4.3 Article

Relationship between pre-transplant physical function and outcomes after kidney transplant

Journal

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12952

Keywords

glomerular filtration rate (GFR); hospital readmission; kidney transplantation: living donor; quality of life (QOL)

Funding

  1. Mayo Clinic CTSA [UL1 TR000135]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Performance-based measures of physical function predict morbidity following non-transplant surgery. Study objectives were to determine whether physical function predicts outcomes after kidney transplant and assess how physical function changes post-transplant. Methods: We conducted a prospective study involving living donor kidney transplants recipients at our center from May 2012 to February 2014. Physical function was measured using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB [balance, chair stands, gait speed]) and grip strength testing. Initial length of stay (LOS), 30-day rehospitalizations, allograft function, and quality of life (QOL) were assessed. Results: The majority of the 140 patients in our cohort had excellent pre-transplant physical function. In general, balance scores were more predictive of post-transplant outcomes than the SPPB. Decreased pre-transplant balance was independently associated with longer LOS and increased rehospitalizations but not with post-transplant QOL; 35% of patients experienced a clinically meaningful (>= 1.0 m/s) improvement in gait speed 4 months post-transplant. Conclusions: Decreased physical function may be associated with longer LOS and rehospitalizations following kidney transplant. Further studies are needed to confirm this association. The lack of relationship between pre-transplant gait speed and outcomes in our cohort may represent a ceiling effect. More comprehensive measures, including balance testing, may be required for risk stratification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available