Comparison of Various Functional Assessment Tools to Identify Older Patients Undergoing Aortic Aneurysm Repair at Risk for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: To estimate whether the benefits of aortic aneurysm repair will outweigh the risks, determining individual risks is essential. This single-center prospective cohort study aimed to compare the association of functional tools with postoperative complications in older patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (≥65 years) who underwent aortic aneurysm repair were included. Four functional tools were administered: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); the 4-Meter Walk Test (4-MWT); handgrip strength; and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Primary outcome was the association between all tests and 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, the odds ratio for MoCA was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.450; 3.157; P = 0.723), for 4-MWT 0.63 (95% CI 0.242; 1.650; P = 0.348), for GFI 1.82 (95% CI 0.783; 4.323, P = 0.162), and for weak handgrip strength 4.78 (95% CI 1.338; 17.096, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Weak handgrip strength is significantly associated with the development of postoperative complications after aortic aneurysm repair. This study strengthens the idea that implementing a quick screening tool for risk assessment at the outpatient clinic, such as handgrip strength, identifies patients who may benefit from preoperative enhancement with help from, for example, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, eventually leading to better outcomes for this patient group.

Pre-donation Assessment of Cystatin C to Improve Prediction of Pre- and Post-Donation GFR in Potential Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Accurate estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in living kidney donation. While most eGFR equations are based on plasma creatinine, its levels are strongly influenced by muscle mass. Application of cystatin C (CysC)-based estimates before donation may improve both estimation of current GFR and prediction of post-donation GFR. METHODS: We assessed the performance of CKD-EPI equations based on creatinine (eGFRcreat-2009, eGFRcreat-2021), cystatin C (eGFRCysC-2012), or both (eGFRcombined-2012, eGFRcombined-2021) for estimating pre- and post-donation measured GFR in 486 living kidney donors. We subsequently focused on a subgroup of individuals with high/low muscle mass (25% highest/lowest 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion, sex-stratified and height-indexed). RESULTS: Pre-donation eGFRcombined 2012 and eGFRcombined 2021 showed the strongest associations with pre- and post-donation mGFR. Pre-donation eGFRcombined 2021 was most accurate for estimating both pre-donation (bias 0.01±11.9 mL/min/1.73m2) and post-donation mGFR (bias 1.3±8.5 mL/min/1.73 m2). In donors with high/low muscle mass, CysC-based equations (with or without creatinine) performed better compared to equations based on only creatinine. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, combined eGFR equations yielded a better estimate of pre- and post-donation mGFR, compared to estimates based on creatinine or CysC only. The added value of CysC seems particularly pronounced in donors with high or low muscle mass.

Age Disparities in Access to First and Repeat Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that older patients are less frequently placed on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) than their younger counterparts. The trends and magnitude of this age disparity in access to first KT and repeat KT (re-KT) remain unclear. METHODS: Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 2 496 743 adult transplant-naive dialysis patients and 110 338 adult recipients with graft failure between 1995 and 2018. We characterized the secular trends of age disparities and used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the chances of listing and receiving first KT versus re-KT by age (18-64 y versus ≥65 y). RESULTS: Older transplant-naive dialysis patients were less likely to be listed (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.18) and receive first KT (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.89) compared with their younger counterparts. Additionally, older patients with graft failure had a lower chance of being listed (aHR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The magnitude of the age disparity in being listed for first KT was greater than that for re-KT ( Pinteraction < 0.001), and there were no differences in the age disparities in receiving first KT or re-KT ( Pinteraction = 0.13). Between 1995 and 2018, the age disparity in listing for first KT reduced significantly ( P < 0.001), but the age disparities in re-KT remained the same ( P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Age disparities exist in access to both first KT and re-KT; however, some of this disparity is attenuated among older adults with graft failure. As the proportion of older patients with graft failure rises, a better understanding of factors that preclude their candidacy and identification of appropriate older patients are needed.

Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, there has been a rapid change in the gender ratio of medical doctors, whereas gender differences in academia remain apparent. In transplantation research, a field already understaffed with female doctors and researchers, there is little published data on the development in proportion, citations, and funding of female researchers over the past years. METHODS: To evaluate the academic impact of female doctors in transplantation research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis (01 January 1999 to 31 December 2018) of high-impact scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in this field. Web of Science data was used in combination with software R-Package "Gender," to predict gender by first names. RESULTS: For this study, 15 498 (36.2% female; 63.8% male) first and 13 345 (30.2% female; 69.8% male) last author gender matches were identified. An increase in the percentage of female first and last authors is seen in the period 1999-2018, with clear differences between countries (55.1% female authors in The Netherlands versus 13.1% in Japan, for example). When stratifying publications based on the number of citations, a decline was seen in the percentage of female authors, from 34.6%-30.7% in the first group (≤10 citations) to 20.8%-23.2% in the fifth group (>200 citations), for first (P < 0.001) and last (P = 0.014) authors, respectively. From all first author name-gender matches, 6574 (41.6% female; 58.4% male, P < 0.001) publications reported external funding, with 823 (35.5% female; 64.5% male, P = 0.701) reported funding by pharmaceutical companies and 1266 (36.6% female; 63.4% male, P < 0.001) reporting funding by the National Institutes of Health. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first analysis of gender bias in scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in transplantation research. We show ongoing differences between male and female authors in citation rates and rewarded funding in this field. This requires an active approach to increase female representation in research reporting and funding rewarding.