Maggie K M Ma1, Wai H Lim2, Jonathan C Craig3, Graeme R Russ4, Jeremy R Chapman5, Germaine Wong6. 1. Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong; Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, New South Wales, Australia; 2. Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine University of Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 3. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and. 4. Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Central and Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and. 6. Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, New South Wales, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and germaine.wong@health.nsw.gov.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quality and age of donor organs are known to have a major effect on patient and graft outcomes, but it is uncertain whether this association is uniform for all recipients. We aimed to determine whether the use of expanded criteria deceased donor (ECD) kidneys for transplantation compared with standard criteria deceased donor (SCD) kidneys has a different association with survival in younger (age <60 years old) compared with older (age ≥60 years old) recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (1997-2009), we compared the risk of all-cause mortality and death with functioning graft among younger and older recipients who had received either an SCD or an ECD kidney using the adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: In total, 3822 patients were transplanted between 1997 and 2009. Over a follow-up period of 21,249 person-years (a median duration of 5.3 years [interquartile range, 2.22-8.6 years]), 567 recipients (n=385 for those age <60 years old; n=182 for those age ≥60 years old) died. Recipient age was an effect modifier between donor types, all-cause mortality, and death with functioning graft (P values for interaction were 0.05 and 0.04, respectively). In younger recipients, there was an excess risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.23 to 1.97) and death with functioning graft (adjusted HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.29) after transplantation with ECD kidneys compared with SCD kidneys, but there was no statistically significant association among older recipients (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.54 and adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.89, respectively). This excess risk was largely caused by death from cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was an excess risk of all-cause mortality and death with functioning graft when younger recipients were transplanted with ECD kidneys compared with SCD kidneys. These findings suggest that caution is needed in allocating ECD kidneys to younger recipients.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quality and age of donor organs are known to have a major effect on patient and graft outcomes, but it is uncertain whether this association is uniform for all recipients. We aimed to determine whether the use of expanded criteria deceased donor (ECD) kidneys for transplantation compared with standard criteria deceased donor (SCD) kidneys has a different association with survival in younger (age <60 years old) compared with older (age ≥60 years old) recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (1997-2009), we compared the risk of all-cause mortality and death with functioning graft among younger and older recipients who had received either an SCD or an ECD kidney using the adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: In total, 3822 patients were transplanted between 1997 and 2009. Over a follow-up period of 21,249 person-years (a median duration of 5.3 years [interquartile range, 2.22-8.6 years]), 567 recipients (n=385 for those age <60 years old; n=182 for those age ≥60 years old) died. Recipient age was an effect modifier between donor types, all-cause mortality, and death with functioning graft (P values for interaction were 0.05 and 0.04, respectively). In younger recipients, there was an excess risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.23 to 1.97) and death with functioning graft (adjusted HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.29) after transplantation with ECD kidneys compared with SCD kidneys, but there was no statistically significant association among older recipients (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.54 and adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.89, respectively). This excess risk was largely caused by death from cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was an excess risk of all-cause mortality and death with functioning graft when younger recipients were transplanted with ECD kidneys compared with SCD kidneys. These findings suggest that caution is needed in allocating ECD kidneys to younger recipients.
Authors: Robert A Metzger; Francis L Delmonico; Sandy Feng; Friedrich K Port; James J Wynn; Robert M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Yousef Al-Shraideh; Umar Farooq; Alan C Farney; Amudha Palanisamy; Jeffrey Rogers; Giuseppe Orlando; Michael R Buckley; Amber Reeves-Daniel; William Doares; Scott Kaczmorski; Michael D Gautreaux; Samy S Iskandar; Gloria Hairston; Elizabeth Brim; Margaret Mangus; Robert J Stratta Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Akinlolu O Ojo; Julie A Hanson; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche; Chike N Okechukwu; Robert A Wolfe; Alan B Leichtman; Lawrence Y Agodoa; Bruce Kaplan; Friedrich K Port Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Friedrich K Port; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; Robert A Metzger; Dawn M Dykstra; Brenda W Gillespie; Eric W Young; Francis L Delmonico; James J Wynn; Robert M Merion; Robert A Wolfe; Philip J Held Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jacqueline M A Smits; Guido G Persijn; Hans C van Houwelingen; Frans H J Claas; Ulrich Frei Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ajay K Israni; Nicholas Salkowski; Sally Gustafson; Jon J Snyder; John J Friedewald; Richard N Formica; Xinyue Wang; Eugene Shteyn; Wida Cherikh; Darren Stewart; Ciara J Samana; Adrine Chung; Allyson Hart; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Núria Montero; Dolores Redondo-Pachón; Marta Crespo; Julio Pascual Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Nicholas G Larkins; Germaine Wong; David W Johnson; Carmel Hawley; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Henry Pleass; Helen Pilmore; Wai H Lim Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: L Leonie van Leeuwen; Nora A Spraakman; Aukje Brat; Honglei Huang; Adam M Thorne; Sarah Bonham; Bas W M van Balkom; Rutger J Ploeg; Benedikt M Kessler; Henri G D Leuvenink Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Julius Weiss; Andreas Elmer; Markus Béchir; Christian Brunner; Philippe Eckert; Susann Endermann; Renato Lenherr; Mathias Nebiker; Kai Tisljar; Christoph Haberthür; Franz F Immer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.655