OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the prognosis of lung transplantation recipients based on donor age.
METHODS: A detailed search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for cohort studies on lung transplantation. The prognosis of lung transplant recipients was investigated based on the donor age, with the primary outcomes being 1-year overall survival (OS), 3-year OS, 5-year OS, and 5-year chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD)-free survival.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 10 cohort studies. Among the short-term outcomes, the older donor group demonstrated no significant difference from the young donor group in primary graft dysfunction within 72 hours, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of ventilator use, and intensive care unit hours. However, a longer hospital stay was associated with the older donor group. In terms of long-term outcomes, no difference was found between the two groups in 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS. Notably, patients with older donors exhibited a superior 5-year CLAD-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that older donors are not inferior to younger donors in terms of long-term and short-term recipient outcomes. Lung transplantation using older donors is a potential therapeutic option after rigorous evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The number of marginal living kidney donors has increased. Medically complex donors who have hypertension, older age, or low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) have been more likely to be used.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors at a single center. We analyzed 309 living donors and divided them into three groups: group with older donors (aged ≥70 years) (n = 41), middle-aged (aged 46-69 years) (n = 239), and young donors (aged <46 years) (N = 29). Donor factors associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3b or worse within 5 years post-donation were investigated.
RESULTS: Of the 309 live donors, 86 (27.8%) developed CKD stage3b or worse within 5 years post-donation. The incidence of CKD stage3b or worse within 5 years post-donation was significantly higher in older donor (p < 0.01). Cox regression models revealed that older donor ages and lower eGFR were significantly related to the development of CKD stage3b or worse, independent of comorbidities such as obesity and hypertension [hazard ratio (95% CI); 4.59 (1.02-20.6), p = 047, 0.95 (0.94-0.96), p ≤ 0.01, respectively]. However, recovery of eGFR 4-5 years after donation was noted in the middle-aged and older donor groups, whereas the level of eGFR remained unchanged in the young group.
CONCLUSIONS: Older donors tend to develop CKD stage3b within 5 years post-donation but with the potential of recovery. Healthy older people (aged ≥70 years) could be candidates for living donors under careful monitoring of kidney function after donation.

Haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) prophylaxis is associated with inferior overall survival (OS) compared to HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) HCT with PTCy prophylaxis in patients receiving reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC). Given prognostic implications of donor age, we investigated the differences in outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 775) undergoing RIC-HCT with a younger MUD (age <35 years; n = 84) versus a younger haploidentical donor (age <35 years; n = 302) versus an older haploidentical donor (age ≥35 years; n = 389). The older MUD group was excluded from the analysis because of small numbers. The younger haploidentical donor group (median age, 59.5 years) was somewhat younger than the younger MUD group (median age, 66.8 years) and the older haploidentical donor group (median age, 64.7 years). More patients in the MUD group received peripheral blood grafts (82%) compared to the haploidentical donor groups (55% to 56%). In multivariate analysis, compared to the younger MUD group, the younger haploidentical donor group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 3.12; P = .005) and the older haploidentical donor group (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.71; P < .001) had a significantly inferior OS, and the younger haploidentical donor group (HR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.39 to 9.93; P = .009) and older haploidentical donor group (HR, 6.91; 95% CI, 2.75 to 17.39; P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of nonrelapse mortality. The older haploidentical group had a significantly higher risk of grade II-IV acute GVHD (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38 to 3.80; P = .001) and grade III-IV acute GVHD (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.71; P = .03). There were no significant differences across the groups in the incidence of chronic GVHD or relapse. Among adult AML patients in CR undergoing RIC-HCT with PTCy prophylaxis, a young MUD may be preferred over a young haploidentical donor.

Grafts from older donors after circulatory death were associated with inferior outcome in liver transplants in the past. But it has seemed to remain controversial in the last decade, as a result of modified clinical protocols, selected recipients, and advanced technology of organ perfusion and preservation. The present study aimed to examine the impact of older donor age on complications and survival of liver transplant using grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD).
A total of 944 patients who received DCD liver transplantation from 2015 to 2020 were included and divided into two groups: using graft from older donor (aged ≥ 65 years, n = 87) and younger donor (age < 65 years, n = 857). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to eliminate selection bias.
A progressively increased proportion of liver transplants with grafts from older donors was observed from 1.68% to 15.44% during the study period. The well-balanced older donor (n = 79) and younger donor (n = 79) were 1:1 matched. There were significantly more episodes of biliary non-anastomotic stricture (NAS) in the older donor group than the younger donor group [15/79 (19.0%) vs. 6/79 (7.6%); P = 0.017]. The difference did not reach statistical significance regarding early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and primary non-function (PNF). Older livers had a trend toward inferior 1-, 2-, 3-year graft and overall survival compared with younger livers, but these differences were not statistically significant (63.1%, 57.6%, 57.6% vs. 76.9%, 70.2%, 67.7%, P = 0.112; 64.4%, 58.6%, 58.6% vs. 76.9%, 72.2%, 72.2%, P = 0.064). The only risk factor for poor survival was ABO incompatible transplant (P = 0.008) in the older donor group. In the subgroup of ABO incompatible cases, it demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of NAS between the older donor group and the younger donor group [6/8 (75.0%) vs. 3/14 (21.4%); P = 0.014].
Transplants with grafts from older donors (aged ≥ 65 years) after circulatory death are more frequently associated with inferior outcome compared to those from younger donors. Older grafts from DCD are more likely to develop NAS, especially in ABO incompatible cases.

OBJECTIVE: Compared to Standard Criteria Donors (SCD), Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD) kidneys are associated with poorer outcomes, although pre-transplant biopsy may mitigate risks. This study assessed 5-year outcomes of deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients, comparing recipients of ECD allografts evaluated histologically to recipients of SCD and ECD kidneys assessed clinically.
METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective study. From November 2005 to December 2009 (Era 1), donors were assessed clinically for suitability for kidney donation. From December 2009 to October 2017 (Era 2), kidneys from ECDs and diabetics underwent pre-transplant biopsy and were allocated based on Remuzzi score. Outcomes of Era 1 and 2 recipients were compared.
RESULTS: ECD kidney transplantation increased from 30.4% to 40.0% from Era 1 to 2. Univariable Cox regression, stratified by transplant era, found that 5-year graft loss was highest with Era 1 ECD (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.5, P = .027) while graft loss for Era 2 ECD recipients was similar to SCD recipients. There was no difference in 5-year recipient survival. Amongst Era 1 ECD recipients, 51.2% experienced rejection compared to 30.8-41.5% for other subgroups. Five-year eGFR was higher with Era 2 ECD at 48.4 (33.3-60.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 compared to 42.2 (35.8-57.3) ml/min/1.73 m2 for Era 1 ECD. However, these differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of pre-transplant biopsy assessment may be associated with improved outcomes of ECD kidney recipients such that they are now comparable to SCD kidney recipients, with benefits persisting over 5 years.

T cell replete HLA-mismatched haploidentical transplantation (HIDT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide is increasingly becoming an acceptable treatment approach for patients lacking timely access to a suitably matched related donor transplant (MRDT) or matched unrelated donor transplant (MUDT). Multiple recent registry and single-center studies have shown comparable overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates among HIDT, MRDT, and MUDT with a significantly lower risk of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) among HIDT recipients. Candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) often have access to multiple donor sources, and a relevant question is whether outcomes can be improved with a younger HLA-mismatched haploidentical donor (≤35 years) rather than an older matched related donor (≥35 years) or matched unrelated donor (≥35 years). We analyzed 406 consecutive allogenic HSCT recipients, with a median age of 54 years (range, 19 to 77), after a MRDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 222), MUDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 91), and HIDT with a donor age of ≤35 years (n = 93). Median follow-up time for survivors was 51.5 months. Compared with MRDT and MUDT, HIDT recipients had a similar median age at time of HSCT, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index, disease risk index distribution, and donor recipient sex matching. The survival estimates and relapse incidence at 3 years post-HSCT were OS (64% for MRDT, 54% for MUDT, and 62% for HIDT), DFS (55% for MRDT, 44% for MUDT, and 58% for HIDT), Transplant related mortality (TRM) (19% for MRDT, 16% for MUDT, and 18% for HIDT), and relapse (26% for MRDT, 37% for MUDT, and 24% for HIDT). HIDT recipients had better 3-year relapse rates compared with MUDT recipients (24% versus 37%, P= .048), with similar DFS and OS in a univariate analysis. MRDT recipients had a better relapse rate (26% versus 37%, P = .042) compared with MUDT recipients. Recipients of HIDT also had significantly lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD compared with MRDT and MUDT recipients (P = .01). Multivariable analysis showed no effect of donor on OS, DFS, relapse, and TRM. Recipients of HIDT from a young donor ≤35 years had similar OS, lower rates of chronic GVHD, and better chronic GVHD-free, relapse-free survival compared with patients undergoing transplantation with an MRD or a MUD donor ≥35 years. This study suggests that given a situation where a choice between a young haploidentical relative and an older matched unrelated donor is to be made, one can achieve similar survival with a haploidentical donor and significantly lower rates of chronic GVHD.

Although the impact of older donors on heart transplant outcomes has been previously published, the survival results are conflicting. We herein analyse the impact of older donors on transplant survival and myocardial function.
The records of the patients who underwent heart transplant at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas from November 2012 until March 2015 were reviewed and the data were extracted. The heart recipients were divided into two groups based on donors age; 50 years of age was the division point. The two groups were compared with regard to the following transplant outcomes: in-hospital and 1-year survival, severe (3R) rejection, primary graft dysfunction, myocardial performance as reflected by the inotropic score, left ventricular ejection fraction, intensive care unit and overall length of stay.
Anoxia was more common cause of death in younger donors (43.9%), whereas intracranial bleeding was more frequent in older donors (48.1%, P = 0.016). The in-hospital survival and 1-year survival were the same between the two groups. Additionally, cardiac transplantation from older donors was not associated with higher incidence of graft dysfunction, higher inotropic support score, longer intensive care unit and total hospital length of stay or more frequent severe rejection episodes. The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar between the two groups.
Heart transplant from older donors is not associated with lower in-hospital and mid-term survival if donors are carefully selected; furthermore, the graft function is comparable. The use of hearts from donors older than 50 years of age can be expanded beyond critically ill recipients in carefully selected recipients.