Preemptive second kidney transplantation is associated with better graft survival compared with non‐preemptive second transplantation: a multicenter French 2000–2014 cohort study

The impact of preemptive second kidney transplantation (2KT) on graft and patient survival is poorly established. The association between preemptive 2KT (p2KT, N = 93) and outcomes was estimated in a multicenter French cohort of 2KT (N = 1314) recipients using propensity score methods. During the follow‐up, there were 274 returns to dialysis and 134 deaths. p2KT was associated with lower death‐censored graft loss (HR = 0.39 [0.18–0.88], P = 0.024) and graft failure from any cause including death (HR = 0.42 [0.22–0.80], P = 0.008). Similar associations were observed for death with a functioning graft, although not reaching statistical significance (HR = 0.47 [0.17–1.26], P = 0.13). There was a significant interaction between donor type and p2KT (P for interaction = 0.016). Indeed, p2KT was not significantly associated with the risk of graft failure from any cause including death in living donor 2KT (P = 0.39), whereas the association was substantial in the deceased donor subset (HR = 0.30 [0.14–0.64], P = 0.002). Of note, the adjusted graft survival of p2KT with deceased donor paralleled that of 2KT with living donor, either preemptive or not (93.8% vs. 88.6% at 4 years and 76.1% vs. 70.5% at 8 years, P = 0.13). This large French multicenter study analyzed using propensity scores suggests that p2KT is associated with better graft prognosis.     

Alemtuzumab dose adjusted for body weight is associated with earlier lymphocyte repletion and less infective episodes in the first year post renal transplantation – a retrospective study

The optimal dose of alemtuzumab for renal transplant induction is not known, and the doses reported in the literature vary. This study compares two separate dosing regimens of alemtuzumab in renal transplantation. The first is a standard fixed dose of 30 mg (SD), and the second is a dose adjusted for body weight at 0.4 mg/kg (AD). In this first year post‐transplant, there was no difference in patient [HR 0.64 (0.22–1.86), P = 0.39] or allograft survival [HR 1.18 (0.48–2.90), P = 0.72] between the two groups. There was also no difference in overall rejection‐free survival [HR 1.12 (0.79–1.58), P = 0.53]. However, absolute lymphocyte count was significantly higher at all measured time points in the first year in the AD group. There were also less episodes of urosepsis [HR 1.38 (1.03–1.85), P = 0.037] and fungal infection [HR 5.15 (2.00–13.28), P = 0.015] in the AD group compared with the SD group. This study shows that AD alemtuzumab is associated with earlier lymphocyte repletion and less infective episodes in the first year postrenal transplant, without increasing the risk of rejection. This work highlights the need for studies into the optimal dosing of monoclonal antibodies used in transplantation.     

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 ].     

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post–kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2‐3 and DBD AKIN stage 2‐3. In comparing these groups, there were no short‐ or long‐term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54‐1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64‐2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.     

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation: the attractive alternative

Background: Dialysis can be life-saving for patients with end-stage renal failure. However, not only is it associated with significant morbidity and a greater mortality than transplantation, but it is also expensive. Therefore renal transplantation is generally regarded as the treatment of choice for patients in whom this form of renal replacement therapy is appropriate. Transplantation usually takes place after a variable period of dialytic therapy, but pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) has established itself as an attractive alternative. Materials and methods: 1463 consecutive first kidney transplants performed between January 1980 and December 1995 in a single centre were analysed. The 161 patients (11%) transplanted without prior dialysis were compared with the 1302 patients who had been dialysed prior to being transplanted. The pre-emptive group did not differ from the dialysis group in respect of donor age, donor and recipient gender, HLA mismatch, or cold ischaemic time, although there were more live donor transplants within the pre-emptive group. Results: Delayed graft function occurred more frequently in the dialysis group (25% vs 16%) but more patients experienced an acute rejection episode in the pre-emptive group (67 vs 55%). The actuarial graft survival in the pre-emptive group at 1, 5, and 10 years (84, 76 and 67%) was significantly higher than the respective values in the dialysis group (83, 69, and 56%). Within the live donor recipient cohort the survival advantage for the pre-emptive group was even more striking. Conclusion: Pre-emptive kidney transplantation not only avoids the risks, cost, and inconvenience of dialysis, but is also associated with better graft survival than transplantation after a period of dialysis, particularly within the live donor cohort.     

Higher Incidence of Renal Allograft Glomerulonephritis in Living-Related Donor Kidney Transplantation

Glomerulonephritis recurrence has emerged as one of the leading causes of allograft loss. We aimed to investigate the effect of living-related and deceased donation on the incidence of renal allograft glomerulonephritis and its effect on renal allograft survival.

Prognostic Significance of 1‐Year Serum Albumin Levels Within the Normal Range After Kidney Transplantation

Hypoalbuminemia is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplantation (KT). However, what level is optimal in serum albumin is not clear for the long‐term prognosis. To determine whether the long‐term outcomes are different even between the normal ranges of serum albumin after KT, we analyzed data from 404 renal allograft recipients whose 1‐year post‐transplant serum albumin levels were within the normal limits (3.5–5.5 g/dL). During a follow‐up of 122 ± 56 months, 97 graft losses, 20 patient deaths, and 50 cardiovascular (CV) events occurred. Based on 1‐year serum albumin levels, the patients were divided into high normal (≥4.6 g/dL, n = 209) and low normal (<4.6 g/dL, n = 195) groups. Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed that the low normal group had poorer allograft survival (P = 0.01), patient survival (P < 0.001), and CV event‐free survival (P < 0.001) than the high normal group. Cox regression analysis confirmed that 1‐year serum albumin was inversely associated with the risk of graft loss (hazard ratio [HR] 0.414, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.200–0.856), patient death (HR 0.097, 95% CI 0.019–0.484), and CV events (HR 0.228, 95% CI 0.074–0.702). In conclusion, a relatively low 1‐year post‐transplant serum albumin level within the normal limits (<4.6 g/dL) significantly predicts poor long‐term outcomes.     

Comparison of Cadaveric Kidney Transplantation From In-center and External Center Donors

IntroductionRenal transplantation is the best treatment modality for end-stage renal disease. We investigated the effects of donor source on renal allograft and patient survival in deceased donor transplants.MethodsWe analyzed retrospectively 190 cadaver kidney transplants performed in our center from January 2000 to December 2009. Of these, 136 kidneys were harvested in our transplantation center and 54 were from external donors. Primary outcome of graft survival was assessed with the Kaplan–Meier method and the significance of possible variables was determined with the Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsThere was no difference between groups in the age of donor and recipient, recipient body mass index, duration of dialysis, or panel reactive antibody >30%. Twenty recipients lost their grafts (14 from external donors and 6 from internal donors). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 99.2%, 97.3%, and 95.5% for in-center donors and 98.1%, 88.9%, and 86.2% for external donor transplants (P = .01). There was no difference in patient survival rates between the groups. Acute rejection episodes (hazard ratio [HR], 13.2; P < .001) and external hospital donor (HR, 9.3; P = .008) were independent factors associated with failure. Higher age of recipient was associated with increased patient death rate (HR, 1.2; P = .02).ConclusionGraft survival of cadaveric transplants from in-center donors was better than that of transplants from external center donors. Acute rejection episodes and location of harvest were significant factors for graft survival. Further study is needed to evaluate the effects of center-level factors on allograft outcomes.     

Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Concerns remain over prolonged cold ischemia times (CIT) associated with shipping kidneys long distances through KPD. We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and patient survival for 1267 shipped and 205 nonshipped/internal KPD LDKTs facilitated by the National Kidney Registry in the United States from 2008 to 2015, compared to 4800 unrelated, nonshipped, non‐KPD LDKTs. Shipped KPD recipients had a median CIT of 9.3 hours (range = 0.25‐23.9 hours), compared to 1.0 hour for internal KPD transplants and 0.93 hours for non‐KPD LDKTs. Each hour of CIT was associated with a 5% increased odds of DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02‐1.09, P < .01). However, there was not a significant association between CIT and all‐cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98‐1.04, P = .4), death‐censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98‐1.06, P = .4), or mortality (aHR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.96‐1.04, P > .9). This study of KPD‐facilitated LDKTs found no evidence that long CIT is a concern for reduced graft or patient survival. Studies with longer follow‐up are needed to refine our understanding of the safety of shipping donor kidneys through KPD.     

Multiorgan procurement is associated with a survival benefit after heart transplantation

We assessed the impact of donor multiorgan procurement on survival following orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). From the UNOS STAR database, we included all adult (≥18 Y) heart transplants (OHT) performed since 2000 and used donor IDs to determine how many other organs were procured from the same donor as the recipient's heart allograft (regardless of recipient). The Kaplan-Meier survival functions and risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were computed to assess the association of multiorgan procurement with post–heart transplantation mortality. We included 40 336 OHT patients. Including the heart, the median number of donor organs procured was 3 (IQR, 3-4). Heart donors underwent liver procurement in 89.7%; kidney(s) in 98.1% (single 95%, bilateral 5%); lung(s) in 38.0% (single 28%, bilateral 72%); pancreas in 10.4%; and intestine in 1.6%. Following risk adjustment across 16 recipient- and donor-specific variables, an increasing number of organs procured were independently associated with reduced post-OHT mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, P = .025). Though no significant associations were found examining specific organ types, double lung procurement trended toward a protective effect (HR 0.96, 0.92-1.01, P = .086), with counts of non-lung organs procured still bordering on significance (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = .067). These results likely reflect improved multiorgan donor quality.     

无透析肾移植与透析后肾移植临床效果的对比研究

目的　比较透析后肾移植与无透析肾移植的临床效果 ,探讨无透析肾移植的安全性与优越性。　方法　回顾分析 1999年 1月到 2 0 0 3年 1月接受无透析肾移植并定期随访的病例 5 0例 ,选择透析后行肾移植病例 5 0例作为对照 ,2组病例年龄、性别、血型、冷 (热 )缺血时间、人类白细胞抗原 (HLA)配型、原发病、免疫抑制治疗方案等条件相匹配 ,比较 2组病例肾移植术后急、慢性排斥反应和移植肾功能延迟恢复的发生率以及人 /肾存活率。　结果　无透析组中术前曾接受输血者 14例( 2 8% ) ,透析组术前接受输血者 32例 ( 6 4 % ) ,2组比较差异有显著性意义 (P <0 .0 0 1)。无透析组 1年、3年人 /肾存活率均为 10 0 % ,透析组术后 1年、3年人 /肾存活率分别为 10 0 % / 98% ( 5 0 / 4 9)、96 % / 94 % ( 4 8/ 4 7) ,2组比较差异无显著性意义 (P >0 .0 5 )。无透析组术后发生急性排斥反应 3例 ,透析组 5例 ,2组比较差异有显著性意义 (P <0 .0 2 5 ) ;术后发生移植肾功能延迟恢复无透析组为 6例 ,透析组为 12例 ,2组比较差异有显著性意义 (P <0 .0 1)。　结论　无透析肾移植可以减少患者术前透析及输血带来的潜在危险 ,同时能降低术后排斥反应发生率 ,有助于术后移植肾功能的恢复 ,提高移植肾长期存活     

Preemptive kidney transplantation in systemic lupus erythematosus

Preemptive kidney transplantation is associated with superior outcomes. Patients who have kidney failure due to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may not receive a preemptive kidney transplant because of the concern for risk of disease recurrence with shortened graft and patient survival. We identified 8001 patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing dataset who underwent kidney transplantation between October 1987 and February 2009 with kidney failure due to SLE. Seven hundred thirty patients received a preemptive kidney transplant with 7271 patients who were on dialysis before transplantation; their mean ages were 40.0 ± 11.6 years and 36.9 ± 11.7 years, respectively, (P < .01). Women constituted 82.5% of preemptive and 81.4% of non-preemptive groups (P = .47). Preemptive transplant recipients were more likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.3–4.5; P < .01). In unadjusted analyses, preemptive transplantation was associated with lower risk of recipient death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.38–0.70; P < .01). The difference remained significant after adjustment fr covariates (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.36–0.84; P < .01). Graft survival was also superior among preemptive kidney transplant recipients in both unadjusted (HR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.49–0.68; P < .01), and adjustment analyses (HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.55–0.86; P < .01). We concluded that preemptive kidney transplantation among patients with SLE was associated with superior patient and graft outcomes and should be considered when feasible.     

The role of pre-emptive re-transplant in graft and recipient outcome.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the pre-emptive re-transplant, and of inter-transplant waiting time generally, on graft and recipient survival is not well established. METHODS: Analysis of the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data (1/1/90 through 12/31/00; n = 92,844) was performed. Cox regression was used to analyse time to event, with an additional analysis to stratify by transplant era. RESULTS: Having a prior transplant, as well as the total number of transplants, was related to an increased risk of graft failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, P<0.001 for history of prior transplant; HR 1.35 per transplant, P<0.001], but not to recipient death. The time waiting for re-transplant slightly worsened the risk for recipient mortality in the entire patient population and in the recipients of single re-transplant (HR 1.003 and 1.004 per month respectively, P<0.001), and for graft failure only in recipients of single re-transplant (HR 1.001 per month, P<0.05). Pre-emptive re-transplant (dialysis-free re-transplant or transplant within 6 days of last graft failure) increased the risk of graft failure (HR 1.36, P<0.001) and did not have any statistically significant effect on recipient survival. The longer duration of prior graft survival but not the type of the graft (living vs deceased) had protective effect on the consecutive graft and recipient survival. CONCLUSIONS: With the potential caveats associated with retrospective data analysis, these results suggest that pre-emptive re-transplantation is associated with increased risk of graft failure, while longer time on dialysis in between transplants is associated with negative effect upon graft and recipient survival in most patient subgroups. The optimal time in between graft failure and re-transplant was not evaluated in this study. Further prospective studies might be needed to confirm the observed effects.     

Kidney Transplant Rejection in Australia and New Zealand: Relationships Between Rejection and Graft Outcome

Although acute rejection rates have fallen over time, how this relates to graft outcomes is not known. Using data from the ANZDATA Registry, we examined associations of rejection within six months of transplantation with graft and patient outcomes among kidney-only transplants performed between April 1997 and December 2004 in Australia and New Zealand. Associations of biopsy histology with outcomes of the rejection episode were also examined. Outcomes were examined among 4325 grafts with 1961 rejection episodes in total. Crude rejection rates have fallen by one-third over that time, but rates of graft survival are constant. The occurrence of acute rejection was associated with an increased risk of graft loss after 6 months (HR, adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics, 1.69 [1.36-2.11], p<0.001). Late rejection (first rejection >or=90 days) was associated with higher risk of graft loss (adjusted HR 2.46 [1.70-3.56], p<0.001). Vascular rejection was also associated with a higher risk of graft loss 2.07 [95% CI 1.60-2.68], p<0.001. The occurrence of acute rejection is associated with an ongoing increased risk of graft loss, particularly if that episode occurred late or included vascular rejection. The reduced rates of rejection have not been associated with improved graft survival.     

The outcome of renal transplantation among systemic lupus erythematosus patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome of renal transplantation among systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients remains a topic of controversy. Most of the previous reports were based upon small single-centre studies that were not always well-designed. METHODS: We conducted the retrospective analysis using data from USRDS and UNOS databases. Patients were divided into five groups based on the cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD): diabetes mellitus (DM), SLE, glomerulonephritis, hypertension and other causes. Between 1990 and 1999, 2886 renal transplantation recipients with ESRD due to SLE were identified from a total of 92 844 patients. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period of this study was 4.7 +/- 2.4 years. While unadjusted analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated an association between SLE and improved allograft survival compared with DM, in multivariate analysis the SLE group had worse allograft [hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, P < 0.05] and recipient (HR 1.19, P < 0.05) survival compared with the DM group. Subgroup analysis based on the type of donor showed that SLE patients who received deceased donor allograft had worse allograft and recipient survival (HR 1.14, P = 0.002 and HR 1.30, P = 0.001, respectively) compared with non-SLE deceased donor allograft recipients. Among living allograft recipients, there were no significant differences in either allograft or recipient survival compared with non-SLE recipients. CONCLUSIONS: SLE as a cause of ESRD in renal transplant recipients is associated with worse allograft and recipient survival compared with DM; this association is true for the entire population and for the recipients of deceased donor (but not living donor) transplant. Deceased donor allograft recipients have worse outcomes compared with living allograft recipients.     

Diminished impact of cytomegalovirus infection on graft vasculopathy development in the antiviral prophylaxis era – a retrospective study

Evidence concerning an association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and accelerated cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is inconclusive. Data were analyzed retrospectively from 297 consecutive heart transplants between 1.1.2002 and 31.12.2012. Patients ≤18 years of age, survival, and follow‐up ≤1‐year post‐transplant and patients with early CAV were excluded. CMV‐infection was diagnosed and monitored closely in the first year. CAV was diagnosed by coronary angiography via left heart catheterization, and results were categorized according to the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) scoring system. Risk factors for CAV were tested in a multivariable model. Median follow‐up was 7.5 years (IQR: 5.6–10.3). CMV infection in the first year after transplantation occurred in 26% of patients (n = 78), CMV disease in 5% (n = 15). CAV ≥1 ISHLT was detected in 36% (n = 108). Incidence of CAV >1 ISHLT and severity of CAV increased over time. No statistically significant association between CMV infection and disease within the first year and risk of CAV after 1‐year post‐HTx was detected in the univariate (P = 0.16) and multivariable [hazard ratio (HR), 1.36; confidence interval (CI), 0.89–2.07; P = 0.16] Cox regression. In the multivariable Cox regression, donor age (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02–1.06; P < 0.01) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) ≥2R in the first year after HTx (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06–2.95; P = 0.03) were independent risk factors for CAV development. In our cohort, CMV infection and disease in the first year after transplantation did not significantly influence the risk of CAV in the long‐term follow‐up.     

Characteristics of Recipients With 10 or More Years of Allograft Survival in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

Background

The development of immunosuppressants improved the short-term outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT), but the long-term survival rate was not improved.

De Novo Donor HLA‐Specific Antibodies after Heart Transplantation Are an Independent Predictor of Poor Patient Survival

Preformed donor HLA‐specific antibodies are a known indicator for poor patient survival after cardiac transplantation. The role of de novo donor‐specific antibodies (DSA) formed after cardiac transplantation is less clear. Here we have retrospectively analyzed 243 cardiac transplant recipients, measuring HLA antibody production every year after transplantation up to 13 years post‐transplant. Production of de novo DSA was analyzed in patients who had been negative for DSA prior to their transplant. DSA including transient antibodies were associated with poor patient survival (p = 0.0018, HR = 3.198). However, de novo and persistent DSA was strongly associated with poor patient survival (p = 0.0001 HR = 4.351). Although complement fixing persistent DSA correlated with poor patient survival, this was not increased compared to noncomplement fixing persistent DSA. Multivariable analysis indicated de novo persistent DSA to be an independent predictor of poor patient survival along with HLA‐DR mismatch and donor age. Only increasing donor age was found to be an independent risk factor for earlier development of CAV. In conclusion, patients who are transplanted in the absence of pre‐existing DSA make de novo DSA after transplantation which are associated with poor survival. Early and regular monitoring of post‐transplant DSA is required to identify patients at risk of allograft failure.     

Kidney Transplantation Without Prior Dialysis in Children: The Eurotransplant Experience

Kidney transplantation without prior dialysis may prevent dialysis-associated morbidity. We analyzed the outcome of 1113 first kidney transplants in children performed between 1990 and 2000 in the Eurotransplant community. Enlistment for a deceased donor kidney before start of dialysis (127/895, 14%) made dialysis redundant in 55% of cases. Mean residual creatinine clearance at transplantation of these patients was 8 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Pre-emptive transplantations of deceased donor kidneys showed less acute rejections (52% vs. 37% rejection-free at 3 years, p = 0.039), compared to transplantations following dialysis. The difference in graft survival between non-dialyzed and dialyzed patients (82% vs. 69% at 6 year) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.055). No differences were noted after living donor transplantation. Multivariate analysis showed that the period of transplantation was the strongest predictor of graft survival (p < 0.001). Congenital structural abnormalities such as primary kidney disease predominated in nondialyzed patients as compared to dialyzed patients (p < 0.001); this factor did not influence graft survival. Based on our conclusion that pre-emptive transplantation is at least as good as post-dialysis transplantation, as well as on quality of life arguments, we recommend to consider pre-emptive transplantation in children with end-stage renal failure.     

供体年龄对活体肾移植预后的影响

目的 探讨供体年龄对活体肾移植预后的影响.方法 回顾性分析2004年至2011年间在我院实施的活体亲属肾移植217例,按供体年龄或供受体年龄差异分组,随访并比较各组受者的血肌酐水平和术后并发症情况.结果 随着供体年龄的增长,受体移植术后血肌酐水平呈上升趋势.与供受体年龄差＜-5岁组比较,供体年龄差＞5岁组的Scr水平在1个月[(143.5±42.1) μmol/L比(114.4±30.4)μ mol/L]、3个月[(139.9±36.6) μmol/L比(110.6 ±33.3)μmol/L]、1年[(132.1±22.1)μmol/L比(105.5±35.9) μmol/L]及2年(132.0±45.4) μmol/L比(97.2±17.5) μmol/L]均增高,差异有统计学意义(均P＜0.05).与年轻供肾组(＜50岁)相比,老年供肾组(＞50岁)的急性排斥反应发生率(19.4％比9.7％)和慢性排斥反应发生率(9.7％比1.4％)也显著增高(均P＜ 0.05).术后人及肾的存活率比较差异无统计学意义.供受体年龄差异是术后2年Scr水平异常的独立危险因素(OR=5.010,P＜0.05).结论 供体年龄是肾移植预后的重要影响因素,老年供肾的疗效较差.