Early outcomes of kidney transplantation from elderly donors after circulatory death (GEODAS study)

María José Pérez-Sáez, Omar Lafuente Covarrubias, Domingo Hernández, Francesc Moreso, Edoardo Melilli, Javier Juega, Erika De Sousa, Paula López-Sánchez, María Luisa Rodríguez-Ferrero, Naroa Maruri-Kareaga, María Dolores Navarro, Rosalía Valero, María Auxiliadora Mazuecos, Francisco Llamas, Paloma Martín-Moreno, Antón Fernández-García, Jordi Espí, Carlos Jiménez, Ana Ramos, Eva GavelaJulio Pascual, Jose M. Portolés, Omar Lafuente Covarrubias, Beatriz Sánchez-Sobrino, Julio Pascual Santos, Ana Zapatero, Domingo Hernández-Marrero, Anna Manonelles, Ricardo Lauzurica, Erika De Souza, Fritz Diekmann, Sofia Zárraga, Alberto Rodríguez-Benot, Juan Carlos Ruiz, Ángel Alonso, Isabel Beneyto, María López-Oliva, Asunción Sancho-Calabuig

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearch

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    © 2019 The Author(s). Background: Spain has dramatically increased the number of controlled circulatory death donors (cDCD). The initial selection criteria for considering cDCD for kidney transplantation (KT) have been expanded progressively, with practically no limits in donor age during the last years. We aimed to analyze the early clinical outcomes using expanded (> 65 years) cDCD in comparison with standard ones. Methods: Observational multicenter study including 19 transplant centers in Spain. We performed a systematic inclusion in a central database of every KT from expanded cDCD at each participant unit from January-2012 to January-2017. Surgical procedures and immunosuppressive protocols were based on local practices. Data was analyzed in the central office using logistic and Cox regression or competitive-risk models for multivariate analysis. Median time of follow-up was 18.1 months. Results: 561 KT were performed with kidneys from cDCD, 135 from donors older than 65 years. As expected, recipients from older cDCD were also older (65.8 (SD 8.8) vs 53.7 (SD 11.4) years; p < 0.001) and with higher comorbidity. At 1 year, no differences were found amongst older and younger cDCD KT recipients in terms of serum creatinine (1.6 (SD 0.7) vs 1.5 (SD 0.8) mg/dl; p = 0.29). Non-death censored graft survival was inferior, but death-censored graft survival was not different (95.5 vs 98.2% respectively; p = 0.481). They also presented a trend towards higher delayed graft function (55.4 vs 46.7%; p = 0.09) but a similar rate of primary non-function (3.7 vs 3.1%; p = 0.71), and acute rejection (3.0 vs 6.3%; p = 0.135). In the multivariate analysis, in short follow-up, donor age was not related with worse survival or poor kidney function (eGFR < 30 ml/min). Conclusions: The use of kidneys from expanded cDCD is increasing for older and comorbid patients. Short-term graft outcomes are similar for expanded and standard cDCD, so they constitute a good-enough source of kidneys to improve the options of KT wait-listed patients.
    Original languageEnglish
    Article number233
    JournalBMC Nephrology
    Volume20
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 26 Jun 2019

    Keywords

    • Clinical outcomes
    • Delayed graft function
    • Donors after circulatory death
    • Elderly donors
    • Kidney transplantation

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Early outcomes of kidney transplantation from elderly donors after circulatory death (GEODAS study)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this