outcomes were graft function at 1, 3,5 and 7 years. We also analyzed donor's and recipient's variables impacting the short and long term loss of graft. RESULTS: Patient survival was comparable among age groups (10-year patient survival: group 1, 100.0%; group 2, 100.0%; group 3, 92.9%; group 4, 89.3%; group 5, 90.3%; group 6, 90.5%; p¼0.18), whereas graft survival (death censored) was significantly reduced in transplants from very elderly donors (10-year graft survival: group 1, 93.9%; group 2,

more »

... 85.4%; group 3, 96.4%; group 4, 78.6%; group 5, 81.9%; group 6, 71.4%; p¼0.03). As expected, by comparing SKT and DKT, long term graft survival was better in SKT from donors under 60 years old versus SKT from older donors (92.0% vs 75.0%, p¼0.001); conversely no difference was found if kidneys from older donors were allocated for DKT. Likewise, we found no significant difference for patient or graft survival between SKT and DKT, both from donors > 60 years old (10-year patient survival: 90.3% vs 89.6%, respectively, p¼0.92; 10-year graft survival: 75.0% vs 83.6%, respectively, p¼0.16). Also, graft function among the six groups was comparable at any considered time point. Finally, univariate analysis showed that re-transplantation is the most important risk factor for graft loss at one year after transplantation (OR¼6.38, p¼0.003), together with donor's (OR¼1.13, p¼0.02) and recipient's age (OR¼1.11, p¼0.002). None of the other variables seems to affect short and long term graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, donor age classes displayed similar and successful patients and graft survival rates, and renal function was comparable among groups at different times. The overlapping outcomes between SKT and DKT in the older donor group suggest that our allocation system is efficient to avoid underperforming SKT or DKT excess. The use of pre-implantation biopsy should be revisited as their findings may be too restrictive to allocate ECD kidneys.