Evolving Trends in Risk Profiles and Outcomes in Older Adults Undergoing Kidney Retransplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In older adults (≥65), access to and outcomes following kidney transplantation (KT) have improved over the past 3 decades. It is unknown if there were parallel trends in re-KT. We characterized the trends, changing landscape, and outcomes of re-KT in older adults. METHODS: Among the 44,149 older kidney-only recipients (1995-2016) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 1743 who underwent re-KT. We analyzed trends and outcomes (mortality, death-censored graft failure [DCGF]) by eras (1995-2002, 2003-2014, and 2015-2016) that were defined by changes to the expanded criteria donors and Kidney Donor Profile Index policies. RESULTS: Among all older kidney-only recipients during 1995-2002, 2003-2014, 2015-2016 the proportion that were re-KTs increased from 2.7% to 4.2% to 5.7%, P < 0.001, respectively. Median age at re-KT (67-68-68, P = 0.04), years on dialysis after graft failure (1.4-1.5-2.2, P = 0.003), donor age (40.0-43.0-43.5, P = 0.04), proportion with panel reactive antibody 80-100 (22.0%-32.7%-48.7%, P < 0.001), and donation after circulatory death (1.1%-13.4%-19.5%, P < 0.001) have increased. Despite this, the 3-y cumulative incidence for mortality (22.3%-19.1%-11.5%, P = 0.002) and DCGF (13.3%-10.0%-5.1%, P = 0.01) decreased over time. Compared with deceased donor retransplant recipients during 1995-2002, those during 2003-2014 and 2015-2016 had lower mortality hazard (aHR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.86 and aHR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.86, respectively). These declines were noted but not significant for DCGF and in living donor re-KTs. CONCLUSIONS: In older retransplant recipients, outcomes have improved significantly over time despite higher risk profiles; yet they represent a fraction of the KTs performed. Our results support increasing access to re-KT in older adults; however, approaches to guide the selection and management in those with graft failure need to be explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".