Living donors >55 years: to use or not to use?

Should kidney allografts from old donors be allocated only to old recipients?

In several deceased donor kidney allocation systems, organs from elderly donors are allocated primarily to elderly recipients. The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) was implemented in 1999, and since then, especially in Europe, the use of organs from elderly donors has steadily increased. The proportion of ≥60-year-old donors reported to the Collaborative Transplant Study (CTS) by European centers has doubled, from 21% in 2000-2001 to 42% in 2016-2017. Therefore, in the era of organ shortage it is a matter of debate whether kidney organs from elderly donors should only be allocated to elderly recipients or whether <65-year-old recipients can also benefit from these generally as "marginal" categorized organs. To discuss this issue, a European Consensus Meeting was organized by the CTS on April 12, 2018, in Heidelberg, in which 36 experts participated. Based on available evidence, it was unanimously concluded that kidney organs from 65- to 74-year-old donors can also be allocated to 55- to 64-year-old recipients, especially if these organs are from donors with no history of hypertension, no increased creatinine, no cerebrovascular death, and no other reasons for defining a marginal donor, such as diabetes or cancer.

Ways to Overcome Organ Shortage: Increasing Donor Pool by Accepting Suboptimal Kidney Donors

Many factors affect organ donations worldwide, including religious factors, legislative decisions, economic factors, presence of organ procurement organizations, cultural issues, the presence of commercial transplant, and other unknown factors. The number of patients with end-stage renal disease has increased by 6% worldwide. Even with more transplant procedures, these numbers have not combated the dramatically increased number of patients on wait lists. With regard to potential living donors, around 50% are either blood group or HLA incompatible with the recipient, which then requires patient desensitization or paired kidney donation or a combination of both. Survival rates of kidney donors and the general population are almost the same 35 to 40 years after donation. Although the renal consequences of diabetes after kidney donation are almost the same as that shown in the general population, other risk factors should be considered, such as hypertension, proteinuria, and low glomerular filtration rate, before donation. It is so far unknown whether donors with impaired glucose tolerance can safely donate. With diabetes, what was considered normal blood sugar in 1960 to 1990 is now considered frank diabetes. What was considered normal blood pressure is now considered hypertension. Because individuals with these parameters were accepted as organ donors in the past and have been shown to maintain good health, it is worth considering the safe use of organs from donors with early diabetes and hypertension. Whereas young donors may have not reached the age at which hypertension, diabetes, and other kidney diseases develop, older donors have the lowest likelihood of developing end-stage renal disease after donation. As a general approach, young donors can be accepted if they have high glomerular filtration rate, but young donors from certain ethnic minorities and/or extensive family history of chronic kidney disease and those less than 18 years old should not be considered.

Acceptability of older adults as living kidney donors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Kidney transplantation from a living kidney donor (LKD) is associated with better long-term survival and quality of life for a patient with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) than dialysis. We reviewed recent literature on the acceptability and outcomes of older adults as LKDs, which may be misunderstood in routine care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies report that receiving a kidney from an older LKD is associated with worse recipient and graft survival compared with receiving a kidney from a younger LKD, but similar recipient and graft survival to receiving a kidney from a standard criteria deceased donor. A kidney from a younger vs. older LKD results in better graft survival in younger recipients, whereas the graft survival is similar in older recipients. Compared with healthy matched nondonors, older LKDs have a similar risk of death and cardiovascular disease and the absolute risk of ESRD after 15 years remains less than 1%. The estimated predonation and postdonation lifetime risk of ESRD varies by age, sex and race with lower incidences in individuals who are older, female and white (vs. African-American).

SUMMARY

Donor and recipient outcomes from several studies support the acceptability of older adults as LKDs.

Is an 87-Year-Old Grandfather Too Marginal for Being a Kidney Donor? The View of Anesthesiologists

Living kidney donation has been accepted increasingly as a result of growth in the number of end-stage renal disease patients awaiting organ. In this aspect using grafts from marginal donors such as with advanced age is increasing in worldwide practice and also in Turkey. Therefore, anesthetic management of donors is particularly important. We herein report the anesthetic management of an 87-year-old grandfather donating his kidney to her granddaughter and review the current anesthetic strategies in a geriatric patient.

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Transplant surgery is facing a shortage of deceased donor organs. In response, the criteria for organ donation have been extended, and an increasing number of organs from older donors are being used. For recipients, the benefits of transplantation are great, and the growing ageing population has led to increasing numbers of elderly patients being accepted for transplantation.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed to investigate the impact of age of donors and recipients in abdominal organ transplantation, and to highlight aspects of the fine balance in donor and recipient selection and screening, as well as allocation policies fair to young and old alike.

RESULTS

Overall, kidney and liver transplantation from older deceased donors have good outcomes, but are not as good as those from younger donors. Careful donor selection based on risk indices, and potentially biomarkers, special allocation schemes to match elderly donors with elderly recipients, and vigorous recipient selection, allows good outcomes with increasing age of both donors and recipients. The results of live kidney donation have been excellent for donor and recipient, and there is a trend towards inclusion of older donors. Future strategies, including personalized immunosuppression for older recipients as well as machine preservation and reconditioning of donor organs, are promising ways to improve the outcome of transplantation between older donors and older recipients.

CONCLUSION

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly is a clinical reality. Outcomes are good, but can be optimized by using strategies that modify donor risk factors and recipient co-morbidities, and personalized approaches to organ allocation and immunosuppression.

Risk factors for perioperative complications in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Living donor kidney transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage renal disease; however, the shortage of kidney donors remains a big problem. One of the major reasons for the shortage of living donors is the risk of potentially serious surgical complications of a procedure in which the donor has no personal medical benefit. Therefore it is important to understand the risk factors for perioperative complications associated with donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the preferred approach for kidney procurement in many medical centers. This review gives an overview of the risk factors in donor nephrectomy and more specifically in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Does donor-recipient age difference matter in outcome of kidney transplantation? Implications for kidney paired donation

BACKGROUND

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a rapidly growing modality for facilitating living donor kidney transplantation (LDKTx) for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing and living donor. The impact of donor-recipient age difference on long and short-term graft and patient survivals in LDKTx is still uncertain.

METHODS

A total of 1502 LDKTx recipients who received regular follow-up in our center from 1999 to 2012 were studied. Donor-recipient age difference was divided into subgroups (donor-recipient 0-10, 11-20, 0-20, 21-30, 31-40, and 21-40 years). Outcome measures included death censored graft, patient survival and acute rejection rate.

RESULTS

The 1-, 5-, 10-year patient survival of the donor-recipient age difference ≤20 years group showed no difference compared with the age difference >20 years group (94.5%, 83.2%, 71.9% and 95.2%, 86%, 77.8%, p = 0.053). The 1-, 5-, 10-year graft survival of the donor-recipient age difference ≤20 years group showed no difference compared with the age difference >20 years group (94.6%, 81.6%, 72.1% and 94%, 80%, 72.2%, p = 0.989). The rejection were also similar (17.5% vs. 16.5%, p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in graft survival and acute rejection rate in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Older donors (usually within families) are not associated with worse outcome is reassuring. KPD should not be prohibited due to high donor-recipient age difference, when size of donor pool is small as in single center KPD program.

Renal transplantation from elderly living donors

Acceptance of elderly living kidney donors remains controversial due to the higher incidence of comorbidity and greater risk of postoperative complications. This is a review of publications in the English language between 2000 and 2013 about renal transplantation from elderly living donors to determine trends and effects of donation, and the outcomes of such transplantation. The last decade witnessed a 50% increase in living kidney donor transplants, with a disproportionate increase in donors >60 years. There is no accelerated loss of kidney function following donation, and the incidence of established renal failure (ERF) and hypertension among donors is similar to that of the general population. The overall incidence of ERF in living donors is about 0.134 per 1000 years. Elderly donors require rigorous assessment and should have a predicted glomerular filtration rate of at least 37.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the age of 80. Though elderly donors had lower glomerular filtration rate before donation, proportionate decline after donation was similar in both young and elderly groups. The risks of delayed graft function, acute rejection, and graft failure in transplants from living donors >65 years are significantly higher than transplants from younger donors. A multicentred, long-term, and prospective database addressing the outcomes of kidneys from elderly living donors is recommended.

Evaluation of the medically complex living kidney donor

Due to organ shortage and difficulties for availability of cadaveric donors, living donor transplantation is an important choice for having allograft. Live donor surgery is elective and easier to organize prior to starting dialysis thereby permitting preemptive transplantation as compared to cadaveric transplantation. Because of superior results with living kidney transplantation, efforts including the usage of “Medically complex living donors” are made to increase the availability of organs for donation. The term “Complex living donor” is probably preferred for all suboptimal donors where decision-making is a problem due to lack of sound medical data or consensus guidelines. Donors with advanced age, obesity, asymptomatic microhematuria, proteinuria, hypertension, renal stone disease, history of malignancy and with chronic viral infections consist of this complex living donors. This medical complex living donors requires careful evaluation for future renal risk. In this review we would like to present the major issues in the evaluation process of medically complex living kidney donor.

Controversies related to living kidney donors

Background

Increasing the living-donor pool by accepting donors with an isolated medical abnormality (IMA) can significantly decrease the huge gap between limited supply and rising demand for organs. There is a wide range of variation among different centres in dealing with these categories of donors. We reviewed studies discussing living kidney donors with IMA, including greater age, obesity, hypertension, microscopic haematuria and nephrolithiasis, to highlight the effect of these abnormalities on both donor and recipient sides from medical and surgical perspectives.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, ISI Science Citation Index expanded, and Google scholar, from the inception of each source to January 2011, using the terms ‘kidney transplant’, ‘renal’, ‘graft’, ‘living donor’, ‘old’, ‘obesity’, ‘nephrolithiasis’, ‘haematuria’ and ‘hypertension’. In all, 58 studies were found to be relevant and were reviewed comprehensively.

Results

Most of the reviewed studies confirmed the safety of using elderly, moderately obese and well-controlled hypertensive donors. Also, under specific circumstances, donors with nephrolithiasis can be accepted. However, persistent microscopic haematuria should be considered seriously and renal biopsy is indicated to exclude underlying renal disease.

Conclusion

Extensive examination and cautious selection with tailored immunosuppressive protocols for these groups can provide a satisfactory short- and medium-term outcome. Highly motivated elderly, obese, controlled hypertensive and the donor with a unilateral small stone (<1.5 cm, with normal metabolic evaluation) could be accepted. Donors with dysmorphic and persistent haematuria should not be accepted. A close follow-up after donation is crucial, especially for obese donors who developed microalbuminuria.

Consideration of donor age and human leukocyte antigen matching in the setting of multiple potential living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Defining living donor (LD)-related risk factors affecting kidney transplant outcome will allow better donor selection and more educated informed consent when there is more than one potential donor. We studied risk factors in a large cohort at a single institution.

METHODS

We reviewed 1632 recipients who underwent LD kidney transplantation at the University of Minnesota between January 1, 1990, and October 1, 2009. Using Cox regression, we studied the effect of donor and recipient risk factors on patient and graft survival. We specifically examined the effect of donor age and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching because these are variables that may help clinical decision making when multiple potential donors exist.

RESULTS

Mean donor age was 40.6 years for all transplants; 180 (11%) donors were 55 years or older, and 24 (1.5%) donors were older than 65 years. Mean number of HLA mismatches (per transplant) was 2.9 (29.2% of recipients had one to two HLA mismatches, 39.8% had three to four HLA mismatches, and 25% had five to six HLA mismatches). Donor age more than 65 years, five to six HLA mismatches, delayed graft function, and acute rejection were independent predictors of decreased patient and graft survival. When controlling for recipient age, donor age more than 65 years remained a risk factor for worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that advanced donor age (>65 years) and degree of HLA mismatch (≥5) are independent donor-related risk factors associated with worse outcome. When multiple potential LDs exist, it may be ideal to attempt to use a donor younger than 65 years and with less than five HLA mismatches.

Living donor age and kidney transplant outcomes

We assessed the relationship between living donor (LD) age and kidney survival in 1063 adults transplanted between 1980 and 2007. Increasing LD age was associated with lower kidney function (GFR) before and after transplantation and loss of GFR beyond 1 year. Increasing LD age was also associated with low-moderate proteinuria posttransplant (151-1500 mg/day, p < 0.0001). By univariate analysis, reduced graft survival related to lower GFR at 1 year [HR = 0.925 (0.906-0.944), p < 0.0001], proteinuria [HR = 1.481 (1.333-1.646), p < 0.0001] and increasing LD age [HR = 1.271 (1.219-1.326), p = 0.001]. The impact of LD age on graft survival was noted particularly >4 years posttransplant and was modified by recipient age. Thus, compared to a kidney graft that was within 5 years of the recipient age, younger kidneys had a survival advantage [HR = 0.600 (0.380-0.949), p = 0.029] while older kidneys had a survival disadvantage [HR = 2.217 (1.507-3.261), p < 0.0001]. However, this effect was seen only in recipients <50 years old. By multivariate analysis, the relationship between LD age and graft survival was independent of GFR but related to proteinuria. In conclusion, LD age is an important determinant of long-term graft survival, particularly in younger recipients. Older kidneys with reduced survival are identifiable by the development of proteinuria posttransplant.

Living kidney donors: impact of age on long-term safety

The safety of older live kidney donors, especially the decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) after donation, has been debated. In this study we evaluated long-term renal outcome in older live kidney donors. From 1994 to 2006 follow-up data of 539 consecutive live kidney donations were prospectively collected, during yearly visits to the outpatient clinic. Donors were categorized into two groups, based on age: < 60 (n = 422) and ≥ 60 (n = 117). Elderly had lower GFR predonation (80 vs. 96 mL/min respectively, p < 0.001). During median follow-up of 5.5 years, maximum decline in eGFR was 38% ± 9% and the percentage maximum decline was not different in both groups. On long-term follow-up, significantly more elderly had an eGFR < 60 mL/min (131 (80%) vs. 94 (31%), p < 0.001). However, renal function was stable and no eGFR of less than 30 mL/min was seen. In multivariate analysis higher body mass index (HR 1.09, 95%CI 1.03-1.14) and more HLA mismatches (HR 1.17, 95%CI 1.03-1.34) were significantly correlated with worse graft survival. Donor age did not influence graft survival. After kidney donation decline in eGFR is similar in younger and older donors. As kidney function does not progressively decline, live kidney donation by elderly is considered safe.

Clinical analysis of living related renal transplantation with donors older than 50 years in China

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether kidney grafts from living related donors older than 50 years were safe for the donors and recipients in the long term.

METHODS

One hundred seven living related donor kidney transplantations were performed in our center from April 1994 to December 2007. No prisoners or organs from prisoners were used in the collection of these data. Donors were divided into 2 groups: >50 years of age (range, 51-78 years), designated as the study group, and ≤50 years of age (range, 21-50 years), designated as the control groups. The mean time of follow-up was 49 months (range, 12-180 months). Clinical data were compared, including donor serum creatinine (Scr) levels, glomerular filtration rates (GFR) before and after the procedures operative complications, and postoperative short-term and long-term recovery of renal function in recipients as well as their complications and recipient and kidney survivals.

RESULTS

All operations were successfully performed. Before the operation, the mean Scr and GFR were 82.16 ± 10.86 umol/L and 85.82 ± 6.26 mL/min, respectively, in the study group versus 78.66 ± 10.41 umol/L and 88.74 ± 9.44 mL/min, respectively, in the control group. There were no significant differences in mean Scr or GFR values between the groups at various preoperative or postoperative times (P > .05). No severe perioperative complications occurred, and no subsequent renal function failure was observed upon long-term follow-up of donors in the 2 groups. Comparisons of recipient age, gender ratio, duration on dialysis, HLA matches, cold/warm ischemia times, and immunosuppression therapy showed a correlations between the 2 groups. Mean Scr levels of recipients, which were compared from 1 week to 3 years following surgery, were slightly higher among the control than the study group, but the difference was not significant (P > .05). There were no significant differences between the study and control groups in 1-,3-,5-, and 8-year recipient/graft survival rates (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term follow-up showed that transplantations using grafts from donors older than 50 years of age yielded similar results to those with younger donors.

Predonation quality of life and early postdonation safety of older living renal donors in China

BACKGROUND

Studies on the safety of older living renal donors are lacking in China.

METHODS

We observed 142 consecutive living renal donors before and early after (7 days) the operation. There were no prisoners used as donors or recipients. Subjects were divided into 2 groups: older than 50 years of age (n = 40) or younger age (n = 102). We compared differences in early safety between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 8 aspects of the predonation quality of life using the SF-36 questionnaire, except for physical function (P < .001). Zero hour biopsies performed on 52 kidneys showed 15 to display abnormal renal tissues (28.85%), which was significantly greater among the older age group (P = .034). The perioperative indexes were similar between the 2 groups; however, the hospital stay was longer in the older group (P = .034). Compared with the younger group, the older group generally showed a lower creatinine clearance (CCr; P < .001), higher cystatin c (P = .006), and similar serum creatinine (Scr) preoperatively, conditions that persisted at 7 days postoperatively. Although the increased Scr and reduced CCr were present in all donors, the changes in Scr and CCr were similar between the 2 groups. Differences in urinary micro-albumin and proteinuria before and after operation were not significantly different for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased use of older living kidney donors in China may be a safe strategy to meet the demand for transplantation. However, long-term outcomes need further follow-up.

A comprehensive risk quantification score for deceased donor kidneys: the kidney donor risk index

BACKGROUND

We propose a continuous kidney donor risk index (KDRI) for deceased donor kidneys, combining donor and transplant variables to quantify graft failure risk.

METHODS

By using national data from 1995 to 2005, we analyzed 69,440 first-time, kidney-only, deceased donor adult transplants. Cox regression was used to model the risk of death or graft loss, based on donor and transplant factors, adjusting for recipient factors. The proposed KDRI includes 14 donor and transplant factors, each found to be independently associated with graft failure or death: donor age, race, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, serum creatinine, cerebrovascular cause of death, height, weight, donation after cardiac death, hepatitis C virus status, human leukocyte antigen-B and DR mismatch, cold ischemia time, and double or en bloc transplant. The KDRI reflects the rate of graft failure relative to that of a healthy 40-year-old donor.

RESULTS

Transplants of kidneys in the highest KDRI quintile (>1.45) had an adjusted 5-year graft survival of 63%, compared with 82% and 79% in the two lowest KDRI quintiles (<0.79 and 0.79-<0.96, respectively). There is a considerable overlap in the KDRI distribution by expanded and nonexpanded criteria donor classification.

CONCLUSIONS

The graded impact of KDRI on graft outcome makes it a useful decision-making tool at the time of the deceased donor kidney offer.

The relationship of donor source and age on short- and long-term allograft survival in pediatric renal transplantation

Limited pediatric data on allograft survival from advanced aged kidney donors exist. To determine the influence of donor source and age on allograft survival in pediatric renal transplant recipients, we analyzed the OPTN database. Allograft survival for 7291 pediatric renal transplants was evaluated. Up to five yr post-transplantation, graft survival was higher for LD vs. DD recipients. At seven yr, allograft survival was 71% in 18-54 yr-old LD recipients, 59.1% in >or=55 yr-old LD, and 45.1% in >or=50 yr-old DD recipients. An approximate 35% improvement in allograft survival in 18-54 yr-old LD recipients was observed. Multivariate results showed that recipients of LD 35-49 (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.80) and LD 50-54 (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.94) have a graft survival advantage over the ideal DD. In LD >or=55 yr, no improvement in graft survival was observed when compared with the 18-34 yr-old DD. In summary, we observed in a pediatric population, <55 yr-old LD kidneys afford improved long-term allograft survival when compared with DD kidney recipients. Increasing awareness of the long-term graft survival advantage for children receiving an LD kidney, even from older donors, should be a priority.

Changes in pediatric renal transplantation after implementation of the revised deceased donor kidney allocation policy

In October 2005, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented a revised allocation policy requiring that renal allografts from young deceased donors (DDs) (<35 years old) be offered preferentially to pediatric patients (<18 years old). In this study, we compare the pre- and postpolicy quarterly pediatric transplant statistics from 2000 to 2008. The mean number of pediatric renal transplants with young DDs increased after policy implementation from 62.8 to 133 per quarter (p < 0.001), reflecting a change in the proportion of all transplants from young DDs during the study period from 0.33 to 0.63 (p < 0.001). The mean number of pediatric renal transplants from old DDs (> or =35 years old) decreased from 22.4 to 2.6 per quarter (p < 0.001). The proportion of all pediatric renal transplants from living donors decreased from 0.55 to 0.35 (p < 0.001). The proportion from young DDs with five or six mismatched human leukocyte antigen (HLA) loci increased from 0.16 to 0.36 (p < 0.001) while those with 0 to 4 HLA mismatches increased from 0.18 to 0.27 (p < 0.001). Revision of UNOS policy has increased the number of pediatric renal transplants with allografts from young DDs, while increasing HLA-mismatched allografts and decreasing the number from living donors.

Can mTOR inhibitors reduce the risk of late kidney allograft failure?

The most frequent causes of late kidney allograft failure are chronic rejection, nonalloimmune injury and death, all of which may depend on the characteristics of the donor and recipient, but may also be influenced by the type of immunosuppression. Combining calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) and corticosteroids offers potent immunosuppression, but may also cause side effects leading to progressive graft dysfunction or an increased risk of death. New immunosuppressive strategies may come from the availability of inhibitors of mTOR, a downstream effector of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase that provides the signal for cell proliferation by phosphorylating a cascade of kinases. Recent trials have shown that it is possible to minimize the dose or withdraw CNIs a few weeks after transplantation when they are combined with mTOR inhibitors and their combination may also make it possible to minimize or avoid the use of corticosteroids. Moreover, by inhibiting the signal for cell proliferation, mTOR inhibitors may reduce the replication of cytomegalovirus inside host cells, prevent transplant vasculopathy, and exert anti-oncogenic activity. All of these characteristics offer a ray of hope for reducing the risk of long-term allograft failure.

Marginal kidney donor

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for a medically eligible patient with end stage renal disease. The number of renal transplants has increased rapidly over the last two decades. However, the demand for organs has increased even more. This disparity between the availability of organs and waitlisted patients for transplants has forced many transplant centers across the world to use marginal kidneys and donors. We performed a Medline search to establish the current status of marginal kidney donors in the world. Transplant programs using marginal deceased renal grafts is well established. The focus is now on efforts to improve their results. Utilization of non-heart-beating donors is still in a plateau phase and comprises a minor percentage of deceased donations. The main concern is primary non-function of the renal graft apart from legal and ethical issues. Transplants with living donors outnumbered cadaveric transplants at many centers in the last decade. There has been an increased use of marginal living kidney donors with some acceptable medical risks. Our primary concern is the safety of the living donor. There is not enough scientific data available to quantify the risks involved for such donation. The definition of marginal living donor is still not clear and there are no uniform recommendations. The decision must be tailored to each donor who in turn should be actively involved at all levels of the decision-making process. In the current circumstances, our responsibility is very crucial in making decisions for either accepting or rejecting a marginal living donor.

High-risk constellation in living renal transplantation

There is only limited information about recipient risk factors for graft survival in living- donor kidney transplantation. This study aimed to investigate prognostic factors and their impact on living-related and unrelated renal transplant recipients. From October 2000 until October 2004, 81 adult living-related renal transplantations were performed at our institution. Using multivariate analysis, the association of the following variables with kidney graft outcome was studied: ages of donors and recipients, gender and body mass index, cold and warm ischemia, HLA mismatches, identity and compatibility of blood group, duration of dialysis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) status, recipient original disease, surgical and general complications, and status of retransplantation. Multivariate analysis revealed significant reduction of graft function and graft survival in recipients with retransplantation, more than 4 mismatches, and a high body mass index. Thus, living-donor kidney transplantation can be regarded as a safe and standardized operation relating to surgical technique, but further consideration of the recipient body mass index and the number of mismatches are recommended during the preparation for transplantation.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: The Effects of Donor Age and Gender on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The influence of donor age and sex on acute rejection episodes and short- and long-term graft survival in living donor (LD) kidney transplantation has not been well characterized.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study includes 739 first time LD transplantations with median follow-up time of 55.1 months. Death censored graft survival according to donor age and sex was compared with Kaplan-Meier plots. Cox regression was performed to estimate the association between different risk factors and graft survival and acute rejection episodes.

RESULTS

Graft survival was not affected by donor age above 50 years as long as these recipients did not experience an early acute rejection episode. Acute rejection episodes increased in recipients of grafts from donors > or =65 years (P=0.009). Donor age > or =65, recipient age less than 50 years, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR matching, and female donor gender were risk factors for early acute rejection episodes. In multivariate analysis donor age > or =65 years was a risk factor for graft loss in all time periods after transplantation. During the first 5 years after transplantation a steroid resistant rejection episode was an additional risk factor. More than 5 years after transplantation male donor gender was the only additional risk factor for graft loss.

CONCLUSION

These results support the continued use of older male and female living donors who meet carefully constructed medical criteria and who are highly motivated to donate. Furthermore, donor age seems to be a more important predictor of graft loss than donor sex.

Donor age intensifies the early immune response after transplantation

Increasing donor age is associated with reduced graft function. We wondered if donor age may not only affect intrinsic function but also alter the immune response of the recipient. Kidneys from young and old F-344 rats (3 vs 18 months) were transplanted into bilaterally nephrectomized young Lewis recipients and compared with age-matched controls (follow-up: 6 months). Renal function and structural changes were assessed serially in both native kidneys and allografts. Host alloreactivity, graft-infiltrating cells, and their inflammatory products were determined at intervals to examine the correlation of immune response and donor age. Functional and structural deterioration had advanced significantly in older allografts compared with age-matched native controls, whereas differences between young allografts and native controls of similar age were only minor. Changes in grafts from elderly rats were associated with a more intense host immune response early post-transplant (up to 1 month) reflected by significantly higher numbers of peripheral T and B cells, increased T-cell alloreactivity and modified cytokine patterns associated with elevated frequencies of intragraft dendritic cells, B cells, and CD31+ cells. By 6 months, recipients of young donor grafts produced comparable or more intense alloantigen-specific immune responses. Older donor grafts elicit a stronger immune response in the early period after transplantation.

Living donor renal transplantation: recent developments and perspectives

Renal transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients of all ages with end-stage renal disease. Life expectancy of the population in general is increasing consistently, as is the age of the dialysis population. Consequently, the average ages of kidney donors and recipients are rising. The combination of a growing number of patients with end-stage renal disease and a shortage of organs poses a significant challenge to the transplant community. Donor shortage is associated with unfavorable consequences (e.g. prolonged waiting time, and compromised graft and patient survival). As such, multidirectional efforts are required to expand the donor pool. Increasing the frequency of living donation seems to be an efficient solution. Living donation is associated with superior results for the recipient, and relatively benign long-term outcomes for donors. Reluctance to use organs from living donors whose eligibility was previously considered marginal (e.g. elderly donors) is declining. Although increased donor age is associated with reduced graft survival rates, this should not preclude use of older living donors; transplantation is definitely superior to remaining on dialysis. Thorough, standardized evaluation and careful screening for premorbid conditions in both elderly donors and elderly recipients are essential. Here, we present various options for expanding the living donor pool, with emphasis on the utilization of elderly living donors and transplantation in elderly recipients.

The Older Living Kidney Donor: Part of the Solution to the Organ Shortage

BACKGROUND

Strategies to increase kidney transplantation are urgently needed.

METHODS

We studied all (n = 73,073) first kidney-only transplant recipients in the United States between 1995 and 2003 to determine the incidence and outcomes of living donor transplantation as a function of donor age. Because 90% of living donors were <55 years, we defined older living donors as > or =55 years. Factors associated with transplantation from older living donors and the association of living donor age with allograft function and survival were determined.

RESULTS

Recipients of older age, female gender, white race, and preemptive transplants had higher odds of older living donor transplantation. Older living donor transplantation was more likely from spousal donors rather than blood relatives, and more likely when a husband was the donor. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) one year after transplantation decreased with increasing donor age (P < 0.001). Graft survival from living donors > or =55 years was 85% and 76% at three and five years (compared to 89% and 82% with living donors <55 years, and 82% and 73% with deceased donors <55 years). In a multivariate model, the risk of graft loss with living donors 55-64 years was similar to that with deceased donors <55 years, while recipients from living donors 65-69 years (HR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7) and >70 years (HR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.6) had a higher relative risk of graft loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes are excellent with living donors <65 years. Expanded use of older living donors may help meet the demand for transplantation.

Utilization of Elderly Donors in Living Related Kidney Transplantation

Kidney transplantation has become the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. However, its application is limited due to inadequate organ supply, mainly because many dialysis patients do not have suitable living donors. The increasing discrepancy between organ supply and demand has forced many transplant centers to consider using organs procured from marginal donors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether utilization of kidneys from living related elderly donors is safe for the recipients in the long term. We analyzed the clinical results of 296 consecutive recipients of living related renal transplants, among whom 44 recipients received kidneys from donors over 60 years of age. By the end of 12 months, the mean serum creatinine level of the recipients who were transplanted from the older donors was higher (1.55 +/- 0.45 mg/dL) than that from other donors (1.21 +/- 0.3 mg/dL), but the difference was not significant (P = .08). In the long term (60 months), the graft function was similar (1.88 +/- 0.55 vs 1.52 +/- 0.38) for both groups. The similarity in outcomes of ideal versus older donors as shown less in the present series has encouraged us to utilize elderly living donors. We concluded that transplantations performed from the elderly donors yielded similar results to those of conventional donors. The long waiting list for transplantation, the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease, should encourage us to be more flexible about donor selection.

Effect of donor age on the outcome of living-related kidney transplantation

The study compared the results of kidney transplantation from living-related donors older and younger than 60 years. The 273 kidney graft recipients were divided into group 1 (115 recipients of older grafts) and group 2 (158 recipients of younger grafts). The frequency of acute rejection (AR) episodes was similar in both groups but slow graft function occurred more frequently in group 1. The frequency of chronic renal allograft dysfunction in the first post-transplant year was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2. Patient and graft survival was significantly worse in group 1. Risk factors for graft loss were the difference between donor and recipient age and AR. Donor age and graft function were risk factors for patient death. Although kidneys from older donors provide a statistically poorer transplant outcome, they are clinically acceptable, especially when waiting time is prolonged and access to dialysis limited.

Determinants of graft survival in pediatric and adolescent live donor kidney transplant recipients: a single center experience

To study the independent determinants of graft survival among pediatric and adolescent live donor kidney transplant recipients. Between March 1976 and March 2004, 1600 live donor kidney transplants were carried out in our center. Of them 284 were 20 yr old or younger (mean age 13.1 yr, ranging from 5 to 20 yr). Evaluation of the possible variables that may affect graft survival were carried out using univariate and multivariate analyses. Studied factors included age, gender, relation between donor and recipient, original kidney disease, ABO blood group, pretransplant blood transfusion, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching, pretransplant dialysis, height standard deviation score (SDS), pretransplant hypertension, cold ischemia time, number of renal arteries, ureteral anastomosis, time to diuresis, time of transplantation, occurrence of acute tubular necrosis (ATN), primary and secondary immunosuppression, total dose of steroids in the first 3 months, development of acute rejection and post-transplant hypertension. Using univariate analysis, the significant predictors for graft survival were HLA matching, type of primary urinary recontinuity, time to diuresis, ATN, acute rejection and post-transplant hypertension. The multivariate analysis restricted the significance to acute rejection and post-transplant hypertension. The independent determinants of graft survival in live-donor pediatric and adolescent renal transplant recipients are acute rejection and post-transplant hypertension.

Experience with marginal living related kidney donors: Are they becoming routine or are there still any doubts?

OBJECTIVES

To analyze donor and recipient outcome of grafts from marginal kidney donors (ie, elderly or suffering from some anomaly).

METHODS

We had 81 marginal donors from July 1996 to July 2004; 46 were older than 60 years, and 39 had renal or nonrenal anomaly. The donors and recipients were evaluated for morbidity, graft and recipient survival, and the number of rejection episodes.

RESULTS

The mean (+/- standard deviation) age of elderly donors was 62.2 +/- 3.1 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 50 months (mean 21.15 +/- 0.9 months). Actuarial 1-year and 3-year graft survival rates were 95% and 81%, respectively. Twenty-six percent of recipients maintained serum creatinine levels less than 1.4 mg/dL. The mean age of hypertensive donors was 46.2 years, and blood pressure was controlled with one drug. Serum creatinine levels in the recipients were less than 1.4 mg/dL in 10 and less than 2.5 mg/dL in the rest. Eleven percent of hypertensive donors required an increase in their antihypertensive medication. All donors showed a 15% to 20% increase in their glomerular filtration rate. Donors underwent simultaneous surgery when indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria to reject donors need to be reviewed periodically. The elderly and donors with other anomalies are consistently showing acceptable results. Hypertensive donors require assessment with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Grandparent donors in paediatric renal transplantation

The outcome of transplantation from grandparent donors in comparison with parental donors in paediatric renal transplantation was evaluated in 53 living related donor (LRD) transplantations performed between January 1996 and August 2003. The donor in 13 cases (25%) was a grandparent (Gpar group), and the remaining donors formed the parent group (Par group). The median age of recipients in the Gpar group was 2.75 (1.7-10.6) years and in the Par group was 12.75 (2.4-22) years (P<0.0001). There was no evidence of a difference in patient and graft survival, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) after transplantation, or the number of biopsy proven episodes of rejection between the groups. Doses of prednisolone in the first year following transplantation were greater in recipients from Gpar donors, but the other immunosuppression doses were similar. The median age of donors in the Gpar group was 56 (50-67) years and in the Par group was 41 (27-58) years (P<0.0001). There was no evidence of a difference between the two donor groups in mean creatinine clearance at last follow-up. There were two major donor complications in the Gpar group and one in the Par group. There was no evidence that the length of stay differed between the two groups in either the donors or recipients. These results support the use of carefully selected healthy grandparents as LRDs in children. This option potentially allows for the use of parent donors for a subsequent transplantation.

Older living donors provide excellent quality kidneys: a single center experience (older living donors)

BACKGROUND

The role of advanced age live donors remains controversial because of decline in glomerular filtration rate and perceived increased risks of perioperative complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all live donor transplants performed from January 2000 to December 2003.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight live donor transplants were performed during the period of review, 47 (60.3%) female and 31 (39.7%) male. Twenty-two (28.2%) of the donors were >50 yr old, 15 (68%) female and seven (32%) male. Living related donation was performed in 56 (74.4%) and unrelated in 20 (35.6%). Laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in 29 (37.2%) and open nephrectomy in 49 (62.8%). More donors >50 underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy, 13 of 22 (59.1%) vs. 16 of 56 (28.6%). Overall patient and graft survival at 1 yr are 97 and 97%. One-year patient and graft survival is 100% vs. 96% and 100% vs. 96% in the older vs. young donors. Rejection occurred in nine of 78 (11.5%), but was not different between groups. Older donors had a reduced creatinine clearance 107.5 +/- 3.4 vs. 124.2 +/- 3.1 mL/min (p = 0.002) and a reduced clearance normalized for body surface area 60.6 +/- 3.6 mL/(min m2) vs. 70.2 +/- 2.6 mL/(min m2) (p = 0.045). Recipient serum creatinine was higher on postoperative day 1 in the older donor group 5.4 mg/dL vs. 4.4 mg/dL (p = 0.009). There was no difference in recipient serum creatinine at postoperative day 7, 30, 90, 180, 365 and 730. Donor serum creatinine was not different between groups on postoperative days 1, 7 and 30 but was higher in group 1 vs. group 2 on postoperative day 365, 1.26 +/- 0.26 mg/dL vs. 1.01 +/- 0.18 mg/dL (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a reduced initial creatinine clearance, renal function is comparable in recipients of both young and old donor kidneys. Older donors had a slightly reduced serum creatinine 1 yr post-donation that warrants additional follow-up to determine if the observations continue. The introduction of laparoscopic nephrectomy may provide additional incentive for older donors to present for live donor nephrectomy.

Risk factors on graft survival of living donor kidney transplantation

Living donors have always been the basic resources of transplantation in our country, where cadaveric harvesting is still hampered for various reasons.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare graft survival rates between living unrelated donor (LURD) and living related donor (LRD), to assess the potential risk factors for the graft survival, and to discuss the role of LURD.

METHOD

From October 1991 to February 2003, 77 living donor renal transplants were performed: 41 were LURD and 36 were LRD transplants. The analyzed variables were donor relationship, recipient age and sex, donor age and sex, HLA-DR mismatching, nonspecific blood transfusion history of donor, acute rejection episodes, repeated rejection episode (more than 3 times), delayed graft function, recurred primary disease, and immunosuppressive regimen. Graft survival rate was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and the significance of possible variables with the Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Eleven recipients lost their grafts (6 from LURD and 5 from LRD), most of them are due to chronic rejection (n = 7). Overall 3-, 5- and 10-year graft survival in live donors were 92.8%, 86.6%, and 76.9%, respectively. Graft survival at 3, 5, and 10 years being 91.9%, 88.5%, and 74.7% for the LURD versus 94%, 84%, and 78.8% for LRD transplants (P > .05). Acute rejection episodes, especially more than 3 times (risk ratio [RR] = 11.1) and preoperative multiple transfusion history (RR = 4.2) were significant factors on graft survival in our series.

CONCLUSION

Acute rejection episodes markedly decreased the long-term graft survival in live donor renal transplants. The use of LURD transplants provides graft survival comparable with LRD transplants and proper management to acute rejection is essential for long-term graft survival.

The Impact of Age on Rejection in Kidney Transplantation

The time to failure of a renal allograft is determined by the initial function achieved after transplantation, the number and severity of insults to the graft, and a number of tissue characteristics. The insults a graft usually encounters include ischaemia/reperfusion injury, acute rejection episodes, drug-related nephrotoxicity, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia. Important tissue characteristics include susceptibility to injury and the ability of the tissue to repair damage. Elderly transplant recipients are considered poor immune responders but if a single acute rejection episode occurs this is more likely to significantly shorten graft and patient survival in this age group. Two issues have been identified with the use of old (>50 years of age) donor kidneys. First, compared with kidneys from younger donors, they have an increased incidence of acute interstitial rejection. Secondly, once a rejection episode occurs, the ability to mount a tissue repair process seems impaired. An explanation for the increased loss of grafts from old donors that have experienced acute rejection episodes is that such kidneys have fewer nephrons that function adequately and that the cumulated effect of damage results in an earlier demise of the graft compared with younger donor kidneys. Alternatively, graft parenchymal cells may undergo premature senescence or aging as a result of multiple injuries and repair. If progressive loss of renal mass or senescence is the mechanism responsible for increased graft loss, then it is expected that grafts from older donors will show a progressive decrease in function over time and that the rate of decline of function will correlate with donor age. We have suggested that increased graft loss of older donor kidneys results from increased incidence of acute rejection episodes in the early post-transplantation months together with a partly impaired ability to repair the tissue. Drug pharmacokinetic parameters are generally little influenced by age. However, the degree to which drugs suppress the immune system, and the extent to which kidneys from older donors are susceptible to the nephrotoxic effects of certain drugs, are unpredictable. There appears to be a more delicate balance between adequate immunosuppression and excess nonimmune toxicity in patients receiving older kidneys. Outcome parameters in elderly renal transplant recipients are currently dominated by increased death from infectious disease and drug-related (cardiovascular) causes. Increased susceptibility to nephrotoxic drugs, and to calcineurin inhibitors in particular, may be related to the increased risk of allograft failure experienced by the elderly as a surrogate for chronic allograft nephropathy.

Early graft function after living donor kidney transplantation predicts rejection but not outcomes

Poor early graft function (EGF) after deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) has been intensely studied. Much less is known about poor EGF after living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Data were collected on 469 LDKTs performed between 1/1/97 and 12/31/01 to determine risk factors for and outcomes associated with poor EGF, defined as either delayed or slow graft function (DGF or SGF). The incidence of DGF and SGF were 4.7% and 10.7%, respectively. Diabetic etiology (OR 2.22; p = 0.021) and warm ischemia time (WIT) (OR 1.05 per min increment; p = 0.0025) emerged as independently associated with poor EGF. Neither functional graft survival nor 1-year graft function differed among the EGF groups. However, DGF and SGF strongly predisposed to acute rejection (AR), which compromised functional graft survival (p = 0.0007) and 1-year graft function. Therefore, we conclude that diabetic etiology of renal disease and WIT are the dominant risk factors for poor EGF after LDKT. Poor EGF did not directly compromise functional graft survival but strongly predisposed to AR. We suggest that immunosuppression should be intensified in the poor EGF setting to maximize LDKT longevity, as AR does impair functional graft survival.

Evaluation and selection of potential live kidney donors

PURPOSE

Renal transplantation is an optimal therapy for patients with end stage kidney disease. A thorough evaluation of potential donors is necessary to provide the best functional outcome for recipients and ensure no or minimal morbidity for donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1992 and 2001, 1661 ABO compatible potential living donors were evaluated clinically as well as by laboratory and imaging studies.

RESULTS

Of 1661 potential donors 814 (49%) were excluded. The reasons for elimination were general medical reasons in 34.4% of cases, nephrological disorders in 25.6%, urological diseases in 11.7% and immunological causes in 16.2%. Exclusion on an ethical basis accounted for 12.2% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although kidneys from living donors provide the best functional outcome, 50% of potential candidates must be excluded.

The superior results of living-donor renal transplantation are not completely caused by selection or short cold ischemia time: a single-center, multivariate analysis

BACKGROUND

The results of living-donor (LD) renal transplantations are better than those of postmortem-donor (PMD) transplantations. To investigate whether this can be explained by a more favorable patient selection procedure in the LD population, we performed a Cox proportional hazards analysis including variables with a known influence on graft survival.

METHODS

All patients who underwent transplantations between January 1981 and July 2000 were included in the analysis (n=1,124, 2.6% missing values). There were 243 LD transplantations (including 30 unrelated) and 881 PMD transplantations. The other variables included were the following: donor and recipient age and gender, recipient original disease, race, current smoking habit, cardiovascular disease, body weight, peak and current panel reactive antibody, number of preceding transplants and type and duration of renal replacement therapy, and time since failure of native kidneys. In addition, the number of human leukocyte antigen identical combinations, first and second warm and cold ischemia periods, left or right kidney and fossa, donor kidney anatomy, donor serum creatinine and proteinuria, and transplantation year were included.

RESULTS

In a multivariate model, donor origin (PMD vs. LD) significantly influenced the graft failure risk censored for death independently of any of the other risk factors (P=0.0303, relative risk=1.75). There was no time interaction. When the variable cold ischemia time was excluded in the same model, the significance of the influence of donor origin on the graft failure risk increased considerably, whereas the magnitude of the influence was comparable (P=0.0004, relative risk=1.92). The influence of all other variables on the graft failure risk was unaffected when the cold ischemia period was excluded. The exclusion of none of the other variables resulted in a comparable effect. Donor origin did not influence the death risk.

CONCLUSION

The superior results of LD versus PMD transplantations can be partly explained by the dichotomy in the cold ischemia period in these populations (selection). However, after adjustment for cold ischemia periods, the influence of donor origin still remained significant, independent of any of the variables introduced. This superiority is possibly caused by factors inherent to the transplanted organ itself, for example, the absence of brain death and cardiovascular instability of the donor before nephrectomy.

Chronic allograft nephropathy uniformly affects recipients of cadaveric, nonidentical living-related, and living-unrelated grafts

BACKGROUND

Chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) remains a major barrier to long-term allograft survival. The authors retrospectively compared the development of CAN in recipients of cadaveric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (LURD) transplants at their center.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined the impact of various factors on the incidence of CAN using univariate and multivariate proportional hazards analysis in a single-center kidney transplant population.

RESULTS

Between 1 January 1990 and 31 May 2000, 2,140 kidney-alone transplants were performed at the authors' center. The overall 5-year incidence of biopsy-proven CAN was 12.2% (n=203). Risk factors for CAN included the number of transplants (P=0.0001), acute rejection (P=0.0001), panel reactive antibody (P=0.0001), discharge creatinine (P=0.0001), 1-year creatinine (P=0.0015), delayed graft function (P=0.007), total human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B and -DR mismatches (P=0.0005), recipient age (P=0.003), black donor race (P=0.001), black recipient race (0.0457), donor age (P=0.0053), cold storage time (P=0.019), and cytomegalovirus infections (P=0.002). Interestingly, although the LRD HLA-identical recipients had a significantly lower incidence of CAN (P=0.0015), the incidence of CAN in CAD and HLA-nonidentical LRD recipients did not differ. Graft survival was significantly worse in CAD recipients compared with all other groups (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the importance of immunologic and nonimmunologic factors on the development of CAN. The disparities in overall graft survival, despite the similarities in CAN rates, suggests that other factors, in addition to CAN, influence the increase in graft loss in CAD transplant recipients.

Ischemia times and donor serum creatinine in relation to renal graft failure

BACKGROUND

The results of renal transplantation are dependent on many variables. To simplify the decision process related to a kidney offer, the authors wondered which variables had the most important influence on the graft failure risk.

METHODS

All transplant patients (n=1,124) between January 1981 and July 2000 were included in the analysis (2.6% had missing values). The variables included were donor and recipient age and gender, recipient original disease, race, donor origin, current smoking, cardiovascular disease, body weight, peak and current panel reactive antibody (PRA), number of preceding transplants, type and duration of renal replacement therapy, and time since failure of native kidneys. Also, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) identity or not, first and second warm and cold ischemia times, left or right kidney and fossa, donor kidney anatomy, donor serum creatinine and proteinuria, and transplantation year were included.

RESULTS

In a multivariate model, cold ischemia time and its time-dependent variable significantly influenced the graft failure risk censored for death (P<0.0001) independent of any of the other risk factors. The influence primarily affected the risk in the first week after transplantation; thereafter, it gradually disappeared during the first year after transplantation. Donor serum creatinine also significantly influenced the graft failure risk in a time-dependent manner (P<0.0001). The risk of a high donor serum creatinine is already enlarged in the immediate postoperative phase and increases thereafter; the curve is closely related to the degree of the elevation. The other variables with a significant influence on the graft failure rate were, in order of decreasing significance, recipient age, donor gender, donor age, HLA identity, transplantation year, preceding transplantations, donor origin, and peak PRA.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor serum creatinine and cold ischemia time are important time-dependent variables independently influencing the risk of graft failure censored for death. The best strategy for improving the results of cadaveric transplantations is to decrease the cold ischemia time and to allocate kidneys from donors with an elevated serum creatinine to low-risk recipients.