Fate of discarded kidney transplants: experience of the transplant university hospital center of Rennes

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Bruno Legendre, Elsa Vabret, Hugoline Boulay, Aurélie Deshayes, Cécile Vigneau
{"title":"Fate of discarded kidney transplants: experience of the transplant university hospital center of Rennes","authors":"Bruno Legendre,&nbsp;Elsa Vabret,&nbsp;Hugoline Boulay,&nbsp;Aurélie Deshayes,&nbsp;Cécile Vigneau","doi":"10.1684/ndt.2023.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In a context of tension on the number of available kidney transplants compared to the number needed, the practices of refusal of transplants in the Rennes transplantation center were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The donors completely refused by our team (no kidney accepted for any Rennes recipient) between January 1st 2012 and December 31st 2015 were identified from the national CRISTAL registry. The outcome of these refused transplants (possible transplantation in another center), the data of the recipients (from Rennes and other centers) and the data of the donors (refused and then finally accepted) were extracted. The outcome of recipients (from Rennes and other centers) was compared: graft survival (censored on death) and patient survival (not censored on cessation of function). The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score was calculated and its usefulness studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 203 rejected donors, 172 (85 %) were accepted for transplantation in another center; 89% of these grafts were functional at one year. In univariate analysis, Rennes recipients transplanted after a refusal had a better graft survival (censored on death) than recipients transplanted in another center with the refused graft (p < 0.001). The main limitation of this analysis is the non-comparability of the groups. The KDPI score was significantly associated with graft survival (censored on death). Of the 151 Rennes patients who had a refusal, 3% were still on the waiting list at the end of the observation period, the others spent a median additional time on dialysis of 220 days (Q1-Q3 81-483).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rennes recipients transplanted after a first refusal seem to have a better graft survival (censored on death) than recipients from other centers transplanted with refused grafts. This is to be weighed against the additional time on dialysis and even the risk of non-transplantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51140,"journal":{"name":"Nephrologie & Therapeutique","volume":"19 3","pages":"187-200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephrologie & Therapeutique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/ndt.2023.23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In a context of tension on the number of available kidney transplants compared to the number needed, the practices of refusal of transplants in the Rennes transplantation center were evaluated.

Materials and methods: The donors completely refused by our team (no kidney accepted for any Rennes recipient) between January 1st 2012 and December 31st 2015 were identified from the national CRISTAL registry. The outcome of these refused transplants (possible transplantation in another center), the data of the recipients (from Rennes and other centers) and the data of the donors (refused and then finally accepted) were extracted. The outcome of recipients (from Rennes and other centers) was compared: graft survival (censored on death) and patient survival (not censored on cessation of function). The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score was calculated and its usefulness studied.

Results: Among the 203 rejected donors, 172 (85 %) were accepted for transplantation in another center; 89% of these grafts were functional at one year. In univariate analysis, Rennes recipients transplanted after a refusal had a better graft survival (censored on death) than recipients transplanted in another center with the refused graft (p < 0.001). The main limitation of this analysis is the non-comparability of the groups. The KDPI score was significantly associated with graft survival (censored on death). Of the 151 Rennes patients who had a refusal, 3% were still on the waiting list at the end of the observation period, the others spent a median additional time on dialysis of 220 days (Q1-Q3 81-483).

Conclusion: Rennes recipients transplanted after a first refusal seem to have a better graft survival (censored on death) than recipients from other centers transplanted with refused grafts. This is to be weighed against the additional time on dialysis and even the risk of non-transplantation.

废弃肾移植的命运:雷恩移植大学医院中心的经验
导言:在可用肾脏移植数量与所需数量的紧张背景下,雷恩移植中心拒绝移植的做法进行了评估。材料和方法:2012年1月1日至2015年12月31日期间,我们团队完全拒绝的供体(没有任何雷恩受体接受肾脏)从国家CRISTAL登记处找到。提取这些被拒绝移植的结果(可能在其他中心移植)、受体(来自雷恩和其他中心)和供体(被拒绝后最终接受)的数据。比较受体(来自雷恩和其他中心)的结果:移植物生存(死亡时审查)和患者生存(功能停止时不审查)。计算肾脏供者概况指数(KDPI)评分并研究其实用性。结果:203例被拒绝的供体中,172例(85%)在其他中心接受移植;89%的移植物在一年后仍具有功能。在单变量分析中,雷恩移植后被拒绝的受者比在另一个中心移植的被拒绝的受者有更好的移植存活率(死亡审查)(p < 0.001)。这种分析的主要局限性是组间的不可比较性。KDPI评分与移植物存活(死亡后剔除)显著相关。在151名雷恩患者中,有3%的患者在观察期结束时仍在等待名单上,其余患者的透析时间中位数为220天(Q1-Q3 81-483)。结论:首次拒绝移植的雷恩受者似乎比其他中心接受拒绝移植的受者有更好的移植物存活率(死亡后审查)。这要与额外的透析时间甚至非移植风险进行权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nephrologie & Therapeutique
Nephrologie & Therapeutique 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
485
审稿时长
11.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Organe d''expression de la Société de Néphrologie, de la Société Francophone de Dialyse et de la Société de Néphrologie Pédiatrique, Néphrologie et Thérapeutique a pour vocation de publier des textes en français dans le domaine de la Néphrologie, qu''il s''agisse d''actualisation des connaissances, de recommandations de bonne pratique clinique, de publications originales, ou d''informations sur la vie des trois sociétés fondatrices. La variété des thèmes abordés reflète la richesse de la Néphrologie, qu''il s''agisse d''aspects fondamentaux issus de la physiologie, de l''immunologie, de l''anatomo-pathologie, ou de la génétique, ou de sujets de néphrologie clinique, notamment ceux en rapport avec les thérapeutiques néphrologiques, transplantation, hémodialyse et dialyse péritonéale.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信