Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Should Be Promoted Among "Elderly" Patients

Transplant Candidates of 70+ Years Have Superior Survival If Receiving Pre-Emptively a Living Donor Kidney

Background: The number of kidney transplant recipients over 70 years of age is increasing but detailed data on patient and graft survival in the modern era of immune suppression are few. Methods: A single-center cohort of patients of 70 years and older (n = 349) at time of kidney transplantation from 2010-2020 were followed until January 2023. Results: The median age was 73 years with a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Fifty percent of recipients of a living donor kidney (LDK, n = 143) received their graft pre-emptively. Cumulative death-censored graft survival was excellent in the LDK group and reached 98% at 5 years vs. 85% in the deceased donor kidney (DDK) group. Primary non-function (38%) and rejection (43%) were the major causes of graft loss in the first year after DDK transplantation. Rejection-related graft loss was 4.6% during follow-up. Median recipient survival was superior in the subgroup of pre-emptively transplanted LDK patients compared to non-pre-emptively LDK transplanted patients (11.1 versus 6.2 years). Non-pre-emptively transplanted patients had a significantly increased incidence of infection (HR 3.81, 1.46-9.96) and cardiovascular-related causes of death (HR 3.35, 1.16-9.71). Pre-emptive transplantation was also associated with a significantly improved graft survival in the DDK recipients but this result was confounded by significantly better HLA matching and younger donor age in this group. Conclusions: Pre-emptive LDK transplantation in patients of 70 years or older confers superior graft and recipient survival.

Older Age is Associated With Lower Utilization of Living Donor Kidney Transplant

Introduction

Older adults (65 years or older) constitute a substantial and increasing proportion of patients with kidney failure, potentially needing kidney replacement therapy. Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) offers superior outcomes for suitable patients of all ages. However, exploring LDKT and finding a living donor could be challenging for older adults. Here, we assessed the association between age and utilization of LDKT and assessed effect modification of key variables such as ethnicity and language.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with kidney failure referred for kidney transplant (KT) assessment in Toronto between January 2006 and December 2013. The association between age and having a potential living donor identified was assessed using logistic regression and the association between age and the receipt of LDKT was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Of the 1617 participants, 50% were middle-aged (45-64 years old), and 17% were ≥65 years old. In our final multivariable adjusted models, compared to young adults, middle-aged and older adults had lower odds of having a potential living donor identified (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; confidence interval [CI], [0.35-0.63]; OR, 0.30; CI, [0.20-0.43]; P < 0.001, for middle-aged and older adults, respectively), and were less likely to receive LDKT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; CI, [0.63-0.99]; P = 0.04; HR, 0.47; CI, [0.30-0.72]; P = 0.001, for middle-aged and older adults, respectively.).

Conclusion

Age is an independent predictor of receiving LDKT. Considering that nearly 90% of patients with kidney failure in Canada are >45 years of age, these results point to important and potentially modifiable age-related barriers to LDKT.

Comparative survival of elderly renal transplant recipients with a living donor versus a deceased donor: A retrospective single center observational study

Increasing numbers of elderly (≥65 years) patients are listed for kidney transplantation. This study compares the survival outcome between living (LDK), regularly allocated (ETKAS), and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) donor kidneys in elderly recipients. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of elderly kidney transplant recipients transplanted between 2005 and 2017. Primary outcome measures were nondeath-censored graft, death-censored graft, and patient survival. In total, 348 patients were transplanted, 109 recipients (31.3%) received an LDK, 100 (28.7%) an ETKAS, and 139 (40%) an ESP kidney. 62.5% were male, and median age was 68 years. LDK recipients had significantly better 5-year nondeath-censored graft survival compared with ETKAS and ESP (resp. 71.0% vs. 66.1% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.047). Death-censored graft survival after 1 year was significantly better in LDK recipients (99.1%) (ETKAS 90.8%; ESP 87.7%, P < 0.001). After 5 years, the difference remained significant (P < 0.001) with little additional graft loss (97.7% vs. 88.1% vs. 85.6). There was no significant difference in patient survival after 5 years (71.7% vs. 67.4% vs 61.9%, P = 0.480). In elderly recipients, the patient survival benefits of an LDK are limited, but there is decreased death-censored graft loss for LDK recipients. Nevertheless, graft survival in ETKAS and ESP remains satisfactory.

Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients.

METHODS

To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed.

RESULTS

In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative.

CONCLUSIONS

CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.

Outcomes of ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation in older patients: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of ABO-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ABOi LDKT) in older individuals have not been established.

METHODS

This multicentric observational study, using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry database, included 634 older patients (≥60 years) undergoing kidney transplantation. We compared clinical outcomes of ABOi LDKT (n = 80) with those of ABO-compatible LDKT (ABOc LDKT, n = 222) and deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT, n = 332) in older patients.

RESULTS

Death-censored graft survival was similar between the three groups (P = 0.141). Patient survival after ABOi LDKT was similar to that after ABOc LDKT (P = 0.489) but higher than that after DDKT (P = 0.038). In multivariable analysis, ABOi LDKT was not risk factor (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-10.38, P = 0.548), while DDKT was significant risk factor (HR 3.49, 95% CI 1.01-12.23, P = 0.049) for patient survival. Although ABOi LDKT showed higher biopsy-proven acute rejection than ABOc LDKT, the difference was not significant after adjustment with covariates. However, ABOi LDKT was significant risk factor for infection (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.12-2.45, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients, ABOi LDKT was not inferior to ABOc LDKT and was superior to DDKT for patient survival. ABOi LDKT can be recommended for older patients, rather than waiting for DDKT.