**3.2. Obesity**

**3. Evaluation of risk factors related to specific patients' characteristics**

There is no arbitrary age limit for transplantation. The United Network for Organ Sharing/ Organ Procurement Transplantation (UNOS OPTN) database revealed that the number of kidney transplants performed in patients ≥ 65 has more than tripled over the last decade (ww.unos.org). Similar to the younger population, transplantation in the older age group of 60 to 74 years has been shown to improve survival compared to their wait-listed counterparts. Graft loss from rejection is lower in older compared to younger recipients presumably due to the decreased immune responsiveness in the aged population. It must be noted, however, that older transplant recipients are at increased risks for infectious complications, malignancy related to immunosuppression, and deaths in the early posttransplant period, most often as a

Although advanced age *per se* has not been regarded as contraindication to transplantation, kidney transplantation among recipients over 80 years of age is uncommonly performed. Analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database revealed that of the transplants performed between 2000 and 2007 in recipients ≥ 60 years of age, only 0.6% were older than 80 years of age. For statistical analysis purposes, patients were divided into three age groups, 60-69, 70-79, and > 80 years with recipients aged 60-69 years used as reference. Median ages for recipients aged 60-69, 70-79, and > 80 years were 64, 72, and 81 years, respectively. Most of the differences were seen between recipients aged 60-69 and > 80 years. The rates of living donor transplants were lower in recipients > 80 years compared to 60-69 years (18% vs. 32%, respectively). The acute rejection rate at 1-year among recipients > 80 years was comparable to that of recipients 60-69 years of age. Three-year patient survival was significantly lower in recipients older than 80 years compared to recipients aged 60-69 years (64% vs. 84%, respectively) with an unadjusted relative risk of death of 2.35 (95% CI 1.83-3.03). However, graft survival was excellent and did not differ significantly between the two groups (88% vs. 90%) (Poommipanit et al., 2010). Hence, the assessment of transplant candidacy for patients over 80 years of age remains a challenge for transplant physicians. Screening for covert cardiovascular disease and occult malignancy, and careful assessment of infectious risk in older prospective transplant candi‐

Currently, the waiting time for a deceased donor transplant in the United States is such that many wait-listed older transplant candidates die while awaiting transplantation from a standard deceased donor kidney. Furthermore, the duration of pretransplant dialysis has been shown to confer a significant and progressive increase in the risk of death-censored graft loss and the risk for patient death after transplantation. Compared with preemptive renal trans‐ plantation, waiting time of 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-24 months, and over 24 months conferred a 17%, 37%, 55%, and 68% increase risk for death-censored graft loss after trans‐ plantation, respectively (Meier-Kriesche et al., 2000). Similarly, mortality risk after transplan‐ tation was significantly increased with increasing waiting time on dialysis. It is our center practice to offer the expanded criteria donor (ECD) program to all candidates 50 years of age or older. Patients should be informed that candidates for ECD kidneys are simultaneously

**3.1. Advanced age**

consequence of cardiovascular disease.

18 Current Issues and Future Direction in Kidney Transplantation

dates are crucial and mandatory.

Obesity is considered a contraindication to transplantation by some centers as it is associated with increased risks of posttransplant complications including delayed graft function, surgical wound infection, and death, particularly from cardiovascular disease. Although there has been no consensus on an acceptable upper limit body mass index (BMI), weight reduction to a BMI of 30-35kg/m2 or less prior to transplantation is recommended. Morbidly obese candidates may benefit from surgery referral for gastric bypass surgery or gastric banding procedure, or more recently, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it should be noted that there has been limited data on the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery (BS) in renal transplant candidates. The USRDS registry data (1991-2004) demonstrated a median excess body weight loss of 31%-61% after bariatric surgery, with thirty-day mortality rate of 3.5% (72 were performed on pre-listed, 29 on waitlisted, and 87 on posttransplant patients). One graft was lost within 30 days after BS. (Modanlou et al. 2009). The authors concluded that although peri-operative mortality was not negligible, the rate may be lower with experienced surgeons and comparable to trials involving patients without kidney disease.

Data on patient and graft survival in obese *versus* non-obese transplant recipients are variable and contradictory. Determination of transplant candidacy in obese patients should, therefore, be assessed on an individual basis rather than reliance on an absolute BMI index. Obese candidates with comorbid conditions such as known coronary artery disease and advanced age are at particularly high risk and may fare better receiving dialysis.

#### **3.3. Managing the wait-list candidates**

Whereas the number of patients on the transplant waiting list has steadily increased, the number of deceased donor kidneys has remained far below the growing need, leading to longer waiting time and increased wait-list deaths. Hence, managing the wait-list has been one of the greatest problems facing transplant centers. Periodic reassessment of transplant candidates' medical and psychosocial issues entails ongoing communication between the dialysis units, patients, and transplant coordinators and transplant programs. In the event of a significant intercurrent illness that may necessitate delisting or placing candidates on hold, pertinent medical records should be obtained and reviewed by a transplant physician. If necessary, patients must be seen to reassess their candidacy. Most transplant programs attempt to see transplant candidates on an annual basis to update their overall heatlh and demographic issues although older candidates may require more frequent visits at the discretion of the transplant physician. During the follow-up visit, routine health maintenance status and cancer screening appropriate for age and gender such as prostate specific antigen, mammography, pap smear, and colonoscopy are also reviewed. Although recommendations for cardiac surveillance of waitlisted patients varies among transplant centers, most transplant programs advocate annual cardiac screening in diabetic transplant candidates. In addition to reassessing pa‐ tients'medical status, the availability of living donors should be re-addressed. Currently, in an effort to maximize the utilization of living kidney donors, our program has implemented an algorithm to evaluate crossmatch positive and ABO-incompatible donor-recipient pairs. Patients are advised of living donor options including paired exchange transplantation, positive crossmatch and ABO incompatible transplantation through desensitization protocols, and living donor kidney exchange for both ABO-incompatible and crossmatch positive donorrecipient combinations. Discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this chapter. For older transplant candidates, the advantages and disadvantages of expanded criteria donor kidney transplantation should be addressed. Finally, effective communication between patients'pri‐ mary nephrologists and transplant centers is invaluable in permitting wait-listed transplant candidates to be at their optimal medical health when a deceased donor kidney becomes available.

[3] Canaud G, Audard V, Kofman T, et al. Recurrence from primary and secondary glomerulopathy after renal transplantation. Transplant Int 25: 812-824, 2012

Medical Evaluation of the Adult Kidney Transplant Candidate

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54736

21

[4] Chapman AB. Acquired cystic disease of the kidney in adults. Upto Date 2011 www.up‐

[5] Colgert WA, Appel GB, Hariharan S. Recurrent glomerulonephritis after renal trans‐ plantation: An unsolved problem. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3(3): 800-807, 2008

[7] Danovitch I. Psychiatric aspects of kidney transplantation. In: Handbook of Kidney Transplantation, 5th ed, ed. Danovitch GM,Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, . Phila‐

[8] De Lima JJ, Sabbaga E, Vieir ML, et al. Coronary angiography is the best predictor of events in renal transplant candidates compared with noninvasive testing. Hyperten‐

[9] Deveraeaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, Guyatt G, Laslie K, Villar JC, Xavier D, Chrolavicius S, Greenspar L, Poque J, Pais P, Liu L, Xu S, Malaga G, Avezum A, Chan M, Jacka M, Choi P. Effects of extended release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non cardiac surgery (POISE Trial): A randomized controlled trial. Lancet 371: 1839-1847,

[10] Eitner F. Acquired cystic kidney disease and malignant neoplasms. In: Floege J, Johnson RJ, Feehally J (eds). Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology, 4th edn. Elsevier Saunders:

[11] Fabrizi F, Bunnapradist S, Martin P. Kidney transplantation and liver disease. In: Handbook of Kidney Transplantation, Danovitch GM (ed), 5th edition, pp 280-290,

[12] Harte B, Amir K. Jaffer. Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: Evolution

[13] Hickson LJ, Cosio FG, El-Zoghby ZM, et al. Survival of patients on the kidney trans‐ plantwait list: Relationship to cardiac Troponin T. Am J transplant 8: 2352-2359,2008

[14] Kasiske BL, Zeier MG and KDGO Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the care of kidney transplant recipients: Recurrent kidney disease. Am J Transplant

[15] Khan NA,Hemmelgarn BR,Tonelli M,et al.Prognosticvalue of troponinT and I among asymptomaticpatients with end-stage renal disease: A meta-analysis. Circulation 112:

[16] Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, O'Gara PT, Carabello BA, Russell RO Jr, Cerqueiria MD, St John Sutton MG, DeMaria AN, Udelson JE, Kennedy JW, Verani MS, Williams KA, Antman EM, Smith SC, Alpert JS, Gregoratos

of the evidence. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 75: 513-519, 2008

[6] Danovitch GM. Guidelines on the firing-line. Am J Transplant 3: 514-515, 2003

todate.com

delphia, PA, pp 389-408, 2010

St. Louis, Missouri, 2010: 1010-1015

9 (suppl 3): S33-S37, 2009

3088-3096, 2005

Lippincot Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA 2010

sion 42:263-268, 2003

2008
