TY - JOUR
T1 - Favorable Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes within a National Kidney Exchange Program
T2 - A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
AU - van de Laar, Stijn C
AU - de Weerd, Annelies E
AU - Bemelman, Frederike J
AU - Idu, Mirza M
AU - de Vries, Aiko P J
AU - Alwayn, Ian P J
AU - Berger, Stefan P
AU - Pol, Robert A
AU - van Zuilen, Arjan D
AU - Toorop, Raechel J
AU - Hilbrands, Luuk B
AU - Poyck, Paul P
AU - Christiaans, Maarten H L
AU - van Laanen, Jorinde H H
AU - van de Wetering, Jacqueline
AU - Kimenai, Hendrikus J A N
AU - Reinders, Marlies E J
AU - Porte, Robert J
AU - Dor, Frank J M F
AU - Minnee, Robert C
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s).
PY - 2025/3/1
Y1 - 2025/3/1
N2 - Background KEPs (kidney exchange programs) facilitate living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) for patients with incompatible donors, who are typically at higher risk than non-KEP patients because of higher sensitization and longer dialysis vintage. We conducted a comparative analysis of graft outcomes and risk factors for both KEP and non-KEP living donor kidney transplants. Methods All LDKTs performed in The Netherlands between 2004 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome measures were 1-, 5-, and 10-year death-censored graft survival. The secondary outcome measures were delayed graft function, graft function, rejection rates, and patient survival. We used a propensity score–matching model to account for differences at baseline. Results Of 7536 LDKTs, 694 (9%) were transplanted through the KEP. Ten-year graft survival was similar for KEP (0.916; 95% confidence interval, 0.894 to 0.939) and non-KEP (0.919; 0.912 to 0.926, P 5 0.82). We found significant differences in 5-year rejection (12% versus 7%) and 5-year patient survival (KEP: 84%, non-KEP: 90%), which was nonsignificant after propensity score matching. Significant risk factors of lower graft survival included high donor age, retransplantations, extended dialysis vintage, higher panel reactive antibodies, and nephrotic syndrome as the cause of ESKD. Conclusions Transplantation through KEP offers a viable alternative for patients lacking compatible donors, avoiding specific and invasive pre- and post-transplant treatments. KEP's similar survival rate to non-KEPs suggests prioritizing KEP LDKTs over deceased donor kidney transplantation, desensitization, and dialysis. However, clinicians should consider the identified risk factors when planning and managing pre- and post-transplant care to enhance patient outcomes. Thus, we advocate for the broad adoption of KEP and establishment in regions lacking such programs, alongside initiation and expansion of international collaborations.
AB - Background KEPs (kidney exchange programs) facilitate living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) for patients with incompatible donors, who are typically at higher risk than non-KEP patients because of higher sensitization and longer dialysis vintage. We conducted a comparative analysis of graft outcomes and risk factors for both KEP and non-KEP living donor kidney transplants. Methods All LDKTs performed in The Netherlands between 2004 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome measures were 1-, 5-, and 10-year death-censored graft survival. The secondary outcome measures were delayed graft function, graft function, rejection rates, and patient survival. We used a propensity score–matching model to account for differences at baseline. Results Of 7536 LDKTs, 694 (9%) were transplanted through the KEP. Ten-year graft survival was similar for KEP (0.916; 95% confidence interval, 0.894 to 0.939) and non-KEP (0.919; 0.912 to 0.926, P 5 0.82). We found significant differences in 5-year rejection (12% versus 7%) and 5-year patient survival (KEP: 84%, non-KEP: 90%), which was nonsignificant after propensity score matching. Significant risk factors of lower graft survival included high donor age, retransplantations, extended dialysis vintage, higher panel reactive antibodies, and nephrotic syndrome as the cause of ESKD. Conclusions Transplantation through KEP offers a viable alternative for patients lacking compatible donors, avoiding specific and invasive pre- and post-transplant treatments. KEP's similar survival rate to non-KEPs suggests prioritizing KEP LDKTs over deceased donor kidney transplantation, desensitization, and dialysis. However, clinicians should consider the identified risk factors when planning and managing pre- and post-transplant care to enhance patient outcomes. Thus, we advocate for the broad adoption of KEP and establishment in regions lacking such programs, alongside initiation and expansion of international collaborations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85217094076&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2215/CJN.0000000611
DO - 10.2215/CJN.0000000611
M3 - Article
C2 - 39879095
SN - 1555-9041
VL - 20
SP - 440
EP - 450
JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
IS - 3
ER -