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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |