ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Old for young kidney transplantation: a responsible option for our patients to reduce waiting time?
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Eurotransplant Senior program allocating grafts from donors ≥ 65 years to recipients aged ≥ 65 years has proven good results within the last 20 years. However, "old" grafts are also allocated to younger recipients < 65 years, and this outcome of "old for young" kidney transplantations (KT) still lacks detailed investigations.
methodsAll "old for young" KT performed at four tertiary referral centers were retrospectively compared including a recent follow-up, stratifying for "old for young" (donor ≥ 65 years to recipient < 65 years) vs. "very old for young" KT (donor ≥ 70 years to recipient < 65 years).
resultsOverall, 99 patients were included with 56 (56.6%) "old for young" and 43 (43.4%) "very old for young" KT. The median waiting time did not differ (60.7 vs. 45.8 months, respectively) at comparable living donation rates (57.1% vs. 44.2%) as well as intra- and postoperative results. At a median follow-up of 44 months (range 1; 133), the 3-year graft survival of 91% vs. 87% did not significantly vary. In subgroup analyses assessing living donation or donation after brain death (DBD) KT only, the graft survival was significantly longer for "old for young" KT within the living donation subgroup. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, the presence of panel-reactive antibodies was the only significant impact factor on graft survival (HR 8.32, p = 0.001).
conclusionThis analysis clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the "old for young" approach, enabling favorable perioperative results as well as comparable data of graft- and overall survival, while reducing waiting time for eligible patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.