Cargando…

Impact of the Mayo Adhesive Probability Score on Donor and Recipient Outcomes After Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: A Retrospective, Single-center Study of 782 Transplants

BACKGROUND. This study was performed to assess the impact of the Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score on donor and recipient outcomes after living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). METHODS. We retrospectively analyzed 782 transplants involving LDKT between February 2008 and October 2019 to asses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sato, Yu, Noguchi, Hiroshi, Mei, Takanori, Kaku, Keizo, Okabe, Yasuhiro, Nakamura, Masafumi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8288887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001185
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND. This study was performed to assess the impact of the Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score on donor and recipient outcomes after living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). METHODS. We retrospectively analyzed 782 transplants involving LDKT between February 2008 and October 2019 to assess the correlation between the MAP score and outcome after LDKT. We divided the transplants into 2 groups according to the donor MAP score: 0 (MAP(0)) and 1–5 (MAP(1–5)). RESULTS. Compared with the MAP(0) group, donors in the MAP(1–5) group were significantly older, had higher body mass index, and were more likely to be men. The prevalences of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were also higher among donors in the MAP(1–5) group than among donors in the MAP(0) group. Operative time, estimated blood loss during donor nephrectomy, and percentage of glomerular sclerosis were significantly greater in the MAP(1–5) group than in the MAP(0) group. Donor and recipient perioperative complications were comparable between the 2 groups; death-censored graft survival rates also did not significantly differ between groups. Although the recipient mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from postoperative d 1 to 7 was significantly higher in the MAP(0) group than in the MAP(1–5) group (P = 0.007), eGFR reductions within 5 y after transplantation were similar between groups. There were no significant differences between groups in recipient mortality and biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes within 1 y after transplantation. Additionally, multivariate analysis showed that the only factors affecting recipient eGFR at postoperative d 7 were donor age, recipient age, and female sex (P < 0.001, <0.001, and =0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS. The MAP score did not influence surgical complications or graft survival; therefore, it should not affect donor selection.