BACKGROUND: Living-donor kidney transplantation (KT) is encouraged for children with end-stage renal disease due to superior long-term graft survival compared with deceased-donor KT. Despite this, there has been a steady decrease in the use of living-donor KT for pediatric recipients. Due to their young age at transplantation, most pediatric recipients eventually require retransplantation, and the optimal order of donor type is not clear. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we analyzed first and second graft survival among 14,799 pediatric (<18 years old) recipients undergoing KT between 1987 and 2010. RESULTS: Living-donor grafts had longer survival compared with deceased-donor grafts, similarly among both first (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.84; P<0.001) and second (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; P<0.001) transplants. Living-donor second grafts had longer survival compared with deceased-donor second grafts, similarly after living-donor (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83; P<0.001) and deceased-donor (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95; P=0.02) first transplants. Cumulative graft life of two transplants was similar regardless of the order of deceased-donor and living-donor transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Deceased-donor KT in pediatric recipients followed by living-donor retransplantation does not negatively impact the living-donor graft survival advantage and provides similar cumulative graft life compared with living-donor KT followed by deceased-donor retransplantation. Clinical decision-making for pediatric patients with healthy, willing living donors should consider these findings in addition to the risk of sensitization, aging of the living donor, and deceased-donor waiting times.
BACKGROUND: Living-donor kidney transplantation (KT) is encouraged for children with end-stage renal disease due to superior long-term graft survival compared with deceased-donor KT. Despite this, there has been a steady decrease in the use of living-donor KT for pediatric recipients. Due to their young age at transplantation, most pediatric recipients eventually require retransplantation, and the optimal order of donor type is not clear. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we analyzed first and second graft survival among 14,799 pediatric (<18 years old) recipients undergoing KT between 1987 and 2010. RESULTS: Living-donor grafts had longer survival compared with deceased-donor grafts, similarly among both first (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.84; P<0.001) and second (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; P<0.001) transplants. Living-donor second grafts had longer survival compared with deceased-donor second grafts, similarly after living-donor (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83; P<0.001) and deceased-donor (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95; P=0.02) first transplants. Cumulative graft life of two transplants was similar regardless of the order of deceased-donor and living-donor transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Deceased-donor KT in pediatric recipients followed by living-donor retransplantation does not negatively impact the living-donor graft survival advantage and provides similar cumulative graft life compared with living-donor KT followed by deceased-donor retransplantation. Clinical decision-making for pediatric patients with healthy, willing living donors should consider these findings in addition to the risk of sensitization, aging of the living donor, and deceased-donor waiting times.
Authors: Kyle J Van Arendonk; Nathan T James; Brian J Boyarsky; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Babak J Orandi; John C Magee; Jodi M Smith; Paul M Colombani; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jonathan C Berger; Abimereki D Muzaale; Nathan James; Mohammed Hoque; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Robert A Montgomery; Allan B Massie; Erin C Hall; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kyle J Van Arendonk; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Neha A Deshpande; Nathan T James; Jodi M Smith; Robert A Montgomery; Paul M Colombani; Dorry L Segev Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Bethany J Foster; Mourad Dahhou; Xun Zhang; Robert W Platt; Susan M Samuel; James A Hanley Journal: Transplantation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Robert A Montgomery; Bonnie E Lonze; Karen E King; Edward S Kraus; Lauren M Kucirka; Jayme E Locke; Daniel S Warren; Christopher E Simpkins; Nabil N Dagher; Andrew L Singer; Andrea A Zachary; Dorry L Segev Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Robert A Montgomery; Lauren M Kucirka; Jonathan C Berger; Daniel S Warren; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jane C Tan; Elisa J Gordon; Mary Amanda Dew; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; Robert W Steiner; E Steve Woodle; Rebecca Hays; James R Rodrigue; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Elaine Ku; David V Glidden; Chi-yuan Hsu; Anthony A Portale; Barbara Grimes; Kirsten L Johansen Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kyle J Van Arendonk; Eric K H Chow; Nathan T James; Babak J Orandi; Trevor A Ellison; Jodi M Smith; Paul M Colombani; And Dorry L Segev Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Meera Gupta; Alexander Wood; Nandita Mitra; Susan L Furth; Peter L Abt; Matthew H Levine Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Syed Ali Husain; Kristen L King; Nina L Owen-Simon; Hilda E Fernandez; Lloyd E Ratner; Sumit Mohan Journal: Pediatr Transplant Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Anna M Adamusiak; Jelena Stojanovic; Olivia Shaw; Robert Vaughan; Neil J Sebire; Martin Drage; Nicos Kessaris; Stephen D Marks; Nizam Mamode Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.714