INTRODUCTION: Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), using extended criteria donor (ECD) grafts not suitable for single kidney transplantation (SKT), has been suggested to expand the kidney donor pool. Herein, we reviewed the long-term outcomes of DKT to assess its results versus a control group of 179 ECD SKTs. The allocation policy was based on a Remuzzi score obtained from a pretransplant biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed SKT in 179 (31.8%) and DKT in 41 (7.3%) of 563 cadaveric transplants from 2000 to 2008. Patients with DKT versus SKT showed mean recipient ages of 54 versus 51 years. We performed 17 ipsilateral and 24 bilateral DKT. The mean score was 2.78 for SKT and 4.3/4.6 for DKT. RESULTS: Delayed graft function requiring dialysis occurred in 23 (56.1%) DKT and 70 (39.1%) SKT recipients. Primary nonfunction was observed in 1 (2.4%) DKT and 7 (3.9%) SKT recipients respectively. One DKT patient underwent monolateral transplantectomy. In the DKT versus SKT group, patient survivals were 92% versus 95%, 89% versus 93%, and 89 versus 91% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P = .3). Graft survivals were 100% versus 94%, 95% versus 90%, and 89% versus 78% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P < .001). We observed a lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy (P = .01) and a higher incidence of surgical adverse events (P = .04) in DKT. CONCLUSIONS: ECD graft survival using DKT provided better results compared with SKT, despite the use of organs from higher-risk donors. At 5 years follow-up, DKT was a safe strategy to face the organ shortage. To optimize the use of available kidneys, the criteria for DKT require further refinement and standardization. Preimplantation evaluation must maximize transplant success and protect recipients from receiving organs at increased risk of premature failure. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), using extended criteria donor (ECD) grafts not suitable for single kidney transplantation (SKT), has been suggested to expand the kidney donor pool. Herein, we reviewed the long-term outcomes of DKT to assess its results versus a control group of 179 ECD SKTs. The allocation policy was based on a Remuzzi score obtained from a pretransplant biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed SKT in 179 (31.8%) and DKT in 41 (7.3%) of 563 cadaveric transplants from 2000 to 2008. Patients with DKT versus SKT showed mean recipient ages of 54 versus 51 years. We performed 17 ipsilateral and 24 bilateral DKT. The mean score was 2.78 for SKT and 4.3/4.6 for DKT. RESULTS: Delayed graft function requiring dialysis occurred in 23 (56.1%) DKT and 70 (39.1%) SKT recipients. Primary nonfunction was observed in 1 (2.4%) DKT and 7 (3.9%) SKT recipients respectively. One DKT patient underwent monolateral transplantectomy. In the DKT versus SKT group, patient survivals were 92% versus 95%, 89% versus 93%, and 89 versus 91% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P = .3). Graft survivals were 100% versus 94%, 95% versus 90%, and 89% versus 78% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P < .001). We observed a lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy (P = .01) and a higher incidence of surgical adverse events (P = .04) in DKT. CONCLUSIONS: ECD graft survival using DKT provided better results compared with SKT, despite the use of organs from higher-risk donors. At 5 years follow-up, DKT was a safe strategy to face the organ shortage. To optimize the use of available kidneys, the criteria for DKT require further refinement and standardization. Preimplantation evaluation must maximize transplant success and protect recipients from receiving organs at increased risk of premature failure. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Núria Montero; Dolores Redondo-Pachón; Marta Crespo; Julio Pascual Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Carlo Grifasi; Vincenzo D'Alessandro; Maria D'Armiento; Severo Campione; Alessandro Scotti; Luigi Pelosio; Andrea Renda Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Pasquale Ditonno; Cees van Kooten; Loreto Gesualdo; Giuseppe Grandaliano; Giuseppe Lucarelli Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.411