4.5 Article

Solid organ donor-recipient race-matching: analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database

Journal

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 640-647

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tri.13832

Keywords

kidney; liver; lung; organ transplant; pancreas; race

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Donor-recipient race-matching does not significantly influence patient outcomes in organ transplantation, except for some benefit observed in African American liver transplant recipients.
Donor ethnicity is a prognosticator in organ transplant. However, the impact of donor/recipient race-matching is unclear. We hypothesized that there would be increased survival in donor-recipient race-matched organ recipients because of genetic and physiologic similarities. The UNOS database from 1999 to 2018 was queried for all solid organ transplantations including heart, lung, liver, kidney, and pancreas transplants. Data were sorted by donor and recipient race into matched and unmatched categories for Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic transplant recipients. After controlling for potential confounders via inverse propensity of treatment weighting, post-transplant patient and graft survival were compared between race-matched and -unmatched donor groups for each organ. Race-matched Caucasian recipients experienced 1-3% improvement in mortality across most time points in lung, liver, and pancreas transplants, while Hispanics did not benefit. Matched African American recipients experienced 4-6% improvement in patient and graft survival in liver transplant but had 7-9% worse survival rates at 5 years in lung and pancreas transplants. Race-matching does not influence patient outcomes enough to factor into organ transplant offers. African American liver transplant recipients benefited the most. Matching was detrimental to African American lung and pancreas transplant recipients indicating there may be other factors influencing the outcomes of these transplants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available