4.6 Article

Patient and graft outcomes from deceased kidney donors age 70 years and older: An analysis of the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 85, 期 11, 页码 1573-1579

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31817059a1

关键词

kidney transplantation; donors; marginal; graft survival; allocation

资金

  1. PHS HHS [234-2005-370011C] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The organ shortage has resulted in more use of older deceased donor kidneys. Data are limited on the impact of donor aged 70 years and older on transplant outcomes. We examined patient and graft outcomes of renal transplant from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) aged 70 years and older, using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing (database. Methods. We identified 601 deceased donor transplants from donors older than 70 years from 2000 to 2005. The follow-up time was until May 2007. Allograft and patient survival were compared between recipients of transplants from older ECDs (age >= 70) and younger ECDs (age 50-69). The relative risk of graft loss and patient death were determined using multivariate models. Results. The adjusted relative risks of overall graft loss (hazards ratio [HR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.58), death-censored graft loss (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.61), and patient death (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15-1.64) were greater among recipients of transplants from older ECD kidneys. The relative risk of patient death was lower when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60 compared with recipients aged 41 to 60. In contrast, the relative risk of death-censored graft loss was not increased when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60. Conclusions. Transplants from older ECD kidneys are associated with a higher risk of graft loss and patient death. The risk was highest when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients younger than 60 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据