Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Transpl Int ; 33(6): 617-631, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31903658

ABSTRACT

In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.


Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Tissue and Organ Procurement , Graft Survival , Humans , Kidney , Retrospective Studies , Tissue Donors , Treatment Outcome
2.
Clin Transpl ; : 89-100, 2003.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15387100

ABSTRACT

The definition of proper patient selection criteria remains a prominent item in constant need of attention. While the concept of gathering evidence in order to determine practice continues to be hopelessly ambiguous, it can never be emphasized too much that these univariate results are just a first foray into analysing predictors of survival; all following results should be regarded and interpreted in this perspective. HEART TRANSPLANT SURVIVAL: The 3-year survival rate for heart transplant recipients under age 16 was 83% versus 72% for adult recipients. Acutely retransplanted adult heart recipients had a 3-year survival rate of 36% compared with 72% for recipients of a first heart allograft. Patients suffering from DCM had the best survival rates at 3 years (74%) compared with patients suffering from CAD (70%) or from another end-stage heart disease (67%). With advancing age of the adult recipient, the mortality risk increased. Patients aged 16-40 had a 3-year survival rate of 77%, compared with 74%, 70% and 61% for transplant recipients aged 41-55, 56-65 and over age 65, respectively. The 3-year survival rates for adult recipients transplanted with an heart allograft from a donor aged under 16 or between 16-44 were 78% and 74%, compared with 66% and 63% for donors aged 45-55 and over 55, respectively. The 3-year survival rates for recipients of hearts with cold ischemic times under 2 hours, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and more than 6 hours were 74%, 75%, 70%, 65%, 54% and 40%, respectively. Transplanting a female donor heart into a male recipient was associated with the worst prognosis: the 3-year survival rates were 73%, 71%, 66% and 76%, respectively, for the donor/recipient groups male/male, male/female, female/male and female/female, respectively. When the donor-to-recipient body weight ratio was below 0.8, the 3-year survival rate was 64%, compared to 72% for weight-matched pairs and 74% for patients who received a heart from an oversized donor (p=0.004). Better survival rates were obtained for better HLA-matched transplants. The 3-year survival rates were 75%, 89%, 78%, 78%, 69%, 72%, and 71% for HLA-A,-B,-DR zero, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mismatched groups, respectively (p=0.04). Survival was significantly associated with the CMV serologic status of the donor and recipient; the 3-year survival rates were: D+/R+, 71%; D+/R-, 69%; D- R-, 76%; and D-/R+, 76% (p=0.04). Patients in an ICU had a 3-year survival rate of 62%, compared to 72% for patients in a general ward and 74% for outpatients (p<0.0001). Patients that were on a VAD and there-upon transplanted had a 3-year survival rate of 65%, compared to 73% for patients without a VAD (p=0.004). Being on a ventilator was a major risk factor for death after transplantation; patients on ventilator support at the time of the transplant had a 3-year survival rate of 52% compared to 73% for the other patients (p<0.0001). LUNG TRANSPLANT SURVIVAL: The 3-year survival rate for children (73%) appeared to be better than the adult rate (61%; p=0.8). Adult lung transplant survival was significantly worse in the case of a repeat lung transplant; a 3-year retransplant survival rate of 42% was obtained compared with 61% for first transplants (p=0.049). With respect to the underlying end-stage lung disease, no statistically significant difference in long-term survival could be detected in this cohort. The 3-year survival rates were: 62% for COPD/Emphysema, 70% for CF, 58% for IPF, 64% for Alpha-1 ATD and 56% for PPH (p=0.2). Our data demonstrated no effect of the recipient's age on long-term lung transplant survival, except for 2 senior patients in this cohort. At 3-years the survival rates for recipients aged 16-40, 41-55 and 56-65 were 65%, 60% and 62%, respectively (p=0.05). The 3-year survival rates for transplants performed with lungs from donors aged under 16, 16-44, 45-55 and over 55 was 57%, 64%, 55% and 62%, respectively (p=0.1) No association between the duration of cold ischemic time and 3-year survival was observed; under 3 hours, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and over 6 hours of ischemia resulted in 3-year survival rates of 53%, 59%, 64%, 68% and 57%, respectively (p=0.2). Early posttransplant outcome tended to be better for gender-matched transplants, while transplanting a female donor lung into a male recipient was associated with the worst prognosis. The 3-year survival rates were 65% for male/male, 63% for male/female, 48% for female/male and 61% for female/female (p=0.009). No effect of donor-to-recipient weight match was observed in this Eurotransplant cohort; when the donor-to-recipient weight ratio was below 0.8, the 3-year survival rate was 57%, compared with 59% for weight-matched pairs and 64% for patients who received a lung from an oversized donor (p=0.5). Long-term survival after lung transplantation was influenced by HLA matching. The 3-year survival rates were 100%, 68%, 70%, 65%, 54% and 55% for the HLA-A,-B,-DR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mismatched groups, respectively (p=0.06). A donor CMV+ and recipient CMV- match was a risk factor for long-term mortality, with 3-year survival rates of 56% for D+/R+, 55% for D+/R-, 71% for D-/R- and 62% for D-/R+ transplants (p=0.046). En-bloc transplantation of both lungs yielded worse early results, but the 3-year survival rates for patients who underwent single (60%), bilateral sequential double lung (63%) and en-bloc double lung transplantation (56%) were not different (p=0.2). Ventilator dependency was associated with a significantly reduced survival at 3 years. Patients on a ventilator support at the time of the transplant had a 3-year survival rate of 48% compared with 63% for other patients (p=0.006).


Subject(s)
Heart Transplantation , Lung Transplantation , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Body Weight , Cohort Studies , Cryopreservation , Europe , Female , Histocompatibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reoperation , Survival Analysis , Time Factors , Tissue Donors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...