8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Increased risk of graft failure and mortality in Dutch recipients receiving an expanded criteria donor kidney transplant

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Survival of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys and their recipients has not been thoroughly evaluated in Europe. Therefore, we compared the outcome of ECD and non-ECD kidney transplantations in a Dutch cohort, stratifying by age and diabetes. In all first Dutch kidney transplants in recipients ≥18 years between 1995 and 2005, both relative risks (hazard ratios, HR) and adjusted absolute risk differences (RD) for ECD kidney transplantation were analysed. In 3062 transplantations [recipient age 49.0 (12.8) years; 20% ECD], ECD kidney transplantation was associated with graft failure including death [HR 1.62 (1.44-1.82)]. The adjusted HR was lower in recipients ≥60 years of age [1.32 (1.07-1.63)] than in recipients 40-59 years [1.71 (1.44-2.02) P = 0.12 for comparison with ≥60 years] and recipients 18-39 years [1.92 (1.42-2.62) P = 0.03 for comparison with ≥60 years]. RDs showed a similar pattern. In diabetics, the risks for graft failure and death were higher than in the nondiabetics. ECD kidney grafts have a poorer prognosis than non-ECD grafts, especially in younger recipients (<60 years), and diabetic recipients. Further studies and ethical discussions should reveal whether ECD kidneys should preferentially be allocated to specific subgroups, such as elderly and nondiabetic individuals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: an approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors1

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Absolute risk reductions and numbers needed to treat can be obtained from adjusted survival models for time-to-event outcomes.

            Cox proportional hazards regression models are frequently used to determine the association between exposure and time-to-event outcomes in both randomized controlled trials and in observational cohort studies. The resultant hazard ratio is a relative measure of effect that provides limited clinical information. A method is described for deriving absolute reductions in the risk of an event occurring within a given duration of follow-up time from a Cox regression model. The associated number needed to treat can be derived from this quantity. The method involves determining the probability of the outcome occurring within the specified duration of follow-up if each subject in the cohort was treated and if each subject was untreated, based on the covariates in the regression model. These probabilities are then averaged across the study population to determine the average probability of the occurrence of an event within a specific duration of follow-up in the population if all subjects were treated and if all subjects were untreated. Risk differences and numbers needed to treat. Absolute measures of treatment effect can be derived in prospective studies when Cox regression is used to adjust for possible imbalance in prognostically important baseline covariates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quality of life assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) is the most widely used generic instrument to estimate quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy. Purpose of this study was to summarize and compare the published literature on quality of life of hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and renal transplant (RTx) patients. We used random-effects regression analyses to compare the SF-36 scores across treatment groups and adjusted this comparison for age and prevalence of diabetes using random-effects meta-regression analyses. We found 52 articles that met the inclusion criteria, reporting quality of life of 36,582 patients. The unadjusted scores of all SF-36 health dimensions were not significantly different between HD and PD patients, but the scores of RTx patients were higher than those of dialysis patients, except for the dimensions Mental Health and Bodily Pain. Point differences between dialysis and RTx patients varied from 2 to 32. With adjustment for age and diabetes, the differences became smaller (point difference 2-22). The significance of the differences of both dialysis groups compared with RTx recipients disappeared for the dimensions Vitality and Social Functioning. The significance of the differences between HD and RTx patients disappeared on the dimensions Physical Functioning, Role Physical, and Bodily Pain. We conclude that dialysis patients have a lower quality of life than RTx patients, but this difference can partly be explained by differences in age and prevalence of diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transplant International
                Transpl Int
                Wiley
                09340874
                January 2017
                January 2017
                December 29 2016
                : 30
                : 1
                : 14-28
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nephrology; VU University Medical Center; Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [2 ]Nefrovisie Foundation; Utrecht The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology; Leiden University Medical Center; Leiden The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Nephrology; Radboud University Medical Center; Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Nephrology; Maastricht University Medical Center; Maastricht The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Nephrology; Erasmus University Medical Center; Rotterdam The Netherlands
                Article
                10.1111/tri.12863
                27648731
                8bfd289d-8771-4c91-b4ad-c77419757595
                © 2016

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article