Cargando…

Kidney transplant survival in pediatric and young adults

BACKGROUND: There is a perception that kidney transplant recipients transferred from pediatric centers to adult care have an increased risk of graft loss. It is not clear whether young adults transplanted in adult centers also suffer from high graft loss rates. METHODS: We examined death censored gr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kiberd, James A, Acott, Phil, Kiberd, Bryce A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-12-54
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: There is a perception that kidney transplant recipients transferred from pediatric centers to adult care have an increased risk of graft loss. It is not clear whether young adults transplanted in adult centers also suffer from high graft loss rates. METHODS: We examined death censored graft survival in 3 cohorts of young patients transplanted at a single center. Pediatric (PED) patients transplanted at the pediatric center were compared to a cohort of young adults (YAD; age 18- < 25) and a cohort of adults (ADL; age 25-35). RESULTS: In a multivariate Cox model for death-censored graft survival, PED survival was statistically similar to the YAD (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44, 1.7, p = 0.66), however the ADL cohort (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25, 0.82, p = 0.009) demonstrated better survival. Admitted non-adherence rates were not different among cohorts. Patients were transferred within a narrow age window (18.6 ± 1.0 age in years) but at a wide range of times from the date of transplantation (5.1 ± 3.5 years) and with a wide range of graft function (serum creatinine 182 ± 81 μmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: The perception that pediatric transfers do poorly reflects advanced graft dysfunction in some at the time of transfer. The evidence also suggests that it is not the transfer of care that is the critical issue but rather recipients, somewhere between the ages of 11-14 and 25, are a unique and vulnerable cohort. Effective strategies to improve outcomes across this age group need to be identified and applied consistently.