Individual studies indicate that kidney transplantation is associated with lower mortality and improved quality of life compared with chronic dialysis treatment. We did a systematic review to summarize the benefits of transplantation, aiming to identify characteristics associated with especially large or small relative benefit. Results were not pooled because of expected diversity inherent to observational studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist and items related to time-to-event analysis techniques. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to February 2010. Cohort studies comparing adult chronic dialysis patients with kidney transplantation recipients for clinical outcomes were selected. We identified 110 eligible studies with a total of 1 922 300 participants. Most studies found significantly lower mortality associated with transplantation, and the relative magnitude of the benefit seemed to increase over time (p < 0.001). Most studies also found that the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly reduced among transplant recipients. Quality of life was significantly and substantially better among transplant recipients. Despite increases in the age and comorbidity of contemporary transplant recipients, the relative benefits of transplantation seem to be increasing over time. These findings validate current attempts to increase the number of people worldwide that benefit from kidney transplantation.

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (SHK) remains uncommon in the US. We examined outcomes of SHK compared to heart transplant alone (HTA) and deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT).Data from OPTN/UNOS heart and kidney data bases were used to identify 16 710 HTA, 263 SHK transplants and 68 833 DDK transplants between 1998 and 2007. Outcomes included patient survival (PS), acute cardiac and renal rejection and renal graft survival (rGS).The adjusted risk of death was 44% lower with SHK compared to HTA. Over half of SHK were performed in cases where pretransplant dialysis was not initiated. In these cases, there was no significant difference in the risk of death between SHK and HTA (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.67-1.50).Recipients of SHK had worse 1-year rGS and PS and had a higher relative risk of overall renal graft loss compared to DDKT recipients. One-year rates of cardiac (14.5%) and renal (6.5%) rejection were lower in SHK compared to HTA and DDKT, respectively.Recipients of SHK had a lower adjusted risk of death compared to HTA recipients, particularly in patients who required pretransplant dialysis. These data suggest that SHK should be considered in heart transplant candidates with renal failure requiring dialysis, whereas the utility of SHK in cases of renal failure not requiring dialysis warrants further study.

DKT were infrequent and had outcomes comparable to ECD transplants, despite the use of organs from higher risk donors. With a more upfront approach to DKT by offering this option to patients at the time of wait-listing as part of an ECD algorithm, we may be able to further optimize outcomes of DKT and minimize discard of potential organs.

Some living kidney donors incur economic consequences as a result of donation; however, these costs are poorly quantified. We developed a framework to comprehensively assess economic consequences from the donor perspective including out-of-pocket cost, lost wages and home productivity loss. We prospectively enrolled 100 living kidney donors from seven Canadian centers between 2004 and 2008 and collected and valued economic consequences ($CAD 2008) at 3 months and 1 year after donation. Almost all (96%) donors experienced economic consequences, with 94% reporting travel costs and 47% reporting lost pay. The average and median costs of lost pay were $2144 (SD 4167) and $0 (25th–75th percentile 0, 2794), respectively. For other expenses (travel, accommodation, medication and medical), mean and median costs were $1780 (SD 2504) and $821 (25th–75th percentile 242, 2271), respectively. From the donor perspective, mean cost was $3268 (SD 4704); one-third of donors incurred cost >$3000, and 15% >$8000. The majority of donors (83%) reported inability to perform usual household activities for an average duration of 33 days; 8% reported out-of-pocket costs for assistance with these activities. The economic impact of living kidney donation for some individuals is large. We advocate for programs to reimburse living donors for their legitimate costs.In a prospective costing study, the authors find that economic consequences incurred by living kidney donors are frequent and nontrivial, and a notable proportion of donors experience significant costs.

Conclusions: Tourists had a more complex posttransplantation course with a higher incidence of acute rejection and severe infectious complications.

The conference agenda, discussion questions, and plenary session presentations are available on the KDIGO website: https://kdigo.org/ conferences/controversies-conference-on-coronary-artery-valvulardisease/. 18 THM and MJS are primary co-authors.

No abstract

The growing number of elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease awaiting transplantation has resulted in a corresponding rise in the number of elderly transplant recipients. In this paper, we review existing literature on age-related changes, transplant outcomes, and complications in the elderly in an attempt to propose a tailored approach to immunosuppression management in this group of patients. Despite the fact that the benefit of transplantation in the elderly is well established, clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of immunosuppression regimens are lacking. Until such data exists, immunosuppression of the elderly transplant recipient should be based on the traditional principles which guide all transplant protocols and consideration of factors that are unique to the elderly. There are limited data regarding age-related changes in immune function and metabolism of immunosuppression agents in this population. Results of registry data analyses suggest that the risk of acute rejection decreases with age; however, the impact of acute rejection on long-term allograft function is greater in this population. There is also an increased risk of infection and adverse events posttransplantation among these patients. Elderly patients are more likely to receive organs from extended criteria donors and the impact of donor factors on transplant outcomes must therefore be considered. Taking these factors into consideration, we propose an approach to immunosuppression in the elderly based on individual risk stratification of treatment failure and the potential for adverse events.