Living donor kidney paired donation transplantation: experience as a founding member center of the National Kidney Registry

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a safe and effective means of transplantation for transplant candidates with willing but incompatible donors. We report our single-center experience with KPD through participation in the National Kidney Registry. Patient demographics, transplant rates, and clinical outcomes including delayed graft function (DGF), rejection, and survival were analyzed. We also review strategies employed by our center to maximize living donor transplantation through KPD. We entered 44 incompatible donor/recipient pairs into KPD from 9/2007 to 1/2011, enabling 50 transplants. Incompatibility was attributable to blood type (54.4%) and donor-specific sensitization (43.2%). Thirty-six candidates (81.8%) were transplanted after 157 d (median), enabling pre-emptive transplantation in eight patients. Fourteen candidates on the deceased donor waiting list also received transplants. More than 50% of kidneys were received from other transplant centers. DGF occurred in 6%; one-yr rejection rate was 9.1%. One-yr patient and graft survival was 98.0% and 94.8%. KPD involving participation of multiple transplant centers can provide opportunities for transplantation, with potential to expand the donor pool, minimize waiting times, and enable pre-emptive transplantation. Our experience demonstrates promising short-term outcomes; however, longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of KPD on the shortage of organs available for transplantation.     

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BackgroundDespite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.MethodWe aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.ResultsA total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.ConclusionPatients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.     

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1997–2006

Liver transplantation in 2006 generally resembled previous years, with fewer candidates waiting for deceased donor liver transplants (DDLT), continuing a trend initiated with the implementation of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Candidate age distribution continued to skew toward older ages with fewer children listed in 2006 than in any prior year. Total transplants increased due to more DDLT with slightly fewer living donor liver transplants (LDLT). Waiting list deaths and time to transplant continued to improve. In 2006, there also were fewer DDLT for patients with MELD <15, fewer pediatric Status 1A/B transplants and more transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Adjusted patient and graft survival rates were similar for LDLT and DDLT. This article also contains in-depth analyses of transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recipients with HCC had lower adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival than recipients without HCC. HCC recipients who received pretransplant ablative treatments had superior adjusted 3-year posttransplant survival compared to HCC recipients who did not. Intestinal transplantation continued to slowly increase with the largest number of candidates on the waiting list since 1997. Survival rates have increased over time. Small children waiting for intestine grafts continue to have the highest waiting list mortality.     

Outcomes of renal transplantation for recipients with lupus nephritis: analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database

Prior analyses of transplant outcomes in lupus transplant recipients have not consisted of multivariate analyses in the modern immunosuppressive era. Here, we compared patient and graft outcomes in lupus and non-lupus recipients transplanted between 1996 to 2000 using the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. We evaluated the impact of recipient and donor demographic factors, time on dialysis and the initial immunosuppression regimen on rejection rates and transplant outcomes. Univariate analysis showed similar graft but better patient survival rates for primary lupus and non-lupus transplant recipients (5-year patient survival rates for lupus cohort 85.2% for deceased donor transplants and 92.1% for living donor transplants as opposed to 82.1% and 89.8% respectively for the non-lupus cohort; P=0.05 and 0.03) but similar patient survival rates for deceased donor retransplant patients. After controlling for confounding factors, no differences in patient or graft survival were seen between the two groups. No difference in acute rejection rates were observed in deceased donor transplants, but there was a small but significant increase in the risk of acute rejection in living donor lupus transplant recipients (hazard ratio=1.19, P=0.05). Risk of graft failure was lower for deceased donor recipients receiving MMF (five-year graft loss rate=29.6% for MMF vs. 40.2% for those not receiving MMF, P<0.0001), but no differences were seen among living donor recipients. Outcomes were similar regardless of type of calcineurin inhibitor, induction therapy, and time on dialysis. We conclude that lupus transplant recipients have outcomes generally equivalent to non-lupus transplant recipients.     

Long-term kidney transplant graft survival—Making progress when most needed

Current short-term kidney post–transplant survival rates are excellent, but longer-term outcomes have historically been unchanged. This study used data from the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and evaluated 1-year and 5-year graft survival and half-lives for kidney transplant recipients in the US. All adult (≥18 years) solitary kidney transplants (n = 331,216) from 1995 to 2017 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 49.4 years (SD +/-13.7), 60% male, and 25% Black. The overall (deceased and living donor) adjusted hazard of graft failure steadily decreased from 0.89 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.91) in era 2000–2004 to 0.46 (95%CI: 0.45, 0.47) for era 2014–2017 (1995–1999 as reference). Improvements in adjusted hazards of graft failure were more favorable for Blacks, diabetics and older recipients. Median survival for deceased donor transplants increased from 8.2 years in era 1995–1999 to an estimated 11.7 years in the most recent era. Living kidney donor transplant median survival increased from 12.1 years in 1995–1999 to an estimated 19.2 years for transplants in 2014–2017. In conclusion, these data show continuous improvement in long-term outcomes with more notable improvement among higher-risk subgroups, suggesting a narrowing in the gap for those disadvantaged after transplantation.     

Predictors and outcomes of delayed graft function after living‐donor kidney transplantation

Delayed graft function (DGF) following deceased donor kidney transplantation is associated with inferior outcomes. Delayed graft function following living‐donor kidney transplantation is less common, but its impact on graft survival unknown. We therefore sought to determine risk factors for DGF following living‐donor kidney transplantation and DGF's effect on living‐donor kidney graft survival. We analyzed living‐donor kidney transplants performed between 2000 and 2014 in the UNOS dataset. A total of 64 024 living‐donor kidney transplant recipients were identified, 3.6% developed DGF. Cold ischemic time, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, donor age, panel reactive antibody, recipient diabetes, donor and recipient body mass index, recipient race and gender, right nephrectomy, open nephrectomy, dialysis status, ABO incompatibility, and previous transplants were independent predictors of DGF in living‐donor kidney transplants. Five‐year graft survival among living‐donor kidney transplant recipients with DGF was significantly lower compared with graft survival in those without DGF (65% and 85%, respectively, P < 0.001). DGF more than doubled the risk of subsequent graft failure (hazard ratio = 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.1–2.6; P < 0.001). DGF after living‐donor kidney transplantation is associated with inferior allograft outcomes. Minimizing modifiable risk factors may improve outcomes in living‐donor kidney transplantation.     

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.     

The effect of center volume on pancreas transplant outcomes

BACKGROUND: Caseload often correlates with improved outcomes for several surgical procedures, including solid organ transplantation. Given the unique nature of pancreas transplantation and large variation in transplant center volumes, this study aims to determine whether center volume affects patient and graft survival after pancreas transplantation. METHODS: Registry data on all forms of whole organ pancreas transplants performed between 1995 and 2000 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Patient and graft survival rates were followed until 2002. Center volume then was categorized as: low (< 10/year), medium (10-20/year), high (21-50/year), and very high (< 50/year). Cox proportional hazard regression models were developed to evaluate factors affecting pancreas transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Very-high-volume centers were more likely to do pancreas after kidney transplant, pancreas transplant alone, pancreas with kidney transplant, and repeat transplants, while other centers more frequently performed simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (P < .001). Very-high-volume centers were more likely to transplant older recipients and less likely to transplant minority or Medicaid patients. Low-volume centers tended to accept pancreatic allografts from younger donors and had the longest waiting times. In models adjusting for differences in patient population, there were no differences in patient survival. However, low-volume centers had a slightly increased risk of graft loss compared to other centers. Early graft loss was similar among all centers, but medium-volume centers were at increased risk for late graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Low center volume is not associated with increased mortality after pancreas transplantation. Other factors appear to be more important than center volume in determining pancreas transplant outcomes.     

Living donor kidney transplantation in a Veterans Administration medical center

BACKGROUND: A shortage of organ donors remains the major limiting factor in kidney transplantation. Living donor renal transplantation, especially living-unrelated donors, may expand the donor pool by providing another source of excellent grafts. METHODS: Between 1983 and 2003, 109 living donor kidney transplants were performed. Potential donors were assessed with a standardized routine. Antithymocyte serum (N-ATS) and Basiliximab were used as induction agents. Sandimmune, Gengraf, Neoral, and Prograf were the main immunosuppressants with Immuran, Mycophenolate Mofetil, and steroids. Eighty-two percent of the recipients were from out of state. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of the living donors were from living-related donors and 22% were from living-unrelated donors. One- and three-year patient survival rates were 97.6% and 93.2% with 1- and 3-year graft survival rates of 93.2% and 88.3%, respectively. There were 6 delayed graft functions (5.5%), 16 acute cellular rejections (10%), and 10 chronic rejections (9%). Twelve patients died, 7 of them with a functioning graft. In the past 6 years (1997-2003), the number of living donor kidney transplants surpassed deceased donor kidney transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited number of cadaveric kidneys available for transplant, living donors represent a valuable source, and the use of living-unrelated donors has produced an additional supply of organs. In our program, the proportion of living donors used for kidney transplant is comparable with other non-Veterans Administration programs and the survival of these allografts appears to be superior to deceased donor kidney transplants.     

Influence of HLA-DQ Matching on Allograft Outcomes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

Background and Objectives

HLA matching at the A, B, and DR loci influences the graft survival rate of deceased donor kidney transplants. The effect of HLA-DQB1 matching on transplant outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of HLA-DQB1 matching with allograft outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients.

Improving access to kidney transplantation without decreasing graft survival: long-term outcomes of blood group A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys in B recipients

BACKGROUND: The transplantation of blood group A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys into B recipients could improve access to transplantation for blood group B recipients. However, this practice is controversial, and long-term data are lacking. This study analyzed the long-term outcomes of A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys transplanted into selected B recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the outcomes (graft survival, transplant rates, and acute rejection) of deceased-donor kidneys using an allocation system that transplanted A2/A2B donors into B recipients with low anti-A blood group antibody titers between 1994 and 2003. Patients received conventional immunosuppression without any specific antibody reduction procedures. We further assessed the impact this system had on access to transplantation by blood group. RESULTS: Of 1,400 kidney transplants, 56 (4.0%) were A2/A2B to B recipients. The system reduced waiting time for all B recipients, even shorter than for blood group A recipients (median waiting times of A2/A2B to B transplants=182 days vs. B to B transplants=297 days; and A to A=307 days). Although there was a trend toward increased acute rejection in A2/A2B to B transplants, the actuarial 7-year death censored graft survival was 72% for B recipients regardless of donor type. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys into B recipients leads to an equalization of waiting time between blood groups with similar patient and graft survival using conventional immunosuppression. This protocol could lead to more equal access to kidney transplantation in blood group B recipients.     

Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from marginal donors

Long-term survival of kidneys from suboptimal donors is known to be not as good as that from optimal ones. However, the shortage of donors has led many transplant centers to consider accepting older donors with comorbidities. We analyzed 238 patients who received deceased donor renal transplants in the period 2000-2005. The recipients were matched to be no more than 15 years older or younger than the corresponding donors. Among them 125 received a single and 18 a double transplantation from donors considered marginal, according to UNOS criteria for expanded criteria donor (ECD). Most kidneys were evaluated with a pretransplant biopsy, using the scoring system introduced by Karpinski in 1999. The analysis indicated clearly better results in the non-ECD group: both patients and graft survival rates were 10% higher at 1, 2, and 3 years. However, the ECD group showed satisfactory outcomes, confirming the utility of this procedure. The long-term survival rates of single or double grafts from marginal donors are satisfactory, confirming the practice of allocating kidneys after a preimplantation histological evaluation, allowing expansion of the donor pool and providing older patients access to the waiting lists.     

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 ].     

Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation in the United States, 1998–2007: Access for Patients with Diabetes and End-Stage Renal Disease

Although the number of candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list at year-end rose from 40 825 to 76 070 (86%) between 1998 and 2007, recent growth principally reflects increases in the number of patients in inactive status. The number of active patients increased by 'only' 4510 between 2002 and 2007, from 44 263 to 48 773. There were 6037 living donor and 10 082 deceased donor kidney transplants in 2007. Patient and allograft survival was best for recipients of living donor kidneys, least for expanded criteria donor (ECD) deceased donor kidneys, and intermediate for non-ECD deceased donor kidneys. The total number of pancreas transplants peaked at 1484 in 2004 and has since declined to 1331. Among pancreas recipients, those with simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplants experienced the best pancreas graft survival rates: 86% at 1 year and 53% at 10 years. Between 1998 and 2006, among diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who were under the age of 50 years, 23% of all and 62% of those waitlisted received a kidney-alone or SPK transplant. In contrast, 6% of diabetic patients aged 50–75 years with ESRD were transplanted, representing 46% of those waitlisted from this cohort. Access to kidney-alone or SPK transplantation varies widely by state.     

Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: a paired donor kidney analysis

BACKGROUND: Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes after living and cadaveric transplantation. To validate and quantify end-stage renal disease (ESRD) time as an independent risk factor for kidney transplantation, we compared the outcome of paired donor kidneys, destined to patients who had ESRD more than 2 years compared to patients who had ESRD less than 6 months. METHODS: We analyzed data available from the U.S. Renal Data System database between 1988 and 1998 by Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models to quantify the effect of ESRD time on paired cadaveric kidneys and on all cadaveric kidneys compared to living-donated kidneys. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year unadjusted graft survival rates were significantly worse in paired kidney recipients who had undergone more than 24 months of dialysis (58% and 29%, respectively) compared to paired kidney recipients who had undergone less than 6 months of dialysis (78% and 63%, respectively; P<0.001 each). Ten-year overall adjusted graft survival for cadaveric transplants was 69% for preemptive transplants versus 39% for transplants after 24 months on dialysis. For living transplants, 10-year overall adjusted graft survival was 75% for preemptive transplants versus 49% for transplants after 24 month on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD time is arguably the strongest independent modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes. Part of the advantage of living-donor versus cadaveric-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time. This effect is dominant enough that a cadaveric renal transplant recipient with an ESRD time less than 6 months has the equivalent graft survival of living donor transplant recipients who wait on dialysis for more than 2 years.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Current practice and results of renal transplantation

Objective: In 2009, 1659 patients with end‐stage renal failure in Hong Kong were waiting for a renal transplant. The overall number of renal transplants carried out locally remains low, with an even lower number being live donor donations. Yet, live donor kidney transplantation yields results that are consistently superior to those of deceased donor kidney transplantation, and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is increasingly accepted worldwide as a safe and preferred surgical option. We aim to evaluate the outcome of LDN in our setting, and to compare with that of deceased donors in this retrospective review. Patients and Methods: A total of 12 patients received LDN over the study period of 2006–2009. Standard left transperitoneal LDN was carried out. Grafts including three with double vessels were prepared using the bench technique. The postoperative outcomes up to 1 year for both the donors and the recipients were studied. Contemporary results for the 47 deceased donor kidneys were studied and compared. Results: All donors had an eventful recovery. The operating time was 225.0 ± 67.4 min. The hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.3 days. The recipient outcomes including hospital stay and creatinine levels at discharge and 1 year were 11 days, 121 umol/L and 116 umol/L, respectively. Specifically, no ureteric stricture or graft loss was noted at the 1‐year follow up. Recipient complications included haematoma (1 patient), renal artery stenosis (1 patient) and redo of vascular anastomosis (1 patient). In contrast, the deceased donor graft recipients had a hospital stay of 11 days, and creatinine levels of 205 umol/L on discharge and 205 umol/L at 1 year, respectively. The delayed graft function rates for the live donor and deceased donors group were 0% and 14.9%, whereas the 1‐year graft survival rates were 100% and 87.2% respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that the donor morbidity rate was low, as reflected by the short hospital stay. Also, the overall parameters of recipients were good. In particular, no ureteric stricture was noted, and graft survival was 100% at 1 year. Living donor kidney transplant program using the laparoscopic technique is a viable option to improve the pool of kidneys for transplantation.     

Kidney transplantation

Renal transplantation is well established as the treatment of choice for selected patients with end-stage renal failure. A renal transplant recipient can enjoy an improved quality of life while benefiting from a reduction in the mortality compared with long-term dialysis. However, the success of transplantation is limited by the disparity between an ever growing demand and an insufficient supply of organs. Expansion of the organ donor pool has been achieved through increased utilization of living donor kidneys, transplantation across HLA and ABO boundaries, as well as a greater acceptance and consideration of more marginal kidneys from deceased donors. While 1-year graft survival rates are significantly higher than a decade ago, the rate of chronic graft loss after the first year remains substantial. Although the surgical procedure has changed little over many years, recipients have certainly become more complex with increasing age, obesity, comorbidity and repeat transplants.     

Kidney transplantation

Renal transplantation is well established as the treatment of choice for selected patients with end-stage renal failure. A renal transplant recipient can enjoy an improved quality of life whilst benefiting from a reduction in the mortality compared with long-term dialysis. However, the success of transplantation is limited by the disparity between an ever growing demand and an insufficient supply of organs. Expansion of the organ donor pool has been achieved through increased utilization of living donor kidneys, transplantation across HLA and ABO boundaries as well as a greater acceptance and consideration of more marginal kidneys from deceased donors. Whilst one-year graft survival rates are significantly higher than a decade ago, the rate of chronic graft loss after the first year remains substantial. Although the surgical procedure has changed little over many years recipients have certainly become more complex with increasing age, obesity, co-morbidity and repeat transplants.     

Influence of Graft Type on Outcomes After Pediatric Liver Transplantation

We sought to determine which type of donor graft provides children and young adults with the best outcomes following liver transplantation. Using the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database, we identified 6467 recipients of first liver transplants during 1989-2000 aged < 30 years. We used Cox models to examine adjusted patient and graft outcomes by age (< 2, 2-10, 11-16, 17-29) and donor graft type (deceased donor full size (DD-F), split (DD-S), living donor (LD)]. For patients aged < 2, LD grafts had a significantly lower risk of graft failure than DD-S (RR = 0.49, p < 0.0001) and DD-F (RR = 0.70, p = 0.02) and lower mortality risk than DD-S (RR = 0.71, p = 0.08) during the first year post-transplant. In contrast, older children exhibited a higher risk of graft loss and a trend toward higher mortality associated with LD transplants. In young adults, DD-S transplants were associated with poor outcomes. Three-year follow up yielded similar graft survival results but no significant differences in mortality risk by graft type within age group. For recipients aged < 2, LD transplants provide superior graft survival than DD-F or DD-S and trend toward better patient survival than DD-S. Living donor is the preferred donor source in the most common pediatric age group (< 2 years) undergoing liver transplantation.     

Mycophenolate Mofetil/Sirolimus Compared to Other Common Immunosuppressive Regimens in Kidney Transplantation

We evaluated outcomes with the sirolimus (SRL) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) combination regimen (SRL/MMF) in solitary kidney transplant recipients transplanted between 2000 and 2005 reported to the Scientific Registry of Renal Transplant Recipients. Three-and-a-half percent received SRL/MMF (n = 2040). Six-month acute rejection rates were higher with SRL/MMF (SRL/MMF: 16.0% vs. other regimens: 11.2%, p < 0.001). Overall graft survival was significantly lower on SRL/MMF. SRL/MMF was associated with twice the hazard for graft loss (AHR = 2.0, 95% C.I., 1.8, 2.2) relative to TAC/MMF, also consistent in both living donor transplants (AHR = 2.4, 95% C.I., 1.9, 2.9) and expanded criteria donor transplants (AHR = 2.1, 95% C.I., 1.7-2.5). Among deceased donor transplants, DGF rates were higher in the SRL/MMF cohort (47% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). However, adjusted graft survival was also significantly inferior with SRL/MMF in DGF-free patients (AHR = 1.9, 95% C.I., 1.6-2.3). In analyses restricted to patients who remained on the discharge regimen at 6 months posttransplant, conditional graft survival in deceased donor transplants was significantly lower with SRL/MMF compared to patients on TAC/MMF or CsA/MMF regimens at 5 years posttransplant (64%, 78%, 78%, respectively, p = 0.001) and across all patient subgroups. In conclusion, SRL/MMF is associated with inferior renal transplant outcomes compared with other commonly used regimens.