Donor specific transfusions or cyclosporine for related-donor kidney transplantation?

DST and cyclosporine are two immunosuppressive strategies to improve first year graft survival in high MLC, one-haplotype matched, living-related donor kidney transplantation. However, each has disadvantages: The conventional strategy of DST may sensitize the recipient to donor antigens, precluding transplantation from that donor, and cyclosporine may increase graft failure due to nephrotoxicity. We used decision analysis to compare these two strategies. We assumed that the risk of sensitization by DST is 12%, that graft failure in the first year is equal in both strategies, but that the annual probability of graft failure in later years is 2.6% with DST and from 2.7% to 3.6% with cyclosporine. Patients sensitized by DST and patients with graft failure undergo dialysis while awaiting cadaveric donor transplantation using cyclosporine. Outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted years of survival. The analysis was deliberately biased to favor DST, the conventional strategy. Quality-adjusted life expectancy for a 40-year-old patient in both strategies is from 17.7 to 19.1 years. The difference between the DST and cyclosporine strategies ranges from -0.7 to +0.6 years. Given current data on sensitization by DST, long-term cyclosporine nephrotoxicity, and deliberate biases favoring the DST strategy, we conclude that there is no substantive advantage of the DST strategy. Cyclosporine is equally efficacious for recipients of high MLC, one-haplotype matched kidney transplants, and may be preferred for transplants from more distant relatives and unrelated living donors.     

Renal transplantation: cyclosporin A and antibody development after donor-specific transfusion

The survival of a one haplotype, mismatched living-related renal allograft is improved by donor specific transfusion (DST) before transplantation although the mechanism is unclear. The major risk of DST is sensitization of the recipient to donor lymphocytes precluding transplantation. Fifty prospective recipients of a living related transplant received either DST with cyclosporin A (group I) or DST alone (group II). Persistent donor sensitization precluding transplantation occurred in no patients in group I but in six in group II (P less than 0.05). Ten of 14 of those who developed donor cytotoxicity had previously been pregnant or received greater than or equal to 10 third party transfusions compared with 11 of 36 without such a history (P less than 0.05). Alloantibodies detected by a cellular ELISA developed following DST in 29% patients and antiidiotypic antibodies detected by the short antiidiotypic assay (SAA) in 36%; antiidiotypic activity occurred more frequently in those given cyclosporin A (P less than 0.02). Potentiating activity in the SAA which occurred in sera from six patients after DST had no influence on transplant outcome. Persistent sensitization, particularly in potential transplant recipients who have been pregnant or received many transfusions, can be prevented by giving cyclosporin A with DST; the mechanisms of this effect may be the induction of antiidiotypic antibodies. Both alloantibodies and antiidiotypic antibodies are induced by DST and may protect a subsequent renal allograft from the specific donor.     

Comparative analysis of the DST and Imuran-plus-DST protocols for live donor renal transplantation

We have done a comparative analysis of two consecutive clinical trials at our center: the first in 56 patients who received blood transfusions from their prospective donors (DST group), and the second in 36 patients who received such transfusions while they were taking Imuran in an attempt to reduce the incidence of sensitization against the donor (IM + DST group). The major findings of our study are: (1) Imuran significantly (P less than .05) reduced the rate of sensitization from 27% to 11%; (2) Patients who had prolonged dialysis before entering one of these protocols were significantly more likely to become sensitized against their living donors, and had significantly higher sensitization against the leukocyte panel, although panel-reactive antibodies were not significantly changed by transfusions from the live donor; (3) MLC reactivity against the living donor was not significantly altered by donor transfusions, and was also not different for sensitized and transplanted patients; (4) Results of transplantation were excellent in both patient groups, with only two grafts and two patients lost in 68 transplants (actuarial one-year survival of 97% and 93% of patients alive and with functional grafts at one year in the DST and IM + DST groups, respectively); (5) Rejection episodes occurred in about 50% of each group, but were of a special type (DST-type rejection) in about 30% of the DST patients and 10% of the IM + DST patients (P = .07); (6) The probability of transplantation, and the results of transplantation after unsuccessful entry into one of these protocols was not adversely affected. We think that primarily because of the low rate of sensitization the IM + DST protocol is superior to the DST protocol. Both, however, are established clinical tools that have increased our clinical transplant volume by a large number of highly successful transplants.     

Minimal sensitization and excellent renal allograft outcome following donor-specific blood transfusion with a short course of cyclosporine

A new protocol of donor-specific blood transfusion under cyclosporine coverage was developed and examined for immunologic consequences and clinical efficacy in recipients of one- or zero-HLA-haplotype-matched renal allografts. Between 1985 and 1989, 75 recipients were transfused with 100 ml of stored whole blood at 1, 8, and 15 days of its storage from either one-HLA-haplotype-matched related donors (n = 65, 33 from their parents, 30 from siblings, and 2 from offspring) or from zero-HLA-haplotype-matched donors (n = 10, 7 from spouses and 3 from siblings). During DST, all recipients received cyclosporine, 6 mg/kg/day, starting a day before and finishing a week after DST (23 days). Recipients were monitored by donor-specific mixed lymphocyte culture responses before and after DST, and serially for antibodies by fluorescence activated cell sorter analysis and by standard complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity assay. Following DST with CsA, only 3 of 75 patients (4%) were sensitized against the blood donor. This rate is considerably lower, albeit statistically not significantly, compared with the 10% rate found in 30 recipients who had received DST without CsA in our previous study. Repeat MLC studied one to two months after DST (the day before transplant) were significantly increased compared with pre-DST (stimulation index: mean +/- SEM; 10.3 +/- 1.4 to 15.8 +/- 2.8, P = 0.004, and relative response: 40.9 +/- 5.1% to 49.8 +/- 5.5%, P = 0.003). Since the stimulation index with controls did not change after DST (23.4 +/- 2.9 to 26.2 +/- 3.3), enhanced MLC responses appear to be donor-specific. The changes in MLC responses did not correlate with the number of blood transfusion received prior to DST, the number of rejection episodes, or graft outcome. Fifty-seven recipients underwent a kidney transplant from their one-HLA-haplotype-matched blood donors within two to three months after DST. All 10 recipients of zero-haplotype-matched donors were also successfully transplanted from their respective blood donors. The graft survival rates were at least 90% at two years in both groups. In conclusion: (1) 100 ml of stored whole-blood DST, three times at weekly intervals with a short course of CsA is minimally sensitizing but effective in enhancing graft survival; (2) this protocol could be used in donor-recipient pairs who do not share a haplotype; and (3) DST with CsA elicits augmentation of donor-specific MLC responses.     

Kidney transplantation from marginal donors

AIM: The increasing demand for transplantation and the shortage of available organs limit the success of organ transplant programs. The use of marginal donors to expand the donor pool is receiving increased attention. We reviewed a 28-month experience of kidney transplants from marginal donors to assess the impact on patient and graft survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2001 to May 2003, 78 kidney transplants were performed, including 50 grafts from cadaver donors and 28 from living donors with 3 patients receiving a double kidney transplant. The patients were divided into 4 groups: 31 patients received a kidney from an ideal cadaver donor (group 1a); 19 patients received a graft from a marginal cadaver donor (group 1b); 19 patients received an ideal living related kidney (group 2a); and 9 patients received a marginal living kidney graft (group 2b). RESULTS: Twenty-eight grafts from marginal donors were transplanted with an average follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-28 months). The graft survival rates for groups 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were 93%, 79%, 100%, and 100% and patient survival rates were 96%, 89%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the observation that use of marginal donors has been associated with a worse outcome compared with ideal donors, we of such grafts resulted in improved quality of life and survival expectancy compared with maintenance dialysis. The marginal kidney donors represent a feasible way to improve the donor pool.     

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.     

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.     

Patient and Graft Survival Implications of Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplantation From Old Donors

We investigated graft and patient survival implications of simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) transplant from old donors. Data describing patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus listed for an SPK transplant from 1994 to 2005 were drawn from Organ Procurement and Transplant Network registries. Allograft survival, patient survival and long-term survival expectations among SPK recipients from young (age <45 years) and old (age >/=45 years) donors were modeled by multivariate regression. We also examined predictors of reduced early access to young donor transplants. Of 16 496 eligible SPK candidates, 8850 patients (53.6%) received an SPK transplant and 776 (8.8%) of these transplants were from old donors. Reasonable 5-year, death-censored kidney (77.8 %) and pancreas (71.3%) survivals were achieved with old donors. SPK transplantation from both young and old donors predicted lower mortality compared to continued waiting. An additional expected wait of 1.5 years for a young donor equalized long-term survival expectations to that achieved with use of old donors. Early allocation of young donor transplants declined in the more recent era and varied by region, candidate age, blood type and sensitization. We conclude that old SPK donors should be considered for patients with decreased access to young donor transplants. Prospective evaluation of this practice is needed.     

Enhancement of allograft survival by donor-specific transfusion one day prior to transplant. Importance of timing and specificity when DST is given with cyclosporine.

Donor-specific transfusion effects were studied in the ACI-to-Lewis rat heterotopic heart allograft model using cyclosporine immunosuppression. Low-dose CsA for 1 week plus a single fresh or stored DST given 1 day before allografting significantly prolonged graft survival over CsA therapy alone (median survival time 23.5 days vs. 10 days, P less than 0.01), but third-party transfusion did not (11.5 vs. 10 days, NS). When CsA was started at the time of DST and continued for 2 weeks, maximal graft enhancement was achieved after just one DST. DST/CsA was equally efficacious if given on any day before transplantation, provided CsA was started on the same day as the transfusion. However, pretransplant DST given without CsA shortened subsequent graft survival of day -1 DST/CsA treatment (14.5 days, n = 6, vs. 60 days for controls, n = 10; P less than 0.01). The addition of methylprednisolone to the DST/CsA protocol had no effect on graft survival (51 vs. 53 days, P = NS), but extending the period of postoperative CsA therapy for 4 weeks at reduced dose (2.5 mg/kg/day) significantly prolonged median survival (111 days, n = 11) and resulted in 45% permanent engraftment (greater than 120 days survival). CsA permits graft enhancement with a single DST as early as 1 day before grafting. This avoids the risk of sensitization from DSTs and can extend DST use to cadaveric graft recipients.     

Renal transplants from HLA-haploidentical living-related donors. The influence of donor-specific transfusions and different immunosuppressive regimens

A total of 151 potential recipients of kidney grafts from one-HLA-haplotype-mismatched MLC-positive (RR greater than 20%) donors treated during 1980-1984 was investigated. The recipients were divided retrospectively into four groups: (A) 42 patients who received pretransplant donor-specific transfusions (DST) and posttransplant azathioprine/prednisolone (DST-only); (B) 10 patients who received DST with azathioprine before and azathioprine/prednisolone after grafting (DST-aza); (C) 42 patients who received no pretreatment and azathiprione/prednisolone posttransplant (aza group) and (D) 57 patients who also received no pretreatment but cyclosporine/prednisolone posttransplant (CsA group). DST-only led to persistently positive crossmatch in nine (21%) and transient positive crossmatch in two patients, while no sensitization occurred in the DST-aza group. Posttransplant, early acute rejection episodes were frequent in the DST-only group, but no graft was lost to acute rejection during first year; one-year graft survival (GS) = 94%. Similar GS (93%) was obtained in the CsA group, while in the aza group poorer results were obtained; GS = 69%. In the DST-aza group clinical problems including serious infections were observed. As CsA treatment without DST gave as high graft survival as in the DST groups, but avoided the sensitization risk by DST alone and the bone marrow complications of DST-aza, such treatment has become our preferred therapy for haploidentical renal transplants.     

Lack of impact of human leukocyte antigen matching in living donor kidney transplantation: experience at Akdeniz University

Lack of expansion of the deceased donor supply has resulted in a severe shortage of organs worldwide. Spousal donors are one possible alternative organ source for patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Despite human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching between recipients and unrelated donors being poor, the reported survival rates for these grafts, including spouses, are comparable to those for grafts from living related donors and higher than those for deceased donor kidneys. In 2000, our renal transplantation program began accepting living donor-recipient pairs with one or zero HLA matches. The purpose of this study was to assess this policy for accepting living unrelated donors. The 3-year graft survival rates for the transplants from living unrelated donors were similar to that for transplants from living related donors (log-rank = 0.078). The number of HLA mismatches did not significantly influence the survival rates for either of these groups of living donor transplants. Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis duration (P = .057) and recipient age (P = .066) negatively influenced patient survival in living donor kidney transplantation. The graft and patient survival rates for the donor transplantations were higher than those for deceased donor transplantations. In light of these findings and considering the increasing problem of organ shortage, we conclude that living unrelated kidney transplantation should be performed, with strict guidelines. Spousal donation is the most favorable form of living unrelated renal transplantation.     

Observations on quadruple immunosuppression maintenance therapy using rapamycin, low-dose cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone following ATG induction

INTRODUCTION: We prospectively evaluated an immunosuppressive regimen consisting of rapamycin (Rapa), low-dose cyclosporine (CsA), low-dose mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone (group 1) versus a regimen of CsA, MMF, and prednisone (group 2) in mismatched living related donor (LRD) and living unrelated donor (LUD) kidney transplantation. METHODS: Group 1 included 24 transplant recipients of eight mismatched LRD and 16 LUD, treated with Rapa, low-dose MMF, CsA, and prednisone. Group 2 included 53 transplant recipients (25 LRD, 27 LUD, and one cadaveric donor), treated with MMF, CsA, and prednisone. All patients in group 1 received a single bolus of rabbit-anti-human T-lymphocyte immune serum (ATG-Fresenius 4 to 6 mg/kg). In group 2, patients received either a single ATG or an extended ATG course (3 to 5 days postoperatively). RESULTS: Acute rejection occurred in one patient in group 1 (4.2%) and in five patients (9.4%) in group 2, all of which resulted in graft loss. Serum creatinine was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The immunosuppressive protocol of Rapa, CsA, MMF, and prednisone with single-bolus induction ATG achieves excellent immunosuppression and graft survival with no apparent risks in the short and intermediate term.     

Mismatched living, related donor renal transplantation: a prospective, randomized study

A prospective, randomized study of 49 mismatched living, related donor renal transplants was undertaken to compare the effect of donor-specific transfusions (DST) combined with conventional immunosuppressive therapy (azathioprine, prednisone, and antilymphoblast globulin) to cyclosporine and prednisone with and without use of prior DST. The results demonstrated that cyclosporine and prednisone without DST have equal patient and graft survival rates after transplantation and an equal incidence of infectious complications and rejection episodes when compared with recipients who received DST and conventional therapy. Patients who received DST and subsequent cyclosporine had poor graft survival rates with more rejection episodes and infectious complications. Hospitalization and the relative cost of transplantation were decreased when recipients received cyclosporine without prior DST. It is concluded that cyclosporine allows easier access to transplantation, is more cost effective in the initial posttransplant period, and does not subject the recipient to the risk of donor sensitization as is seen with DST recipients given conventional therapy. The nephrotoxic side effects of cyclosporine have been minimal and renal function remains excellent in the recipients treated with cyclosporine.     

Parental donors in live-donor kidney transplantation associated with increased rejection rates and reduced glomerular filtration rates

BACKGROUND: Living unrelated and related kidney transplantation has been shown to have similar allograft survival. However, the effect of donor-recipient relatedness in living-related and unrelated kidney transplantation on graft and patient survival remains uncertain. METHODS: Using Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, primary living renal transplant recipients in Australia between 1995 and 2004 were studied (n=1989). Donors were categorized according to their relationship with recipients: parent (n=606), child (n=103), spouse (n=358), sibling (n=656), other living-related donors (n=81), and other living-unrelated donors (n=185). Outcomes analyzed included the presence of rejection at 6 months, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 and 3 years, graft survival, and patient survival. RESULTS: A greater proportion of renal transplant recipients from parental and spousal donors were transplanted preemptively. Donor groups had no relationship with graft or patient survival. Parental donors were associated with an increased relative odds of acute rejection (odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.53, P=0.009) and a lower eGFR at both 1 and 3 years (coefficient -2.99 and -5.68, respectively; P<0.0001) compared to other donor groups (reference sibling donor group). CONCLUSIONS: This study has established that donor-recipient relatedness in both related and unrelated living kidney transplantation had no significant effect on graft and patient survival. Parental donors were associated with a higher relative risk of rejection and lower eGFR in the transplant recipients, although these findings did not translate to a worse graft outcome.     

The evolution of kidney transplantation over the last 20 years

Kidney transplantation is an efficient treatment of end stage renal disease, decreasing patient mortality by comparison with mortality in dialysis and improving patient quality of life. The number of patients living in France with a functioning transplant is almost as high as the number of patients on dialysis (33,000 versus 37,500 in 2009). The constant progress in immunosuppressive treatments has made graft survival improve. According to the "Agence de biomédecine", the national institution in charge of transplantation regulation and management, overall graft survival is 68% at 10 years but 80% for living donor transplantation. Transplantation indications have been extended with time to more difficult patients: retransplanted patients and elderly patients, to the point that age per se is no more a contraindication to transplantation. Increase in transplant activity has followed increase in kidney harvesting in marginal donors, called "extended criteria donors": older, hypertensive, having atherosclerotic pathologies. Kidney from these donors are attributed to recipients of similar age. With organ shortage, new sources of donors are proposed, non heart beating donors and living donors. Living donor transplantation is the best transplantation with the best results but it is insufficiently developed in France (8-10% of the total annual number of renal transplantations versus 30-50% in the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries). Extension of the definition of the living donor through the successive revisions of the Law of Bioethics should hopefully improved this situation.     

供体骨髓细胞输注诱导大鼠肢体移植免疫耐受

目的 探讨环磷酰胺(CP)加供体脾细胞输注联合供体骨髓细胞(DBMC)输注诱导大鼠肢体移植免疫耐受的效果及机制.方法选择25只雄性Wistar大鼠、25只雌性SD大鼠分别作为肢体移植的供体和受体.实验分为五组:A组:无处理对照组,B组:受体在肢体移植前给予供体脾细胞输注预处理;C组:受体在肢体移植前给予CP预处理,D组:受体在肢体移植前给予供体脾细胞输注加CP预处理,E组:受体在肢体移植前给予供体脾细胞输注联合DBMC输注加CP预处理,每组5只.建立肢体移植动物模型,诱导耐受后观察大鼠一般情况,移植肢体排斥反应出现时间及存活时间,通过混合淋巴细胞培养确定耐受状态,采用PCR检测嵌合体的形成.结果 E组肢体移植物的存活时间[(27.6±1.1)d]较A组[(6.8±0.4)d]、B组[(7.2±0.8)d]、C组[(7.8±1.3)d]、D组[(17.8±0.8)d]显著延长,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01).混合淋巴细胞反应E组特异性抑制率[(88.00±1.06)%]显著高于B组[(36.90±1.08)%]、C组[(37.90±0.95)%]和D组[(67.20±1.12)%],差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01).E组嵌合体呈阳性.结论联合CP加供体脾细胞输注及DBMC输注可一定程度诱导大鼠同种异体肢体移植的免疫耐受,延长移植物存活时间.嵌合体的形成可能与免疫耐受的形成及维持有关.     

The older living kidney donor: Part of the solution to the organ shortage

BACKGROUND: Strategies to increase kidney transplantation are urgently needed. METHODS: We studied all (n = 73,073) first kidney-only transplant recipients in the United States between 1995 and 2003 to determine the incidence and outcomes of living donor transplantation as a function of donor age. Because 90% of living donors were <55 years, we defined older living donors as > or =55 years. Factors associated with transplantation from older living donors and the association of living donor age with allograft function and survival were determined. RESULTS: Recipients of older age, female gender, white race, and preemptive transplants had higher odds of older living donor transplantation. Older living donor transplantation was more likely from spousal donors rather than blood relatives, and more likely when a husband was the donor. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) one year after transplantation decreased with increasing donor age (P < 0.001). Graft survival from living donors > or =55 years was 85% and 76% at three and five years (compared to 89% and 82% with living donors <55 years, and 82% and 73% with deceased donors <55 years). In a multivariate model, the risk of graft loss with living donors 55-64 years was similar to that with deceased donors <55 years, while recipients from living donors 65-69 years (HR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7) and >70 years (HR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.6) had a higher relative risk of graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes are excellent with living donors <65 years. Expanded use of older living donors may help meet the demand for transplantation.     

Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living unrelated donors remain an underutilized resource, despite their high graft survival rates. In this article, we updated the long-term results of more than 2500 living unrelated donor transplants performed in the United States. METHODS: Between 1987 and 1998, 1765 spouse, 986 living unrelated, 27,535 living related, and 86,953 cadaver donor grafts were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Registry. Kaplan-Meier curves compared graft survival rates in stratified analyses, and a log-linear analysis adjusted donor-specific outcomes for the effects of 24 other transplant factors. RESULTS: The long-term survival rates for both spouse and living unrelated transplants were essentially the same (5-year graft survivals of 75 and 72% and half-lives of 14 and 13 years, respectively). The results were similar to that for parent donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 74% and half-life = 12 years) and were significantly (P = 0.003) better than cadaver donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 62% and half-life = 9 years). After adjusting for the presence of transplant factors known to influence survival rates, recipients of living unrelated donor kidney transplants still had superior outcomes compared with cadaver transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Living unrelated kidney donors represent the fastest growing donor source in the United States and provide excellent long-term results. Encouraging spouses to donate could remove nearly 15% of the patients from the UNOS waiting list, effectively increasing the number of available cadaveric organs.     

Long term results of living donor kidney transplantation: graft and patient survival

Donor kidney transplantation's graft and patient survivals are better than cadaver donor's. In Spain, living donor kidney transplantation hardly accounts for 1% of transplant activity in comparison to 60% in United States. Accordingly to bibliography, the experience of the Renal Transplant Unit of the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona has demonstrated better graft and receptor survival for living donor recipients. The analysis of 184 living donor kidney transplants and 1678 cadaver donor transplants performed between 1978 and 2002 showed that graft survival was higher in the group of living donors (p < 0.01). At the same time, graft survival was clearly better in receptors of HLA haploidentical grafts (n=142) (p < 0.05). The introduction of new and better immunosuppressive drugs, as well as better diagnostic and therapeutic management of acute rejection, prophylaxis for infections, and control of complications have contributed to better results. The absence of acute rejection between 1978 and 1983 was 45.1%, between 1984 and 1998 was 57.3% and 84.7% between 1999 and 2003. In conclusion, these results demonstrate better graft and patient survival for living donor kidney transplants in comparison with cadaver donor receptors. Altogether with the low risk involved for donors should incentivate authorities, professionals, and patients to promote these therapeutic option by means of adequate information and wider diffusion. Living donor kidney transplantation should contribute together with cadaver kidney transplantation to lessen our long waiting lists, because they are not excluding options.     

Kidney transplantation using living donors over age 65

Efforts to increase the donor pool of available organs have resulted in some unconventional kidney transplantation procedures. One of these is the use of elderly donors for both living and cadaver kidney transplantations. The aim of this study was to review our experience with kidney transplants from living elderly donors. During a period of 10 years, 70 living renal transplantations were performed. In 32 transplants the age of the donor was above 65 years (mean 69 +/- 4 years, range: 65 to 81 years) and in 10 of these 32 transplants the age of the donor was over 70 years. The survival rate was compared with that of 38 transplants from younger donors (mean age 51 +/- 6 years, range: 24 to 59 years). The time to cold and warm ischemia, the preservation procedure and time to anastomosis of blood vessels were comparable in both groups of donors. Immunosuppression included a sequential quadruple protocol, using thymoglobulin (ATG), prednisolone (PRED), azathioprin (AZA) and cyclosporin A (CsA), which replaced ATG/PRED after day seven. A triple drug maintenance therapy (AZA, PRED, CsA) was used in all recipients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves at 1, 3 and 5 years showed that graft survival was 88%, 79% and 64% respectively for grafts from the advanced age donor group and 92%, 82% and 68% respectively for grafts from the younger donor group. The difference was slightly statistically significant (p < 0.05). Functioning of the graft was delayed in six patients who had received grafts from elderly donors and in one patient who had received a graft from a young donor. Despite worse results in transplantation with grafts from elderly donors, we consider this population as an important source of kidneys, which might help solve the present organ shortage, especially in our region.