Suppr超能文献

肾移植结果的半衰期及危险因素——功能存活下死亡的重要性

Half-life and risk factors for kidney transplant outcome--importance of death with function.

作者信息

Matas A J, Gillingham K J, Sutherland D E

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinic, Minneapolis 55455.

出版信息

Transplantation. 1993 Apr;55(4):757-61. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199304000-00014.

Abstract

Transplant center outcome is being increasingly scrutinized, so it is critical to have a consistent approach to data analysis. Standard practice has been to include death with function as a graft loss. But doing so may obscure other important risk factors and make it difficult to compare centers. To document this data analysis problem, we studied half-life and risk factors for long-term graft survival in 2230 kidney transplant recipients who had > or = 1 year of function. Four separate Cox regression analyses were done, differing in how death with function is considered: death with function considered a graft loss (analysis 1); all deaths censored (analysis 2); definitively non-transplant-related deaths censored, i.e., deaths from infection, malignancy, or cardiac problems analyzed as a graft loss (analysis 3); and definitively non-transplant-related as well as cardiac deaths censored (analysis 4). For each analysis, variables included immunosuppressive protocol, age at transplant, donor source, diabetes, gender, transplant number (primary vs. retransplant), and HLA ABDR mismatches (0 vs. > or = 1 mismatch). There were important differences in risk factors, depending on how death with function is considered. For example, when all deaths are considered a graft loss, age > 50, cadaver donor source, diabetes, retransplantation, and > 0 antigen mismatch were found to be risk factors for long-term graft survival. However, when all deaths are censored, age > 50, cadaver donor source, retransplantation, and diabetes were no longer risk factors. In fact, age > 50 was associated with significantly better graft survival when all deaths are censored (analysis 2), suggesting that the increased graft loss seen in these patients is nonimmunologic. Similarly, t1/2 is markedly different for different patient subgroups depending on how death with function is considered. For example, nondiabetic living donor (non-HLA-identical) recipients > 50 have a t1/2 of 9 +/- 1 years when death with function is considered a graft loss; for the same group, t1/2 is 62 +/- 28 years when death with function is considered. For diabetic patients < or = 50, when death with function is considered a graft loss, t1/2 is 9 +/- 0.9 years for living donor recipients and 7 +/- 0.7 years for cadaver donor recipients. For the same patients, when death with function is censored, t1/2 is 27 +/- 4 years for living donor recipients and 24 +/- 4 years for cadaver donor recipients. Our analysis suggests that death with function needs to be considered in analyzing kidney transplant outcomes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

摘要

移植中心的结果越来越受到严格审查,因此采用一致的数据分析方法至关重要。标准做法是将功能存活期内的死亡视为移植物丢失。但这样做可能会掩盖其他重要的风险因素,并使各中心之间难以进行比较。为了记录这一数据分析问题,我们研究了2230名肾功能持续≥1年的肾移植受者的长期移植物存活的半衰期和风险因素。进行了四项独立的Cox回归分析,在如何看待功能存活期内的死亡方面存在差异:功能存活期内的死亡视为移植物丢失(分析1);所有死亡均进行截尾处理(分析2);明确与移植无关的死亡进行截尾处理,即感染、恶性肿瘤或心脏问题导致的死亡视为移植物丢失(分析3);明确与移植无关以及心脏死亡均进行截尾处理(分析4)。对于每项分析,变量包括免疫抑制方案、移植时的年龄、供体来源、糖尿病、性别、移植次数(初次移植与再次移植)以及HLA ABDR错配情况(0个错配与≥1个错配)。根据如何看待功能存活期内的死亡,风险因素存在重要差异。例如,当所有死亡都视为移植物丢失时,年龄>50岁、尸体供体来源、糖尿病、再次移植以及>0个抗原错配被发现是长期移植物存活的风险因素。然而,当所有死亡都进行截尾处理时,年龄>50岁、尸体供体来源、再次移植和糖尿病不再是风险因素。事实上,当所有死亡都进行截尾处理时(分析2),年龄>50岁与显著更好的移植物存活相关,这表明这些患者中观察到的移植物丢失增加是非免疫性的。同样,根据如何看待功能存活期内的死亡,不同患者亚组的t1/2也有显著差异。例如,年龄>50岁的非糖尿病活体供体(非HLA匹配)受者,当功能存活期内的死亡视为移植物丢失时,t1/2为9±1年;对于同一组,当功能存活期内的死亡不视为移植物丢失时,t1/2为62±28年。对于年龄≤50岁的糖尿病患者,当功能存活期内的死亡视为移植物丢失时,活体供体受者的t1/2为9±0.9年,尸体供体受者的t1/2为7±0.7年。对于相同的患者,当功能存活期内的死亡进行截尾处理时,活体供体受者的t1/2为27±4年,尸体供体受者的t1/2为24±4年。我们的分析表明,在分析肾移植结果时需要考虑功能存活期内的死亡情况。(摘要截选至400字)

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验