Cargando…

How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Living donor kidneys are considered the best quality organs. In the attempt to expand the donor pool, the donor’s age, sex and body mass index (BMI) might be considered as potential determinants of the kidney transplant outcomes, and thus guide recipient selection. We aimed to i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bellini, Maria Irene, Nozdrin, Mikhail, Pengel, Liset, Knight, Simon, Papalois, Vassilios
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7
_version_ 1784684268463587328
author Bellini, Maria Irene
Nozdrin, Mikhail
Pengel, Liset
Knight, Simon
Papalois, Vassilios
author_facet Bellini, Maria Irene
Nozdrin, Mikhail
Pengel, Liset
Knight, Simon
Papalois, Vassilios
author_sort Bellini, Maria Irene
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Living donor kidneys are considered the best quality organs. In the attempt to expand the donor pool, the donor’s age, sex and body mass index (BMI) might be considered as potential determinants of the kidney transplant outcomes, and thus guide recipient selection. We aimed to investigate the effects of donor demographics on kidney function, graft and recipient survival, delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CABI, SciELO and Cochrane were searched using algorithms. NHBLI tools were used for risk of bias assessment. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) were calculated in Revman 5.4 RESULTS: Altogether, 5129 studies were identified by the search algorithm; 47 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. No significant difference in recipient 1-year survival was found between recipients of donors aged < 50 vs donors aged > 50 (RR = 0.65 95% CI: 0.1–4.1), and recipients of donors aged < 60 vs donors aged > 60 (RR = 0.81 95% CI: 0.3–2.3). Graft survival was significantly higher in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. Risk of AR (RR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.5–0.8) and DGF (RR = 0.28 95% CI: 0.1–0.9) were significantly lower in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. One-year serum creatinine was significantly lower in recipients from donors aged < 60 years compared to donors aged > 60 years (MD = 0.3 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.1–0.9), although there was high heterogeneity. Recipients of grafts from male donors had lower 1-year serum creatinine (MD = 0.12 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.2–0.1) and higher eGFR compared to recipients of female donors (p < 0.00001). Donor obesity increased the incidence of delayed graft function but not acute rejection (RR = 0.66 95% CI: 0.32–1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Older donor age was associated with worse post-transplant outcomes and recipients of male donors had better 1-year eGFR. Donor obesity affects the incidence of delayed graft function, but not the incidence of acute rejection in recipients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8995249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89952492022-04-27 How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes Bellini, Maria Irene Nozdrin, Mikhail Pengel, Liset Knight, Simon Papalois, Vassilios J Nephrol Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Living donor kidneys are considered the best quality organs. In the attempt to expand the donor pool, the donor’s age, sex and body mass index (BMI) might be considered as potential determinants of the kidney transplant outcomes, and thus guide recipient selection. We aimed to investigate the effects of donor demographics on kidney function, graft and recipient survival, delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CABI, SciELO and Cochrane were searched using algorithms. NHBLI tools were used for risk of bias assessment. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) were calculated in Revman 5.4 RESULTS: Altogether, 5129 studies were identified by the search algorithm; 47 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. No significant difference in recipient 1-year survival was found between recipients of donors aged < 50 vs donors aged > 50 (RR = 0.65 95% CI: 0.1–4.1), and recipients of donors aged < 60 vs donors aged > 60 (RR = 0.81 95% CI: 0.3–2.3). Graft survival was significantly higher in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. Risk of AR (RR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.5–0.8) and DGF (RR = 0.28 95% CI: 0.1–0.9) were significantly lower in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. One-year serum creatinine was significantly lower in recipients from donors aged < 60 years compared to donors aged > 60 years (MD = 0.3 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.1–0.9), although there was high heterogeneity. Recipients of grafts from male donors had lower 1-year serum creatinine (MD = 0.12 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.2–0.1) and higher eGFR compared to recipients of female donors (p < 0.00001). Donor obesity increased the incidence of delayed graft function but not acute rejection (RR = 0.66 95% CI: 0.32–1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Older donor age was associated with worse post-transplant outcomes and recipients of male donors had better 1-year eGFR. Donor obesity affects the incidence of delayed graft function, but not the incidence of acute rejection in recipients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7. Springer International Publishing 2022-01-24 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8995249/ /pubmed/35072936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Bellini, Maria Irene
Nozdrin, Mikhail
Pengel, Liset
Knight, Simon
Papalois, Vassilios
How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title_full How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title_fullStr How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title_full_unstemmed How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title_short How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
title_sort how good is a living donor? systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7
work_keys_str_mv AT bellinimariairene howgoodisalivingdonorsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheeffectofdonordemographicsonpostkidneytransplantoutcomes
AT nozdrinmikhail howgoodisalivingdonorsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheeffectofdonordemographicsonpostkidneytransplantoutcomes
AT pengelliset howgoodisalivingdonorsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheeffectofdonordemographicsonpostkidneytransplantoutcomes
AT knightsimon howgoodisalivingdonorsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheeffectofdonordemographicsonpostkidneytransplantoutcomes
AT papaloisvassilios howgoodisalivingdonorsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheeffectofdonordemographicsonpostkidneytransplantoutcomes