Kidney transplant from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death donors maintained by nECMO has long‐term outcomes comparable to standard criteria donation after brain death

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) increases organ availability for kidney transplant (KT) with short‐term outcomes similar to those obtained from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, heterogeneous results in the long term have been reported. We compared 10‐year outcomes between 237 KT recipients from uDCD donors maintained by normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (nECMO) and 237 patients undergoing KT from standard criteria DBD donors during the same period at our institution. We further analyzed risk factors for death‐censored graft survival in the uDCD group. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common in the uDCD group (73.4% vs 46.4%; P < .01), although glomerular filtration rates at the end of follow‐up were similar in the 2 groups. uDCD and DBD groups had similar rates for 10‐year death‐censored graft (82.1% vs 80.4%; P = .623) and recipient survival (86.2% vs 87.6%; P = .454). Donor age >50 years was associated with graft loss in the uDCD group (hazard ratio: 1.91; P = .058), whereas the occurrence of DGF showed no significant effect. uDCD KT under nECMO support resulted in similar graft function and long‐term outcomes compared with KT from standard criteria DBD donors. Increased donor age could negatively affect graft survival after uDCD donation.     

Rapid Access in Donation After Circulatory Death (DCD): The Single-Center Experience With a Classic Pathway in Uncontrolled DCD Algorithm

BackgroundIn Poland, 95% of organs for transplantation come from donation after brain death (DBD). In 2010, Poland officially joined the European countries in which donation after circulatory death is accepted by law. Currently, the Pomeranian Medical University Transplant Center is the only active location for uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) in Poland. To estimate the results of uDCD kidney transplantation with a classical approach to organ recovery, we analyzed data from an early phase of uDCD program.MethodsProspective observation of uDCD kidney allografts (group 1; n = 8) compared with DBD kidney allografts (group 2; n = 30). The organ recovery protocol was set up on rapid abdominal access without regional perfusion before procurement.ResultsThe organs recovered from uDCD during a 24-month period increased the volume of kidneys transplanted at the center by 9.2%. Delayed graft function was diagnosed in 100% vs 46% of allografts (P = .03), respectively. Nevertheless, early posttransplant follow-up did not reveal any graft loss or recipient death cases in the DCD group. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean glomerular filtration rate was 44.5 vs 57.9 mL/min (P < .02), respectively. Crucial factors for acceptable results of uDCD are strict pretransplant assessment of recovered organs and efficient coordination of the transplant team.ConclusionsConservative recovery protocol in uDCD under strict prerequisites is feasible to consider in the organ procurement pathway. Preliminary results provide space for an increase in the organ donor pool.     

Liver Transplantation Using Grafts From Donors After Circulatory Death: A Propensity Score–Matched Study From a Single Center

The use of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing, but concerns exist regarding outcomes following use of grafts from “marginal” donors. To compare outcomes in transplants using DCD and donation after brain death (DBD), propensity score matching was performed for 973 patients with chronic liver disease and/or malignancy who underwent primary whole‐liver transplant between 2004 and 2014 at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. Primary end points were overall graft and patient survival. Secondary end points included postoperative, biliary and vascular complications. Over 10 years, 234 transplants were carried out using DCD grafts. Of the 187 matched DCDs, 82.9% were classified as marginal per British Transplantation Society guidelines. Kaplan–Meier analysis of graft and patient survival found no significant differences for either outcome between the paired DCD and DBD patients (p = 0.162 and p = 0.519, respectively). Aspartate aminotransferase was significantly higher in DCD recipients until 48 h after transplant (p < 0.001). The incidences of acute kidney injury and ischemic cholangiopathy were greater in DCD recipients (32.6% vs. 15% [p < 0.001] and 9.1% vs. 1.1% [p < 0.001], respectively). With appropriate recipient selection, the use of DCDs, including those deemed marginal, can be safe and can produce outcomes comparable to those seen using DBD grafts in similar recipients.     

Kidney Transplantation Outcomes From Donors After Controlled Circulatory Death: A Comparison With Expanded Criteria Brain Death Donors

BackgroundThe persistent shortage of optimal kidney donors and the progressive increase in patients on the waiting list have led to an expansion of the acceptance criteria, such as donors after controlled cardiac death (cDCD) and donors after brain death with expanded criteria (DBD-EC). Some concerns and doubts about survival outcomes achieved with these allografts are still present. Our aim was to compare transplant outcomes from cDCD vs DBD-EC.MethodsA retrospective single-center observational study including all kidney transplant (KT) donors from all cDCD and DBD-EC (>60 years) from January 2015 to January 2022 was performed. We analyzed clinical characteristics, early clinical outcomes, and patient and graft survival rates.Results129 cDCD and 166 DBD-EC KT recipients were included. The median follow-up was 30,2 months. DBD-EC were older and had more comorbidities than cDCD. KTs from cDCD and DBD-EC showed similar rates of delayed graft function and primary nonfunction. Patient survival at 1 year was similar (85% DBD-EC vs 90% cDCD, P = .32). Death-censored graft survival at 1 year was similar among young cDCD (18-59 years) and elderly DBD (60-69 years; 97% vs 92.3%, P = .2). Recipient age and expanded criteria in KT from cDCD were related to worse early graft outcomes. The outcomes achieved with KT from cDCD were similar to those observed in older and more comorbid DBD donors. This assumption is worth consideration when choosing the most suitable donor for each recipient.     

Outcome of Liver Transplants Using Donors After Cardiac Death With Normothermic Regional Perfusion

Background and AimsThe incorporation of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) to donors after cardiac death (DCD) allows the recovery of liver grafts without the deleterious effects on graft survival the super-rapid technique may cause. The aim of the present report is to determine if the use of NRP in Maastricht type III DCD donors achieves short- and medium-term results comparable to donors after brain death (DBD).Patients and MethodsThis is an observational cohort study including 117 liver transplants executed between November 2016 and April 2021, divided into NRP (n = 39) and DBD (n = 78).ResultsDonors were younger in the NRP group (NRP 52 vs DBD 59.4 years; P < .005). Liver recipients in each study group were of similar age and severity of liver disease, although the predominant transplant indication in the NRP group was hepatocellular carcinoma. No differences in ischemia times were found. The incidence of early allograft disfunction and primary nonfunction was balanced between NRP and DBD. Eight patients required retransplant, all of them in the DBD group. No differences were found in biliary complications (NRP 12% vs DBD 5%; P = .104). Ischemic cholangiopathy affected a single DBD patient. Graft survival's Kaplan Meier curve shows a better outcome in the NRP group, although the difference did not reach significance (P = .075).ConclusionsThe incorporation of perfusion machines, and specifically the NPR in situ, converts suboptimal liver grafts such as DCD into organs comparable to DBDs.     

Outcome of Renal Transplantation From Deceased Donors After Cardiac Death: A Single-Center Experience From a Developing Country

Background

Limited information is available in the literature about the use of organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD) renal transplantation (RTx) from a developing country.

Material and Methods

We report RTx outcome between DCD donors ≥70 years (Group 1; n = 14; mean age, 75.7 ± 5.81) and DCD donors <70 years (Group 2; n = l9; mean age, 51.7 ± 10.1) between January 1999 and January 2012. The mean age of recipients was 39.5 ± 14.7 years, 24 of whom were males. The mean donor age was 61.9 ± 14.6 years, 21 of whom were males. All recipients received single-dose thymoglobulin induction followed by immunosuppression with a steroid, a calcineurin inhibitor, and mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine. Statistical analysis used chi-square test and unpaired Student t test. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis.

Results

Over a mean follow-up of 3.21 ± 3.46 years, one-, five-, and ten-year, patient survival rates were 77%, 67.4%, and 67.4%, respectively, and death-censored graft survival rates were 85.7% for one, five, and ten years. Delayed graft function (DGF) was observed in 36.4% (n = 12) with 12.1% (n = 4) biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). Patient survival (P = .27), graft survival (P = .20), DGF (P = .51), and BPAR (P = .74) were similar in 2 groups. A total of 27.2% (n = 9) of patients died, mainly due to infections (n = 5).

Conclusion

Given the widespread organ shortage, outcomes of controlled DCD renal transplantation has a potential to expand the donor pool and shorten the waiting list for RTx, encouraging the use of this approach even in low-income countries.     

Donor Characteristics That Are Associated With Survival in Liver Transplant Recipients Older Than 70 Years With Grafts

IntroductionThe use of grafts from donors older than 70 years of age is increasing due to the decrease in the number of donors and the increase in waiting list patients.Material and MethodsWe undertook a univariate and multivariate analysis of 980 adult recipients of whole liver grafts, 129 of them from donors aged 70 years or older.ResultsNo differences were found in patient survival compared with recipients of younger grafts. There were no higher rates of rejection, vascular or biliary complications, postoperative bleeding, or infections, but older grafts were associated with graft dysfunction (P = .01) and a higher frequency of postoperative refractory ascites (P = .007), but without a greater need for retransplantation. As graft-associated factors, the joint presence in the donor of diabetes (P = .00; confidence interval [CI] = 0.04–0.117), hypertension (P = .00; CI = 0.22–0.39), and weight of more than 90 kg (P = .031; CI = 0.05–0.104) were suggestive of poor prognostic factors in recipient survival. Survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients or recipients aged older than 60 years was worse with donors aged older than 70 years, although not significantly so. With grafts from donors aged older than 80 years (n = 15), although patient survival rate was good (70% at 10 years), there was a higher rate of retransplantation (20%) and the early mortality rate was 13.3%.ConclusionsUse of grafts from donors aged older than 70 years is safe, with similar survival to patients with younger grafts. The appearance of initial dysfunction with prolonged ascites may be due to a delay in reaching a correct functionality, but was not associated with increased mortality, complications, or need for retransplantation. It should also be avoided in recipients older than 60 years or with HCV. Grafts older than 80 years were associated with a good long-term patient survival but at the expense of a higher rate of retransplantation. However, it helps to reduce the time on the waiting list and, thus, mortality. We noted decreased survival associated with donor hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, so these donors should be selected more rigorously.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes with the Use of Kidneys and Livers Donated after Cardiac Death

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys and livers for transplantation has prompted the use of organs from donors deceased after cardiac death (DCD). We used the UNOS database to examine patient and graft survival following transplantation of DCD organs compared to those following grafts from donors deceased after brain death (DBD; for livers, grafts from donors < 60 years old were labeled '< 60 yrs'). Of 44035 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 1177 (3%) received a DCD kidney. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 5 years (DCD vs. DBD: 81.3% vs. 80.8% and 66.9% vs. 66.5%; p = 0.70 and p = 0.52 respectively). Of 24688-deceased donor liver transplant recipients, 345 (1.4%) were from DCD donors and 20289 (82%) were from '< 60 yrs' DBD donors. Three-year patient and graft survival were inferior in the DCD group (DCD vs. '< 60 yrs' DBD: 77% vs. 80% and 65% vs. 75%; p = 0.016 and p < 0.0001 respectively) but were comparable to current alternatives, '>/= 60 yrs' DBD livers (donor age >/= 60) and split livers. DCD livers are a reasonable option when death is imminent. Our study demonstrates good outcomes using DCD kidneys and livers and encourages their use.     

Expanding Criteria in Controlled Cardiac Death Donors: Now With 70-Year-Old Donors

BackgroundOutcomes of kidney transplant (KT) after controlled cardiac death with older donors are under review. We aimed to analyze early and midterm clinical outcomes using older (≥70 years) controlled cardiac death donors (cDCD).MethodsRetrospective observational single-center study including all KTs from donors ≥70 years from cDCD and donors after brain death (DBD) performed from January 2017 to January 2022. We performed a comparative study between the 2 groups (cDCD and DBD). An analysis of clinical characteristics, early clinical outcomes, and patient and graft survival rates was made.ResultsWe included 25 cDCD KTs and 63 DBD KTs ≥70 years. The median follow-up was 18.7 months. Recipients from cDCD were more comorbid. Donors from DBD showed higher hypertension and stroke rate. The KTs from older cDCD showed similar delayed graft function rate (cDCD: 34.6% vs DBD extended criteria donor: 35.3%, P = .59) and primary nonfunction (cDCD 16% vs DBD 17.4%, P = .85) compared with older DBD. Medium (3 years) graft death-censored survival was satisfying (cDCD 73% vs DBD 72%) despite a relevant early graft failure rate in both groups (cDCD 16% vs DBD 23%, P = .26). No differences were observed in patient survival at year 1 (cDCD 94% vs DBD 93%, P = .62).ConclusionsIn our series, the outcomes with older cDCD are similar compared with older DBD. Although older donors showed an increase of early graft failure, these kidneys allowed us to maximize the opportunities for candidates that otherwise should remain on dialysis.     

Kidney Retransplant: Not Too Old for a Second Chance

BackgroundKidney retransplant outcomes in the elderly are not well established. Our aim was to compare major clinical outcomes between patients older and younger than 60 years old at retransplant and between first and second kidney transplant (KT) for recipients older than 60 years old.MethodsWe performed a retrospective, longitudinal study that included all patients who underwent KT between January 2008 and December 2019. We defined 3 groups according to recipient age and retransplant status: group 1, patients ≥60 years old and retransplant; group 2, patients <60 years old and retransplant; group 3, patients ≥60 years old and first kidney transplant. We compared clinical outcomes such as acute rejection, death-censored graft survival, and patient survival between groups.ResultsWe included 109 patients with a second KT, including 13 older than 60 years old (group 1) and 96 younger than 60 years old (group 2). There were no differences in death-censored graft survival or patient survival. There were no biopsy-proven acute rejections for older patients compared with 21 events in the younger group. Regarding differences between retransplant (group 1, n = 13) and first kidney transplant (group 3, n = 390) in patients older than 60 years old, there were no differences in death-censored graft survival at 1 and 5 years or in patient survival.ConclusionsIn our study, major clinical outcomes of retransplant in the elderly were similar to those of their younger counterparts with a second graft and with those of older patients with a first graft.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Patients Older Than Age 70 Years: A Single‐Center Experience

Over the past two decades, the age of liver transplantation (LT) recipients has been increasing. We reviewed our experience with LT for patients aged ≥70 years (range: 70–78 years) and investigated the feasibility of performing LT, especially living donor LT (LDLT), for older patients. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 25 patients (15 LDLT recipients, 10 deceased donor LT recipients) aged ≥70 years who underwent LT from January 2000 to April 2016. Their perioperative morbidity rate was 28.0%, and the in‐hospital mortality rate was 16.0%; these results were comparable to those of matched patients in their 60s (n = 73; morbidity, p = 0.726; mortality, p = 0.816). For patients in their 70s, the 1‐ and 5‐year patient survival rates were 84.0% and 69.8%, and the 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival rates were 83.5% and 75.1%, respectively. Comparisons of patient and graft survival rates between matched patients in their 60s and 70s showed no statistically significant differences (patient survival, p = 0.372; graft survival, p = 0.183). Our experience suggests that patients aged ≥70 years should not be excluded from LT, or even LDLT, based solely on age and implies that careful selection of recipients and donors as well as meticulous surgical technique are necessary for successful results.     

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: A cohort study of data from a long‐standing deceased‐donor kidney transplantation program

Despite good long‐term outcomes of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there are few uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs. This longitudinal study compares outcomes for all uDCD (N = 774) and all donation after brain death (DBD) (N = 613) kidney transplants performed from 1996 to 2015 at our center. DBD transplants were divided into those from standard‐criteria (SCD) (N = 366) and expanded‐criteria (N = 247) brain‐dead donors (ECD). One‐, 5‐, and 10‐year graft survival rates were 91.7%, 85.7%, and 80.6% for SCD; 86.0%, 75.8%, and 61.4% for ECD; and 85.1%, 78.1%, and 72.2% for uDCD, respectively. Graft survival was worse in recipients of uDCD kidneys than of SCD (P = .004) but better than in transplants from ECD (P = .021). The main cause of graft loss in the uDCD transplants was primary nonfunction. Through logistic regression, donor death due to pulmonary embolism (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.65‐11.23), extrahospital CPR time ≥75 minutes (OR1.94, 95%CI 1.18‐3.22), and in‐hospital CPR time ≥50 minutes (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09‐2.93) emerged as predictive factors of primary nonunction. According to the outcomes of our long‐standing kidney transplantation program, uDCD could help expand the kidney donor pool.     

Hemoderivative Transfusion in Liver Transplantation: Comparison Between Recipients of Grafts From Brain Death Donors and Recipients of Uncontrolled Donors After Circulatory Death

IntroductionIntraoperative bleeding during liver transplantation has been correlated with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality and decrease in patient and graft survival.Materials and MethodsBetween January 2006 and December 2016 we performed 783 orthotopic liver transplants. After applying exclusion criteria, we found liver grafts from donors after circulatory death (DCD, group A) were used in 69 patients and liver grafts from donors after brain death (group B) were used in 265 patients.ResultsNo difference was found in terms of sex, body mass index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, indication for transplantation, intensive care unit stay, and Child-Pugh score. The mean transfusion of hemoderivates was as follows: red blood cell 9 (0-28) units in group A vs 6 (0-20) units in group B (P = .004) and fresh frozen plasma 10 (0-29) units in group A vs 9.5 (0-23) in group B (P = .000). The only 2 factors related to massive blood transfusion (>6 units of red blood cell) were uncontrolled DCD condition (odds ratio = 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.31; P = .004), and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio = 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-4.55; P = .001). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 81.3%, 70.2%, and 68.9% in group A vs 89%, 83.7%, and 78% in group B (P = .070).ConclusionThe use of liver grafts from DCDs is associated with increased necessity of transfusion of hemoderivates in comparison with the use of liver grafts from donors after brain death.     

Outcomes After Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Using Kidney Allografts With Marginal Perfusion Parameters

BackgroundThis study examines outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) in recipients of kidney allografts with marginal perfusion parameters.MethodsAllografts with marginal perfusion parameters (resistance index [RI] >0.4 and pump flow rate [F] <70 mL/min; MP group) were compared with those with good parameters (RI <0.4 and F >70 mL/min; GP group) for DDKT recipients between January 1996 and November 2017 after hypothermic pulsatile perfusion. Demographics, creatinine, cold ischemia times (CIT), delayed graft function (DGF), and recipient glomerular filtration rate at pre- and post-transplant were noted. The primary outcome was graft survival post-transplant.ResultsIn the MP (n = 31) versus GP (n = 1281) group, the median recipient was aged 57 years versus 51 years; the median donor was aged 47 versus 37 years; terminal creatinine was 0.9 versus 0.9 mg/dL; CIT was 10.2 versus 13 hours, and the RI and flow were 0.46 and 60 mL/min versus 0.21 and 120 mL/min. The DGF rate was 19% (MP) versus 8% (GP). The graft survival in the MP versus GP group was 81% versus 90% (1 year), 65% versus 79% (3 years), 65% versus 73% (4 years), and 45% versus 68% (5 years).ConclusionCarefully selected kidney allografts after comprehensive donor and recipient evaluation may allow for the use of these routinely discarded kidneys with marginal perfusion parameters.     

Impact of donor age on long‐term outcomes after delayed graft function: 10‐year follow‐up

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative impact on graft survival in donation after brain death (DBD) but not for donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. However, older donor age is associated with graft loss in DCD transplants. We sought to examine the interaction between donor age and DGF in DBD kidneys. This is a single‐center, retrospective review of 657 consecutive DBD recipients transplanted between 1990 and 2005. We stratified the cohort by decades of donor age and studied the association between DGF and graft failure using Cox models. The risk of graft loss associated with DGF was not significantly increased for donor age below 60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12, 1.51, and 0.90, respectively, for age <40, 41–50 and 51–60 years) but significantly increased after 60 years (aHR 2.67; P = 0.019). Analysis of death‐censored graft failure yielded similar results for donor age below 60 years and showed a substantially increased risk with donors above 60 years (aHR 6.98, P = 0.002). This analysis reveals an unexpectedly high impact of older donor age on the association between DGF and renal transplant outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best use of kidneys from donors above 60 years old, where DGF is expected.     

Results of Transplantation of Kidneys Procured From Donors After Brain Death Aged 60 Years and Older

Objective

To analyze results of transplantation of kidneys procured from donors after brain death aged 60 years and older (hereafter denoted by “≥60”) compared to kidneys procured from donors after brain death aged 40–59 years (hereafter denoted by “40–59”) in medium-term follow-up period, and to assess factors that affect recipient and kidney graft survival.

Impact of Recipient Age on Outcomes After Pancreas Transplantation

BackgroundFew reports have provided the ages of pancreas transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to determine whether recipient age affects survival of pancreatic grafts after transplantation.MethodsWe analyzed 73 patients who had undergone pancreas transplantation at our institution from August 2001 to March 2020 and assessed the effects of recipient age on pancreas graft survival within 5 years after pancreas transplantation.ResultsThe cutoff value for recipient age established by receiver operating characteristic curve was 35 years. The pancreas graft survival rate of recipients aged 35 years or younger (1, 3, and 5 years: 72.9%, 41.7%, and 41.7%, respectively) was significantly lower than that of recipients aged over 35 years (1, 3, and 5 years: 93.2%, 88.4%, and 88.4%, respectively). Multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis showed that recipient age 35 years or younger (hazard ratio = 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-12.50; P = .044) and solitary pancreas transplantation (hazard ratio = 10.72; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-42.28; P < .001) were significant risk factors for pancreas graft loss within 5 years.ConclusionOur data suggest that younger recipient age is a risk factor for pancreas graft loss after transplantation.     

Analysis of Complications and Recipients' and Graft Survival in Patients 60 Years of Age and Older in the Long-Term Follow-up Period After Kidney Transplant: A Single-Center,Paired Kidney Analysis

BackgroundLong-term results of kidney transplant (KTx) in older patients may differ from younger recipients owing to increased cardiovascular comorbidities. The study aimed to analyze surgical and nonsurgical complications that develop in the long-term follow-up period after KTx, and factors that influence results of KTx in recipients aged 60 years and older (≥60) compared with younger recipients (<60).MethodsOne hundred seventy-five patients aged ≥60 years and 175 patients aged <60 years who received a kidney graft from the same deceased donor were enrolled in the study. In the long-term follow-up period (3 months to 5 years after KTx) the incidence of surgical and nonsurgical complications, as well as patient and kidney graft survival, were compared. Additionally, the influence of early complications on patients and kidney graft survival was assessed.ResultsThere were no differences between recipients aged ≥60 years compared with recipients aged <60 years in occurrence of surgical complications (graft artery stenosis: 0.6% vs 2.3%; ureter stenosis: 3.4% vs 1.1%; lymphocele: 6.9% vs 3.4%) and nonsurgical complications (urinary tract infection: 19.4% vs 23.4%; pneumonia: 8.6% vs 8.6%; cytomegalovirus infection: 6.3% vs 8%; new-onset diabetes after transplant: 16.6% vs 17.1%; cancer incidence: 5.7% vs 4.6%; acute rejection episode: 13.1% vs 17.1%). Five-year recipient survival was lower in a group of patients aged ≥60 years (death, 15.4% vs 8%; death with functioning graft, 12% vs 5.1%).ConclusionsThe incidence of surgical and nonsurgical complications, as well as kidney-graft survival, in recipients aged ≥60 years in a 5-year follow-up period is comparable to younger recipients aged <60 years.     

Impact of Recipient Obesity on Kidney Transplantation Outcome: A Retrospective Cohort Study with a Matched Comparison

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a recipient's obesity on posttransplant complications and patient and graft survival.MethodsA single-institution, retrospective study was performed on obese renal transplant recipients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m², n = 102) from January 2010 to December 2018, matched with non-obese recipients (BMI < 30 kg/m², n = 204). For comparison, for every obese patient we selected 2 nonobese patients with a similar age, sex, and period of transplantation. The comparative analysis included patient and graft survival as primary outcomes and graft function and postoperative complications as a secondary outcome.ResultsRecipient demographics were comparable in both groups except for diabetic nephropathy in obese patients (P = .0006). Obesity was strongly related to a poorer patient survival (risk ratio [RR] = 2.83 confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.14-7.04; P = .020) but there was no observed difference in graft survival (P = .6). While early graft function was inferior in the obese population (RR = 2.41; CI 95% 1.53-3.79; P = .00016), during late follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (P = .36). Obese recipients had a significantly higher risk of delayed graft function (RR = 1.93; CI 95% (1.19-3.1), P = .0077), heart infarction (RR = 7; CI 95% 1.68-29.26; P = .0042), wound infections (RR = 8; CI 95% 1.96-32.87; P = .0015), diabetes aggravation (RR = 3.13; CI 95% 1.29-7.6; P = .011), and surgical revision for eventration (RR = 8; CI 95% 1.22-52.82; P = .026) when compared with nonobese recipients.ConclusionsDespite the inferior early kidney graft function in obese recipients, there was no difference observed at the long-term follow-up. However, recipient obesity demonstrated a negative effect on patient survival and postoperative complications.     

Patient and Graft Survival Outcomes During 2 Eras of Immunosuppression Protocols in Kidney Transplantation: Indiana University Retrospective Cohort Experience

BackgroundSince 1964 when Indiana University performed its first kidney transplant, immunosuppression protocol was steroid-based until 2004 when steroid-free immunosuppression protocol was adopted. We describe clinical outcomes on our patients administered early steroid withdrawal (ESW) protocol (5 days) compared with our historical cohort (HC), who were on chronic steroid-based immunosuppression.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study evaluating kidney transplant recipients between 1993 and 2003 (HC, n = 1689) and between 2005 and 2016 (ESW cohort, n = 2097) at the Indiana University program, with a median follow-up of 10.5 years and 6.1 years, respectively. Primary outcomes were patient and death-censored graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years in both study cohorts. Secondary outcomes were 1-year rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection; graft function at 1, 3, and 5 years; and risk of post-transplant infection (BK virus and cytomegalovirus) in the ESW cohort. Cox proportional model and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate survival probabilities. Fisher exact tests were used to compare episodes of acute rejection in the ESW cohort.ResultsNo difference was observed in patient survival between the ESW and HC cohorts (P = .13). Compared with the ESW cohort, death-censored graft survival was significantly worse in the HC (5 year: 86.4% vs 90.6%, log-rank P < .001). One-year acute rejection reported in the ESW cohort alone was 15.7% and significantly worse in Black patients and younger patients (P < .05).ConclusionsIn this sizeable single-center cohort study with significant ethnic diversity, ESW is a viable alternative to steroid-based immunosuppression protocol in kidney transplant recipients.