Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Nephrology 1/2019

Open Access 01.12.2019 | Research article

Impact of acute kidney injury in expanded criteria deceased donors on post-transplant clinical outcomes: multicenter cohort study

verfasst von: Woo Yeong Park, Min-Seok Choi, Young Soo Kim, Bum Soon Choi, Cheol Whee Park, Chul Woo Yang, Yong-Soo Kim, Kyubok Jin, Seungyeup Han, Byung Ha Chung

Erschienen in: BMC Nephrology | Ausgabe 1/2019

Abstract

Background

The problem of organ shortage is an important issue in kidney transplantation, but the effect of kidney donation on AKI is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) on post-transplant clinical outcomes for deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) using standard criteria donors (SCDs) versus expanded criteria donors (ECDs).

Methods

Five-hundred nine KT recipients receiving kidneys from 386 deceased donors (DDs) were included from three transplant centers. Recipients were classified into the SCD-KT or ECD-KT group according to corresponding DDs and both groups were divided into the AKI-KT or non-AKI-KT subgroups according to AKI in donor. We compared the clinical outcomes among those four groups and investigated the interaction between AKI in donors and ECD on allograft outcome.

Results

The incidence of delayed allograft function was higher when the donors had AKI within SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups. In allograft biopsies within 3 months, chronic change was more significant in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than in the non-AKI-ECD-KT subgroup, but it did not differ between AKI-SCD-KT and non-AKI-SCD-KT group. AKI-ECD-KT showed higher risk for death-censored allograft failure than the other three groups and a significant interaction was observed between AKI in donors and ECD on the allograft outcome.

Conclusions

The presence of AKI in ECDs significantly impacted the long-term allograft outcomes of kidney transplant recipients, but it did not in SCDs.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12882-019-1225-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Woo Yeong Park and Min-Seok Choi contributed equally to this work.
Abkürzungen
AKI
Acute kidney injury
BMI
Body mass index
CKD
Chronic kidney disease
CVA
Cerebrovascular accident
DDKT
Deceased donor kidney transplantation
DDs
Deceased donors
DGF
Delayed graft function
DM
Diabetes mellitus
ECDs
Expanded criteria donors
eGFR
Estimated glomerular filtration rate
GS
Glomerulosclerosis
HLA
Human leukocyte antigen
HTN
Hypertension
IF
Interstitial fibrosis
KDIGO
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes
KT
Kidney transplantation
KTRs
Kidney transplant recipients
MDRD
Modification of diet in renal disease
PRAs
Panel reactive antibodies
SCDs
Standard criteria donors
SD
Standard deviation
TA
Tubular atrophy
UNOS
United Network for Organ Sharing

Background

The imbalance between donors and recipients of kidney transplantation (KT) needs the increase of the potential donor pool for transplantation [17]. In this regard, the use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) in deceased donor (DD) KT has been proposed as an important strategy for solving this donor shortage [79]. Previous studies have demonstrated that the prognosis of KT from ECDs is not significantly different from that of KT from standard criteria donors (SCDs) [10, 11]. In contrast, other studies have reported that KT from ECDs yielded poorer clinical outcomes in terms of allograft survival rate compared with that from SCDs [12, 13]. Therefore, it is unclear whether DDKT from ECDs shows comparable clinical outcomes to that from SCDs.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is very common in recently deceased individuals [14, 15]. We and others have shown that, although AKI in DDs results in higher incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) in their corresponding recipients, it does not significantly impact long-term allograft survival [16, 17]. In contrast, other studies showed that AKI does impact long-term allograft outcomes [18]. Therefore, it is also unclear whether AKI itself has a significant impact on allograft outcomes.
With respect to AKI in the normal context, long-term renal outcomes largely depend on the underlying status of the kidney; therefore, the renal outcomes of AKI in underlying chronic kidney disease (CKD) are significantly worse than those of AKI in normal kidneys [19, 20]. Therefore, it is possible that AKI in ECDs, who might have underlying CKD, has a more significant impact on long-term allograft survival than AKI in SCDs, who might have less severe or no underlying CKD.
Based on these findings, we aimed to investigate whether the impact of AKI in DDs on the post-transplant clinical outcomes differs between KT from SCDs (SCD-KT) and those from ECDs (ECD-KT). To this end, we compared clinical outcomes including the incidence of DGF, allograft survival, and patient survival for KT from donors with AKI versus those for KT from non-AKI donors between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups, and also investigated the interaction between AKI in donors and ECD on allograft survival.

Methods

Study population

Five-hundred and nine kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) receiving kidneys from 386 DDs were included. The KTRs were treated at three transplant centers (A, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, B, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, and C, Keimyung University Hospital) between October 1996 and May 2016. ECD was defined according to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) criteria [21]. AKI was diagnosed according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. This criteria defines that AKI is an increase in a serum creatinine (SCr) level by ≥0.3 mg/dL (26.5 μmol/L) within 48 h or an increase in a SCr level to ≥1.5 times baseline that had already been known or presumed to have developed within 7 days, or a reduction in urine output (< 0.5 mL/kg/hour for 6 h). The stages of AKI were defined according to the severity of an increase in a SCr level or a reduction in urine output [17, 22].

Clinical parameters and outcomes

We retrospectively analyzed the donor and recipient data. The donor data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), history of diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HTN), cause of death, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The recipient data included age, sex, BMI, history and duration of dialysis before KT, number of previous KTs, cause of end-stage renal disease, history of DM and HTN, cold ischemic time, number of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, immunosuppressant type and percentage of panel-reactive antibodies (PRAs). We also analyzed the findings of allograft biopsies obtained within 3 months from KT in KTRs, and analyzed the extent of chronic damage (interstitial fibrosis (IF, ci > 0), tubular atrophy (TA, ct > 0), glomerulosclerosis (GS)) in the allograft tissue. We calculated the average score of IF and TA in each group [23]. DGF was defined as dialysis requirement within the first week after KT [24].
The primary outcome was to investigate the impact of AKI on the death-censored allograft survival for DDKT using SCDs versus ECDs, and analyze the interaction between AKI in DDs and ECDs. The secondary outcomes were to investigate the incidence of DGF, the change of allograft function by eGFR calculated using the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation until 1 year after KT [25], the chronic change in allograft tissue by allograft kidney biopsies performed within 3 months after KT, and the patient survival between SCD-KT and ECD-KT and between the AKI-KT and non-AKI-KT subgroups, respectively.
This study was approved by the institutional review boards of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital (XC15RIMI0061K), Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital (XC15RIMI0061U), and Keimyung University School of Medicine, Dongsan Medical Center (2017–08-019).

Statistical analysis

Student’s t-test was used for the analysis of continuous variables with a normal distribution, and those were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. On the contrary, the Mann-Whitney test was used for the analysis of those with a non-normal distribution. The Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze categorical variables, and those were expressed as the number and percentage. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used for the description of the death-censored graft survival and patient survival. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate whether AKI in DDs or ECD is an independent risk factor for the development of DGF and recipient age, transplant year (1996~2005 vs. 2006~2010 vs. 2011~2016), transplant center, prior KT, recipient diabetes, HLA mismatch number, high PRA, donor gender were included as confounding variables. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to investigate whether AKI in ECD is an independent risk factor for death censored allograft failure. Interaction effects between donor type (ECD vs. SCD) and AKI in donors were explored by adding interaction terms to the model in which donor type was treated as an ordinal in overall population. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and the statistical package MedCalc version 15.5 (MedCalc, Mariakerke, Belgium).

Results

Five-hundred and nine KTRs receiving kidneys from 386 DDs were included. Among the 386 DDs, 278 (72.0%) were classified as SCDs, and 108 (28.0%) were classified as ECDs. Ten DDs (5.2%) were diagnosed as AKI according to the decrease of urine output, and other 183 (94.8%) DDs were diagnosed according to the increase of serum creatinine level. In the SCD group, 112 (40.3%) donors had AKI; in the ECD group, 81 (75.0%) donors had AKI. KTRs were classified into the SCD-KT or ECD-KT group and each group was subdivided into an AKI donor group and a non-AKI donor group. Regarding distribution, 350 cases of SCD-KT group and 159 cases of ECD-KT group were analyzed (Fig. 1).

Comparison of baseline characteristics between the SCD and ECD groups and between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups

The median follow-up period of this study was 48.1 (interquartile range 29.6–75.3) months. The mean age of the ECD group was higher than that of the SCD group (58.4 ± 5.2 vs. 38.9 ± 13.4 years, p < 0.001). The proportions of HTN, DM, and death due to cerebrovascular accident (CVA) were significantly higher in the ECD group than in the SCD group (47.6% vs. 13.4%, p < 0.001, 18.1% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001 and 82.4% vs. 72.7%, p = 0.049, respectively). The baseline MDRD eGFR was significantly lower in the ECD group than in the SCD group (58.8 ± 23.6 ml/min/1.73 m2 vs. 76.0 ± 44.9 ml/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.001). The proportion of AKI was significantly higher in the ECD group than in the SCD group, but there was no significant difference according to the AKI stage between the two groups. All donors with AKI stage 3 took hemodialysis prior to organ procurement (Table 1).
Table 1
Comparison of clinical and laboratory parameters between expanded criteria donor (or recipient) and standard criteria donor (or recipient)
Variables
SCD (n = 278)
ECD (n = 108)
p for Trend
Donors
 Age at KT (years)
38.9 ± 13.4
58.4 ± 5.2
< 0.001
 Gender (Male: Female)
188: 90
79: 29
0.327
 BMI (kg/m2)
22.7 ± 3.8
23.2 ± 2.7
0.153
 HTN, n (%)
36 (13.4)
50 (47.6)
< 0.001
 DM, n (%)
15 (5.5)
19 (18.1)
< 0.001
 Cause of donor death - CVA, n (%)
202 (72.7)
89 (82.4)
0.049
 Baseline eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2)
76.0 ± 44.9
58.8 ± 23.6
< 0.001
 CKD stage 3 or above stage, n (%)
137 (49.5)
68 (63.0)
0.017
  AKI, n (%)
112 (40.3)
81 (75.0)
< 0.001
  Stage 1
43 (38.4)
22 (27.2)
 
  Stage 2
32 (28.6)
28 (34.6)
 
  Stage 3
37 (33.0)
31 (38.3)
 
 
SCD-KT (n = 350)
ECD-KT (n = 159)
p for Trend
Recipients
 Transplant centers, n (%)
  
0.083
  A
256 (73.1)
122 (76.7)
 
  B
21 (6.0)
15 (9.4)
 
  C
73 (20.9)
22 (13.8)
 
 Transplant year, n (%)
  
0.005
  1996–2005
35 (10.2)
6 (3.8)
 
  2006–2010
74 (21.1)
21 (13.2)
 
  2011–2016
241 (68.9)
132 (83.0)
 
 Age at KT (year)
46.6 ± 10.1
51.1 ± 9.4
< 0.001
 Gender (Male: Female)
191: 159
100: 59
0.083
 BMI (kg/m2)
22.5 ± 3.1
23.4 ± 3.4
0.003
 HTN, n (%)
297 (84.9)
139 (87.4)
0.497
 DM, n (%)
55 (15.7)
43 (27.0)
0.004
 Dialysis before KT, n (%)
344 (98.3)
158 (99.4)
0.443
 Dialysis duration, years
7.3 ± 4.6
7.6 ± 13.0
0.801
 Previous KT, n (%)
41 (11.7)
10 (6.3)
0.079
 Cause of ESRD, n (%)
  
0.001
  Glomerulonephritis
165 (47.1)
53 (33.3)
 
  DM
45 (12.9)
36 (22.6)
 
  HTN
57 (16.3)
40 (25.2)
 
  Others
83 (23.7)
30 (18.9)
 
 Cold ischemic time (min)
244 ± 131
240 ± 110
0.749
 HLA mismatch number
3.7 ± 1.4
3.7 ± 1.5
0.646
 Induction, n (%)
  
0.070
  Basiliximab
279 (79.7)
114 (71.7)
 
  ATG
70 (20.0)
45 (28.3)
 
 Main immunosuppressant, n (%)
  Tacrolimus: Cyclosporine
316: 33
153: 6
0.035
 PRA > 50%
52 (18.6)
20 (13.7)
0.222
Values are expressed as means ± SDs, or n (%)
SCD standard criteria donor, ECD expanded criteria donor, KT kidney transplantation, BMI body mass index, HTN hypertension, DM diabetes mellitus, CVA cerebrovascular accident, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, CKD chronic kidney disease, AKI acute kidney injury, ESRD end-stage renal disease, HLA human leukocyte antigen, ATG antithymocyte globulin, PRA panel reactive antibody
Regarding the recipients, the mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group (51.1 ± 9.4 vs. 46.6 ± 10.1 years, p < 0.001, 23.4 ± 3.4 vs. 22.5 ± 3.1, p = 0.003, respectively). The proportion of KTRs with DM was significantly higher in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group (27.0% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.004) (Table 1). In the comparison of baseline characteristics between the AKI and non-AKI subgroups within the SCD-KT or ECD-KT group, donors were significantly younger in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than in the non-AKI-ECD-KT subgroup (p < 0.001) (Table 2).
Table 2
Comparison of clinical and laboratory parameters according to acute kidney injury in expanded criteria donor or standard criteria donor kidney transplantation
Variables
SCD-KT
ECD-KT
Non-AKI-KT
AKI-KT
p for Trend
Non-AKI-KT
AKI-KT
p for Trend
Donors
n = 166
n = 112
 
n = 27
n = 81
 
 Age at KT (years)
38.3 ± 14.5
39.9 ± 11.8
0.329
61.0 ± 3.4
57.5 ± 5.4
< 0.001
 Gender (Male: Female)
107: 59
81: 31
0.192
16: 11
63: 18
0.079
 BMI (kg/m2)
21.9 ± 3.7
23.8 ± 3.8
< 0.001
23.9 ± 2.7
23.0 ± 2.7
0.156
 HTN, n (%)
23 (14.5)
13 (11.8)
0.588
15 (55.6)
35 (44.9)
0.377
 DM, n (%)
11 (6.8)
4 (3.6)
0.293
3 (11.1)
16 (20.5)
0.388
 Cause of donor death - CVA, n (%)
114 (68.7)
88 (78.6)
0.076
23 (85.2)
66 (81.5)
0.777
Recipients
n = 196
n = 154
 
n = 43
n = 116
 
 Age at KT (yr)
46.3 ± 9.5
47.1 ± 11.0
0.340
51.9 ± 9.3
50.8 ± 9.5
0.524
 Gender (Male: Female)
105: 91
86: 68
0.746
29: 14
71: 45
0.580
 BMI (kg/m2)
22.5 ± 3.3
22.5 ± 2.9
0.681
23.6 ± 3.2
23.3 ± 3.4
0.681
 HTN, n (%)
163 (83.2)
134 (87.0)
0.369
36 (83.7)
103 (88.8)
0.423
 DM, n (%)
26 (13.3)
29 (18.8)
0.183
11 (25.6)
32 (27.6)
0.844
 Dialysis before KT, n (%)
193 (98.5)
151 (98.1)
1.000
42 (97.7)
116 (100.0)
0.270
 Dialysis duration, years
7.8 ± 4.9
6.8 ± 4.3
0.321
5.9 ± 4.5
8.3 ± 15.0
0.305
 Previous KT, n (%)
21 (10.7)
20 (13.0)
0.616
2 (4.7)
8 (6.9)
0.730
 Cause of ESRD, n (%)
  
0.013
  
0.768
  Glomerulonephritis
107 (54.6)
58 (37.7)
 
15 (34.9)
38 (32.8)
 
  DM
20 (10.2)
25 (16.2)
 
9 (20.9)
27 (23.3)
 
  HTN
30 (15.3)
27 (17.5)
 
9 (20.9)
31 (26.7)
 
  Others
39 (19.9)
44 (28.6)
 
10 (23.3)
20 (17.2)
 
 Cold ischemic time (min)
243 ± 132
245 ± 131
0.927
235 ± 99
242 ± 115
0.716
 HLA mismatch number
3.6 ± 1.5
3.8 ± 1.2
0.241
3.6 ± 1.6
3.8 ± 1.4
0.442
 Induction, n (%)
  
0.001
  
0.239
  Basiliximab
169 (86.2)
111 (72.1)
 
34 (79.1)
80 (69.0)
 
  ATG
27 (13.8)
43 (27.9)
 
9 (20.9)
36 (31.0)
 
 Main immunosuppressant, n (%)
  Tacrolimus: Cyclosporine
175: 20
141: 13
0.769
40: 3
113: 3
0.345
 PRA > 50%
30 (20.8)
22 (16.3)
0.359
4 (10.5)
16 (14.8)
0.595
Values are expressed as means ± SDs, n (%)
SCD standard criteria donor, ECD expanded criteria donor, AKI acute kidney injury, KT kidney transplantation, BMI body mass index, HTN hypertension, DM diabetes mellitus, CVA cerebrovascular accident, ESRD end-stage renal disease, HLA human leukocyte antigen, ATG antithymocyte globulin, PRA panel reactive antibody

Comparison of the impact of donor AKI on the development of delayed graft function and changes in allograft function between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups

The incidence of DGF was not significantly different between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups (Fig. 2a). In a subgroup analysis, the incidence of DGF was significantly higher in the AKI-KT subgroup than in the non-AKI-KT subgroup in both SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups (p = 0.005, p = 0.002, respectively) (Fig. 2b). In multivariate analysis, AKI was a significant risk factor for the development of DGF, but ECD was not. AKI and ECD did not show significant interaction effect (p = 0.998) (Table 3).
Table 3
Odd ratios for delayed graft function on the status of acute kidney injury or expanded criteria donor in deceased donor
 
Unadjusted OR (95% C.I.)
p
Adjusted ORa (95% C.I.)
p
p-value for interaction
AKI-KT
2.270 (1.423–3.621)
0.001
5.077 (2.564–10.055
< 0.001
0.998
ECD-KT
0.607 (0.365–1.011)
0.055
0.557 (0.293–1.056)
0.073
 
OR odds ratio, C.I. confidence interval, AKI acute kidney injury, KT kidney transplantation, ECD expanded criteria donor
aAdjusted by recipient age, transplant year, transplant center, prior KT, recipient diabetes, HLA mismatch number, high PRA, donor gender
Allograft function through the first 12 months post-KT was significantly lower in the ECD-KT group compared with the SCD-KT group (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2c). In the subgroup analysis of the SCD-KT group, allograft function was significantly lower in the AKI-SCD-KT subgroup compared with the non-AKI-SCD-KT subgroup (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2d). In the ECD-KT group, allograft function was significantly lower in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup until 3 months post-KT (p < 0.05); however, no difference was observed after this time (Fig. 2e).

Comparison of the impact of donor AKI on the chronic allograft tissue injury between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups

We analyzed the findings of allograft biopsies obtained within 3 months from KT in 243 KTRs (Additional file 1: Figure S1). Regarding the allograft biopsies performed within 3 months, proportions of allograft tissue with IF (a) and TA (b) were significantly higher in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group (38.8% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.010 and 38.8% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.010, respectively). The mean GS percentage was significantly higher in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group (17.5 ± 23.3% vs. 5.0 ± 9.2%, p = 0.001) (c). In the SCD-KT group, there was no significant difference in the proportion of allograft tissue with IF, TA, or the mean GS percentage between the non-AKI-SCD-KT and AKI-SCD-KT subgroups. In contrast, in the ECD-KT group, the proportion of allograft tissue with IF, TA, and the mean GS percentage all tended to be higher in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than in the non-AKI-ECD-KT subgroup (d, e, f).

Comparison of the impact of AKI in donors on the death-censored allograft survival between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups

A total of 73 cases (14.3%) of graft failure developed, including 52 (14.9%) cases in the SCD-KT group (33 patients in the non-AKI-SCD-KT subgroup and 19 patients in the AKI-SCD-KT subgroup) and 21 in the ECD-KT group (2 patients in the non-AKI-ECD-KT subgroup and 19 patients in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup). No significant difference was detected in the causes of allograft failure between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups or between the AKI-KT and non-AKI-KT subgroups within the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups (Table 4). Death-censored allograft survival tended to be higher in the SCD-KT group than in the ECD-KT group, but this difference was not significant (Fig. 3a). Meanwhile, it was significantly lower in the AKI-ECD subgroup in comparison with other 3 groups. However, AKI-SCD-KT or non-AKI-ECD-KT subgroup did not show a significant difference to non-AKI-SCD-KT group (Fig. 3b). Table 5 shows the incidence of allograft failure and the hazard ratios. The highest incidence of allograft failure was observed in AKI-ECD-KT subgroup. The predictors for allograft failure were evaluated using non-AKI-SCD-KT subgroup as the reference group. In multivariate analysis, KTRs from DDs with both AKI and ECD had the highest risks of the allograft failure after adjustment for recipient age, recipient diabetes, high PRA, transplant year, transplant center. There was a significant interaction between AKI in DDs and ECD for the allograft failure (p for interaction = 0.007). However, a significant hazard ratio for allograft failure was not observed in KTRs from DD with either AKI or ECD only.
Table 4
Comparison of causes of graft failure and patient death according to acute kidney injury in expanded criteria donor or standard criteria donor kidney transplantation
Variables
SCD-KT
ECD-KT
Non-AKI-KT
AKI-KT
p for Trend
Non-AKI-KT
AKI-KT
p for Trend
Cause of graft failure, n (%)
n = 33
n = 19
0.290
n = 2
n = 19
0.429
 Acute rejection
11 (33.3)
4 (21.1)
 
0
4 (21.1)
 
 Chronic rejection
5 (15.2)
5 (26.3)
 
1 (50.0)
7 (36.8)
 
 Recurrent glomerulonephritis
2 (6.1)
1 (5.3)
 
1 (50.0)
1 (5.3)
 
 BK virus-associated nephropathy
2 (6.1)
0
 
0
1 (5.3)
 
 Infection
2 (6.1)
0
 
0
1 (5.3)
 
 Ischemic injury
1 (3.0)
2 (10.5)
 
0
0
 
 Patient death with functioning graft
10 (30.0)
7 (36.8)
 
0
5 (26.3)
 
Cause of patient death, n (%)
n = 13
n = 7
1.000
n = 0
n = 7
ns
 Cardiovascular disease
4 (30.8)
2 (28.6)
 
0
3 (42.9)
 
 Infection
4 (30.8)
3 (42.9)
 
0
3 (42.9)
 
 Malignancy
3 (23.1)
1 (14.3)
 
0
0
 
 Bleeding
1 (7.7)
0
 
0
0
 
 Unknown
1 (7.7)
1 (14.3)
 
0
0
 
 Cerebrovascular accident
0
0
 
0
1 (14.3)
 
Values are expressed as n (%)
SCD standard criteria donor, KT kidney transplantation, ECD expanded criteria donor, AKI acute kidney injury
Table 5
Incidence and hazard ratios of death-censored allograft failure on the status of acute kidney injury or expanded criteria donor in deceased donor
 
No. of events
P
Unadjusted HR (95% C.I.)
p
Adjusted HRa (95% C.I.)
p
p-value for interaction
Non-AKI-SCD-KT
24 (12.2%)
0.290
Reference
 
Reference
 
0.007
AKI-SCD-KT
12 (7.8%)
 
0.745 (0.419–1.323)
0.315
0.836 (0.403–1.734)
0.630
 
Non-AKI-ECD-KT
2 (4.7%)
 
0.521 (0.180–1.523)
0.231
0.309 (0.041–2.351)
0.257
 
AKI-ECD-KT
14 (12.1%)
 
2.175 (1.234–3.832)
0.007
2.122 (1.034–4.353)
0.040
 
Values are expressed as n (%)
aAdjusted by recipient age, recipient diabetes, high PRA, transplant year, transplant center
No number, HR hazard ratio, AKI acute kidney injury, SCD standard criteria donor, ECD expanded criteria donosr

Comparison of the impact of donor AKI on patient survival between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups

A total of 27 patients (5.3%) died, 20 of whom were in the SCD-KT group (13 patients in the non-AKI-SCD-KT subgroup and 7 patients in the AKI-SCD-KT subgroup) and 7 of whom were in the ECD-KT group (all 7 in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup). The causes of death of the KTRs in the SCD-KT group were as follows: cardiovascular disease, 6 (30.0%); infection, 7 (35.0%); malignancy, 4 (20.0%); gastrointestinal bleeding 1, (5.0%); and unknown cause 2 (10.0%). In the ECD-KT group, the causes of death were as follows: cardiovascular disease, 3 (42.9%); infection, 3 (42.9%); and CVA, 1 (14.3%). There was no significant difference in the cause of patient death (Table 4) or in the patient survival rate between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups (p = 0.61) (Fig. 4a). When we compared patient survival among 4 groups (non-AKI-SCD-KT, AKI-SCD-KT, non-AKI-ECD-KT and AKI-ECD-KT), there was no significant difference (p = 0.11) (Fig. 4b).

Discussion

In this study, we found that AKI considerably impacted post-transplant allograft survival when the DDs were classified as ECDs, whereas AKI did not have a significant impact when the DDs were SCDs. Our results suggest that strategies for preventing or minimizing the development of AKI in DDs, especially in ECDs, might help to improve allograft outcomes.
First, we compared the clinical characteristics of ECDs with those of SCDs. Donor age and the incidences of HTN, CVA, and AKI should be higher in ECDs because these factors define ECD [21]. Although DM was not included in the ECD criteria, the incidence was significantly higher in ECDs than in SCDs, perhaps because ECDs were significantly older than SCDs. Since the presence of DM or HTN can suggest underlying chronic tissue injury irrespective of allograft function, such donors could be diagnosed with CKD [26]. In addition, baseline allograft function as calculated by the MDRD equation was significantly lower in ECDs than in SCDs. Moreover, the proportion of donors with eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which can be diagnosed as stage 3 or advanced stage CKD, was significantly higher in ECDs than in SCDs [26]. All of the above findings suggest that a significantly higher proportion of ECDs have underlying CKD compared with SCDs.
In comparison of the short-term clinical outcomes between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups, the incidence of DGF tended to be higher in the SCD-KT group than the ECD-KT group (p = 0.054), although this difference was not significant. In contrast, the incidence of DGF was higher in the AKI subgroup than in the non-AKI subgroup in both the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups. Moreover, AKI was shown to be an independent risk factor for DGF in multivariate analysis, and that is consistent with previous studies [16, 18]. These findings suggest that recently developed AKI might have a more significant impact on the development of DGF compared to the baseline chronic damage of the allograft [10].
Meanwhile, allograft function at 6 months and 12 months post-transplant was lower in the ECD-KT group. The function might be lower because the baseline capacity to recover is lower in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group, as demonstrated by the lower baseline eGFR before KT (Table 1). Comparison of the AKI-KT and non-AKI-KT subgroups revealed that allograft function tended to deteriorate during the early post-transplant period. However, at about 1 year after KT, the allograft function of the two subgroups within the SCD-KT and ECD-KT were no longer significantly different, consistent with previous studies [10, 16, 27].
When we analyzed the chronic tissue injury score using allograft tissue obtained within 3 months of KT, the Banff scores (IF/TA, GS) associated with chronic damage were significantly higher in the ECD-KT group than in the SCD-KT group. Especially, they were significantly higher or showed higher tendency in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than other three subgroups, but it did not differ among those three subgroups. It is difficult to determine the reason AKI-ECD-KT subgroup had exclusively advanced chronic allograft tissue injury than other subgroups. However, as we described above, a significant proportion of ECDs might have underlying CKD. Moreover, the duration from KT to allograft biopsy (< 3 months) is relatively short for significant chronic tissue injury to develop in allograft kidneys after KT. Hence, this finding might represent the baseline status of the donated kidneys before KT. In addition, AKI can accelerate chronic kidney injury in CKD [19, 20, 28]. Previous study also suggests that allograft biopsy findings in the early period actually may reflect acute changes related to recovery from donor AKI [27]. Therefore, AKI in DDs may be associated with the higher IF/TA scores detected in post-transplant biopsy findings in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than other subgroups.
Our main interest is that whether AKI in DDs has different impact on the long-term allograft survival between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups. There was no significant difference between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups in death-censored allograft survival. In addition, there was no difference between the AKI-KT and non-AKI-KT subgroups, which is consistent with our previous reports (data not shown) [16, 17]. However, when we did subgroup analysis, AKI-ECD-KT subgroup showed significantly worse allograft survival than all other three subgroups (non-AKI-ECD-KT, non-AKI-SCD-KT and AKI-SCD-KT subgroup). In multivariate analysis using Cox regression hazard model, co-existence of AKI and ECD in donor was a significant contributor to allograft failure and we also found significant interaction between AKI in DDs and ECD on allograft failure. However, either AKI in DDs or ECD alone did not show significant impact. Above findings suggest that AKI in DDs may have a significant impact on allograft outcomes in ECD-KT, but not in SCD-KT group.
On the contrary, patient survival was not significantly different between the SCD-KT and ECD-KT groups, and the distribution of the cause of death did not depend on AKI. In the ECD-KT group, the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup tended to have worse outcomes, but these differences were not significant. It may be because patient death rate was too low to draw any conclusion about this issue. Another possible reason is that, because recipient age had such a strong effect on patient survival, the impact of other factors could appear as shown in the previous studies [2932]. However, further investigation is required to clarify this issue.
There are some limitations to our study. First, it is a retrospective study; therefore, there is a possibility of selection bias. However, we note that our study has analyzed a large number of KTRs from multiple centers, and we have adjusted our result according to transplant centers and also transplant year in the multivariate analysis. Second, we could not analyze allograft biopsy findings from all patients because the biopsies were performed in only about half of the patients. In addition, we did not perform serial biopsies to understand the extent of the causal relationship between the more advanced chronic allograft tissue injury and higher rate of allograft failure in the AKI-ECD-KT subgroup than other three groups. Lastly, we used ECD criteria instead of more recently introduced Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). However, the usefulness of KDPI has not been fully investigated, hence we decided to use ECD criteria in this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that AKI superimposed on ECDs has a synergistically adverse impact on the long-term post-transplant allograft outcomes in the corresponding recipients. Therefore, careful monitoring and strategies for protecting against AKI may be required especially in ECD, to prevent its adverse effect on the post-transplant allograft outcomes.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (NRF-2017R1D1A1B03029140). This funding supported the collection and analysis of the data in our study.

Availability of data and materials

No data has been submitted to any open access databases. Full patient records are being kept coded.
This study was approved by the institutional review boards of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital (XC15RIMI0061K), Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital (XC15RIMI0061U), and Keimyung University School of Medicine, Dongsan Medical Center (2017–08-019). The requirement for informed consent was waived because all patients had an explanation that prior to the transplantation, personal data related to the clinical course after the transplant was used and that the information identifying the individual was protected. This study was a retrospective medical record study, and this manuscript did not contain any personal identification information.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Goldberg D, Kallan MJ, Fu L, Ciccarone M, Ramirez J, Rosenberg P, Arnold J, Segal G, Moritsugu KP, Nathan H, et al. Changing metrics of organ procurement organization performance in order to increase organ donation rates in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(12):3183–92.CrossRef Goldberg D, Kallan MJ, Fu L, Ciccarone M, Ramirez J, Rosenberg P, Arnold J, Segal G, Moritsugu KP, Nathan H, et al. Changing metrics of organ procurement organization performance in order to increase organ donation rates in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(12):3183–92.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Girlanda R. Deceased organ donation for transplantation: challenges and opportunities. World J Transplant. 2016;6(3):451–9.CrossRef Girlanda R. Deceased organ donation for transplantation: challenges and opportunities. World J Transplant. 2016;6(3):451–9.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Saidi RF, Hejazii Kenari SK. Challenges of organ shortage for transplantation: solutions and opportunities. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2014;5(3):87–96.PubMedPubMedCentral Saidi RF, Hejazii Kenari SK. Challenges of organ shortage for transplantation: solutions and opportunities. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2014;5(3):87–96.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Keith DS, Vranic GM. Approach to the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(4):684–93.CrossRef Keith DS, Vranic GM. Approach to the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(4):684–93.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Park WY, Kang SS, Park SB, Park UJ, Kim HT, Cho WH, Han S. Comparison of clinical outcomes between ABO-compatible and ABO-incompatible spousal donor kidney transplantation. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2016;35(1):50–4.CrossRef Park WY, Kang SS, Park SB, Park UJ, Kim HT, Cho WH, Han S. Comparison of clinical outcomes between ABO-compatible and ABO-incompatible spousal donor kidney transplantation. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2016;35(1):50–4.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Snanoudj R, Timsit MO, Rabant M, Tinel C, Lazareth H, Lamhaut L, Martinez F, Legendre C. Dual kidney transplantation: is it worth it? Transplantation. 2017;101(3):488–97.CrossRef Snanoudj R, Timsit MO, Rabant M, Tinel C, Lazareth H, Lamhaut L, Martinez F, Legendre C. Dual kidney transplantation: is it worth it? Transplantation. 2017;101(3):488–97.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Perez-Saez MJ, Montero N, Redondo-Pachon D, Crespo M, Pascual J. Strategies for an expanded use of kidneys from elderly donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(4):727–45.CrossRef Perez-Saez MJ, Montero N, Redondo-Pachon D, Crespo M, Pascual J. Strategies for an expanded use of kidneys from elderly donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(4):727–45.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Ojo AO. Expanded criteria donors: process and outcomes. Semin Dial. 2005;18(6):463–8.CrossRef Ojo AO. Expanded criteria donors: process and outcomes. Semin Dial. 2005;18(6):463–8.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Savoye E, Tamarelle D, Chalem Y, Rebibou JM, Tuppin P. Survival benefits of kidney transplantation with expanded criteria deceased donors in patients aged 60 years and over. Transplantation. 2007;84(12):1618–24.CrossRef Savoye E, Tamarelle D, Chalem Y, Rebibou JM, Tuppin P. Survival benefits of kidney transplantation with expanded criteria deceased donors in patients aged 60 years and over. Transplantation. 2007;84(12):1618–24.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Klein R, Galante NZ, de Sandes-Freitas TV, de Franco MF, Tedesco-Silva H, Medina-Pestana JO. Transplantation with kidneys retrieved from deceased donors with acute renal failure. Transplantation. 2013;95(4):611–6.CrossRef Klein R, Galante NZ, de Sandes-Freitas TV, de Franco MF, Tedesco-Silva H, Medina-Pestana JO. Transplantation with kidneys retrieved from deceased donors with acute renal failure. Transplantation. 2013;95(4):611–6.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Farney AC, Rogers J, Orlando G, al-Geizawi S, Buckley M, Farooq U, al-Shraideh Y, Stratta RJ. Evolving experience using kidneys from deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(4):645–55 discussion 655-646.CrossRef Farney AC, Rogers J, Orlando G, al-Geizawi S, Buckley M, Farooq U, al-Shraideh Y, Stratta RJ. Evolving experience using kidneys from deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(4):645–55 discussion 655-646.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat van Ittersum FJ, Hemke AC, Dekker FW, Hilbrands LB, Christiaans MH, Roodnat JI, Hoitsma AJ, van Diepen M. Increased risk of graft failure and mortality in Dutch recipients receiving an expanded criteria donor kidney transplant. Transpl Int. 2017;30(1):14–28.CrossRef van Ittersum FJ, Hemke AC, Dekker FW, Hilbrands LB, Christiaans MH, Roodnat JI, Hoitsma AJ, van Diepen M. Increased risk of graft failure and mortality in Dutch recipients receiving an expanded criteria donor kidney transplant. Transpl Int. 2017;30(1):14–28.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Querard AH, Foucher Y, Combescure C, Dantan E, Larmet D, Lorent M, Pouteau LM, Giral M, Gillaizeau F. Comparison of survival outcomes between expanded criteria donor and standard criteria donor kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transpl Int. 2016;29(4):403–15.CrossRef Querard AH, Foucher Y, Combescure C, Dantan E, Larmet D, Lorent M, Pouteau LM, Giral M, Gillaizeau F. Comparison of survival outcomes between expanded criteria donor and standard criteria donor kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transpl Int. 2016;29(4):403–15.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu VC, Wu PC, Wu CH, Huang TM, Chang CH, Tsai PR, Ko WJ, Chen L, Wang CY, Chu TS, et al. The impact of acute kidney injury on the long-term risk of stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(4):e000933.CrossRef Wu VC, Wu PC, Wu CH, Huang TM, Chang CH, Tsai PR, Ko WJ, Chen L, Wang CY, Chu TS, et al. The impact of acute kidney injury on the long-term risk of stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(4):e000933.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Davenport A. The brain and the kidney--organ cross talk and interactions. Blood Purif. 2008;26(6):526–36.CrossRef Davenport A. The brain and the kidney--organ cross talk and interactions. Blood Purif. 2008;26(6):526–36.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee MH, Jeong EG, Chang JY, Kim Y, Kim JI, Moon IS, Choi BS, Park CW, Yang CW, Kim YS, et al. Clinical outcome of kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury by acute kidney injury network criteria. J Crit Care. 2014;29(3):432–7.CrossRef Lee MH, Jeong EG, Chang JY, Kim Y, Kim JI, Moon IS, Choi BS, Park CW, Yang CW, Kim YS, et al. Clinical outcome of kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury by acute kidney injury network criteria. J Crit Care. 2014;29(3):432–7.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim JH, Kim YS, Choi MS, Kim YO, Yoon SA, Kim JI, Moon IS, Choi BS, Park CW, Yang CW, et al. Prediction of clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury: a comparison of the KDIGO and AKIN criteria. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):39.CrossRef Kim JH, Kim YS, Choi MS, Kim YO, Yoon SA, Kim JI, Moon IS, Choi BS, Park CW, Yang CW, et al. Prediction of clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury: a comparison of the KDIGO and AKIN criteria. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):39.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Boffa C, van de Leemkolk F, Curnow E, Homan van der Heide J, Gilbert J, Sharples E, Ploeg RJ. Transplantation of kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury: friend or foe? Am J Transplant. 2017;17(2):411–9.CrossRef Boffa C, van de Leemkolk F, Curnow E, Homan van der Heide J, Gilbert J, Sharples E, Ploeg RJ. Transplantation of kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury: friend or foe? Am J Transplant. 2017;17(2):411–9.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Ishani A, Xue JL, Himmelfarb J, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, Molitoris BA, Collins AJ. Acute kidney injury increases risk of ESRD among elderly. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(1):223–8.CrossRef Ishani A, Xue JL, Himmelfarb J, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, Molitoris BA, Collins AJ. Acute kidney injury increases risk of ESRD among elderly. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(1):223–8.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Hsu CY, Ordonez JD, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Go AS. The risk of acute renal failure in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2008;74(1):101–7.CrossRef Hsu CY, Ordonez JD, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Go AS. The risk of acute renal failure in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2008;74(1):101–7.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Metzger RA, Delmonico FL, Feng S, Port FK, Wynn JJ, Merion RM. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(Suppl 4):114–25.CrossRef Metzger RA, Delmonico FL, Feng S, Port FK, Wynn JJ, Merion RM. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(Suppl 4):114–25.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179–84.PubMed Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179–84.PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Sis B, Mengel M, Haas M, Colvin RB, Halloran PF, Racusen LC, Solez K, Baldwin WM 3rd, Bracamonte ER, Broecker V, et al. Banff '09 meeting report: antibody mediated graft deterioration and implementation of Banff working groups. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(3):464–71.CrossRef Sis B, Mengel M, Haas M, Colvin RB, Halloran PF, Racusen LC, Solez K, Baldwin WM 3rd, Bracamonte ER, Broecker V, et al. Banff '09 meeting report: antibody mediated graft deterioration and implementation of Banff working groups. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(3):464–71.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Yarlagadda SG, Coca SG, Garg AX, Doshi M, Poggio E, Marcus RJ, Parikh CR. Marked variation in the definition and diagnosis of delayed graft function: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(9):2995–3003.CrossRef Yarlagadda SG, Coca SG, Garg AX, Doshi M, Poggio E, Marcus RJ, Parikh CR. Marked variation in the definition and diagnosis of delayed graft function: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(9):2995–3003.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Marsh J, Stevens LA, Kusek JW, Van Lente F. Chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration. Expressing the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate with standardized serum creatinine values. Clin Chem. 2007;53(4):766–72.CrossRef Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Marsh J, Stevens LA, Kusek JW, Van Lente F. Chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration. Expressing the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate with standardized serum creatinine values. Clin Chem. 2007;53(4):766–72.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Tsukamoto Y, Levin A, Coresh J, Rossert J, De Zeeuw D, Hostetter TH, Lameire N, Eknoyan G. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2005;67(6):2089–100.CrossRef Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Tsukamoto Y, Levin A, Coresh J, Rossert J, De Zeeuw D, Hostetter TH, Lameire N, Eknoyan G. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2005;67(6):2089–100.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Heilman RL, Smith ML, Kurian SM, Huskey J, Batra RK, Chakkera HA, Katariya NN, Khamash H, Moss A, Salomon DR, et al. Transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury. Am J Transplant. 2015;15(8):2143–51.CrossRef Heilman RL, Smith ML, Kurian SM, Huskey J, Batra RK, Chakkera HA, Katariya NN, Khamash H, Moss A, Salomon DR, et al. Transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury. Am J Transplant. 2015;15(8):2143–51.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim SY, Lee JY, Yang JH, Na YJ, Kim MG, Jo SK, Cho WY. Predictive factors of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing rectal surgery. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2016;35(3):160–4.CrossRef Lim SY, Lee JY, Yang JH, Na YJ, Kim MG, Jo SK, Cho WY. Predictive factors of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing rectal surgery. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2016;35(3):160–4.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Foucher Y, Akl A, Rousseau V, Trebern-Launay K, Lorent M, Kessler M, Ladriere M, Legendre C, Kreis H, Rostaing L, et al. An alternative approach to estimate age-related mortality of kidney transplant recipients compared to the general population: results in favor of old-to-old transplantations. Transpl Int. 2014;27(2):219–25.CrossRef Foucher Y, Akl A, Rousseau V, Trebern-Launay K, Lorent M, Kessler M, Ladriere M, Legendre C, Kreis H, Rostaing L, et al. An alternative approach to estimate age-related mortality of kidney transplant recipients compared to the general population: results in favor of old-to-old transplantations. Transpl Int. 2014;27(2):219–25.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Hernandez D, Rufino M, Bartolomei S, Lorenzo V, Gonzalez-Rinne A, Torres A. A novel prognostic index for mortality in renal transplant recipients after hospitalization. Transplantation. 2005;79(3):337–43.CrossRef Hernandez D, Rufino M, Bartolomei S, Lorenzo V, Gonzalez-Rinne A, Torres A. A novel prognostic index for mortality in renal transplant recipients after hospitalization. Transplantation. 2005;79(3):337–43.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Hernandez D, Sanchez-Fructuoso A, Gonzalez-Posada JM, Arias M, Campistol JM, Rufino M, Morales JM, Moreso F, Perez G, Torres A, et al. A novel risk score for mortality in renal transplant recipients beyond the first posttransplant year. Transplantation. 2009;88(6):803–9.CrossRef Hernandez D, Sanchez-Fructuoso A, Gonzalez-Posada JM, Arias M, Campistol JM, Rufino M, Morales JM, Moreso F, Perez G, Torres A, et al. A novel risk score for mortality in renal transplant recipients beyond the first posttransplant year. Transplantation. 2009;88(6):803–9.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Jassal SV, Schaubel DE, Fenton SS. Predicting mortality after kidney transplantation: a clinical tool. Transpl Int. 2005;18(11):1248–57.CrossRef Jassal SV, Schaubel DE, Fenton SS. Predicting mortality after kidney transplantation: a clinical tool. Transpl Int. 2005;18(11):1248–57.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Impact of acute kidney injury in expanded criteria deceased donors on post-transplant clinical outcomes: multicenter cohort study
verfasst von
Woo Yeong Park
Min-Seok Choi
Young Soo Kim
Bum Soon Choi
Cheol Whee Park
Chul Woo Yang
Yong-Soo Kim
Kyubok Jin
Seungyeup Han
Byung Ha Chung
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2019
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Nephrology / Ausgabe 1/2019
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2369
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-019-1225-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

BMC Nephrology 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Erhöhte Mortalität bei postpartalem Brustkrebs

07.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Auch für Trägerinnen von BRCA-Varianten gilt: Erkranken sie fünf bis zehn Jahre nach der letzten Schwangerschaft an Brustkrebs, ist das Sterberisiko besonders hoch.

Hypertherme Chemotherapie bietet Chance auf Blasenerhalt

07.05.2024 Harnblasenkarzinom Nachrichten

Eine hypertherme intravesikale Chemotherapie mit Mitomycin kann für Patienten mit hochriskantem nicht muskelinvasivem Blasenkrebs eine Alternative zur radikalen Zystektomie darstellen. Kölner Urologen berichten über ihre Erfahrungen.

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Medizinstudium Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Vorhofflimmern bei Jüngeren gefährlicher als gedacht

06.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Immer mehr jüngere Menschen leiden unter Vorhofflimmern. Betroffene unter 65 Jahren haben viele Risikofaktoren und ein signifikant erhöhtes Sterberisiko verglichen mit Gleichaltrigen ohne die Erkrankung.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.