Long-term outcomes of elderly kidney transplant recipients

Abstract

Introduction:

The number of elderly patients with chronic kidney disease increases progressively, challenging the allocation algorithms in a scenario of organ shortage for transplantation.

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of age on patient and graft survival.

Methods:

Evolution of all 366 patients greater than 60 years transplanted between 1998 and 2010 was analyzed versus a control group of 366 younger patients matched for gender, type of donor (living or deceased) and year of transplantation.

Results:

Diabetes mellitus (HR 1.8; IC 1.2-2.6; p = 0,003) and prioritization (HR 2.9; IC 1.2-2.6; p < 0,001), but not age, were independent factors for kidney graft loss.

Conclusion:

Advanced age was not related to negative outcomes after kidney transplantation, after excluding recipient death as a cause of allograft loss. Higher mortality rate in this group was associated to a higher frequency of comorbidities, especially diabetes mellitus.

Keywords:
aged; graft survival; kidney transplantation; long-term effect; risk factors; survival analysis

Resumo

Introdução:

O número de pacientes idosos portadores de doença renal crônica aumenta progressivamente, desafiando os algoritmos de alocação, em um cenário de escassez de órgãos para transplante.

Objetivo:

Avaliar o impacto da idade sobre os resultados do transplante renal.

Métodos:

Foram analisados todos os 366 pacientes > 60 anos transplantados entre 1998-2010 versus um grupo controle de 366 pacientes mais jovens pareados por gênero, tipo de doador (vivo/falecido) e ano do transplante.

Resultados:

Diabetes mellitus (HR 1,5; IC 1,0-2,2; p = 0,031) e doador falecido (HR 1,7; IC 1,2-2,7; p = 0,013) se associaram independentemente a maior risco de óbito. Diabetes mellitus (HR 1,8; IC 1,2-2,6; p = 0,003) e priorização por acesso vascular (HR 2,9; IC 1,2-2,6; p < 0,001), mas não idade, foram fatores independentes de perda do enxerto renal.

Conclusão:

A idade avançada não teve impacto negativo no resultado do transplante quando excluído óbito do paciente como causa de perda do enxerto. A maior mortalidade entre a população senil esteve associada à maior frequência de comorbidades, em especial diabetes mellitus.

Palavras-chave:
análise de sobrevida; efeitos a longo prazo; fatores de risco; idoso; sobrevivência de enxerto; transplante de rim

Introduction

Kidney transplantation is currently the best available treatment for end-stage chronic kidney failure (CKF).^1,2 In developed countries, besides providing a better quality of life, it also enables a higher survival than what is offered by other forms of renal replacement therapy, at a lower cost.^3-5 These advantages can also be found even among recipients aged over 60 years, regardless of donor characteristics.⁶

In Brazil, only a few seniors are benefiting from this treatment as of yet, to the detriment of the large share of this population among patients with chronic renal failure. For example, in 2009, about 40% of the more than 50,000 dialysis patients were older than 60 years.⁷ However, that same year, only 10.8% of newly enlisted patients on the waiting list for transplant were senior citizens, despite this figure increasing 10 times since 1999.⁸ Finally, at the Kidney Hospital (HRIM), responsible for 20% of all kidney transplants performed in the country in the same year, only 12.5% of these transplants were allocated to this age range.⁹ As more recent data shows,⁷ it is estimated that the number of dialysis patients reached 100,000 in 2013, being 30% the number of patients over age 65 in the last three years, during which period the population enrolled for transplantation in the same age range remained below 15%.⁸

Factors such as lower life expectancy, higher association with other comorbidities, surgical risk and potential for serious complications have kept the elderly from having access to transplants. But there is not yet enough information to justify this conservative approach to treatment of renal failure in these individuals, whom, in a way, are being deprived of this possibility, despite the universal coverage system currently in force in Brazil vis-à-vis organs distribution.

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical and surgical evolution of elderly patients versus controls. Follow up losses were counted out on the last day of follow up recording. Graft loss was defined as return to dialysis or retransplantation.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study, from a single center, which included elderly patients (defined as 60 years of age or older) who underwent renal transplantation between 1998 and 2010. We excluded second transplant recipients. For comparative analysis, we made up a control group, with patients older than 18 and less than 60 years of age, matched 1: 1 by gender, year of transplantation and type of donor (living/deceased). Information was obtained through review of medical records, after approval by the local Ethics Committee in Research.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were presented as mean and standard deviation, and the categorical variables as absolute frequency and percentage. The comparative analysis between two groups was estimated using the unpaired Student t-test for continuous variables and the Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for the categorical variables. Survival curves were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons we made using the log-rank test. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the magnitude of risk factors influence on patient and graft survival suppressing deceased patients and to estimate the relative risk for variables of interest. To create the multivariate analysis, we used the Cox regression technique, based on 95% confidence intervals. The model included all variables considered for clinical and epidemiological importance according to their statistical significance obtained in the univariate Cox analysis for each outcome evaluated. Continuous variables were categorized for this analysis. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS v.22 software (SPSS inc., Chicago, IL, USA). For all statistical tests, we used a 5% significance level.

Results

During the study period there were about 8,500 transplants carried out at the Kidney Hospital (Hrim). Of these, 376 patients had more than 60 years of age and were followed-up in an outpatient basis at the Public Health Care System (SUS). Among these, 10 were re-transplanted and thus excluded. After pairing with the control group, we had a total sample of 732 patients. Minimum follow-up was 1 day, maximum of 10 years with an average of 5 years (1876 days).

Demographics

The two groups were compared for the various demographic variables, as per depicted on Table 1. The older group had a higher frequency of diabetes mellitus as a cause of kidney failure (26% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), a higher percentage of patients were prioritized for lack of vascular access (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.025), there was higher percentage of women with at least one pregnancy prior to transplantation (87% vs. 72%, p = 0.005) and a higher mean HLA mismatches vis-à-vis the donor (3.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.001).

Table 1
Demographics from 732 patients, separated between elderly and controls

	Elderly	Controls	p
Number of Patients	366	366
Age, years ± DP (min-max)	64 ± 3.6 (60-78)	43 ± 10.4 (18-59)
Skin color - black, n (%)	40 (10.9)	38 (10.6)	0.464
Male gender, n (%)	250 (68.3)	251 (68.5)	0.937
Kidney failure cause, n (%)
Diabetes mellitus	95 (26)	44 (12)
Polycystic kidney disease	40 (10.9)	25 (6.9)
Chronic Glomerulonephritis	21 (5.7)	56 (15.3)
Hypertension	49 (13.4)	41 (11.2)	< 0.001
Undetermined	108 (29.5)	160 (43.7)
Diabetes mellitus and Hypertension	16 (4.4)	6 (1.6)
Urological cause	21 (5.7)	23 (6.3)
Others	16 (4.4)	11 (3.0)
Pre-transplant hemodialysis, n (%)	330 (90.2)	333 (91)	0.606
Time in dialysis, months ± SD	50.7 ± 36.1	49.23 ± 39	0.597
Prioritization, n (%)	21 (5.7)	9 (2.5)	0.025
CMV-negative serology, n (%)	18 (4.9)	26 (71)	0.345
Women with ≥ 1 pregnancy, n (%)	101 (87)	83 (72)	0.005
Patients with ≥ 1 transfusion, n (%)	217 (59.3)	230 (62.8)	0.324
Total Panel ± SD	8.5 ± 20.2	7.6 ± 19	0.567
Mismatches ± SD	3.1 ± 2	2.6 ± 1.7	0.001
Donor type (live), n (%)	91 (24.9)	101 (276)	0.401
Donor age ± SD	45.6 ± 14	42.8 ± 13	0.005
Deceased donor - expanded criterion, n (%)	74 (26.9)	60 (22.7)	0.434
Time cold ischemia, hours ± SD	23.2 ± 6.01	23.55 ± 6.6	0.576
Graft Delayed Function, n (%)	167 (45.6)	132 (36.1)	0.008
Duration, days ± SD	5.79 ± 11	4.2 ± 8.3	0.036
Induction with Thymoglobulin, n (%)	32 (8.7)	34 (9.3)	0.469
Initial immunosuppression (FK Pred MF), n (%)	139 (38)	125 (34.2)	0.577
Surgical technique (Gregoir), n (%)	204 (56.4)	264 (72.5)	< 0.001
Hospital stay (days), days ± SD	17.5 (18.5)	13.6 (11.7)	0.001

• SD: Standard deviation; FK: Tacrolimus; Pred: Prednisone; MF: Micophenolate.

In both groups, 75% of the patients received a deceased donor transplant and of these, 25% met expanded donor criteria. Mean donor age was higher in the elderly group (45.6 vs. 42.8 years, p = 0.005).

Survival analysis

Patient survival was lower in the elderly group, in five years (76.6 vs. 87.7%, p = 0.001) and in ten years (54.8 vs. 84.3%, p < 0.001, Figure 1). The overall graft survival was 52.9% among the elderly and 72.2% among the controls at 5 years of follow-up (p ≤ 0.001); and 39.6% among the elderly and 66.9% among controls after 10 years (p < 0.001, Figure 2). However, survival was similar between the two groups, in five years (86.6 vs. 75.6% vs. 86.3%, p = 0.782) and after ten years of follow-up (76.1% vs. 81.1% vs. 73.8%, p = 0.888, Figure 3).

Figure 1
Actuarial patient survival, according to groups: elderly versus control, by the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient survival was lower in the Elderly Group, in five years (76.6 vs. 87.7%. p = 0.001) and in ten years (54.8 vs. 84.3%. p < 0.001)

Figure 2
Kidney graft actuarial survival, according to groups Elderly versus Control, by the Kaplan-Meier method. The grafts global survival was 52.9% among the elderly and 72.2% among controls in 5 years of follow up (p ≤ 0.001), and 39.6% among the elderly and 66.9% among controls after 10 years (p < 0.001).

Figure 3
Kidney graft actuarial survival suppressing deceased patients, according to Groups: Elderly versus control, by the Kaplan-Meier method. Kidney graft survival suppressing deceased patients was similar between the two groups in five years (86.6 vs.75.6% vs. 86.3%, p = 0.782) as well as after ten years of follow up (76.1% vs. 81.1%, vs. 73.8% p = 0.888)

Death with a functioning graft was the main cause of graft loss among the elderly population, accounting for 65% of these. This was also the most common cause of graft loss in the control group, but at a significantly lower frequency (44%, p = 0.023). Among the other causes of graft loss, the first was followed by chronic nephropathy, primary non-function and acute rejection (Table 2). As for the causes of death, the most common was infection, followed by cardiovascular disease and cancer. These causes were distributed similarly in both groups (Table 2).

Table 2
Causes of kidney graft loss and patient death, broken down among the elderly and control groups

	Elderly	Controle	Total	p
Causes of kidney graft loss
Death	87 (65.2)	38 (43.7)	125 (56.8)
Graft chronic nephropathy	14 (10.5)	14 (16.1)	28 (12.7)
Primary non function	13 (9.8)	10 (11.5)	23 (10.5)	0.023
Acute rejection	9 (6.8)	11 (12.6)	20 (9.1)
Others	10 (7.5)	14 (16.1)	24 (10.9)
Total	133 (100)	87 (100)	220 (100)
Causes of patient death
Infection	50 (51.5)	26 (57.8)	76 (53.5)
Cardiovascular	26 (26.8)	8 (178)	34 (23.9)
Neoplasia	7 (7.2)	2 (4.4)	9 (6.4)	0.652
Others	8 (8.2)	6 (13.3)	14 (9.9)
Unknown	6 (6.3)	3 (6.7)	9 (6.3)
Total	97 (100)	45 (100)	142 (100)

Surgical complications and clinics

The traditional Lich Gregoir anastomosis technique was used less frequently in the aged group (56.4 vs. 72.5%, p < 0.001, Table 1). This group had a higher frequency of surgical complications - individuals with at least one complication (34.7% vs. 23.2%, p = 0.001) - among which the following were different when analyzed separately: surgical wound dehiscence (12 3 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001), urinary fistula (6.0 vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), incisional hernia (3.0 vs. 0.8%, p = 0.031) and dilated bladder (6.8 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.002, Table 3).

Table 3
Surgical complications after the kidney transplant, according to group: elderly and control

	Elderly (N = 366)	Control (N = 366)	p
Dehiscence, n (%)	45 (12.3)	16 (4.4)	< 0.001
Lymphocele, n (%)	14 (3.8)	13 (3.8)	0.845
Fistula, n (%)	22 (6.0)	10 (2.7)	0.030
Hematoma, n (%)	12 (3.3)	9 (2.5)	0.507
Hernia, n (%)	11 (3)	3 (0.8)	0.031
Dilated bladder, n (%)	25 (6.8)	8 (2.2)	0.002
Renal artery stenosis, n (%)	18 (4.9)	20 (5.5)	0.739
Rupture, n (%)	3 (0.8)	3 (0.8)	1.0
Thrombosis, n (%)	8 (2.2)	9 (2.5)	0.806
Graft removal, n (%)	19 (5.2)	20 (5.5)	0.869
Urethral stenosis, n (%)	5 (1.4)	1 (0.3)	0.101
Total (patients with some complication), n (%)	127 (34.7)	85 (23.2)	0.001

Induction frequency and the initial immunosuppressive regimen were evenly distributed between the two groups. The elderly had a higher incidence and longer duration of delayed renal graft function (45.6 vs. 36.1%, p = 0.008; 5.8 vs. 4.2 days, p = 0.036), and longer hospital stay (17.5 vs. 13.6 days, p = 0.001; Table 1). The incidence of acute rejection was similar between the two groups (24.6 vs. 29.5%, p = 0.134). During the follow-up period, the elderly had higher frequency of readmissions (77.3 vs. 70.5%, p = 0.035), cardiovascular events (12.3 vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) and neoplasms (6.8 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001, Table 4). On the other hand, immunosuppressive regimen tolerability, as assessed by the need for replacing at least one of the drugs, was similar between both groups (28.7 vs. 24.3%, p = 0.180, Table 4).

Table 4
Clinical complications after the transplant, broken down according to the group: elderly and control

	Elderly	Control	p
Acute rejection, n (%)	90 (24.6)	108 (29.5)	0.134
Cardiovascular event, n (%)	45 (12.3)	14 (3.8)	< 0.001
				Post-transplant diabetes, n (%)	25 (28)	75 (23.3)	0.186
Neoplasia, n (%)	25 (6.8)	6 (1.6)	< 0.001
Re-hospitalization, n (%)	283 (77.3)	258 (70.5)	0.035
Graft loss, n (%)	133 (36.33)	87 (23.8)	0.001
Patient death, n (%)	97 (26.5)	45 (12.3)	< 0.001
Loss of follow-up, n (%)	18 (4.9)	27 (74)	0.166
Immunosuppression replacement, n (%)	105 (28.7)	89 (24.3)	0.180

In a multivariate analysis (Tables 5, 6 and 7), age greater than 60 years among recipients was independently associated with a higher death risk (HR 2.191; CI 1.523 to 3.150; p < 0.001), as well as type of deceased donor (HR 1.724; CI 1.211 to 2.651; p = 0.013) and diabetes mellitus as a cause of renal failure (HR 1.507; CI 1.038 to 2.189; p = 0.031). Regarding the risk of loss of renal graft, the variables that affected this outcome were: diabetes mellitus as a cause of renal failure (HR 1.76; CI 1.205 to 2.570; p = 0.003) and transplantation prioritization due to difficulties in vascular access (HR 2.89, CI 1.205 to 2.570; p < 0.001). Black ethnicity (HR 2.16; CI 1.190 to 3.926; p = 0.011), negative serology for pre-transplant cytomegalovirus (HR 2.04; CI 1.053 to 3.961; p = 0.035) and length of stay greater than 10 days (HR 1.85, CI 1,232-2,779; p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for acute rejection.

Table 5
Cox hazard ratio analysis for acute rejection (95% confidence interval)

	Univariate		p	Multivariate		p
	HR	CI		HR	CI
Black skin color	1.534	1.034-2.275	0.033	2.161	1.190-3.926	0.011
Negative CMV	1.872	1.177-2.970	0.009	2.043	1.053-3.961	0.035
Graft delayed function (NTA)	1.879	1.421-2.485	< 0.001		NS
NTA greater than 10 days	1.751	1.194-2.568	0.004		NS
Hospital stay longer than 10 days	2.764	2.025-3.774	< 0.001	1.85	1.232-2.779	0.003

Table 6
Cox hazard ratio analysis for graft loss (95% confidence internval)

	Univariate		p	Multivariate		p
	HR	CI		HR	CI
Age	1.696	1.294-2.224	< 0.001		NS
CKF caused by diabetes	1.866	1.392-2.501	< 0.001	1.76	1.205-2.570	0.003
Prioritization	2.238	1.322-3.788	0.746	2.891	1.205-2.570	< 0.001
Transfusion	1.383	1.037-1.845	0.027		NS
Deceased donor	1.825	1.303-2.556	< 0.001		NS
Thymus globulin	1.593	1.062-2.390	0.024		NS
Graft delayed function (NTA)	2.208	1.689-2.885	< 0.001		NS
NTA greater than 10 days	1.438	1.006-2.055	0.046		NS
More than 10 days of hospital stay	1.937	1.460-2.570	< 0.001		NS

Table 7
Cox hazard ratio analysis for death (95% confidence interval)

	Univariate		p	Multivariate		p
	HR	CI		HR	CI
Age	2.426	1.702-3.459	< 0.001	2.25	1.688-3.437	< 0.001
More than 36 months on HD	1.528	1.089-2.144	0.014		NS
CKF caused by Diabetes	1.863	1.298-2.674	0.001		NS
Deceased donor	1.81	1.186-2.761	0.006		NS
Delayed graft function (NTA)	2.033	1.458-2.833	< 0.001	1.914	1.368-2.679	< 0.001
More than 10 days of hospital stay	1.502	1.066-2.116	0.02		NS

Discussion

This is one of the few Brazilian studies comparing the evolution of renal transplantation in the elderly versus non-elderly recipients in a 10 year-follow-up period. The patient's death was responsible for the significant difference between the overall patient and graft survival curves. However, old age does not constitute an independent factor for allograft poor survival, as shown in graft survival curves suppressing deceased patients (similar to the elderly and non-elderly) and in multivariate analysis (not decisive age for graft loss).

In this study, transplant half-life in the elderly group was 8.2 years, while in the control group was longer than 10 years. This result is similar to that found in large survey of the US transplanted population during the same period of time: 8 to 8.8 years between 2000-2005.¹⁰

As for graft survival suppressing deceased patients, studies with smaller populations or with shorter follow-up period also demonstrated the similarity of evolution between youth and elderly groups¹¹ and, in some cases, higher for the elderly.^12,13 Probably, as noted in this study, other causes of loss, such as acute rejection and chronic graft nephropathy, most frequently in the younger group, offset the effect of death on graft survival in the elderly group.

Apart from age, diabetes as a cause of renal failure and the type of deceased donor were independent risk factors for patient death (Figures 4 and 5). Between these two factors, diabetes mellitus stands out, with a frequency twice as high among elderly patients. By dividing our sample into four distinct subgroups by age and diabetes as cause of renal failure (Figure 4), we note the survival similarity between non-diabetic elderly patients and diabetic youths after 5 years of progression, confirming the importance of such comorbidity in poor patient outcome. After 5 years, we no longer have similarities between the two curves in this sample, which can be related to the small number of patients remaining after this period.

Figure 4
Patient actuarial survival according to the subgroups: diabetic elderly, non-diabetic elderly, diabetic control, non-diabetic control; by the Kaplan-Meier method – Survival of the non-diabetic elderly patient (78.6%) was similar to the diabetic control (78.4%) after 5 years of progression. In comparing the four groups (diabetic elderly 70.3%; nondiabetic control 89%); there was a significant difference (p < 0.001)

Figure 5
Patient actuarial survival according to the subgroups:: elderly with deceased donor, elderly with live donor, control with deceased donor, control with live donor; by the Kaplan-Meier method- elderly patient survival after 5 years of evolution was similar to that of the deceased donor (75.3%) or live (78.3%); however, lower than the patients in the control group as a deceased donor (87,6%) or live (87.7%) (p < 0.006)

Regarding graft survival, the determining factors for this outcome were prioritization for vascular access, difficulties for dialysis and diabetes mellitus as a cause of kidney failure. Both factors were found more frequently among elderly recipients (prioritization 5.7 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.025; diabetes mellitus 26 vs. 12%, p < 0.001). This finding confirms the importance of diabetes as a decisive clinical condition in transplant outcome.

Unlike studies in which acute rejection has decisive influence on graft long-term survival,^14,15 we did not find this correlation in our data. It is noteworthy that we considered all clinical events that determined treatment for acute rejection, regardless of histological confirmation and, in addition, we considered only the first episode, 72% of which occurred in the first six months after transplantation. As shown in previous studies, the occurrence of early rejection episodes and response to therapy might explain the little clinical significance of this event.¹⁶

There were more postoperative complications (dehiscence, fistula, hernia and dilated bladder) among the elderly and also differences in surgical technique: 72% of young people were submitted to the conventional technique (Lich-Gregoir); while only 56% of the elderly were subjected to this technique. In other studies,^17-19 the frequency of urologic complications varies from 1.8 to 20.8%, and is mainly related to being a male recipient from a deceased donor - characteristics for which there were no differences in the groups.

In our hospital, the surgical technique is decided upon during surgery and there is no systematic preoperative evaluation for patients. Less use of the conventional surgical technique suggests greater difficulty with the elderly. A recent meta-analysis shows the association between the conventional technique and lower risk of urinary fistula, as we found here.²⁰ It is possible that the higher number of surgical complications has influenced length of stay, making it higher for the elderly group, 17. 5 days on average against 13.6 days among the younger patients (p < 0.001), which increases cost and risk for the pacient.^21,22 Thus, it is possible that a regular preoperative urological evaluation would specifically benefit the elderly group.

The overall incidence of at least one episode of acute rejection in this population was 27% in 10 years. Risk factors independently associated with this outcome in multivariate analysis were black ethnicity, negative serology for CMV and length of stay greater than 10 days, characteristics for which the elderly and control groups were similar. Despite the tendency to lower incidence of rejection among elderly patients in other studies,^12,23,24 there was no significant difference in our sample. However, for risk factors traditionally associated with acute rejection, such as pregnancy, mismatches and delayed graft function, the elderly group was more exposed. It is possible that a larger sample would be needed to guide conclusions accordingly.

In our study, the incidence of post-transplant cardiovascular events was three fold higher among the elderly. We believe that diabetes - the most common cause of CKF in this group when compared to young patients, has been one of the factors responsible for this poor outcome; moreover, unconventional factors associated with coronary inflammation and calcification, such as longer time on dialysis, may have accounted for the higher frequency of coronary events in this group. Among the elderly, 26 deaths (26.8%) were caused by cardiovascular disease while there were only eight (17.8%) of the control patients who died from this cause.

The overall frequency of malignancies was 4.23%. Among the elderly, tumors were four times more frequent in the younger age group, and, moreover, caused twice as many deaths. Possible mechanisms associated with increased incidence of cancer in the elderly include the time required for carcinogenesis, increased tissue exposure to environmental carcinogens and imunoscenescense.²⁵

As in other retrospective studies of database analysis, the reliability of available data in the medical records or even their lack thereof, limits the scope of the results. Second, the fact that the study comes from a single center limits the extrapolation of the results to other populations.

In conclusion, this retrospective cohort from a single center, advanced age per se, ruling out patient's death as a cause of graft loss, did not represent an independent factor of poor prognosis of renal transplantation in the long term when compared to a younger population, matched by donor type, immunosuppression and year of transplant. However, the higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus was a determining factor of higher mortality among this group, determining worse results in terms of overall survival.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ¹
  Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1725-30. PMID: 10580071 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199912023412303
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199912023412303
• ²
  Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Meier-Kriesche H, Okechukwu CN, Wolfe RA, Leichtman AB, et al. Survival in recipients of marginal cadaveric donor kidneys compared with other recipients and wait-listed transplant candidates. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001;12:589-97.
• ³
  Cornella C, Brustia M, Lazzarich E, Cofano F, Ceruso A, Barbé MC, et al. Quality of life in renal transplant patients over 60 years of age. Transplant Proc 2008;40:1865-6. PMID: 18675072 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.05.050
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.05.050
• ⁴
  Rebollo P, Ortega F, Baltar JM, Alvarez-Ude F, Alvarez Navascués R, Alvarez-Grande J. Is the loss of health-related quality of life during renal replacement therapy lower in elderly patients than in younger patients? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:1675-80.
• ⁵
  Lumsdaine JA, Wray A, Power MJ, Jamieson NV, Akyol M, Andrew Bradley J, et al. Higher quality of life in living donor kidney transplantation: prospective cohort study. Transpl Int 2005;18:975-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00175.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00175.x
• ⁶
  Merion RM, Ashby VB, Wolfe RA, Distant DA, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Metzger RA, et al. Deceased-donor characteristics and the survival benefit of kidney transplantation. JAMA 2005;294:2726-33. PMID: 16333008 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.21.2726
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.21.2726
• ^7.
  Censos de Diálise da Sociedade Brasileira de Nefrologia. Portal da Sociedade Brasileira de Nefrologia (SBN) [Acesso 20 Mar 2015]. Disponível em: http://www.sbn.org.br
  » http://www.sbn.org.br
• ⁸
  São Paulo. Secretária da Saúde do Estado de São Paulo. Relatórios de Estatística Geral do Receptor da Central Estadual de Transplantes da Secretaria da Saúde do Estado de São Paulo [Acesso 20 Mar 2015]. Disponível em: http://www.saude.sp.gov.br/transplante
  » http://www.saude.sp.gov.br/transplante
• ⁹
  Registro Brasileiro de Transplantes: Ano XV, Número 4, janeiro/dezembro de 2009. Homepage da Associação Brasileira de Transplante de Órgãos (ABTO) [Acesso 20 Mar 2015]. Disponível em: http://www.abto.org.br
  » http://www.abto.org.br
• ¹⁰
  Lamb KE, Lodhi S, Meier-Kriesche HU. Long-term renal allograft survival in the United States: a critical reappraisal. Am J Transplant 2011;11:450-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03283.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03283.x
• ¹¹
  Doyle SE, Matas AJ, Gillingham K, Rosenberg ME. Predicting clinical outcome in the elderly renal transplant recipient. Kidney Int 2000;57:2144-50. PMID: 10792636 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00066.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00066.x
• ¹²
  Faravardeh A, Eickhoff M, Jackson S, Spong R, Kukla A, Issa N, et al. Predictors of graft failure and death in elderly kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2013;96:1089-96. PMID:24056622 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a688e5
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a688e5
• ¹³
  Mendonça HM, Dos Reis MA, de Castro de Cintra Sesso R, Câmara NO, Pacheco-Silva A. Renal transplantation outcomes: a comparative analysis between elderly and younger recipients. Clin Transplant 2007;21:755-60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00734.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00734.x
• ¹⁴
  Ferguson R. Acute rejection episodes-best predictor of long-term primary cadaveric renal transplant survival. Clin Transplant 1994;8:328-31.
• ¹⁵
  Pirsch JD, Ploeg RJ, Gange S, D'Alessandro AM, Knechtle SJ, Sollinger HW, et al. Determinants of graft survival after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996;61:1581-6. PMID:8669101 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199606150-00006
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199606150-00006
• ¹⁶
  Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Kaplan B. Lack of improvement in renal allograft survival despite a marked decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. Am J Transplant 2004;4:378-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00332.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00332.x
• ¹⁷
  Hau HM, Tautenhahn HM, Schmelzle M, Krenzien F, Schoenberg MB, Morgul MH, et al. Management of urologic complications in renal transplantation: a single-center experience. Transplant Proc 2014;46:1332-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.04.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.04.002
• ¹⁸
  Praz V, Leisinger HJ, Pascual M, Jichlinski P. Urological complications in renal transplantation from cadaveric donor grafts: a retrospective analysis of 20 years. Urol Int 2005;75:144-9. PMID:16123569 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000087169
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000087169
• ¹⁹
  Slagt IK, Ijzermans JN, Visser LJ, Weimar W, Roodnat JI, Terkivatan T. Independent risk factors for urological complications after deceased donor kidney transplantation. PLoS One 2014;9:e91211. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091211
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091211
• ²⁰
  Alberts VP, Idu MM, Legemate DA, Laguna Pes MP, Minnee RC. Ureterovesical anastomotic techniques for kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Transpl Int 2014;27:593-605. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tri.12301
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tri.12301
• ²¹
  Villa M, Siskind E, Sameyah E, Alex A, Blum M, Tyrell R, et al. Shortened length of stay improves financial outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation. Int J Angiol 2013;22:101-4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1334139
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1334139
• ²²
  Naderi M, Aslani J, Hashemi M, Assari S, Amini M, Pourfarziani V. Prolonged rehospitalizations following renal transplantation: causes, risk factors, and outcomes. Transplant Proc 2007;39:978-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.03.081
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.03.081
• ²³
  Weiskopf D, Weinberger B, Grubeck-Loebenstein B. The aging of the imune system. Transpl Int 2009;22:1041-50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.00927.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.00927.x
• ²⁴
  Wu C, Shapiro R, Tan H, Basu A, Smetanka C, Morgan C, et al. Kidney transplantation in elderly people: the influence of recipient comorbidity and living kidney donors. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56:231-8. PMID: 18070005 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01542.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01542.x
• ²⁵
  Yancik R, Ries LA. Aging and cancer in America. Demographic and epidemiologic perspectives. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:17-23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70275-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70275-6

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Apr-Jun 2015

History

• Received
  22 Oct 2014
• Accepted
  12 Jan 2015