BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve our transplant program's dead-donor kidney acceptance criteria, we compared 2 different consecutive time periods in our transplant program. Period I, in which the program used more-restrictive criteria in accepting dead-donor kidneys for our patients, and period II, when the program used less-restrictive criteria for the dead-donor kidneys that were accepted. The less-restrictive criteria resulted in an increase in the number of renal transplants performed. METHODS: A retrospective database analysis was performed of all organ-donor offers to a single kidney transplant program from July 1, 2004, to September 30, 2006 (period I = July 1, 2004, through July 10, 2005, and period II = July 11, 2005 through September 30, 2006). Kidney acceptance rates were compared between 2 consecutive time periods during which the program used different organ acceptance criteria. Data analysis included a comparison of donor characteristics, reason for organ refusal, creatinine clearance, and graft survival. Graft survival was obtained for both kidneys associated with each offer, even if 1 or both of the organs were transplanted at a different center. RESULTS: Donor age and kidney quality were the most common reasons for refusal during both transplant periods. The organ acceptance rate improved markedly during period II. There was a marked increase in the number of kidney transplants performed during a 12-month period when comparing the 2 periods: 16 transplants during period I versus 46 transplants during period II. Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 periods. Calculated creatinine clearance, which we used as a marker of organ quality, was statistically lower during period II. CONCLUSIONS: Increased acceptance rate was not associated with statistically significant decreased graft survival. Although an increase in delayed graft function was associated with broader acceptance criteria, this factor did not affect overall graft survival. By increasing our kidney acceptance rate, we were able to successfully transplant more patients.
BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve our transplant program's dead-donor kidney acceptance criteria, we compared 2 different consecutive time periods in our transplant program. Period I, in which the program used more-restrictive criteria in accepting dead-donor kidneys for our patients, and period II, when the program used less-restrictive criteria for the dead-donor kidneys that were accepted. The less-restrictive criteria resulted in an increase in the number of renal transplants performed. METHODS: A retrospective database analysis was performed of all organ-donor offers to a single kidney transplant program from July 1, 2004, to September 30, 2006 (period I = July 1, 2004, through July 10, 2005, and period II = July 11, 2005 through September 30, 2006). Kidney acceptance rates were compared between 2 consecutive time periods during which the program used different organ acceptance criteria. Data analysis included a comparison of donor characteristics, reason for organ refusal, creatinine clearance, and graft survival. Graft survival was obtained for both kidneys associated with each offer, even if 1 or both of the organs were transplanted at a different center. RESULTS:Donor age and kidney quality were the most common reasons for refusal during both transplant periods. The organ acceptance rate improved markedly during period II. There was a marked increase in the number of kidney transplants performed during a 12-month period when comparing the 2 periods: 16 transplants during period I versus 46 transplants during period II. Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 periods. Calculated creatinine clearance, which we used as a marker of organ quality, was statistically lower during period II. CONCLUSIONS: Increased acceptance rate was not associated with statistically significant decreased graft survival. Although an increase in delayed graft function was associated with broader acceptance criteria, this factor did not affect overall graft survival. By increasing our kidney acceptance rate, we were able to successfully transplant more patients.
Authors: F Friedersdorff; C Roller; G Klein; P Werthemann; H Cash; K Budde; T Slowinski; C Kempkensteffen; J Busch; T F Fuller; M Giessing Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 4.226