Miklos Z Molnar1, Danh V Nguyen, Yanjun Chen, Vanessa Ravel, Elani Streja, Mahesh Krishnan, Csaba P Kovesdy, Rajnish Mehrotra, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh. 1. 1 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN. 2 Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA. 3 Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA. 4 Division of Nephrology, Irvine School of Medicine, University of California, Orange, CA. 5 DaVita, Inc., Denver, CO. 6 Nephrology Section, Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, TN. 7 Kidney Research Institute and Harborview Medical Center, Division of Nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most current scoring tools to predict allograft and patient survival upon kidney transplantion are based on variables collected posttransplantation. We developed a novel score to predict posttransplant outcomes using pretransplant information including routine laboratory data available before or at the time of transplantation. METHODS: Linking the 5-year patient data of a large dialysis organization to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 15 125 hemodialysis patients who underwent first deceased transplantion. Prediction models were developed using Cox models for (a) mortality, (b) allograft loss (death censored), and (c) combined death or transplant failure. The cohort was randomly divided into a two thirds set (Nd = 10 083) for model development and a one third set (Nv = 5042) for validation. Model predictive discrimination was assessed using the index of concordance, or C statistic, which accounts for censoring in time-to-event models (a-c). We used the bootstrap method to assess model overfitting and calibration using the development dataset. RESULTS: Patients were 50 ± 13 years of age and included 39% women, 15% African Americans, and 36% persons with diabetes. For prediction of posttransplant mortality and graft loss, 10 predictors were used (recipients' age, cause and length of end-stage renal disease, hemoglobin, albumin, selected comorbidities, race and type of insurance as well as donor age, diabetes status, extended criterion donor kidney, and number of HLA mismatches). The new model (www.TransplantScore.com) showed the overall best discrimination (C-statistics, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.67-0.73 for mortality; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66 for graft failure; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66 for combined outcome). CONCLUSIONS: The new prediction tool, using data available before the time of transplantation, predicts relevant clinical outcomes and may perform better to predict patients' graft survival than currently used tools.
BACKGROUND: Most current scoring tools to predict allograft and patient survival upon kidney transplantion are based on variables collected posttransplantation. We developed a novel score to predict posttransplant outcomes using pretransplant information including routine laboratory data available before or at the time of transplantation. METHODS: Linking the 5-year patient data of a large dialysis organization to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 15 125 hemodialysis patients who underwent first deceased transplantion. Prediction models were developed using Cox models for (a) mortality, (b) allograft loss (death censored), and (c) combined death or transplant failure. The cohort was randomly divided into a two thirds set (Nd = 10 083) for model development and a one third set (Nv = 5042) for validation. Model predictive discrimination was assessed using the index of concordance, or C statistic, which accounts for censoring in time-to-event models (a-c). We used the bootstrap method to assess model overfitting and calibration using the development dataset. RESULTS:Patients were 50 ± 13 years of age and included 39% women, 15% African Americans, and 36% persons with diabetes. For prediction of posttransplant mortality and graft loss, 10 predictors were used (recipients' age, cause and length of end-stage renal disease, hemoglobin, albumin, selected comorbidities, race and type of insurance as well as donor age, diabetes status, extended criterion donor kidney, and number of HLA mismatches). The new model (www.TransplantScore.com) showed the overall best discrimination (C-statistics, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.67-0.73 for mortality; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66 for graft failure; 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66 for combined outcome). CONCLUSIONS: The new prediction tool, using data available before the time of transplantation, predicts relevant clinical outcomes and may perform better to predict patients' graft survival than currently used tools.
Authors: Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Elani Streja; Csaba P Kovesdy; Antigone Oreopoulos; Nazanin Noori; Jennie Jing; Allen R Nissenson; Mahesh Krishnan; Joel D Kopple; Rajnish Mehrotra; Stefan D Anker Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Rachel E Patzer; Mohua Basu; Christian P Larsen; Stephen O Pastan; Sumit Mohan; Michael Patzer; Michael Konomos; William M McClellan; Janice Lea; David Howard; Jennifer Gander; Kimberly Jacob Arriola Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.939
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: P S Almond; A Matas; K Gillingham; D L Dunn; W D Payne; P Gores; R Gruessner; J S Najarian Journal: Transplantation Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Miklos Z Molnar; Philipp Kümpers; Jan T Kielstein; Mario Schiffer; Maria E Czira; Akos Ujszaszi; Csaba P Kovesdy; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Jong Cheol Jeong; Tai Yeon Koo; Han Ro; Dong Ryeol Lee; Dong Won Lee; Jieun Oh; Jayoun Kim; Dong-Wan Chae; Young Hoon Kim; Kyu Ha Huh; Jae Berm Park; Yeong Hoon Kim; Seungyeup Han; Soo Jin Na Choi; Sik Lee; Sang-Il Min; Jongwon Ha; Myoung Soo Kim; Curie Ahn; Jaeseok Yang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Agnieszka Szymańska; Krzysztof Mucha; Maciej Kosieradzki; Sławomir Nazarewski; Leszek Pączek; Bartosz Foroncewicz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Atit A Dharia; Michael Huang; Michelle M Nash; Niki Dacouris; Jeffrey S Zaltzman; G V Ramesh Prasad Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Sameera Senanayake; Sanjeewa Kularatna; Helen Healy; Nicholas Graves; Keshwar Baboolal; Matthew P Sypek; Adrian Barnett Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.615