Declining Rates of Deceased Donor Renal Transplantation in the United States Over Successive Years of Listing

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
The American journal of medicine (Impact Factor: 5). 01/2012; 125(1):57-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.06.022
Source: PubMed


Renal transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease. However, limited availability of donor organs is a problem. We analyzed the changing trends of transplantation and mortality in subjects listed for deceased donor renal transplantation over successive years.
By using US Renal Data System data, we identified Medicare patients receiving dialysis who were listed for their first deceased donor renal transplant between January 1996 and December 2005. Subjects were followed to the first occurrence of transplant, death, or September 30, 2007. The effect of the year of listing was analyzed adjusting for age, sex, race, vintage, panel reactive antibody, and cause of end-stage renal disease.
There were 70,891 subjects (mean age 50.1 ± 14.3 years, 59.9% were men, 54% were white, average duration of dialysis 2 ± 2.2 years). Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with patients listed in 1996, for patients listed in subsequent years the cumulative incidence of death remained within a narrow boundary and the cumulative incidence of transplant progressively declined. For example, for subjects listed in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, the cumulative incidence of death relative to 1996 was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.03), 1.02 (CI, 1.01-1.03), 0.99 (CI, 0.98-0.99), and 0.94 (CI, 0.93-0.94), respectively, 12 months after listing. However, correspondingly for these subjects at the 12-month follow-up time point, the cumulative incidence of transplant relative to 1996 was 0.85 (CI, 0.84-0.86), 0.73 (CI, 0.71-0.74), 0.63 (CI, 0.62-0.64), and 0.58 (CI, 0.57-0.59), respectively.
There is a progressive unfavorable pattern of declining transplantation rates with each successive year of listing in patients listed for deceased donor renal transplantation.

9 Reads

  • Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 09/2012; 7(10):1551-2. DOI:10.2215/CJN.08680812 · 4.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the changing demographics and age profile between living donors and their recipients. A 46-year review of living donor renal transplants in a single transplant center was performed. The study included 923 consecutive living donor renal transplants from January 1966 until December 2011. These 923 living donor kidneys transplants represent 41% of all transplants performed during this 46-year review. The majority involved sibling donation (39.5%) followed by parent to child (32.5%). Dividing the 46-year timeframe into quartiles, the mean age of donors has remained stable at 39.3 ± 10.9 years. In contrast, the mean age of recipients has trended upwards, from 28 ± 10.7 years in the first quartile (1966-1978) to 37 ± 17.5 years in the latest quartile (2001-2011). This represents an increase every year of approximately 4 months (P < .001). Over the same period, the difference between a given donor's age and their recipient's has decreased every year by approximately 4 months (P < .001). In a linear regression model of donor-recipient categories and their age difference over time, we found that both the child-to-parent and grandchild-to-grandparent groups had the largest effect on the donor-recipient age difference when compared to the classic parent-to-child relationship. This review of center-specific data shows that the difference in the age of the donor to their recipient has been narrowing over time. We have determined that this is primarily due to changes in donor-recipient demographics with an increasing number of younger donors to older recipients. Although the medical risks to donors living with a single kidney have yet to be shown different than that of the general population, the increasing volume of donors who are younger and those with no relation to the recipient should prompt closer follow-up within the transplantation medical community.
    Transplantation Proceedings 02/2013; 45(1):57-64. DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.08.006 · 0.98 Impact Factor

Similar Publications