4.6 Article

Steroid pretreatment of organ donors does not impact on early rejection and long-term kidney allograft survival: Results from a multicenter randomized, controlled trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 1770-1776

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15252

关键词

clinical trial; critical care; intensive care management; donors and donation; deceased; graft survival; kidney transplantation; nephrology; organ procurement and allocation; translational research; science

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund [FWF P-18325]
  2. Vienna Science and Technology Fund [LS16-019]
  3. Sandoz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steroid pretreatment of deceased donors reduces inflammation in allografts and is recommended by organ procurement guidelines. The impact on long-term graft outcome, however, remains elusive. In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 306 deceased donors providing organs for 455 renal transplant recipients were randomized to 1000 mg of methylprednisolone or placebo prior to organ procurement (ISRCTN78828338). The incidence of biopsy-confirmed rejection (Banff>1) at 3 months was 23 (10%) in the steroid group and 26 (12%) in the placebo group (P = .468). Five-year functional graft survival was 84% and 82% for the steroid group and placebo group, respectively (P-value = .941). The hazard ratio of functional graft loss was 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.57-1.42, P = .638) for steroid vs placebo in a multivariate Cox model. We did not observe effect modification by any of the predictors of graft survival and treatment modality. A robust sandwich estimate was used to account for paired grafts of some donors. The mean estimated GFR at 5 years was 47 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) in the steroid group and 48 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) in the placebo group (P = .756). We conclude that steroid pretreatment does not impact on long-term graft survival. In a donor population with higher risk of delayed graft function, however, repetitive and higher doses of steroid treatment may result in different findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据