between young and old kidney transplants in old recipients after this long observation period.     

Renal transplantation in the elderly: surgical complications and outcome with special emphasis on the Eurotransplant Senior Programme.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results of the Eurotransplant Senior Programme (ESP) within our centre compared to elderly recipients >or=60 years from the regular Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS), specifically focusing on surgical aspects. METHODS: Data from 73 ESP patients (average donor/recipient age: 71.1/67.1) were compared with those from 51 patients (49.7/63.6) treated within the framework of the ETKAS program between the years 1999 and 2006. The mean follow-up was 39.5 months. RESULTS: Cold ischaemic time (ESP versus ETKAS: 10.3 versus 15.0 h), duration of renal replacement therapy (42.2 versus 76.8 months), donor glomerular filtration rate (81.7 versus 109.9 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) and HLA mismatches (4.1 versus 2.4) were significantly different between the two groups (all P < 0.001). Primary graft function was seen in 74% ESP versus 69% of ETKAS patients (P > 0.05). The rate of surgical complications in the ESP versus ETKAS group was 47% versus 28% (P = 0.031) and the revision rate, 33% versus 24% (P = 0.259). Three-year patient and censored graft survival was 84% versus 92% and 85% versus 88% in the ESP and ETKAS group, respectively (all P > 0.05). Ninety-five percent of all deceased patients died with a functioning graft. CONCLUSIONS: The donor and recipient pool has been markedly expanded through ESP with similar patient and graft survival compared to elderly recipients grafted according to ETKAS criteria. However, patients and their physicians should be aware of the high surgical complication rate in elderly recipients, particularly when receiving elderly donor kidneys. This might seriously influence postoperative patient management but ultimately does not compromise the transplant outcome.     

Live donor liver transplantation with older donors: Increased long‐term graft loss due to HCV recurrence

Using our prospectively collected database all adult hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐positive patients receiving an adult‐to‐adult LDLT between October 2000 and May 2014 were identified. Outcome of LDLT with grafts from younger (<50 years=128) vs older donors (≥50 years=31) was compared. Post‐transplant graft function, postoperative complications and incidence of HCV recurrence were evaluated. Long‐term graft and patient survival was calculated. No difference in graft function was observed between younger and older grafts. Overall complications were similar between both groups. The severity of complications determined by the Dindo‐Clavien score was similar. Graft loss from HCV recurrence was significantly less frequent in younger grafts (18% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Young vs older livers had a trend toward improved 1‐, 5‐, and 10‐year graft survival (89% vs 87%, 77% vs 69%, 70% vs 55%, P = 0.096), while patient survival was comparable between both groups (91% vs 90%, 78% vs 69%, 71% vs 60%, P = 0.25). In conclusion, LDLT with older vs younger grafts are more frequently associated with long‐term graft loss due to HCV recurrence. Differences in graft survival might be more prominent with prolonged (≥5‐year) follow‐up. Living donor‐recipient matching is particularly important for younger HCV‐positive recipients.     

Improved outcomes after live donor renal transplantation for septuagenarians

The average age of renal transplant recipients in the United States has increased over the past decade. The implications, however, have not been fully investigated. We explored predictors of success and demographic variables related to outcomes in elderly live donor transplantation. Retrospective analysis was performed using the UNOS database between 2001 and 2016. Donor characteristics and the graft failure rate of recipients above and below 70 years of age were compared across four eras: 2001-2004, 2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016. There was a steady increase in average donor age from the first era to the fourth era (40-44) which was more evident among the septuagenarian patients (43-50) (P < .001). The 2-year graft survival rate improved from 92% in the first era to 96% in the fourth era (P < .001), and this was also more prominent in the >70 population (87%-93%) (P < .001). The >70 recipients were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (80.1% vs 65.1%, P < .001) and male (70.1% vs 61.0% P < .001), respectively. The donors were more likely to be non-Hispanic white and female in the >70 population. Live donation in the elderly is justified based on graft survival and patient survival. However, racial and gender differences exist in septuagenarian recipients and their donors.     

Old-for-Old Kidney Allocation Allows Successful Expansion of the Donor and Recipient Pool

Allocation of kidneys from donors older than 64 years to recipients older than 64 years was started in 1999 to improve use of older donor kidneys. Kidneys are allocated locally without HLA-matching to keep cold ischemia short. We compared survival and rejection rates in elderly patients allocated in the old-for-old program (ESP) to patients aged 60 years and older based on HLA-matching, expected ischemia and waiting time (ETKAS). The 69 ESP patients were older (67.9 +/- 2.5 vs. 63.9 +/- 2.9 years), had older donors (71.2 +/- 3.9 vs. 44.6 +/- 14.5 years) and more HLA-mismatches (4.2 +/- 1.2 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.7) than the 71 ETKAS patients, while ischemia was shorter (7.8 +/- 3.4 vs. 14.2 +/- 5.5 h). ESP and ETKAS had similar graft (1-year: 83.6% vs. 86.9%) and patient survival (85.2% vs. 89.5%). With the introduction of ESP, use of older recipients and donors rose from less than 2% to 16% and 11%, respectively. Incidence of acute rejections was significantly higher in the ESP group (1 year: 43.2% vs. 27.4%) and significantly correlated with the degree of HLA-matching. Introduction of old-for-old allocation allows successful expansion of the donor and recipient pool without affecting patient and graft survival. HLA-matching should not be ignored, as the risk of acute rejection in elderly patients is substantial.     

Repeated kidney re-transplantation—the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis

In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.     

Factors associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after living donor liver transplantation

Appropriate graft regeneration after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is crucial to avoid small‐for‐size syndrome. We enrolled 44 recipients who underwent ABO‐identical/compatible LDLT from December 2007 to August 2016 and determined possible factors associated with low graft regeneration after LDLT. Liver regeneration was calculated by the ratio of the graft size on postoperative day (POD) 7 ± 1 day (calculated by CT volumetry) to the size of the donated liver at implant. Postoperative outcomes were compared between the low and high regeneration groups. Median regeneration rate was 1.65‐fold. Regeneration rate was negatively correlated with graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio. Postoperative morbidity rates on POD 14‐90 were significantly higher in the low group compared with the high group (63% vs 18%, P = .03). Graft and patient survival in the low group were significantly worse than the high group (1‐year graft survival 73% vs 100%, P = .002; patient survival 82% vs 100%, P = .01). Cold ischemia time (CIT; per 10 minute; odds ratio [OR] =1.37) and platelet count <60 000/μL on POD 5 (OR = 14.32) were independently associated with low regeneration. In conclusion, longer CIT and postoperative thrombocytopenia were associated with low graft regeneration in the early phase after LDLT, which could consequently lead to poor graft and patient survival.     

Increased risk of graft failure and mortality in Dutch recipients receiving an expanded criteria donor kidney transplant

Survival of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys and their recipients has not been thoroughly evaluated in Europe. Therefore, we compared the outcome of ECD and non‐ECD kidney transplantations in a Dutch cohort, stratifying by age and diabetes. In all first Dutch kidney transplants in recipients ≥18 years between 1995 and 2005, both relative risks (hazard ratios, HR) and adjusted absolute risk differences (RD) for ECD kidney transplantation were analysed. In 3062 transplantations [recipient age 49.0 (12.8) years; 20% ECD], ECD kidney transplantation was associated with graft failure including death [HR 1.62 (1.44–1.82)]. The adjusted HR was lower in recipients ≥60 years of age [1.32 (1.07–1.63)] than in recipients 40–59 years [1.71 (1.44–2.02) P = 0.12 for comparison with ≥60 years] and recipients 18–39 years [1.92 (1.42–2.62) P = 0.03 for comparison with ≥60 years]. RDs showed a similar pattern. In diabetics, the risks for graft failure and death were higher than in the nondiabetics. ECD kidney grafts have a poorer prognosis than non‐ECD grafts, especially in younger recipients (<60 years), and diabetic recipients. Further studies and ethical discussions should reveal whether ECD kidneys should preferentially be allocated to specific subgroups, such as elderly and nondiabetic individuals.     

The faster the better: anastomosis time influences patient survival after deceased donor kidney transplantation

Despite a continuously growing knowledge of the impact of factors on kidney graft function, such as donor age, body mass index, and cold ischemia time, few data are available regarding anastomosis time (AT) and its impact on long‐term results. We investigated whether surgical AT correlates with patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation performing a retrospective analysis of 1245 consecutive deceased donor kidney transplantations between 01/2000 and 12/2010 at Innsbruck Medical University. Kaplan–Meier and log‐rank analyses were carried out for 1‐ and 5‐year patient and graft survival. AT was defined as time from anastomosis start until reperfusion. Median AT was 30 min. Five‐year survival of allografts with an AT >30 min was 76.6% compared with 80.6% in the group with AT <30 min (P = 0.027). Patient survival in the group with higher AT similarly was inferior with 85.7% after 5 years compared with 89.6% (P < 0.0001) [Correction added on February 18, 2015, after first online publication: the percentage value for patient survival was previously incorrect and have now been changed to 89.6%]. Cox regression analysis revealed AT as an independent significant factor for patient survival (HR 1.021 per minute; 95% CI 1.006–1.037; P = 0.006). As longer AT closely correlates with inferior long‐term patient survival, it has to be considered as a major risk factor for inferior long‐term results after deceased donor kidney transplantation.     

Deceased donor renal transplantation--does side matter?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine whether the deceased donor kidney side (left or right kidney) was predictive of subsequent kidney transplant outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of the left-right deceased donor kidney pairs transplanted into recipients with end-stage renal failure in Queensland between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 2004. RESULTS: A total of 201 left-right deceased donor kidney pairs were transplanted into 402 patients. The baseline characteristics of the recipients in the two groups were comparable, except that the patients receiving right kidneys had lower body mass indices and shorter cold ischaemic times. No differences were seen between the left and right kidney recipient groups with respect to operative duration (3.02 +/- 0.67 vs 3.12 +/- 0.72 h, P = 0.16), warm ischaemic time (0.62 +/- 0.18 vs 0.65 +/- 0.21, P = 0.09), delayed graft function (4 vs 6%, respectively, P = 0.26) or a composite vascular, haemorrhagic, ureteric and infective post-operative complication end-point (22 vs 22%, P = 0.90). Estimated glomerular filtration rates were almost identical at 1 month (52.7 +/- 39.6 vs 51.0 +/- 24.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P = 0.34) and remained comparable thereafter. Respective death-censored graft survival rates for left and right kidney recipients were 100 and 100% at 1 year, 99.4 and 96.4% at 3 years and 96.3 and 95.5% at 5 years, respectively (P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Although left and right deceased donor kidneys present different operative challenges, the present results suggest that the probability of early post-operative complications, delayed graft function, impaired early and medium-term renal allograft function or death-censored graft failure is comparable between left and right kidney recipients.     

Early inhibition of the renin‐angiotensin system improves the long‐term graft survival of single pediatric donor kidneys transplanted in adult recipients

Transplanting single pediatric donor kidneys into adult recipients has an increased risk of hyperfiltration injury and graft loss. It is unknown if renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are beneficial in this setting. We retrospectively analyzed 94 adults who received single kidneys from donors <10 years old during 1996–2009. The recipients were divided into group 1 with RAS blockers (n = 40) and group 2 without RAS blockers (n = 54) in the first year of transplant. There was no significant difference in any donor/recipient demographic between the two groups. Graft function, incidence of delayed graft function, acute rejection, and persistent proteinuria were not statistically different either. Kaplan–Meier estimated death‐censored graft survivals were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2: 95 vs. 81.2%, 82.4 vs. 61.2%, 72.6 vs. 58.5%, and 68.5 vs. 47.2% at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively (log rank P = 0.043). Multivariable analysis found persistent proteinuria was a risk factor for graft loss (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33–5.49, P = 0.006), while RAS blockers reduced the risk of graft loss (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.79, P = 0.009). Early RAS blockade therapy in the first year of transplant is associated with superior long‐term graft survival among adults transplanted with single pediatric donor kidneys.     

The association of living donor source with patient and graft survival among kidney transplant recipients in the ERA-EDTA Registry – a retrospective study

In this study we aimed to compare patient and graft survival of kidney transplant recipients who received a kidney from a living-related donor (LRD) or living-unrelated donor (LUD). Adult patients in the ERA-EDTA Registry who received their first kidney transplant in 1998–2017 were included. Ten-year patient and graft survival were compared between LRD and LUD transplants using Cox regression analysis. In total, 14 370 patients received a kidney from a living donor. Of those, 9212 (64.1%) grafts were from a LRD, 5063 (35.2%) from a LUD and for 95 (0.7%), the donor type was unknown. Unadjusted five-year risks of death and graft failure (including death as event) were lower for LRD transplants than for LUD grafts: 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7–4.6) and 10.8% (95% CI: 10.1–11.5) versus 6.5% (95% CI: 5.7–7.4) and 12.2% (95% CI: 11.2–13.3), respectively. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, associations disappeared with hazard ratios of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87–1.13) for patient survival and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94–1.14) for graft survival. Unadjusted risk of death-censored graft failure was similar, but after adjustment, it was higher for LUD transplants (1.19; 95% CI: 1.04–1.35). In conclusion, patient and graft survival of LRD and LUD kidney transplant recipients was similar, whereas death-censored graft failure was higher in LUD. These findings confirm the importance of both living kidney donor types.     

Outcomes of kidney retransplantation in recipients with prior posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders: An analysis of the 2000–2019 UNOS/OPTN database

This study utilized the UNOS database to assess clinical outcomes after kidney retransplantation in patients with a history of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). Among second kidney transplant patients from 2000 to 2019, 254 had history of PTLD in their first kidney transplant, whereas 28,113 did not. After a second kidney transplant, PTLD occurred in 2.8% and 0.8% of patients with and without history of PTLD, respectively (p = .001). Over a median follow-up time of 4.5 years after a second kidney transplant, 5-year death-censored graft failure was 9.5% vs. 12.6% (p = .21), all-cause mortality was 8.3% vs. 11.8% (p = .51), and 1-year acute rejection was 11.0% vs. 9.3% (p = .36) in the PTLD vs. non-PTLD groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in death-censored graft failure, mortality, and acute rejection between PTLD and non-PTLD groups in adjusted analysis and after propensity score matching. We conclude that graft survival, patient survival, and acute rejection after kidney retransplantation are comparable between patients with and without history of PTLD, but PTLD occurrence after kidney retransplantation remains higher in patients with history of PTLD.     

Kidney transplantation from living related donors aged more than 60 years: a single center experience

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether the outcomes of renal grafts from living related donors more than 60 years old are acceptable, in terms of renal function and patient/graft survival. Material and Methods: Twenty-one patients who received kidneys from donors older than 60 years constituted the study group (Group 1). The control group (Group 2) consisted of 110 patients who received renal transplants from ideal donors, aged 18 to 45 years. The recipients were analyzed for posttransplantation serum creatinine, the number of acute rejection episodes and delayed graft function, and patient/graft survival. Results: The mean age of donors was 62.6?±?2.2 years in Group 1 and 32.8?±?7.0 years in Group 2. Recipient serum creatinine was higher on postoperative day 1, year 1, year 5 in Group 1 than that in Group 2 (536.8?±?203.3 vs. 409.8?±?213.8, 142.4?±?38.2 vs. 100.3?±?22.9, 152.6?±?42.7 vs. 107.1?±?22.1, respectively; all p?<?0.05). Acute rejection was seen in 4 cases in Group 1 (19.0%) and in 15 cases in Group 2 (13.6%; p?=?0.759). Delayed graft function was seen in two cases in Group 1 (9.5%) and in four cases in Group 2 (3.6%; p?=?0.540). One-, 3- and 5-year patient survival was 100%, 100% and 100% for Group 1, and 97%, 97% and 97% for Group 2. Corresponding death-censored graft survival was 100%, 100% and 100% for Group 1, and 98%, 98% and 96% for Group 2. No significant difference was observed in terms of patient/graft survival. Conclusions: Although compromising renal function, donor age did not affect patient and graft survival in the 5-year follow-up in our study. Age alone seems not to be an exclusion criterion to living kidney donation.