A third kidney transplant

Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease?

Arthur J. Matas, Kristen J. Gillingham, William D. Payne, David L. Dunn, Rainer W G Gruessner, David E R Sutherland, Walter Schmidt, John S. Najarian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Given the organ donor shortage, some question whether a third kidney transplant can be justified. We studied the outcome of 51 third transplants (mean age 28 ± 2 yr) done between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1994. We compared hospital stay (mean ± S.E.), cost, readmissions, readmission days, and outcome of third (vs. first and second) transplants. We found that patient survival for third transplants was equivalent to first and second transplants; graft survival was not as good. However, when third transplant recipients with recurrent disease (specifically, hemolytic uremic syndrome and focal sclerosis) were excluded from our analysis, we found no difference in 5-yr graft survival (vs. first or second transplant recipients). Of the 51 third transplant recipients, 41 had a cadaver donor transplant. Third cadaver transplant recipients tended to have a longer hospital stay (p = NS) than first cadaver transplant recipients but had no more readmissions or readmission days than first or second cadaver transplant recipients. Employment data are available for 28 third transplant recipients; 16 (57%) are currently working or going to school. Of the 21 recipients who responded to quality of life questionnaires, 17 (81%) reported being healthy and all 21 (100%) said transplantation was not a drawback to their health. We conclude that third transplants should be considered for selected patients with renal failure whose first or second transplants have failed. Such patients can often be successfully transplanted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)516-520
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Transplantation
Volume10
Issue number6 I
StatePublished - Dec 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Care Costs
Chronic Kidney Failure
Transplants
Kidney
Cadaver
Graft Survival
Length of Stay
Tissue Donors
Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome
Sclerosis
Transplant Recipients
Renal Insufficiency
Transplantation
Quality of Life
Costs and Cost Analysis
Survival
Health

Keywords

  • Cost effectiveness
  • Kidney transplantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation
  • Immunology

Cite this

Matas, A. J., Gillingham, K. J., Payne, W. D., Dunn, D. L., Gruessner, R. W. G., Sutherland, D. E. R., ... Najarian, J. S. (1996). A third kidney transplant: Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease? Clinical Transplantation, 10(6 I), 516-520.

A third kidney transplant : Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease? / Matas, Arthur J.; Gillingham, Kristen J.; Payne, William D.; Dunn, David L.; Gruessner, Rainer W G; Sutherland, David E R; Schmidt, Walter; Najarian, John S.

In: Clinical Transplantation, Vol. 10, No. 6 I, 12.1996, p. 516-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Matas, AJ, Gillingham, KJ, Payne, WD, Dunn, DL, Gruessner, RWG, Sutherland, DER, Schmidt, W & Najarian, JS 1996, 'A third kidney transplant: Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease?', Clinical Transplantation, vol. 10, no. 6 I, pp. 516-520.
Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Payne WD, Dunn DL, Gruessner RWG, Sutherland DER et al. A third kidney transplant: Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease? Clinical Transplantation. 1996 Dec;10(6 I):516-520.
Matas, Arthur J. ; Gillingham, Kristen J. ; Payne, William D. ; Dunn, David L. ; Gruessner, Rainer W G ; Sutherland, David E R ; Schmidt, Walter ; Najarian, John S. / A third kidney transplant : Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease?. In: Clinical Transplantation. 1996 ; Vol. 10, No. 6 I. pp. 516-520.
@article{016c4c6dfb6a4ec39c417ab9ff0b53a9,
title = "A third kidney transplant: Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease?",
abstract = "Given the organ donor shortage, some question whether a third kidney transplant can be justified. We studied the outcome of 51 third transplants (mean age 28 ± 2 yr) done between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1994. We compared hospital stay (mean ± S.E.), cost, readmissions, readmission days, and outcome of third (vs. first and second) transplants. We found that patient survival for third transplants was equivalent to first and second transplants; graft survival was not as good. However, when third transplant recipients with recurrent disease (specifically, hemolytic uremic syndrome and focal sclerosis) were excluded from our analysis, we found no difference in 5-yr graft survival (vs. first or second transplant recipients). Of the 51 third transplant recipients, 41 had a cadaver donor transplant. Third cadaver transplant recipients tended to have a longer hospital stay (p = NS) than first cadaver transplant recipients but had no more readmissions or readmission days than first or second cadaver transplant recipients. Employment data are available for 28 third transplant recipients; 16 (57{\%}) are currently working or going to school. Of the 21 recipients who responded to quality of life questionnaires, 17 (81{\%}) reported being healthy and all 21 (100{\%}) said transplantation was not a drawback to their health. We conclude that third transplants should be considered for selected patients with renal failure whose first or second transplants have failed. Such patients can often be successfully transplanted.",
keywords = "Cost effectiveness, Kidney transplantation",
author = "Matas, {Arthur J.} and Gillingham, {Kristen J.} and Payne, {William D.} and Dunn, {David L.} and Gruessner, {Rainer W G} and Sutherland, {David E R} and Walter Schmidt and Najarian, {John S.}",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "516--520",
journal = "Clinical Transplantation",
issn = "0902-0063",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A third kidney transplant

T2 - Cost-effective treatment for end-stage renal disease?

AU - Matas, Arthur J.

AU - Gillingham, Kristen J.

AU - Payne, William D.

AU - Dunn, David L.

AU - Gruessner, Rainer W G

AU - Sutherland, David E R

AU - Schmidt, Walter

AU - Najarian, John S.

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - Given the organ donor shortage, some question whether a third kidney transplant can be justified. We studied the outcome of 51 third transplants (mean age 28 ± 2 yr) done between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1994. We compared hospital stay (mean ± S.E.), cost, readmissions, readmission days, and outcome of third (vs. first and second) transplants. We found that patient survival for third transplants was equivalent to first and second transplants; graft survival was not as good. However, when third transplant recipients with recurrent disease (specifically, hemolytic uremic syndrome and focal sclerosis) were excluded from our analysis, we found no difference in 5-yr graft survival (vs. first or second transplant recipients). Of the 51 third transplant recipients, 41 had a cadaver donor transplant. Third cadaver transplant recipients tended to have a longer hospital stay (p = NS) than first cadaver transplant recipients but had no more readmissions or readmission days than first or second cadaver transplant recipients. Employment data are available for 28 third transplant recipients; 16 (57%) are currently working or going to school. Of the 21 recipients who responded to quality of life questionnaires, 17 (81%) reported being healthy and all 21 (100%) said transplantation was not a drawback to their health. We conclude that third transplants should be considered for selected patients with renal failure whose first or second transplants have failed. Such patients can often be successfully transplanted.

AB - Given the organ donor shortage, some question whether a third kidney transplant can be justified. We studied the outcome of 51 third transplants (mean age 28 ± 2 yr) done between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1994. We compared hospital stay (mean ± S.E.), cost, readmissions, readmission days, and outcome of third (vs. first and second) transplants. We found that patient survival for third transplants was equivalent to first and second transplants; graft survival was not as good. However, when third transplant recipients with recurrent disease (specifically, hemolytic uremic syndrome and focal sclerosis) were excluded from our analysis, we found no difference in 5-yr graft survival (vs. first or second transplant recipients). Of the 51 third transplant recipients, 41 had a cadaver donor transplant. Third cadaver transplant recipients tended to have a longer hospital stay (p = NS) than first cadaver transplant recipients but had no more readmissions or readmission days than first or second cadaver transplant recipients. Employment data are available for 28 third transplant recipients; 16 (57%) are currently working or going to school. Of the 21 recipients who responded to quality of life questionnaires, 17 (81%) reported being healthy and all 21 (100%) said transplantation was not a drawback to their health. We conclude that third transplants should be considered for selected patients with renal failure whose first or second transplants have failed. Such patients can often be successfully transplanted.

KW - Cost effectiveness

KW - Kidney transplantation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030480908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030480908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 516

EP - 520

JO - Clinical Transplantation

JF - Clinical Transplantation

SN - 0902-0063

IS - 6 I

ER -