OBJECTIVES: There are conflicting reports in the literature regarding outcomes after kidney transplant for patients of black ethnicity. To investigate further, we compared outcomes for black versus white kidney transplant recipients in a single UK transplant center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1066 kidney transplant recipients (80 black patients, 986 white patients) within a single-center cohort (2007-2017) in the United Kingdom, with cumulative 4446 patient-year follow-up. Data were electronically extracted from the Department of Health Informatics database for every study recruit, with manual data linkage to the UK Transplant Registry (for graft survival, delayed graft function, and rejection data) and Office for National Statistics (for mortality data). Primary outcomes of interest were graft/patient survival. RESULTS: Black recipients have increased baseline risk profiles with longer wait times, difficulty in matching, worse HLA matching, more socioeconomic deprivation, and lower rates of living kidney donors. Postoperatively, black versus white recipients had increased risk for delayed graft function (34.3% vs 10.2%; P < .001), increased 1-year rejection (16.7% vs 7.3%; P = .012), higher 1-year creatinine levels (166 vs 138 mmol/L; P = .003), and longer posttransplant length of stay (14.5 vs 9.5 days; P = .020). Although black recipients did not have increased risk of death versus white recipients (10.0% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .486), they did have increased risk for death-censored graft loss (23.8% vs 11.1%; P = .002). However, in an adjusted Cox regression model, black ethnicity was not associated with increased risk for death-censored graft loss (hazard ratio of 1.209, 95% confidence interval, 0.660-2.216; P = .539). CONCLUSIONS: Black kidney transplant recipients in the United Kingdom have increased risk of adverse graft-related outcomes due to high-risk baseline variables rather than their black ethnicity per se.
OBJECTIVES: There are conflicting reports in the literature regarding outcomes after kidney transplant for patients of black ethnicity. To investigate further, we compared outcomes for black versus white kidney transplant recipients in a single UK transplant center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1066 kidney transplant recipients (80 black patients, 986 white patients) within a single-center cohort (2007-2017) in the United Kingdom, with cumulative 4446 patient-year follow-up. Data were electronically extracted from the Department of Health Informatics database for every study recruit, with manual data linkage to the UK Transplant Registry (for graft survival, delayed graft function, and rejection data) and Office for National Statistics (for mortality data). Primary outcomes of interest were graft/patient survival. RESULTS: Black recipients have increased baseline risk profiles with longer wait times, difficulty in matching, worse HLA matching, more socioeconomic deprivation, and lower rates of living kidney donors. Postoperatively, black versus white recipients had increased risk for delayed graft function (34.3% vs 10.2%; P < .001), increased 1-year rejection (16.7% vs 7.3%; P = .012), higher 1-year creatinine levels (166 vs 138 mmol/L; P = .003), and longer posttransplant length of stay (14.5 vs 9.5 days; P = .020). Although black recipients did not have increased risk of death versus white recipients (10.0% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .486), they did have increased risk for death-censored graft loss (23.8% vs 11.1%; P = .002). However, in an adjusted Cox regression model, black ethnicity was not associated with increased risk for death-censored graft loss (hazard ratio of 1.209, 95% confidence interval, 0.660-2.216; P = .539). CONCLUSIONS: Black kidney transplant recipients in the United Kingdom have increased risk of adverse graft-related outcomes due to high-risk baseline variables rather than their black ethnicity per se.
Authors: Rhys D R Evans; James H Lan; Matthew Kadatz; Sandeep Brar; Doris T Chang; Lachlan McMichael; Jagbir Gill; John S Gill Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Zhaodan Xin; Lijuan Wu; Juan Zhou; Jie Zhuang; Wu Peng; Turun Song; Tao Lin; Xiaojun Lu; Binwu Ying Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-11-12