Access to kidney transplantation in European adults aged 75-84 years and related outcomes: an analysis of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry

A choice experiment of older patients' preferences for kidney failure treatments

Most older people with kidney failure choose between treatment with dialysis or conservative kidney management. The preferences underlying these decisions are poorly understood. Here, we performed a choice experiment, informed by qualitative research, to examine preferences for the characteristics of dialysis and conservative management among over-65-year-olds with eGFR of 20 mls or under/min/1.73m2. Mixed logit and latent class analyses quantified the trade-offs between frequency and location of treatments, survival, and capability (the ability to do important activities), accounting for participants' characteristics. Overall, 327 United Kingdom participants across 23 centers (median age 77 years, eGFR 14 mls/min/1.73m 2) needed 8%-59% absolute survival benefit two years after starting treatment to accept dialysis, with preferences for less frequent treatment and treatment at home. Significantly higher preferences for survival were seen amongst partnered participants (effect size 0.04, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.06) and if better levels of capability were depicted (effect size 0.02, 0.01-0.03). Three latent classes were identified with divergent preferences for survival, capability, and location of care. Stated preferences indicated participants favored higher survival probabilities, but only if their capability was preserved and the location and frequency of care were acceptable. Subgroups may prioritize survival, hospital avoidance, or in-center care. Clinicians supporting people making kidney failure treatment decisions must explore their goals and values. Thus, investment in services that prioritize capability and ensure treatment is delivered at a frequency acceptable to people in their preferred location would enable provision of preference sensitive care.

Complex management and descriptive cost analysis of kidney transplant candidates: a descriptive cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The organisational care needs involved in accessing kidney transplant have not been described in the literature and therefore a detailed analysis thereof could help to establish a framework (including appropriate timing, investment, and costs) for the management of this population. The main objective of this study is to analyse the profile and care needs of kidney transplant candidates in a tertiary hospital and the direct costs of studying them.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted using data on a range of variables (sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, study duration, and investment in visits and supplementary tests) from 489 kidney transplant candidates evaluated in 2020.

RESULTS

The comorbidity index was high (> 4 in 64.3%), with a mean of 5.6 ± 2.4. Part of the study population had certain characteristics that could hinder their access a kidney transplant: physical dependence (9.4%), emotional distress (33.5%), non-adherent behaviours (25.2%), or language barriers (9.4%). The median study duration was 6.6[3.4;14] months. The ratio of required visits to patients was 5.97:1, meaning an investment of €237.10 per patient, and the ratio of supplementary tests to patients was 3.5:1, meaning an investment of €402.96 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The study population can be characterised as complex due to their profile and their investment in terms of time, visits, supplementary tests, and direct costs. Management based on our results involves designing work-adaptation strategies to the needs of the study population, which can lead to increased patient satisfaction, shorter waiting times, and reduced costs.

Unmet Questions About Frailty in Kidney Transplant Candidates

Frailty occurs frequently among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, especially among women. Assessing frailty in kidney transplant (KT) candidates is crucial for informing them about associated risks. However, there is poor agreement between frailty scales and research on their correlation with transplant outcomes. Being prefrail significantly impacts both graft and patient survival, often beginning with just 1 Fried criterion. Rather than viewing frailty as a categorical state, it should be regarded as a spectrum ranging from 1 to 5 criteria, with the risk of adverse outcomes escalating as frailty worsens. Frailty status fluctuates during the waiting period for KT; hence, a 1-time frailty evaluation is insufficient to determine risks and implement strategies for improving functional status. Further research should investigate the components of frailty that most frequently change during this waiting period and establish strategies to prevent or reverse frailty. Although careful evaluation of frail KT candidates is necessary to prevent early complications and mortality, exclusion based solely on a frailty score is unwarranted. Instead, efforts should focus on timely interventions to enhance their condition before transplantation. Although evidence is limited, exercise programs appear feasible and yield positive results. A pretransplant clinical framework encompassing multimodal prehabilitation-comprising physical therapy, nutritional measures, and psychological support-during the waiting list period may help alleviate the effects of frailty and poor fitness after KT, ultimately improving key outcomes. Despite logistical challenges, there is a pressing need for interventional trials in this area.

International comparison and time trends of first kidney transplant recipient characteristics across Europe: an ERA Registry study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of age, sex and primary renal disease (PRD) distribution among first kidney transplant recipients across Europe.

METHOD

The European Renal Association (ERA) Registry database was used to obtain data on patients aged 20 years or older receiving their first kidney transplant between 2010 and 2019 from 12 European countries. The numbers and percentages of recipients in each age, sex and PRD group were calculated by country, donor type and year.

RESULTS

In total, 99 543 adults received a first kidney transplant. Overall, 23% of the recipients were 65 years or older, 36% were female, and 21% had glomerulonephritis and 15% diabetes mellitus as PRD. Compared with deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, living donor kidney transplant recipients were less often 65 years or older (13% versus 26%), more often had glomerulonephritis (25% versus 20%) and less often diabetes mellitus (8% versus 17%) as PRD. We found large international differences, which were most prominent for age and PRD and less prominent for sex. Over time, the largest change in recipient characteristics was observed for the percentage of recipients aged 65 years or older, increasing from 18% in 2010 to 28% in 2019 for all countries combined with a similar trend in most countries.

CONCLUSION

We observed large differences for age and PRD distribution between recipients of living and deceased donor kidneys and between European countries. Over time, the percentage of older first kidney transplant recipients increased.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Older Individuals: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View

Living donor transplantation is the optimal treatment for suitable patients with end-stage kidney disease. There are particular advantages for older individuals in terms of elective surgery, timely transplantation, and early graft function. Yet, despite the superiority of living donor transplantation especially for this cohort, older patients are significantly less likely to access this treatment modality than younger age groups. However, given the changing population demographic in recent decades, there are increasing numbers of older but otherwise healthy individuals with kidney disease who could benefit from living donor transplantation. The complex reasons for this inequity of access are explored, including conscious and unconscious age-related bias by healthcare professionals, concerns relating to older living donors, ethical anxieties related to younger adults donating to aging patients, unwillingness of potential older recipients to consider living donation, and the relevant legislation. There is a legal and moral duty to consider the inequity of access to living donor transplantation, recognising both the potential disparity between chronological and physiological age in older patients, and benefits of this treatment for individuals as well as society.

A Comorbidity Index and Pretransplant Physical Status Predict Survival in Older Kidney Transplant Recipients: A National Prospective Study

Kidney transplantation (KT) is considered the best treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In the increasing elderly ESKD population, KT should be reserved for carefully selected candidates who are expected to experience favorable outcomes. We aimed to prospectively evaluate pretransplant recipient factors that may predict patient survival and can eventually guide therapeutic decisions in elderly with ESKD.

Frailty among chronic kidney disease patients on the kidney transplant waiting list: the sex–frailty paradox

Background

Frailty is defined as decreased physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors that predisposes patients towards poor health results. Its prevalence in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who are kidney transplant (KT) candidates is high. Frailty is associated with a higher rate of complications and mortality after transplant. It is unknown whether frailty phenotype differs depending on sex in this population.

Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal study of 455 KT candidates evaluated for frailty by physical frailty phenotype at the time of inclusion on the KT waiting list. Pre-frailty was defined as the presence of two criteria and frailty as three or more criteria. Univariate and multivariate analyses searched for associations of frailty status, frailty components and gender differences.

Results

Thirty percent of the total cohort resulted to be pre-frail (20%) or frail (10.3%), but disparities were observed between sexes, with 22.5% of men and 47.2% of women falling into one of these categories. Among frailty criteria, women presented with a higher percentage of exhaustion (39.6% versus 17%) and slowness (22.2% versus 9.6%) compared with men. Comorbidity burden was higher among frail men, whereas social factors were poorer between frail women. Disability was common among those patients who were frail, both men and women.

Conclusions

Frailty is twice as frequent in advanced CKD women as men. Frailty criteria distribution and phenotype seem to differ among sexes, which might have implications in terms of specific and individualized interventions to improve their status before transplantation.

Frailty in kidney transplant candidates: a comparison between physical frailty phenotype and FRAIL scales

BACKGROUND

Frailty is common among advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who are kidney transplant (KT) candidates, and predisposes to poor outcomes after transplantation. However, frailty is not routinely measured during pretransplant work-up and it is unknown which metric should be used in this specific population. Our aim was to establish frailty prevalence in KT candidates according to different frailty scales.

METHODS

Prospective longitudinal study of 451 KT candidates evaluated for frailty by both Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) and FRAIL scale at the time of inclusion on the KT waiting list. Clinical and functional characteristics including sociodemographics, comorbidities, disability and nutritional status were recorded. Agreement between PFP and FRAIL scales as well as dissonant patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.9 years and 31.7% were female. Comorbidity burden among patients was high, with 36.9% and 16.2% presenting with diabetes and ischemic coronary disease, respectively. Disabilities were also frequent. More than 70% of patients presented with ≥ 1 PFP criteria while this percentage for ≥ 1 FRAIL criteria was 45.4%. Agreement between PFP and FRAIL was not good (kappa index 0.317). There were 132 patients who were pre-frail or frail according to PFP but non-frail according to the FRAIL scale and they presented with fewer comorbidities and less disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is frequent in advanced CKD patients, although its prevalence may vary according to different scales. Agreement between PFP and FRAIL scale is not good, and FRAIL scale might misclassify as robust patients those frail/prefrail patients who are in better health conditions.

Kidney transplant outcomes in elderly recipients with controlled donation after circulatory death or donation after brain death donors: a registry cohort study

The number of kidney transplant (KT) procedures with controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors has exponentially increased in Spain in recent years, with a parallel increase in donor and recipient acceptance criteria. The outcomes of cDCD-KT have been reported to be comparable to those of KT with donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, studies in elderly recipients have yielded contradictory results. We performed a registry analysis of 852 KT recipients aged ≥65 years (575 in the DBD-KT group, 277 in the cDCD-KT group) in Catalonia, Spain. Clinical outcomes and survival were compared between DBD-KT and cDCD-KT recipients. The donor and recipient ages were similar between the two groups (71.5 ± 8.7 years for donors, 70.8 ± 4.1 years for recipients). Delayed graft function (DGF) was more frequent among cDCD-KT recipients, without a difference in the rate of primary nonfunction. The 3-year patient and death-censored graft survival rates were similar between DBD-KT and cDCD-KT recipients (78.8% vs. 76.4% and 90.3% vs. 86.6%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, previous cardiovascular disease and DGF were independent risk factors for patient death. The type of donation (cDCD vs. DBD) was not an independent risk factor for patient survival or graft loss. cDCD-KT and DBD-KT provide comparable patient and graft survival in elderly recipients.

Patients with renal transplant and moderate-to-severe LUTS benefit from urodynamic evaluation and early transurethral resection of the prostate

Purpose

To assess long-term renal function and micturition pattern of males submitted to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after renal transplantation (RT). To investigate the role of clinical and urodynamic (UD) parameters for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) diagnosis in these patients.

Methods

Retrospective data analysis of ≥ 50 years old patients who underwent RT between 01/2005 and 12/2016. Patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS after RT who underwent a urologic evaluation and a UD study were included. TURP was performed in case of BOO diagnosis. Kidney function and micturition patterns were evaluated before, 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after TURP. Predictors of BOO were assessed at univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Statistical analysis was performed with STATA16.

Results

233 male patients ≥ 50 years underwent RT. 71/233 (30%) patients developed voiding LUTS. 52/71 (73%) patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS underwent UD. TURP was performed in 36/52 (69%) patients, with BOO diagnosis. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 108 (75–136) months. Maximum flow at flowmetry (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score and post-voided residual volume improved significantly after surgery. Serum creatinine decreased and glomerular filtration rate improved significantly at follow-up, especially when TURP was performed ≤ 6 months from RT. At the multivariable model, bladder capacity ≥ 300 mL (OR = 1.74, CI 95% 1.03–3.15, p = 0.043) and detrusor pressure at Qmax (OR = 2.05, CI 95% 1.48–3.02, p = 0.035) were the independent predictors of BOO.

Conclusion

RT patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS at risk for BOO and graft failure are better identified by UD than clinical parameters. Bladder capacity and voiding pressure are key for the early diagnosis of BOO.

Observational study of risk factors associated with clinical outcome among elderly kidney transplant recipients in Sweden - a decade of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation (Ktx) in elderly has become increasingly accepted worldwide despite their higher burden of comorbidities. We investigated important risk factors affecting long-term patient and graft survival.

METHODS

We included all (n=747) Ktx patients >60 years from 2000 to 2012 in Sweden. Patients were age-stratified; 60-64, 65-69 and >70 years. Follow-up time was up to 10 years (median 7.9 years, 75% percentile >10 years). Primary outcome was 10-year patient survival in age-stratified groups. Secondary outcomes were 5- year patient and graft-survival in age-stratified groups and the impact of risk factors including Charlson comorbidity index on patient and graft-survival.

RESULTS

Mortality was higher in patients >70 years, after 10 years (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.24-3.04; p=0.004). Males had a higher 10-year risk of death (HR 1.39; CI 95% 1.04-1.86; p=0.024). Five-year patient survival did not differ between age-groups. In multivariate Cox analysis (n=500) hazard ratio for 10-year mortality was 4.6 in patients with Charlson comorbidity index ≥7 vs <4 (95% CI 2.42-8.62; p=0.0001) CONCLUSION: Higher Charlson comorbidity index identified ESKD patients with 4.6 times higher risk of death after Ktx. We suggest that this index should be used as a part of the pre-operative evaluation in elderly.

Kidney Transplant Outcomes in elderly Recipients: An Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry Study

BACKGROUND

There is an increase in elderly patients receiving kidney transplant internationally. This study describes elderly kidney transplant recipient outcomes in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

The study included all adult first kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand from 2000 to 2015. Survival and graft outcomes were compared between elderly (≥70 years) and younger (18-69 years) recipients using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 10651 kidney transplant recipients were included, of which 279 (2.6%) were elderly adults. The proportion of elderly recipients increased from 0.6 to 4.4% from 2000 to 2015. Compared with younger recipients, elderly recipients were more likely to receive kidneys from deceased donors, elderly donors, and expanded criteria donors. Elderly recipients experienced poorer patient survival with 1- and 5-year survival ranging from 96% to 97% and 79% to 81%, respectively, compared with 97% to 99% and 90% 95% in younger recipients, respectively. Elderly recipients experienced comparable rates of delayed graft function and, in living donor kidney recipients, lower rates of acute rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplantation in the elderly population is increasing. Although elderly recipients had inferior survival and graft outcomes, elderly recipients generally received poorer quality kidneys. The outcomes achieved in this cohort of elderly adults are encouraging, and improving elderly recipient outcomes should be an important focus for research.

Patient-reported factors influencing the choice of their kidney replacement treatment modality

Background

Access to various kidney replacement therapy (KRT) modalities for patients with end-stage kidney disease differs substantially within Europe.

Methods

European adults on KRT filled out an online or paper-based survey about factors influencing and experiences with modality choice (e.g. information provision, decision-making and reasons for choice) between November 2017 and January 2019. We compared countries with low, middle and high gross domestic product (GDP).

Results

In total, 7820 patients [mean age 59 years, 56% male, 63% on centre haemodialysis (CHD)] from 38 countries participated. Twenty-five percent had received no information on the different modalities, and only 23% received information >12 months before KRT initiation. Patients were not informed about home haemodialysis (HHD) (42%) and comprehensive conservative management (33%). Besides nephrologists, nurses more frequently provided information in high-GDP countries, whereas physicians other than nephrologists did so in low-GDP countries. Patients from low-GDP countries reported later information provision, less information about other modalities than CHD and lower satisfaction with information. The majority of modality decisions were made involving both patient and nephrologist. Patients reported subjective (e.g. quality of life and fears) and objective reasons (e.g. costs and availability of treatments) for modality choice. Patients had good experiences with all modalities, but experiences were better for HHD and kidney transplantation and in middle- and high-GDP countries.

Conclusion

Our results suggest European differences in patient-reported factors influencing KRT modality choice, possibly caused by disparities in availability of KRT modalities, different healthcare systems and varying patient preferences. Availability of home dialysis and kidney transplantation should be optimized.

The probability of receiving a kidney transplantation in end-stage kidney disease patients who are treated with haemodiafiltration or haemodialysis: a pooled individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials

Background

Due to a critical shortage of available kidney grafts, most patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5) require bridging dialysis support. It remains unclear whether treatment by different dialysis modalities changes the selection and/or preparation of a potential transplant candidate. Therefore, we assessed whether the likelihood of receiving kidney transplant (both living or deceased kidney donors) differs between haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with CKD5D.

Methods

Individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials comparing online HDF with HD were used. Information on kidney transplant was obtained during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant was compared between HD and HDF, and evaluated across different subgroups: age, sex, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, albumin, dialysis vintage, fistula, and level of convection volume standardized to body surface area. Hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with a random effect for study.

Results

After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1 to Q3: 1.9–3.0), 331 of the 1620 (20.4%) patients with CKD5D received a kidney transplant. This concerned 22% (n = 179) of patients who were treated with online HDF compared with 19% (n = 152) of patients who were treated with HD. No differences in the likelihood of undergoing a kidney transplant were found between the two dialysis modalities in both the crude analyse (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86–1.33) and adjusted analysis for age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular history, albumin, and creatinine (HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.92–1.44). There was no evidence for a differential effect across subgroups based on patient- and disease-characteristics nor in different categories of convection volumes.

Conclusions

Treatment with HD and HDF does not affect the selection and/or preparation of CKD5D patients for kidney transplant given that the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant does not differ between the dialysis modalities. These finding persisted across a variety of subgroups differing in patient and disease characteristics and is not affected by the level of convection volume delivered during HDF treatment sessions.

Transplantation in older individuals: is it really better than dialysis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The kidney transplantation landscape has changed dramatically over the last 2 decades. First, transplantation is performed in patients previously considered ineligible for transplantation, including older patients and patients with multiple comorbidities. Second, organ shortages have increased the use of less-than-optimal donor kidneys, like organs from expanded criteria donors or donors after cardiac death. Third, improvements in managing chronic kidney disease and dialysis have improved survival on dialysis. Therefore, the question arises: does transplantation currently benefit older transplant candidates?

RECENT FINDINGS

The current review describes important changes in transplantation over the last 20 years. We review recent data on survival with dialysis versus transplantation in older individuals. Finally, we consider methodological issues that might influence conclusions drawn in current studies.

SUMMARY

Limited data are available to assess the potential survival benefit of kidney transplantations in older individuals. The available evidence suggests that transplantation might provide survival benefit in older individuals, even with aged kidney donors, but risks vary widely with donor quality and recipient health status. More research is needed to make adequate predictions of which donor kidneys might lead to good outcomes and which patient characteristics might define a good transplant candidate.

Data from the ERA-EDTA Registry were examined for trends in excess mortality in European adults on kidney replacement therapy

The objective of this study was to investigate whether the improvement in survival seen in patients on kidney replacement therapy reflects the enhanced survival of the general population. Patient and general population statistics were obtained from the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry and the World Health Organization databases, respectively. Relative survival models were composed to examine trends over time in all-cause and cause-specific excess mortality, stratified by age and modality of kidney replacement therapy, and adjusted for sex, primary kidney disease and country. In total, 280,075 adult patients started kidney replacement therapy between 2002 and 2015. The excess mortality risk in these patients decreased by 16% per five years (relative excess mortality risk (RER) 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.84). This reflected a 14% risk reduction in dialysis patients (RER 0.86; 0.85-0.86), and a 16% increase in kidney transplant recipients (RER 1.16; 1.07-1.26). Patients on dialysis showed a decrease in excess mortality risk of 28% per five years for atheromatous cardiovascular disease as the cause of death (RER 0.72; 0.70-0.74), 10% for non-atheromatous cardiovascular disease (RER 0.90; 0.88-0.92) and 10% for infections (RER 0.90; 0.87-0.92). Kidney transplant recipients showed stable excess mortality risks for most causes of death, although it did worsen in some subgroups. Thus, the increase in survival in patients on kidney replacement therapy is not only due to enhanced survival in the general population, but also due to improved survival in the patient population, primarily in dialysis patients.

Benefits of kidney transplantation for a national cohort of patients aged 70 years and older starting renal replacement therapy

Our objectives were to evaluate kidney transplantation survival benefit in people aged ≥70 who were receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) and to identify their risk factors for posttransplant mortality. This study included all patients in the national French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network registry who started RRT between 2002 and 2013 at age ≥70. Mortality risk was compared between patients with transplants; on the waiting list; and on dialysis matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and time on dialysis. Of the 41 716 elderly patients starting RRT, 1219 (2.9%) were on the waiting list and 877 (2.1%) underwent transplantation during the follow-up. Until month 3, transplant patients had a risk of death triple that of the wait-listed group. Although the risk was halved at month 9, the perioperative risk was still not offset by month 36. Compared with matched dialysis patients (n = 2183), transplant patients were not at significantly increased perioperative risk and had a lower mortality risk starting at month 3. Risk factors for posttransplant mortality were diabetes, cardiovascular comorbidities, and dialysis duration >2 years. Among older dialysis patients, 20% had neither cardiovascular comorbidity nor diabetes. Systematic early assessment of the eligibility of elderly patients for kidney transplantation is recommended to expand registration to patients with poor survival on dialysis and no cardiovascular comorbidity.