Renal transplant survival from older donors: a single center experience

HYPOTHESIS: Despite the observation that kidney transplantations from older donors have an increased risk of failure, the percentage of kidney donors 55 years and older has increased. We explored the risk of allograft failure in a single transplantation center with older (55-79 years) vs younger (18-54 years) donors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review with a mean follow-up of 32 months. SETTING: Academic transplant center. PATIENTS: Consecutive recipients (n = 324) of renal transplants from adult donors. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into 4 groups based on donor status (living or deceased) and donor age (< or =54 or > or =55 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Allograft survival and function, incidence of acute rejection. RESULTS: Recipients of older donor kidneys were significantly older (53.6 vs 43.6 years, P<.001). Seven allografts (12.7%) failed from 55 transplants from donors 55 years and older, compared with 41 allografts (15.2%) from 269 younger donors (P =.63). Renal function was superior following renal transplantation using younger donors (P =.004). However, renal function was acceptable in all groups, with a mean +/- SD serum creatinine level of 1.7 +/- 0.4 mg/dL (150 +/- 35 micro mol/L) among recipients of older donor kidneys. Allograft survival at 1, 2, and 3 years, censored for death with allograft function, did not differ when comparing older vs younger donors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients receiving allografts from older donors do well. Older donor kidneys provide suitable renal function for many patients on dialysis awaiting 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 ].     

Patient and graft outcomes from deceased kidney donors age 70 years and older: an analysis of the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND: The organ shortage has resulted in more use of older deceased donor kidneys. Data are limited on the impact of donor aged 70 years and older on transplant outcomes. We examined patient and graft outcomes of renal transplant from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) aged 70 years and older, using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database. METHODS: We identified 601 deceased donor transplants from donors older than 70 years from 2000 to 2005. The follow-up time was until May 2007. Allograft and patient survival were compared between recipients of transplants from older ECDs (age > or =70) and younger ECDs (age 50-69). The relative risk of graft loss and patient death were determined using multivariate models. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risks of overall graft loss (hazards ratio [HR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.58), death-censored graft loss (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.61), and patient death (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15-1.64) were greater among recipients of transplants from older ECD kidneys. The relative risk of patient death was lower when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60 compared with recipients aged 41 to 60. In contrast, the relative risk of death-censored graft loss was not increased when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60. CONCLUSIONS: Transplants from older ECD kidneys are associated with a higher risk of graft loss and patient death. The risk was highest when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients younger than 60 years.     

Kidney transplant outcomes from older deceased donors: a paired kidney analysis by the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry

As the median age of deceased kidney donors rises, updated knowledge of transplant outcomes from older deceased donors in differing donor–recipient age groups is required. Using ERA‐EDTA Registry data we determined survival outcomes of kidney allografts donated from the same older deceased donor (55–70 years), and transplanted into one recipient younger and one recipient of similar age to the donor. The recipient pairs were divided into two groups: group 1; younger (median age: 52 years) and older (60 years) and group 2; younger (41 years) and older (60 years). A total of 1410 adults were transplanted during 2000–2007. Compared to the older recipients, the mean number of functioning graft years at 10 years was 6 months longer in the group 1 and group 2 younger recipients (P < 0.001). Ten‐year graft survival was 54% and 40% for the group 1 younger and older recipients, and 60% and 49% for the group 2 younger and older recipients. Paired Cox regression analyses showed a lower risk of graft failure (group 1 younger; adjusted relative risk [RRa]:0.57, 95% CI:0.41–0.79, and group 2 younger; RRa:0.63, 95% CI:0.47–0.85) in younger recipients. Outcomes from older deceased donor allografts transplanted into differing donor–recipient age groups are better than previously reported. These allografts remain a valuable transplant resource, particularly for similar‐aged recipients.     

Expanding the donor pool: lung transplantation with donors 55 years and older

The scarcity of donor organs is one of the major limitations to lung transplantation. This has led to a progressive expansion of criteria for donor selection in lung transplantation. This study evaluated the outcome of recipients of lungs from donors >/=55 years. We performed a retrospective analysis of 212 consecutive lung transplantations. Recipients were divided into two groups, those receiving lungs from donors >/=55 years (older donor group) and those receiving lungs from donors <55 years (younger donor group). Recipient baseline characteristics, time in the intensive care unit (ICU), early mortality, and long-term survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between the groups. Forty-one donors (19%) were >/=55 years. Mean recipient age in the older donor group was higher than in the younger donor group (52 +/- 8 vs. 47 +/- 12 years; P = .015). Indication for transplantation did not differ between the groups. ICU stay was comparable between the two groups (6 +/- 12 vs. 7 +/- 11 days; P = .64). Actual 30-day mortality (10.8% vs. 6.4%; P = .32), 1-year mortality (17.1 vs. 19.6%; P = .50), and cumulative long-term survival (65% and 62% at 5 years, P = 1.00) did not differ between the older and younger donor group. This study indicated that transplantation of lungs from selected donors aged >/=55 years did not impair short-or long-term results. The use of lungs from elderly donors may help to increase the number of donor organs for lung transplantation.     

The excellent results of spousal kidney transplantation: experience in a Japanese single center

In coping with the shortage of deceased kidney donors, living donor kidney transplantation is mainly performed in Japan. We started our living unrelated spousal kidney transplantation program in 1989. In this analysis, we compared the results of 64 spousal transplantations performed between September 1989 and May 2007 with those of living related and deceased donor grafts. Despite the older age of the recipients and the lower HLA matching, the graft survival rates of spousal transplants were as good as those from living related donors and better than those from deceased donors, (P < .01). The graft survival rate of spousal kidney transplantation is improving with advances in immunosuppression, so spouses are considered important donors in Japan, which lacks deceased donors.     

The advanced age deceased kidney donor: current outcomes and future opportunities

BaCKGROUND: Due to the aging general population, deceased donors > or =55 years will form an increasingly larger proportion of the deceased kidney donor pool. METHODS: Using data from the United States Renal Data System, we determined the change in graft survival between 1996 and 2000 among 32,557 recipients of donors aged <55 years and > or =55 years in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. We identified donor risk factors for graft loss that might influence the decision to accept or reject donors <55 and > or =55 years. The initial glomerular filtration rate established 6 months after transplantation (initial GFR), and the stability of GFR in the first post-transplant year (GFR at 12 months post-transplantation-GFR at six months post-transplantation) were compared between recipients of donors <55 and > or =55 years and the association of these factors with graft survival was determined. RESULTS: In 2000, one-year graft survival in donors > or =55 years was 86.7%. Between 1996 and 1999 the projected graft half life improved from 11.4 to 14.5 years for recipients of donors <55 years (P < 0.01); however, there was no improvement for recipients of donors > or =55 years (8.2 to 9.2 year, P= 0.46). Among donor factors studied, only cold ischemic time >24 hours identified recipients of donors > or =55 years at risk for graft loss. Compared to recipients of donors <55 years, recipients of donors > or =55 years established a lower initial GFR (42 vs. 56 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P < 0.0001), and had less stable GFR in the first post-transplant year (-1.5 vs. -0.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P <.0001). Recipients from donors > or =55 years with initial GFR > or =50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and no drop GFR during the first post-transplant year had graft survival that was superior to that of donors <55 years with either initial GFR <50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or a drop in GFR during the first post-transplant year. CONCLUSION: Donors > or =55 years are a valuable resource. Despite improvements in immunosuppression, rejection, and delayed graft function, the projected increase in long-term graft survival among recipients of donors <55 years was not shared among recipients of donors > or =55 years. Recipients of donors > or =55 years had lower initial GFR, and less stable GFR during the first post-transplant year. Limiting cold ischemic time to <24 hours may improve outcomes among recipients of donors > or =55 years. Future studies to maximize initial GFR and minimize early loss of GFR in recipients of donors > or =55 years may lead to improved outcomes from deceased donors > or =55 years.     

Outcomes of left split graft transplantation in Europe: report from the European Liver Transplant Registry

Split liver transplantation (SLT) has been widely adopted across Europe, resulting in remarkable reduction in the paediatric waiting‐list mortality. Left split graft (LSG) is commonly used for paediatric recipients; however, deceased donor criteria selection are not universal. The aim of this study was to analyse the LSG outcome from the European Liver Transplant Registry and to identify risk factors for graft failure. Data from 1500 children transplanted in 2006–2014 with LSG from deceased donors were retrospectively analysed. Overall, graft losses were 343(22.9%) after 5 years from transplantation, 240(70.0%) occurred within the first 3 months. Estimated patient survival was 89.1% at 3 months and 82.9% at 5 years from SLT. Re‐transplantation rate was 11.5%. At multivariable analysis, significant risk factors for graft failure at 3 months included the following: urgent SLT (HR = 1.73, P = 0.0012), recipient body weight ≤6 kg (HR = 1.91, P = 0.0029), donor age >50 years (HR = 1.87, P = 0.0039), and cold ischaemic time (CIT) [HR = 1.07 per hour, P = 0.0227]. LSG has good outcomes and SLT is excellent option for paediatric recipients in the current organ shortage era. We identified practical guidelines for LSG donor and recipient selection criteria: donor age may be safely extended up to 50 years in the absence of additional risk factors; thus, children <6 kg and urgent transplantation need CIT <6 h and appropriate graft/recipient size‐matching to achieve good outcomes.     

Kidneys from Deceased Donors: Maximizing the Value of a Scarce Resource

Donor age is a significant risk factor for graft loss after kidney transplantation. We investigated the question whether significant graft years were being lost through transplantation of younger donor kidneys into older recipients with potentially shorter lifespans than the organs they receive. We examined patient and graft survival for deceased donor kidney transplants performed in the United States between the years 1990 and 2002 by Kaplan-Meier plots. We categorized the distribution of deceased donor kidneys by donor and recipient age. Subsequently, we calculated the actual and projected graft survival of transplanted kidneys from younger donors with the patient survival of transplant recipients of varying ages. Over the study period, 16.4% (9250) transplants from donors aged 15-50 were transplanted to recipients over the age of 60. At the same time, 73.6% of donors above the age of 50 were allocated to recipients under the age of 60. The graft survival of grafts from younger donors significantly exceeded the patient survival of recipients over the age of 60. The overall projected improvement in graft survival, by excluding transplantation of younger kidneys to older recipients, was approximately 3 years per transplant. Avoiding the allocation of young donor kidneys to elderly recipients, could have significantly increased the overall graft life, by a total 27,500 graft years, between 1990 and 2002, with projected cost savings of about 1.5 billion dollars.     

Use of elderly living kidney donors: twenty years' experience in the Balkans

The Balkan region has dramatically changed during the last 20 years. Despite transplantation efforts, dialysis remains the usual way to treat end stage renal diseases. Living donor renal transplantation is still the predominant transplant activity. Seeking to solve the problem, we decided to accept expanded criteria living donors, including elderly, marginal, unrelated, and ABO-incompatible individuals. Herein we have presented our 20 years' experience with 230 living donor renal transplantations using elderly individuals, including 90 older than 65 years (mean age 68 ± 4.5; range = 65-86; ED group). The predominantly haploidentical recipients had a mean age of 45 ± 6 years (range = 18-66). Sequential immunosuppressive protocols were used in all cases including induction with anti-thymocyte-globulin or interleukin-2 receptor antagonists. We analyzed the 5-year Kaplan-Meier graft survival rate, rejection episodes, delayed graft function, and renal function for comparison with these outcomes of 110 kidneys from younger donors (mean age = 53.4 years; range = 25-62; YD group) and haploidethical recipients (mean age = 32.2, range = 16-42), performed within the same period. The 3- and 5-year cumulative graft survival rates in the ED group were 81% and 72% compared with 85% and 81% in the YD group respectively (P > .9; NS). The incidences of acute rejection episodes were also comparable for both groups (19% and 17%, respectively). Delayed graft function occurred in 15% of the ED group but only 8% of the YD group. The serum creatinine value at the end of 60 months' follow-up was 146.04 μmol/L in the ED group versus 123.38 μmol/L in the YD group (P < .001). There were no major surgical complications in either group. We recommend the use of elderly living donors as a valuable source of kidneys, especially in countries wherein deceased donor transplantation is not yet established.     

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.     

Evaluation of the older cadaveric kidney donor: the impact of donor hypertension and creatinine clearance on graft performance and survival

BACKGROUND: The use of older donors for cadaveric renal transplantation (CRT) remains controversial because older donors are associated with decreased graft survival, yet offer the opportunity for donor pool expansion. We investigated the impact of two age-related donor factors, hypertension and calculated creatinine clearance (C(Cr)), as predictors of graft outcome in recipients of CRTs from donors > or =55 years of age. METHODS: We reviewed 33,595 recipients of CRTs reported to UNOS since 4/1/94, of which 4,732 were from donors aged > or =55 years. Outcome measures were graft survival, serum creatinine, and incidence of delayed graft function with 3 years of follow-up. We first analyzed the effect of hypertension on outcome from donors > or =55 years: 2679 donors had no hypertension, 1058 had hypertension < or =10 years, and 557 had hypertension > 10 years. Next, the effect of donor C(Cr) as a risk predictor was investigated. Based on this analysis, recipients of older donors were grouped into two cohorts for comparison: 2570 donors with C(Cr)<80 ml/min and 2162 donors with C(Cr) > or =80 ml/min. RESULTS: Actuarial graft survival from donors aged <55 years was 88.0, 83.4, and 78.5% at 1, 2, and 3 years, vs. 80.6, 73.5, and 65.3% from donors > or =55 years (P<0.0001). When stratified by hypertension, older donors hypertensive > 10 years had survivals of 77, 66, and 57% vs. 81, 73, and 65% from donors without hypertension (P<0.017) and 80, 74, and 66% from donors hypertensive <10 years (P<0.017). When stratified by C(Cr), older donors with C(Cr) <80 ml/min had survivals of 77, 69, and 62% vs. 83, 76, and 66% from donors with C(Cr) > or =80 (P<0.0001). Finally, older donors with both hypertension > 10 years and C(Cr) <80 ml/min had survivals of 77, 61, and 53%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-standing hypertension and low calculated creatinine clearance are risk factors for decreased graft survival of CRTs from older donors. When both factors are present, graft survival is significantly decreased.     

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.     

Preemptive kidney transplant from deceased donors: an advantage in relation to reduced waiting list

BACKGROUND: Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation is associated with better allograft and recipient survival. However, it remains unclear whether preemptive transplantation from deceased donors is beneficial too. An increased number of deceased donors has reduced the waiting list in our hospital in the last years allowing preemptive deceased donor kidney transplantation (PDDKT). AIM: We compared our experience with preemptive transplantation with patients who underwent dialysis before transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three PDDKT, including 77.5% male patients of overall mean age of 48 +/- 14 years, were performed in our hospital between January 1999 and December 2004 (8% of transplantations). We compared the outcomes of these patients with those of renal transplants in subjects who had undergone dialysis. The donors for both groups had similar characteristic; they were paired donor kidneys in most cases. RESULTS: The types of donors in both groups were: non-heart-beating (49%), heart-beating deceased (27%) or en bloc pediatric (24%). The serum creatinine of the recipients was 6.9 +/- 1.8 mg/dL prior to transplantation, and the creatinine clearance was 14.6 +/- 3.6 mL/min (estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula). The Charlson comorbidity index adapted for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD) was 0.8 +/- 0.2 in the preemptive group versus 1.7 +/- 0.4 in the dialysis group (P < .05). Delayed graft function rates were 0% versus 25% in preemptive vs dialysis groups, respectively. No differences in 1-month or 1-year renal function as determined by serum creatinine were observed between the groups. We did not observe differences in the incidence of acute rejection or 1- and 2-year graft and patient survivals. CONCLUSION: PDDKT is the treatment of choice for ACKD. It is associated with less delayed graft function and similar 2-year graft and patient survivals than kidney transplantation after dialysis. The Charlson index reflected less comorbidity among patients with PDDKT, a finding that must influence long-term outcomes.     

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.     

The effect of age and prolonged cold ischemia times on the national allocation of cadaveric renal allografts

BACKGROUND: National sharing of cadaveric renal allografts for perfectly matched kidneys (0 antigen mismatch) has improved outcome in the recipients of these kidneys despite increasing cold storage times. However, there may be limits to outcome improvement of matched kidneys based on age and cold storage time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine if national sharing of kidneys based on matching improves outcome regardless of donor age and cold storage time, we evaluated the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific Registry for all recipients of cadaveric kidney transplants between January 1, 1990 and July 31, 1998. We divided the recipients into four groups based on donor age and cold storage time. Group 1 comprised young donors (donor age <55 years) with average (<24 h) cold storage time; group 2, young donors with long (>/=24 h) cold storage time; group 3, older donors (donor age >/=55 years) with average cold storage time; and group 4, older donors with long cold storage time. RESULTS: A total of 64,046 recipients were evaluated: 35,061 (55%) in group 1, 21,264 (33%) in group 2, 4308 (7%) in group 3, and 3414 (5%) in group 4. Early graft performance progressively decreased from group 1 to group 4. Delayed graft function (DGF: dialysis requirement in the first 7 days posttransplant) was 18, 29, 33, and 42% (P < 0.0001); serum creatinine at 3 years (in mg/dl) was 1.70 +/- 0.8, 1.73 +/- 0.9, 2. 31 +/- 1.0, and 2.42 +/- 1.1 (P < 0.0001); 1-year graft survival was 87, 84, 79, and 77% (P < 0.0001); and 3-year graft survival was 77, 74, 63, and 62% (P < 0.0001, for groups 1 and 2 vs groups 3 and 4, respectively). The trends in DGF persisted through the groups in 0 antigen mismatched kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: Early function is adversely affected by prolonged cold storage, despite matching, in recipients of younger and older donor kidneys. Long-term function does not appear to be affected by prolonged cold storage. Recipients of kidneys from donors >/=55 years of age have significantly worse short- and long-term outcome and may not benefit from national sharing.     

Selective Use of Older Adults in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Many centers are reluctant to use older donors (>44 years) for adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) due to concerns about possible increased morbidity in donors and poorer outcomes in recipients. Since 2000, 130 adult RLDLTs have been performed at our institution. Recipients were divided into those who received a right lobe graft from a donor ≤age 44 (n = 89, 68%; median age 30) and those who received a liver graft from a donor age >44 (n = 41, 32%; mean age 52). The two donor and recipient populations had similar demographic and operative profiles. With a median follow-up of 29 months, the severity and number of complications in older donors were similar to those in younger donors. No living donor died. Older donor allografts had initial allograft dysfunction compared to younger donors. Complication rates were similar among recipients in both groups but there was a higher bile duct stricture rate with older donor grafts (27% vs. 12%; p = 0.04). One-year recipient graft survival was 86% for older donors and 85% for younger donors (p = 0.95). Early experience with the use of selected older adults (>44 years) for RLDLT is encouraging, but may be associated with a higher rate of biliary complications in the recipient.     

Accepting Kidneys from Older Living Donors: Impact on Transplant Recipient Outcomes

Older living kidney donors are regularly accepted. Better knowledge of recipient outcomes is needed to inform this practice. This retrospective cohort study observed kidney allograft recipients from Ontario, Canada between January 2000 and March 2008. Donors to these recipients were older living (≥60 years), younger living, or standard criteria deceased (SCD). Review of medical records and electronic healthcare data were used to perform survival analysis. Recipients received 73 older living, 1187 younger living and 1400 SCD kidneys. Recipients of older living kidneys were older than recipients of younger living kidneys. Baseline glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of older kidneys was 13 mL/min per 1.73 m² lower than younger kidneys. Median follow‐up time was 4 years. The primary outcome of total graft loss was not significantly different between older and younger living kidney recipients [adjusted hazard ratio, HR (95%CI): 1.56 (0.98–2.49)]. This hazard ratio was not proportional and increased with time. Associations were not modified by recipient age or donor eGFR. There was no significant difference in total graft loss comparing older living to SCD kidney recipients [HR: 1.29 (0.80–2.08)]. In light of an observed trend towards potential differences beyond 4 years, uncertainty remains, and extended follow‐up of this and other cohorts is warranted.     

Successful transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors with acute renal failure: Three-year results

BACKGROUND: Kidneys from deceased donors with acute renal failure (ARF) are generally not accepted for transplantation because of the expected poor outcome. This prospective study examined the utilization of kidneys from donors with ARF for transplantation and the outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-five kidneys from donors with ARF were transplanted. The outcome was compared with concurrent and matched 55 recipients of standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys and 55 expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. ARF kidneys were accepted from donors aged <50 years, a negative history for kidney disease, and a negative pretransplant biopsy for chronic structural changes. The immunosuppression was similar in all three groups. The outcome measurements included three-year patient and graft survival, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), subclinical acute rejection (SCAR), and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN), serum creatinine, and creatinine clearance. RESULTS: Three-year patient and graft survival was 90% and 90% in ARF group, 100% and 89% in SCD group and 83% and 66% in ECD group. BPAR and SCAR were comparable in the groups but CAN was significantly higher in ECD group. Mean serum creatinine levels were 1.9+/-1.1, 1.9+/-0.9, and 2.2+/-1.3 mg/dl and mean creatinine clearances were 66+/-15, 68+/-14, and 58+/-10 mls/minute in ARF, SCD, and ECD groups, respectively (SCD and ARF vs. ECD P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation of kidneys from selected deceased donors with ARF provides comparable survival and function compared to kidneys from non-ARF donors and may be considered for transplantation to expand the donor pool to overcome the current acute shortage of kidneys.     

Renal transplantation from elderly living donors

A worldwide shortage of cadaveric donors has led to the increased utilization of elderly living donors, with controversial results. In an attempt to assess the effect of donor age on graft survival and subsequent renal function, we analyzed our clinical results in 276 consecutive recipients of living related renal transplants spanning both the cyclosporine and the azathioprine eras, of whom a total of 44 recipients received kidneys from donors over 55 years old. All recipients were otherwise similar in age, race, haplotype mismatch, number of retransplants, and number of pretransplant transfusions, apart from an increased number of diabetics among the CsA-treated recipients of elderly kidneys (38% vs. 14%). The cumulative patient and graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years were independent of donor age whether CsA or AZA was utilized. Nor was the incidence of rejection or infection significantly different in the older donor group when compared with the younger cohort. Short-term and intermediate-term renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine, was however poorer but stable in the older donor group when compared with the younger one. The mean serum creatinine levels at 1 year in the CsA- and AZA-treated recipients of kidneys from older donors were 2.4 and 2.0 mg/dl, respectively, compared with 1.6 and 1.4 mg/dl, respectively, when the donor age was less than 55 years (P less than 0.001). Since renal function at the end of the first posttransplant year is considered a determinant of long-term graft survival, this is a cause for concern, but in view of the universal shortage of organs and the negligible morbidity to donors, renal transplantation from elderly living donors remains an acceptable practice.