Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 76-86 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Transplant international |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Keywords
- donor source
- graft survival
- kidney transplantation
- living donation
- patient survival
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Transplant international, Vol. 34, No. 1, 01.2021, p. 76-86.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - The association of living donor source with patient and graft survival among kidney transplant recipients in the ERA-EDTA Registry – a retrospective study
AU - Abd ElHafeez, Samar
AU - Noordzij, Marlies
AU - Kramer, Anneke
AU - Bell, Samira
AU - Savoye, Emilie
AU - Abad Diez, José Maria
AU - Lundgren, Torbjörn
AU - Reisæter, Anna Varberg
AU - Kerschbaum, Julia
AU - Santiuste de Pablos, Carmen
AU - Ortiz, Fernanda
AU - Collart, Frederic
AU - Palsson, Runolfur
AU - Arici, Mustafa
AU - Heaf, James G.
AU - Massy, Ziad A.
AU - Jager, Kitty J.
N1 - Funding Information: The ERA‐EDTA Registry is funded by the European Renal Association‐European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA‐EDTA). This article was written by S. Abd ElHafeez, M. Noordzij, A. Kramer, S. Bell, E. Savoye, J.M. Abad Diez, T. Lundgren, A.V. Reisæter, J. Kerschbaum, C. Santiuste de Pablos, F. Ortiz, F. Collart, R. Palsson, M. Arici, J.G. Heaf, Z.A. Massy and K.J. Jager on behalf of the ERA‐EDTA Registry which is an official body of the ERA‐EDTA (European Renal Association – European Dialysis and Transplant Association). Funding Information: The ERA-EDTA Registry is funded by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA). We would like to thank the patients and the staff of the dialysis and transplant units for contributing the data via their national and regional renal registries. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the following registries and persons for their contribution of the data: Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry [OEDTR] (R. Kramar); Dutch-speaking Belgian Society of Nephrology [NBVN] (M. Couttenye, F. Schroven and J. De Meester); French-speaking Belgian Society of Nephrology [GNFB] (JM. des Grottes); Renal Registry Bosnia and Herzegovina (H. Resi?, B Jakovljevic and M Tomi?); Danish Nephrology Registry [DNS]; Finnish Registry for Kidney Diseases (P. Finne, J. Helve and P.H. Groop); France: The Epidemiology and Information Network in Nephrology [REIN] (M. Lassalle and C. Couchoud); Hellenic Renal Registry (G. Moustakas); Icelandic End-Stage Renal Disease Registry; Norwegian Renal Registry (A. ?sberg); Swedish Renal Registry [SRR] (M. Stendahl, H. Rydell, M. Evans, K.G. Pr?tz, T. Lundgren and M. Segelmark); Scottish Renal Registry [SRR] (All of the Scottish renal units); and the regional registries of Andalusia [SICATA] (P. Castro de la Nuez (on behalf of all users of SICATA)), Aragon (F. Arribas Monz?n and J.I. Sanchez Miret), Asturias (P. Beltr?n, J.R. Quir?s, and RERCA Working Group), Cantabria (J.C. Ruiz San Mill?n, O. Garcia Ruiz, and C. Pi?era Haces), Catalonia [RMRC] (E. Arcos, J. Comas, and J. Tort), Community of Madrid (M.I. Aparicio de Madre), Extremadura (All the renal units (Nephrology and Dialysis)), Galicia (E. Bouzas-Caama?o), Renal Registry of the Region of Murcia (I. Mar?n S?nchez); and the other ERA-EDTA Registry committee members not mentioned above for their advice in the analysis and the drafting of this paper: C. Zoccali, P. Amb?hl, M. Evans, P. Finne, J. Harambat, L. Mercadal, M. Nordio, S.S. S?rensen and E. Vidal; and R. Boenink in the Registry office for data collection and management. The ERA-EDTA Registry is funded by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA). This article was written by S. Abd ElHafeez, M. Noordzij, A. Kramer, S. Bell, E. Savoye, J.M. Abad Diez, T. Lundgren, A.V. Reis?ter, J. Kerschbaum, C. Santiuste de Pablos, F. Ortiz, F. Collart, R. Palsson, M. Arici, J.G. Heaf, Z.A. Massy and K.J. Jager on behalf of the ERA-EDTA Registry which is an official body of the ERA-EDTA (European Renal Association ? European Dialysis and Transplant Association). Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Authors. Transplant International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Steunstichting ESOT Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - In this study we aimed to compare patient and graft survival of kidney transplant recipients who received a kidney from a living-related donor (LRD) or living-unrelated donor (LUD). Adult patients in the ERA-EDTA Registry who received their first kidney transplant in 1998–2017 were included. Ten-year patient and graft survival were compared between LRD and LUD transplants using Cox regression analysis. In total, 14 370 patients received a kidney from a living donor. Of those, 9212 (64.1%) grafts were from a LRD, 5063 (35.2%) from a LUD and for 95 (0.7%), the donor type was unknown. Unadjusted five-year risks of death and graft failure (including death as event) were lower for LRD transplants than for LUD grafts: 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7–4.6) and 10.8% (95% CI: 10.1–11.5) versus 6.5% (95% CI: 5.7–7.4) and 12.2% (95% CI: 11.2–13.3), respectively. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, associations disappeared with hazard ratios of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87–1.13) for patient survival and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94–1.14) for graft survival. Unadjusted risk of death-censored graft failure was similar, but after adjustment, it was higher for LUD transplants (1.19; 95% CI: 1.04–1.35). In conclusion, patient and graft survival of LRD and LUD kidney transplant recipients was similar, whereas death-censored graft failure was higher in LUD. These findings confirm the importance of both living kidney donor types.
AB - In this study we aimed to compare patient and graft survival of kidney transplant recipients who received a kidney from a living-related donor (LRD) or living-unrelated donor (LUD). Adult patients in the ERA-EDTA Registry who received their first kidney transplant in 1998–2017 were included. Ten-year patient and graft survival were compared between LRD and LUD transplants using Cox regression analysis. In total, 14 370 patients received a kidney from a living donor. Of those, 9212 (64.1%) grafts were from a LRD, 5063 (35.2%) from a LUD and for 95 (0.7%), the donor type was unknown. Unadjusted five-year risks of death and graft failure (including death as event) were lower for LRD transplants than for LUD grafts: 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7–4.6) and 10.8% (95% CI: 10.1–11.5) versus 6.5% (95% CI: 5.7–7.4) and 12.2% (95% CI: 11.2–13.3), respectively. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, associations disappeared with hazard ratios of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87–1.13) for patient survival and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94–1.14) for graft survival. Unadjusted risk of death-censored graft failure was similar, but after adjustment, it was higher for LUD transplants (1.19; 95% CI: 1.04–1.35). In conclusion, patient and graft survival of LRD and LUD kidney transplant recipients was similar, whereas death-censored graft failure was higher in LUD. These findings confirm the importance of both living kidney donor types.
KW - donor source
KW - graft survival
KW - kidney transplantation
KW - living donation
KW - patient survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85093691449&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.13759
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.13759
M3 - Article
C2 - 33022814
SN - 0934-0874
VL - 34
SP - 76
EP - 86
JO - Transplant international
JF - Transplant international
IS - 1
ER -