Open AccessComparison of kidney allograft survival in the Eurotransplant senior program after changing the allocation criteria in 2010—A single center experience
Author(s) -
AnneSophie Mehdorn,
Stefan Reuter,
Barbara Suwelack,
Katharina SchütteNütgen,
Felix Becker,
N. Senninger,
Daniel Palmes,
Thomas Vogel,
Ralf Bahde
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0235680
Subject(s) - medicine , single center , center (category theory) , chemistry , crystallography
Aims The European Senior Program (ESP) aims to avoid waiting list competition between younger and elderly patients applying for renal transplantation. By listing patients ≥65 years on a separate waiting list and locally allocating of grafts ≥65 years exclusively to this cohort, waiting and cold ischemia times are predicted to be shortened, potentially resulting in improved kidney transplantation outcomes. This study compared a historic cohort of renal transplant recipients being simultaneously listed on the general and the ESP waiting lists with a collective exclusively listed on the ESP list in terms of surrogates of the transplantation outcome. Methods Total 151 eligible patients ≥ 65 years from Münster transplant Center, Germany, between 1999 and 2014 were included. Graft function, graft and patient survival were compared using surrogate markers of short- and long-term graft function. Patients were grouped according to their time of transplantation. Results Recipients and donors in the newESP (nESP) cohort were significantly older (69.6 ± 3.5 years vs 67.1 ± 2 years, p<0.05; 72.0 ± 5.0 years vs 70.3 ± 5.0 years, p = 0.039), had significantly shorter dialysis vintage (19.6 ± 21.7 months vs 60.2 ± 28.1 months, p<0.001) and suffered from significantly more comorbidities (2.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.8 ± 0.8, p = 0.009) than the historic cohort (HC). Five-year death-censored graft survival was better than in the HC, but 5-year graft and patient survival were better in the ESP cohort. After 2005, cold ischemia time between groups was comparable. nESP grafts showed more primary function and significantly better long-term graft function 18 months after transplantation and onwards. Conclusion nESP recipients received significantly older grafts, but experienced significantly shorter time on dialysis. Cold ischemia times were comparable, but graft function in the nESP cohort was significantly better in the long term.