ArticleKidney3602026
Comparative Impact of Early Graft Function on Kidney Transplantation Outcomes According to Donor Types.
Article in Kidney360, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
key pointsImpaired early graft function effects differ by donor type: living donors show increased rejection/graft failure and deceased donors show mortality risk. Despite high-risk incompatible transplants, living donor recipients have low impaired graft function rates (4.5% versus 24.7% in deceased donors). Slow graft function is a distinct phenotype requiring recognition beyond traditional delayed graft function classification, with donor-specific implications.
backgroundWith the rise of high-risk living donor kidney transplantation, the effect of early graft function (EGF) on transplant outcomes remains unclear.
methodsIn this retrospective multicenter study, we classified kidney transplantation recipients (KTRs) based on EGF and donor type. EGF within the first post-transplant week was classified as immediate graft function, slow graft function (SGF), or delayed graft function (DGF), with impaired EGF defined as SGF or DGF. The primary outcomes included biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) within 1 year, death-censored graft failure (DCGF), and overall mortality.
resultsAmong 3261 KTRs, 365 (11.2%) experienced impaired EGF, including 190 (5.8%) with SGF and 175 (5.4%) with DGF. In living donor KTRs, impaired EGF was significantly associated with an increased risk of 1-year BPAR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 3.39) and DCGF (aHR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.82) but not mortality. Both SGF and DGF increased the risk of BPAR, while only DGF significantly elevated the risk of DCGF. In deceased donor KTRs, impaired EGF was associated with a higher risk of both DCGF (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.31) and mortality (aHR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.52 to 3.49) with SGF and DGF demonstrating similar patterns. Notably, prolonged DGF (≥7 days) was linked to progressively worse outcomes.
conclusionsThe effect of impaired EGF varies by donor type. In living donor KTRs, impaired EGF increased the risks of BPAR and DCGF, particularly in cases of DGF. In deceased donor KTRs, impaired EGF elevated the risks of DCGF and mortality but not BPAR, highlighting the need for tailored strategies to optimize EGF.
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.