Practices in the evaluation of potential kidney transplant recipients who are elderly: A survey of U.S. transplant centers

Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage

Introduction

Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively).

Methods

Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors.

Results

Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38).

Conclusion

Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment predicts listing for kidney transplant in patients with end-stage renal disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) involves a formal broad approach to assess frailty and creating a plan for management. However, the impact of CGA and its components on listing for kidney transplant in older adults has not been investigated.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective study of patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent CGA during kidney transplant candidacy evaluation between 2017 and 2021. All patients ≥ 65 years old and those under 65 with any team member concern for frailty were referred for CGA, which included measurements of healthcare utilization, comorbidities, social support, short physical performance battery, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Physical Frailty Phenotype (FPP), and estimate of surgical risk by the geriatrician.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients underwent baseline CGA evaluation; 58.7% (135) had high CGA ("Excellent" or "Good" rating for transplant candidacy) and 41.3% (95) had low CGA ratings ("Borderline," "Fair," or "Poor"). High CGA rating (OR 8.46; p < 0.05), greater number of CGA visits (OR 4.93; p = 0.05), younger age (OR 0.88; p < 0.05), higher MoCA scores (OR 1.17; p < 0.05), and high physical activity (OR 4.41; p < 0.05) were all associated with listing on transplant waitlist.

CONCLUSIONS

The CGA is a useful, comprehensive tool to help select older adults for kidney transplantation. Further study is needed to better understand the predictive value of CGA in predicting post-operative outcomes.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Defining the ethical considerations surrounding kidney transplantation for frail and cognitively impaired patients: a Delphi study of geriatric transplant experts

Background

Among adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates, 21% are frail and 55% have cognitive impairment, increasing the risk of pre- and post-KT mortality. Centers often assess frailty status and cognitive function during transplant evaluation to help identify appropriate candidate. Yet, there are no ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during this evaluation. We seek to develop a clinical consensus on balancing utility and justice in access to KT for frail and cognitively impaired patients.

Methods

Twenty-seven experts caring for ESRD patients completed a two-round Delphi panel designed to facilitate consensus (> 80% agreement).

Results

Experts believed that denying patients transplantation based solely on expected patient survival was inequitable to frail or cognitively impaired candidates; 100% agreed that frailty and cognitive impairment are important factors to consider during KT evaluation. There was consensus that health related quality of life and social support are important to consider before waitlisting frail or cognitively impaired patients. Experts identified important factors to consider before waitlisting frail (likely to benefit from KT, frailty reversibility, age, and medical contraindications) and cognitively impaired (degree of impairment and medication adherence) patients.

Conclusions

Clinical experts believed it was ethically unacceptable to allocate organs solely based on patients’ expected survival; frailty and cognitive impairment should be measured at evaluation when weighed against other clinical factors. Ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during KT evaluation ought to be developed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03209-x.

Evolving Metrics of Quality for Kidney Transplant Candidates: Transplant Center Variability in Delisting and 1-Year Mortality

BACKGROUND

Management of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist lacks oversight, and transplant centers can delist candidates without consequence. To better understand between-center differences in waitlist management, we examined delisting rates and mortality after delisting within 3 years of removal from the kidney transplant waitlist.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients of adults listed for deceased donor kidney transplant in 2015 and followed until the end of 2018. Patients of interest were those delisted for reasons other than transplant, death, or transfer. Centers were excluded if they had fewer than 20 waitlisted patients per year. We calculated probability of delisting and death after delisting using multivariable competing risk models.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 14.2% of patients were delisted. The median probability of delisting within 3 years, adjusted for center-level variability, was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.9% to 10.6%). Median probability of death was 58.2% (IQR: 40% to 73.4%). There was no meaningful correlation between probability of delisting and death (τ = -0.05, p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in the rate of death after delisting across kidney transplant centers. Likelihood of transplant is extremely important to candidates, and improved data collection efforts are needed to inform whether current delisting practices are successfully removing patients who could not meaningfully benefit from transplant, or whether certain populations may benefit from remaining on the list and maintaining eligibility.

Kidney transplant candidacy evaluation and waitlisting practices in the United States and their association with access to transplantation

There are limited data on the degree of variability in practices surrounding prioritization of referrals for transplant evaluation and criteria for transplant candidacy and their association with transplantation rates. We surveyed transplant programs across the United States between January 2020 and May 2020 to determine current pre-transplantation practices. We examined the relation between these reported practices and the outcomes of waitlisted patients at responding programs between January 2015 and March 2021 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We used adjusted Cox models with random effects to accommodate clustering by program. Primary outcomes included living or deceased donor transplantation. Of 172 surveyed programs, 90 participated. Substantial variations were noted in when the candidacy evaluation began (13% reported when eGFR was <30 mL/min/1.73 m² and 17% reported no set policy) and the approach to pre-transplantation cardiac workup (multi-modality [58%], stress echocardiogram [20%]). Using adjusted models, a program policy of using other measures of body habitus to determine transplant candidacy rather than requiring patients to meet a body mass index (BMI) threshold of ≤35 kg/m² (reference group) for candidacy was associated with a higher hazard of living donor transplantation (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.10-3.03]). Pre-transplant practices vary substantially across the United States, and select practices were associated with transplantation rates.

Deceased Donor Procurement Biopsy Practices, Interpretation, and Histology-Based Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Transplant Centers

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Transplant Clinician Opinions on Use of Race in the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.

Operational challenges in the COVID era: Asymptomatic infections and vaccination timing

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for solid organ transplant programs. While transplant activity has largely recovered, appropriate management of deceased donor candidates who are asymptomatic but have positive nucleic acid testing (NAT) for SARS‐CoV‐2 is unclear, as this result may reflect active infection or prolonged viral shedding. Furthermore, candidates who are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated continue to receive donor offers. In the absence of robust outcomes data, transplant professionals at US adult kidney transplant centers were surveyed (February 13, 2021 to April 29, 2021) to determine community practice (N: 92 centers, capturing 41% of centers and 57% of transplants performed). The majority (97%) of responding centers declined organs for asymptomatic NAT+ patients without documented prior infection. However, 32% of centers proceed with kidney transplant in NAT+ patients who were at least 30 days from initial diagnosis with negative chest imaging. Less than 7% of programs reported inactivating patients who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. In conclusion, despite national recommendations to wait for negative testing, many centers are proceeding with kidney transplant in patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 NAT results due to presumed viral shedding. Furthermore, few centers are requiring COVID‐19 vaccination prior to transplantation at this time.

Pancreas transplantation perceptions and practice: Results from a national US survey

BACKGROUND

Due to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6-20), or high (>20). High-volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program-specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high-volume programs.

Thematic Analysis of the Health Records of a National Sample of US Veterans With Advanced Kidney Disease Evaluated for Transplant

IMPORTANCE

To be considered for a kidney transplant, patients with advanced kidney disease must participate in a formal evaluation and selection process. Little is known about how this process proceeds in real-world clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the transplant evaluation process among a representative national sample of US veterans with advanced kidney disease who were referred to a kidney transplant center.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was a thematic analysis of clinician notes in the electronic health records of US veterans referred for kidney transplant evaluation. In a random sample of 4000 patients with advanced kidney disease between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2014, cared for in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, there were 211 patients who were referred to a transplant center during the follow-up period. This group was included in the qualitative analysis and was followed up until their date of death or the end of the follow-up period on October 8, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Dominant themes pertaining to the kidney transplant evaluation and selection process identified through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among 211 study patients, the mean (SD) age was 57.9 (9.5) years, and 202 patients (95.7%) were male. The following 4 dominant themes regarding the transplant evaluation process emerged: (1) far-reaching and inflexible medical evaluation, in which patients were expected to complete an extensive evaluation that could have substantial physical and emotional consequences, made little accommodation for their personal values and needs, and impacted other aspects of their care; (2) psychosocial valuation, in which the psychosocial component of the transplant assessment could be subjective and intrusive and could place substantial demands on patients' family members; (3) surveillance over compliance, in which the patients' ability and willingness to follow medical recommendations was an important criterion for transplant candidacy and their adherence to a wide range of recommendations and treatments was closely monitored; and (4) disempowerment and lack of transparency, in which patients and their local clinicians were often unsure about what to expect during the evaluation process or about the rationale for selection decisions. For the evaluation process to proceed, local clinicians had to follow transplant center requirements even when they believed the requirements did not align with best practices or the patients' needs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study of US veterans with advanced kidney disease evaluated for transplant, clinician documentation in the medical record indicated that, to be considered for a kidney transplant, patients were required to participate in a rigid, demanding, and opaque evaluation and selection process over which they and their local clinicians had little control. These findings highlight the need for a more evidence-based, individualized, and collaborative approach to kidney transplant evaluation.

An International survey on living kidney donation and transplant practices during the COVID-19 pandemic

The scope of the impact of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID‐19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices across the world is not well‐defined. We received survey responses from 204 transplant centers internationally from May to June 2020 regarding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on LDKT practices. Respondents represented 16 countries on five continents. Overall, 75% of responding centers reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (from 67% of North American centers to 91% of European centers). The majority (59%) of centers reported that new donor evaluations were stopped (from 46% of North American centers to 86% of European centers), with additional 23% of centers reporting important decrease in evaluations. Only 10% of centers reported slight variations on their evaluations. For the centers that continued donor evaluations, 40% performed in‐person visits, 68% by video, and 42% by telephone. Center concerns for donor (82%) and recipient (76%) safety were the leading barriers to LDKT during the pandemic, followed by patients concerns (48%), and government restrictions (46%). European centers reported more barriers related to staff limitations while North and Latin American centers were more concerned with testing capacity and insufficient resources including protective equipment. As LDKT resumes, 96% of the programs intend to screen donor and recipient pairs for coronavirus infection, most of them with polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal swab samples. The COVID‐19 pandemic has had broad impact on all aspects of LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus‐building are needed to guide safe reopening of LDKT programs.

Survey of Clinician Opinions on Kidney Transplantation from Hepatitis C Virus Positive Donors: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers

Background

Transplant practices related to use of organs from Hepatitis C virus infected donors (DHCV+) is evolving rapidly.

Methods

We surveyed U.S. kidney transplant programs by email and professional society listserv postings between 7/19-1/20 to assess attitudes, management strategies, and barriers related to use of viremic (nucleic acid testing (NAT)+) donor organs in HCV uninfected recipients.

Results

Staff at 112 unique programs responded, representing 54% of U.S. adult kidney transplant programs and 69% of adult deceased donor kidney transplant volume in 2019. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists (46%) or surgeons (43%). Among responding programs, 67% currently transplant DHCV antibody+/NAT- organs under a clinical protocol or as standard of care. By comparison, only 58% offer DHCV NAT+ kidney transplant to HCV- recipients, including 35% under clinical protocols, 14% as standard of care, and 9% under research protocols. Following transplant of DHCV NAT+ organs to uninfected recipients, 53% start direct acting antiviral agent (DAA) therapy after discharge and documented viremia. Viral monitoring protocols after DHCV NAT+ to HCV uninfected recipient kidney transplantation varied substantially. 56% of programs performing these transplants report having an institutional plan to provide DAA treatment if declined by the recipient's insurance. Respondents felt a mean decrease in waiting time of ≥18 months (range 0-60) justifies the practice. Program concerns related to use of DHCV NAT+ kidneys include insurance coverage concerns (72%), cost (60%), and perceived risk of transmitting resistant infection (44%).

Conclusions

Addressing knowledge about safety and logistical/financial barriers related to use of DHCV NAT+ kidney transplantation for HCV uninfected recipients may help reduced discards and expand the organ supply.

Survey of US Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Practices in the COVID-19 Era

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices is not well defined.

METHODS

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices, strategies, and barriers to living LDKT during the COVID-19 pandemic. After institutional review board approval, the survey was distributed from 9 May 2020 to 30 May 2020 by e-mail and postings to professional society list-servs. Responses were stratified based on state COVID-19 cumulative incidence levels.

RESULTS

Staff at 118 unique centers responded, representing 61% of US living donor recovery programs and 75% of LKDT volume in the prepandemic year. Overall, 66% reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (81% in "high" vs. 49% in "low" COVID-19 cumulative incidence states). A total of 36% reported that evaluation of new donor candidates had paused, 27% reported that evaluations were very much decreased (>0% to <25% typical), and 23% reported that evaluations were moderately decreased (25% to <50% typical). Barriers to LDKT surgery included program concerns for donor (85%) and recipient (75%) safety, patient concerns (56%), elective case restrictions (47%), and hospital administrative restrictions (48%). Programs with higher local COVID-19 cumulative incidence reported more barriers related to staff and resource diversion. Most centers continuing donor evaluations used remote strategies (video, 82%; telephone, 43%). As LDKT resumes, all programs will screen for COVID-19, although timeframe and modalities will vary. Recommendations for presurgical self-quarantine are also variable.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to reduce barriers, to guide optimal practices, and to support safe restoration of LDKT across centers.

Care of international living kidney donor candidates in the United States: A survey of contemporary experience, practice, and challenges

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

Association of Kidney Transplant Center Volume With 3-Year Clinical Outcomes

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

A robust relationship between procedure volume and clinical outcomes has been demonstrated across many surgical fields. This study assessed whether a center volume-outcome relationship exists for contemporary kidney transplantation, specifically for diabetic recipients, older recipients (aged ≥65 years), and recipients of high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥ 85) kidneys.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adult kidney-only transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between 2009 and 2013 (N = 79,581).

EXPOSURES

The primary exposure variable was center volume, categorized into quartiles based on the total kidney transplantation volume. Quartile 1 (Q1) centers performed a mean of fewer than 66 kidney transplantations per year, whereas Q4 centers performed a mean of more than 196 kidney transplantations per year.

OUTCOMES

All-cause graft failure and mortality within 3 years of transplantation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multivariable Cox frailty models were used to adjust for donor characteristics, recipient characteristics, and cold ischemia time.

RESULTS

Minor differences in rates of 3-year deceased donor all-cause graft failure across quartiles of center volume were observed (14.9% for Q1 vs 16.7% for Q4), including in subgroups (diabetic recipients, 18.4% for Q1 vs 19.7% for Q4; older recipients, 19.4% for Q1 vs 22.5% for Q4; recipients of high KDPI kidneys, 26.5% for Q1 vs 26.5% for Q4). Results were similar for 3-year mortality. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and graft characteristics using Cox regression, center volume was not significantly associated with all-cause graft failure or mortality within 3 years, except that diabetic recipients at Q3 centers had slightly lower mortality (compared with Q1 centers, adjusted HR of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]).

LIMITATIONS

Potential unmeasured confounding from patient comorbid conditions and organ selection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide little evidence that care in higher volume centers is associated with better adjusted outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, even in populations anticipated to be at increased risk for graft failure or death.

Single-center analysis of infectious complications in older adults during the first year after kidney transplantation

Infections are among the top three causes of death of older adults in the first year after kidney transplantation (KT). Our aim was to describe infectious complications among KT recipients aged ≥ 65 during the first 12 months post-transplant. Single-center retrospective cohort study. Ninety-one KTs had been performed in patients ≥ 65 years of age between 2011 and 2015. 92.3% of the patients developed at least one infection. Infectious episodes increased the risk of future infection by 10% (p = 0.0018) with each infection portending a greater risk. At a patient level, viral (71.4%) and bacterial (70.2%) infections predominated. Urinary tract infections were the most frequent complication (30.3%), followed by cytomegalovirus infections (22.7%). Infections were the main reason for readmission. 7.7% of the patients developed rejection; and overall 3.3% lost their graft. Mortality at 1 year was 9.9%. Older KT recipients have a high incidence of infectious complications the first year after KT. Infections were the number one reason for readmission, and an infection episode predicted future infections for the individual patient. Despite these complications, the majority of older KT recipients were alive with a functioning graft at 1 year.