Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Similar 5-Year Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Between Kidney Transplants From Uncontrolled and Controlled Donors After Circulatory Death-A Dutch Cohort Study.
Peters-Sengers, Hessel; Homan van der Heide, Jaap J; Heemskerk, Martin B A; Ten Berge, Ineke J M; Ultee, Fred C W; Idu, Mirza M; Betjes, Michiel G H; van Zuilen, Arjan D; Christiaans, Maarten H L; Hilbrands, Luuk H; de Vries, Aiko P J; Nurmohamed, Azam S; Berger, Stefan P; Bemelman, Frederike J.
Afiliación
  • Peters-Sengers H; 1 Department of Nephrology, Academic Medical Center, the Netherlands. 2 Dutch Transplant Foundation, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3 Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, the Netherlands. 4 Department of Nephrology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5 Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6 Department of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 7 Department of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical
Transplantation ; 101(6): 1144-1151, 2017 06.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27257998
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Organ shortage persists despite a high rate of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Netherlands. The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in 2013 was 3.5 years. Most DCD kidneys are from controlled DCD (cDCD; Maastricht category III). Experience with uncontrolled donors after cardiac death (uDCD), that is, donors with an unexpected and irreversible cardiac arrest (Maastricht categories I and II), is increasing; and its effect on transplant outcomes needs evaluation.

METHODS:

We used the Dutch Organ Transplantation Registry to include recipients (≥18 years old) from all Dutch centers who received transplants from 2002 to 2012 with a first DCD kidney. We compared transplant outcome in uDCD (n = 97) and cDCD (n = 1441).

RESULTS:

Primary nonfunction in uDCD was higher than in the cDCD (19.6% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001, respectively). Delayed graft function was also higher in uDCD than in cDCD, but not significantly (73.7% vs 63.3%, P = .074, respectively). If censored for primary nonfunction, estimated glomerular filtration rates after 1 year and 5 years were comparable between uDCD and cDCD (1 year uDCD, 44.3 (23.4) mL/min/m and cDCD, 45.8 (24.1) mL/min/m; P = 0.621; 5 years uDCD, 49.1 (25.6) mL/min/m and cDCD, 47.7 (21.7) mL/min/m; P = 0.686). The differences in primary nonfunction between kidneys from uDCD and cDCD were explained by differences in the first warm ischemic period, cold ischemic time, and donor age.

CONCLUSIONS:

We conclude that uDCD kidneys have potential for excellent function and can constitute a valuable extension of the donor pool. However, further efforts are necessary to address the high rate of primary nonfunction.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Donantes de Tejidos / Enfermedades Cardiovasculares / Trasplante de Riñón / Selección de Donante / Tasa de Filtración Glomerular / Riñón Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Transplantation Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Donantes de Tejidos / Enfermedades Cardiovasculares / Trasplante de Riñón / Selección de Donante / Tasa de Filtración Glomerular / Riñón Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Transplantation Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article