4.0 Article

Long-term outcome of en bloc pediatric kidney transplantation in adult recipients - up to 22 years of center experience

Journal

ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 101-107

Publisher

INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.883845

Keywords

renal transplantation; graft survival; extended criteria donor; organ deficit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Renal transplantation has been shown to be the best therapeutic option in end-stage renal disease patients. En bloc transplantation of pediatric kidneys into adult recipients (EBKT) is one strategy to increase the donor pool. We here report on 10 to 22 years of follow-up (median of 12.8 years) of patients receiving EBKT in a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Material/Methods: The mean donor age was 14 +/- 12 months and mean donor body weight was 8 +/- 3 kilograms. Thirteen recipients (6 females, 7 males) were followed for 10 to 22 years. The mean recipient age was 44 +/- 13 years at the time of transplantation. Results: Two of 13 patients lost their grafts in the first week because of hemorrhagic infarction of the kidney transplants or sepsis (septic shock). Only 1 patient had an acute cellular rejection, which was successfully treated with steroids and anti-CD3 antibody. Eleven out of 13 patients after EBKT survived and had a functioning graft 10 to 22 years after successful EBKT. The serum creatinine was 1.34 +/- 0.6 mg/dl at 5 years (n=11), 1.37 +/- 0.7 mg/dl at 10 years (n=11), 1.40 +/- 0.6 mg/dl at 15 years (n=4), and 1.08 mg/dl at 20 years after EBKT (n=2). The eGFR, evaluated by using MDRD-2, was 66.5 +/- 22 ml/min/m(2) at 5 years (n=11), 62 +/- 28 ml/min/m(2) at 10 years (n=11), 56 +/- 23 ml/min/m(2) at 15 years (n=4), and 61 ml/min/m(2) at 20 years after EBKT (n=2). Proteinuria did not increase significantly within the observation period. Conclusions: In our experience, if the acute post-operative phase is uncomplicated, EBKT has excellent long-term graft and patient survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available