Impact of live donor age (>or=50) on liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The question of whether donor age negatively impacts recipient outcome in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is rarely discussed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of older donor age (50 years or older) on recipient outcomes in adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: LDLT data were retrospectively evaluated from our 299 LDLT cases in 297 recipients, which were divided into 2 groups: a younger group (group Y, donor age<50, n=237) and an older group (Group O, donor age>or=50, n=62). Clinical parameters of both recipients and donors were comparable between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in patient survival or postoperative complications of either donors or recipients. In recipients, graft regeneration was significantly impaired in Group O. Graft function, including protein synthesis and cholestasis, was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although the regeneration capacity of aged grafts was impaired, the function of grafts from older donors was comparable to that of those from younger donors. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the groups.     

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.     

Inferior liver allograft survival from cadaveric donors >50 years of age?

The growing imbalance between the number of cadaveric organ donors and recipients has led to an increasing use of high-risk donors as an option to expand the donor pool. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience with the use of older liver (donor>50 yr of age) allografts. The medical records, postreperfusion biopsies and laboratory results were reviewed of the 393 patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation between 1986 and 1997. The outcome of the 61 patients who received older livers (OL) was compared to that of the other 332 recipients. Increasing use of OL was evident from 1992 onwards. Recipients of OL were older than recipients of younger livers (YL, p<0.001) and more commonly had underlying chronic viral hepatitis (CVH) or fulminant hepatic failure (p<0.05). Patient and allograft survival were only slightly less in recipients of OL versus YL (p=NS). Although postperfusion biopsies showed more damage in OL than YL allografts (p<0.05), this was not associated with increased primary graft failure. OL allografts can be transplanted with acceptable results into recipients without the concern of early allograft loss. SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This report of one centre's experience with 61 recipients of older donor liver allografts identifies recipient factors that may also have a negative impact on allograft outcome. These factors include a diagnosis of either CVH or fulminant hepatic failure at the time of transplantation. Postreperfusion biopsies of older donor allografts tend to show more damage, but this is not associated with primary non-function.     

Impact of Human T Cell Leukemia Virus Type 1 in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Human T cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV‐1) is an endemic retrovirus in southwestern Japan, which causes adult T cell leukemia (ATL) or HTLV‐1 associated myelopathy in a minority of carriers. Here, we investigated the impact of HTLV‐1 status in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Twenty‐six of 329 (7.9%) HTLV‐1 carriers underwent primary LDLT. One recipient negative for HTLV‐1 before LDLT received a graft from an HTLV‐1 positive donor. Eight donors were HTLV‐1 positive. Twenty‐seven recipients (13 male and 14 female; mean age 52.5 years) were reviewed retrospectively. ATL developed in four recipients who ultimately died. The intervals between LDLT and ATL development ranged from 181 to 1315 days. Of the four ATL recipients, two received grafts from HTLV‐1 positive donors and two from negative donors. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year HTLV‐1 carrier survival rates were 91.3%, 78.3% and 66.3%, respectively. Fulminant hepatic failure as a pretransplant diagnosis and a pretransplant MELD score ≥ 15 was identified as risk factors for ATL development in this study (p = 0.001 and p = 0.041, respectively). In conclusion, LDLT can be performed for HTLV‐1 positive recipients. However, when fulminant hepatic failure is diagnosed, LDLT should not be performed until further studies have revealed the mechanisms of ATL development.     

The elderly liver transplant recipient: a call for caution

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether liver transplantation is judicious in recipients older than 60 years of age. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The prevailing opinion among the transplant community remains that elderly recipients of liver allografts fare as well as their younger counterparts, but our results have in some cases been disappointing. This study was undertaken to review the results of liver transplants in the elderly in a large single-center setting. A secondary goal was to define, if possible, factors that could help the clinician in the prudent allocation of the donor liver. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained single-institution database of 1,446 consecutive liver transplant recipients was conducted. The 241 elderly patients (older than 60 years) were compared with their younger counterparts by preoperative laboratory values, illness severity, nutritional status, and donor age. Survival data were stratified and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Elderly patients with better-preserved hepatic synthetic function or with lower pretransplant serum bilirubin levels fared as well as younger patients. Elderly patients who had poor hepatic synthetic function or high bilirubin levels or who were admitted to the hospital had much lower survival rates than the sicker younger patients or the less-ill older patients. Recipient age 60 years or older, pretransplant hospital admission, and high bilirubin level were independent risk factors for poorer outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk elderly patients fare as well as younger patients after liver transplantation. However, unless results can be improved, high-risk patients older than 60 years should probably not undergo liver transplantation.     

Importance of Donor–Recipient Age Gradient to the Prediction of Graft Outcome After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Purpose

Advanced donor age is a well-known risk factor for poor graft function after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In addition, advanced recipient age has a significant impact because of the high prevalence of comorbidities. We investigated the relationship between donor–recipient age gradient (DRAG) and the posttransplant outcomes in LDLT.

Methods

We included 821 consecutive adult recipients who underwent LDLT from June 1997 to May 2011. According to the value of DRAG, they were divided into 2 groups: Negative years (the donor was younger than the recipient) and positive years (the donor was older than the recipient). These groups were further divided into subgroups (≤−21, −20 to −1, 0 to 20, and ≥21 years). We collected retrospectively patient characteristics, laboratory results, medical and surgical complications, and graft loss.

Results

The positive DRAG group had higher level of posttransplant alkaline phosphatase, but a lower incidence of biliary complications. The negative DRAG group, particularly DRAG ≤ −21 years was associated with the superior 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year graft survivals. Recipients with DRAG ≥ 21 showed persistently inferior graft survival during the observation period. In cases of young donors, transplants utilizing lower DRAG seen between young donors and older recipients showed more favorable graft survival than that of young-to-young transplants.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that DRAG and a fixed donor age limit could be significant factors to predict graft survival after LDLT. Patients should carefully consider the worse graft survival if the donor is older than the recipient by ≥20.     

Age-matching improves the results of renal transplantation with older donors

Whilst HLA matching is routine for renal transplantation, the possible benefits of matching donor and recipient age have not been previously examined. In this study we examined the simultaneous effect of donor to recipient age difference on the graft survival of 141 consecutive first cadaver transplant recipients treated by cyclosporin immunosuppression. Multivariate regression analysis, taking into account other variables of moderately matched recipients (i.e. dialysis time and type, donor/recipient sex, local/imported kidneys, recent sensitivity, total ischaemic time, preoperative transfusions), indicated that age-difference was the single most important variable (P less than 0.05). Individually there was no significant effect of recipient age, whilst older donors (aged greater than 50 years) were associated with significantly worse graft survival than those younger (P less than 0.01). When dealing with donors aged greater than or equal to 50 years the corresponding recipient 1-year graft was improved when the donor was no more than 5 years older than the transplant recipient. Donor age to recipient age difference is a potentially important selection criterion in renal transplantation.     

Comparison between psychosocial long-term outcomes of recipients and donors after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The purpose of this study was to examine psychosocial states of recipients and donors several years after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to find out the pre-transplant predictors of desirable post-transplant psychosocial states. The recipients and donors of adult-to-adult LDLT at Kyoto University Hospital, Japan, from November 2001 through July 2003 were interviewed and examined by means of questionnaires about anxiety, depression, and quality of life (QOL), and the participants were evaluated by the same test batteries sent by mail three to five yr after LDLT. Twenty-seven pairs of recipients and donors, 13 recipients, and three donors participated in this study. The recipients and the donors had a decline in social QOL. The main predictor of psychosocial states of the recipients was the length of wait for LDLT, and the predictors of the donors were family or support system availability and recipients' depressive states at LDLT. The donors who were spouses of the recipients had better QOL than other donors. It might be better to perform LDLT as soon as possible once LDLT has been judged to be necessary, and the relative who is on close terms with the recipient should be selected as donor.     

Optimal use of older donors and recipients in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: The aging donor and recipient population have led to new challenges in kidney transplantation. The purpose of this study was to review retrospectively our single center experience in deceased-donor kidney transplantation, with respect to donor and recipient age. METHODS: From October 1, 2001, through February 20, 2004, we performed 144 deceased-donor kidney transplantations, which included 37 procedures (26%) in recipients > or =60 years old and 107 procedures (74%) in recipients 19 to 59 years old. The deceased-donor pool included 57 expanded criteria donors (ECD) and 87 standard criteria donors (defined as not ECD). ECD kidneys were used by matching estimated renal functional mass to recipient size (body mass index, <25 kg/m(2)), which included the use of dual kidney transplantations (n = 9). ECD kidney recipients were further selected on the basis of age >40 years and low immunologic risk. Recipients received rabbit antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. RESULTS: The mean age differed between recipient groups (65 vs 46 years; P < .001). In recipients > or =60 years old, 23 recipients (62%) received kidney transplants from ECDs compared with 34 kidney transplants from ECDs (32%; P < .001) in recipients who were <60 years old. Patient survival was 89% in recipients who were > or =60 years old, compared with 95% in recipients who were <60 years old (P = .11), with a mean follow-up time of 27 months. Kidney graft survival rates were 84% in both recipient groups. Initial and subsequent graft function, rejection, infection, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and resource use were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: By the matching of nephron mass with recipient size and avoiding the use of ECD kidneys in recipients with a high immunologic risk, short-term outcomes that are comparable with standard criteria donor kidneys in younger patients can be achieved with either older donors or recipients, regardless of age.     

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.     

Laparoscopic kidney donation from patients older than 60 years

BACKGROUND: The current study seeks to determine if the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy holds true when performed in patients older than 60 years of age. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records of 42 renal donors older than 60 years were reviewed compared with younger controls carefully matched for gender, race, nephrectomy side, auxiliary recipient procedures, and date of surgery. RESULTS: Preoperative baseline serum creatinine was identical in both groups (0.9 +/- 0.2 mg/dL) although controls had a slightly higher (NS) creatinine clearance (106.9 +/- 19.1 versus 100.0 +/- 35.5 mL/m). Operatively, there was no substantial difference between groups in operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, number or size of ports used, and length of incision needed for removal of kidney. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were also equivalent between old and young donors. Postnephrectomy serum creatinine was identical. There was no increased length of hospitalization for older donors and they tended to require less morphine sulfate patient-controlled anesthesia. Recipient renal function was slightly better in the younger kidneys early and the difference became statistically significant at 6 to 12 months, but the magnitude of the improvement is not clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be performed safely in patients older than 60 years of age. There was no increase in complication rates or length of hospital stay. Older donors did not have a greater increase in serum creatinine after donation compared with donors younger than 40 years of age, nor did recipients of these older kidneys have clinically significantly higher serum creatinine than recipients of kidneys from donors less than 40 years old.     

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.     

Comprehensive cost comparison of adult-adult right hepatic lobe living-donor liver transplantation with cadaveric transplantation

BACKGROUND: An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care must be included in a cost analysis for LDLT. In this study, we compare the comprehensive cost of LDLT with that of cadaveric-liver transplantation. METHODS: All costs for medical services provided at our institution were recorded for 24 LDLT and 43 cadaveric recipients with greater than 1 year follow-up transplanted between August 1997 and April 2000. The donor costs include donors evaluated and rejected, donors evaluated and accepted, donor right hepatectomy costs, and donor follow-up costs (365 days postdonation). LDLT and cadaveric recipient costs include medical care 90 days pre-LDLT, recipient transplant costs, and recipient follow-up costs (365 days posttransplant) including retransplantation. Cost is expressed as an arbitrary cost unit (CU) that is a value between $500 to $1,500. RESULTS: Total LDLT costs (evaluations of rejected donors+evaluations of accepted donors+donor hepatectomy+donor follow-up care for 1 year+pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 162.7 CU. Total mean cadaveric transplant costs (pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant]+recipient transplantation [including organ acquisition cost]+recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 134.5 CU, (P =ns). CONCLUSIONS: The total comprehensive cost of LDLT is 21% higher than cadaveric transplantation, although this difference is not significant.     

Use of elderly donors (> 60 years) for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: As the demand for liver transplantation has become greater than the availability of donor livers, the criteria for donor selection or rejection are more important than ever before. In view of an increasing number of patients on the waiting list, some centres are expanding their donor pool by relaxing the criteria, such as by using organs from elderly (> 60 years) brainstem-dead donors. In this study, we reviewed our experience of using elderly brain-dead donor livers, investigating the potential prognostic factors of the donor, and analysing the influence of donor age on early graft function and graft survival. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 106 cadaveric donor liver transplantations in 98 patients. Seven patients (6.6%, 7 vs 106) received livers from donors older than 60 years. Pre-transplantation characteristics of donors and the outcome of recipients were evaluated. Donor prognostic factors were analysed using Cox univariate analysis and confirmed by a multivariate forward stepwise Cox model. Early graft function was compared between recipients of grafts from donors older and younger than 60 years. RESULTS: There were no primary non-functions or re-transplants in the group receiving elderly grafts. Early graft function was similar in patients with grafts from elderly and younger donors. Univariate analysis demonstrated that prognostic factors had no relationship with long-term recipient survival. The 3-month and 1-year cumulative graft survival rates were 100% and 82% in the elderly graft group and 84% and 83% in the younger graft group, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test indicated that there was no difference in graft and patient survival rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Old age is not a contraindication for liver donation. Liver grafts from donors older than 60 years can be used safely.     

Elderly donor kidney grafts into young recipients: results at 5 years

BACKGROUND: To date, few data are available on older donor renal grafts transplanted into young recipients. We compare 63 kidneys grafts from donors older than 60 years transplanted into recipients younger than 60 years (group 1) with a control group of 235 patients in whom both recipients and donors were younger than 60 years (group 2). RESULTS: Patient survival rates at 1 and 5 years, respectively, were 98% and 95% (group 1) and 95% and 84% (group 2) (P=0.01). Graft survival rates were 95% and 83% in group 1 versus 94% and 81% in group 2, although death censoring was significant (100% and 98% group 1 vs. 96% and 86% group 2, P=0.04). In group 1, plasmatic creatinemia was significantly higher. The aged donor, female donor-male recipient combination, and the presence of acute rejection alone or together with acute tubular necrosis, were determinants for worse renal functioning at 1 year after transplantation. Seven patients had chronic nephropathy not related to any clinical parameter. CONCLUSION: We conclude that kidneys from older donors can be successfully transplanted to younger patients.     

The use of left grafts with a replaced or accessory left hepatic artery in adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation: analyses of donor and recipient outcomes

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), a left hepatic graft occasionally includes a replaced or accessory left hepatic artery (LHA). The procuring of such grafts requires extensive dissection along the lesser curvature of the stomach to elongate the replaced or accessory LHA on the donor side. On the recipient side, complicated arterial reconstruction is often necessary to use such grafts. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 206 adult recipients who underwent LDLT and their respective donors. The recipients and donors were divided into two groups according to the presence of the replaced or accessory LHA. Twenty‐five grafts included a replaced or accessory LHA. Only one hepatic artery‐related complication was observed in the current series, in which a pseudoaneurysm arose at the site of anastomosis between the donor accessory LHA and the recipient LHA. There was no increase in the incidence of postoperative complications in the donors with a replaced or accessory LHA in comparison with the donors without these arteries. The use of left hepatic grafts that included a replaced LHA or accessory LHA did not have any negative impact on the outcomes on either the donor or the recipient side.     

The changing profile of the cardiac donor.

BACKGROUND: Expansion of traditional donor criteria has become standard in most centers. To determine how this has affected donor profiles, at our institution, we reviewed all adult (age > or = 16) cardiac donors of the past 15 years. METHODS: We separated 261 cardiac donors into 2 groups based on time periods: Group I, 1983 to 1991 (n = 131), and Group II, 1991 to 1998 (n = 130). RESULTS: The groups differed significantly in mean donor age (26.2 years vs 30.9; p < 0.001), percent older than 40 years (6% vs 27%; p < 0.001), percent female (23% vs 35%; p = 0.04), percent distant procurement (54% vs 22%; p < 0.001), and percent minority donors (14% vs 29%; p < 0.001). We found an increase in non-traumatic deaths (24% vs 40%; p = 0.008). Older donors had significantly more non-traumatic deaths than younger donors (79% vs 13%; p < 0.001). Overall 5-year survival of recipients was 64% and was not significantly different between our early and late experiences (60% vs 68%; p = not significant [NS]). Recipients with hearts from older donors had a 5-year survival similar to recipients with younger donor hearts (61% vs 64%; p = NS). Traumatic and non-traumatic donors had similar 5-year survivals (64% vs 63%, p = NS). A stepwise multivariate analysis of the entire cohort identified donor age, donor weight, recipient United Network for Organ Sharing status, and cardiopulmonary bypass time as significant independent risk factors for recipient survival. Recipients of hearts from donors < 90 kg had significantly better 5-year survivals than recipients from donors > or = 90 kg (66% vs 48%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our evolving cardiac donor pool now has more minorities, women, and older donors whose deaths are often non-traumatic. At our institution, donor pool expansion has had no adverse effect on the long-term survival of recipients.     

Lung transplantation with lungs from donors fifty years of age and older

BACKGROUND: A shortage of donors has led to the progressive expansion of criteria for donor selection in lung transplantation. The outcome of recipients of lungs from donors aged 50 years or older is analyzed systematically. METHODS: From March 1998 to June 2003, 49 recipients received lungs from donors aged 50 years or older (range 50-64 years, mean 54 +/- 3 years). This group of recipients was compared with 244 patients receiving lungs from donors aged less than 50 years (range 7-49 years, mean 32 +/- 11 years). This study was undertaken on all 293 patients at our institution who received Perfadex-preserved lungs (Vitrolife, Goteborg, Sweden). RESULTS: Recipient age, sex, and indications for transplant did not differ significantly between groups. Also, the percentage of the different types of transplants (bilateral or single lung transplantation) performed was equal in both cohorts. Donor Pa(O2) /F(IO2) ratios before lung retrieval (415 +/- 91 vs 439 +/- 113, respectively) and length of ischemic time (347 +/- 67 minutes vs 351 +/- 84 minutes, respectively) did not differ significantly between the older and younger donor groups. The following posttransplant parameters were also not statistically different: first Pa(O2)/F(IO2) at intensive care unit arrival (274 +/- 125 in the older donor group vs 253 +/- 119 in the younger donor group, respectively), mechanical ventilation time (328 +/- 427 hours vs 269 +/- 425 hours, respectively), and length of stay in the intensive care unit (16 +/- 18 days vs 14 +/- 18 days, respectively). Recipient survival in the older and younger donor groups at 30 days, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months was 77% +/- 6%, 75% +/- 6%, 73% +/- 7%, 73% +/- 7%, 68% +/- 5%, and 68% +/- 4% versus 86% +/- 2%, 83% +/- 3%, 80% +/- 3%, 78% +/- 3%, 71% +/- 4%, and 66% +/- 4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lung grafts from elderly donors have been considered as marginal organs for transplantation. However, this study indicates that transplantation of lungs from carefully selected donors aged 50 years or more may lead to similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with lungs from younger donors. The use of lungs from elderly donors may help to increase the number of donor organs in lung transplantation.     

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.