Distinct phenotypes of kidney transplant recipients aged 80 years or older in the USA by machine learning consensus clustering. Issue 1 (20th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thongprayoon, Charat; Jadlowiec, Caroline C; Mao, Shennen A; Mao, Michael A; Leeaphorn, Napat; Kaewput, Wisit; Pattharanitima, Pattharawin; Nissaisorakarn, Pitchaphon; Cooper, Matthew; Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
• Is Part Of: BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies. Volume 5:Issue 1(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-02-20
• Subjects: technology -- outcomes research -- methodology -- health technology; Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000137
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2631-4940

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: This study aimed to identify distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients aged ≥80 and assess clinical outcomes among these unique clusters. Design: Cohort study with machine learning (ML) consensus clustering approach. Setting and participants: All very elderly (age ≥80 at time of transplant) kidney transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database database from 2010 to 2019. Main outcome measures: Distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients and their post-transplant outcomes including death-censored graft failure, overall mortality and acute allograft rejection among the assigned clusters. Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 419 very elderly kidney transplant and identified three distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of very elderly kidney transplant recipients. Recipients in cluster 1 received standard Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) non-extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from deceased donors. Recipients in cluster 2 received kidneys from older, hypertensive ECD deceased donors with a KDPI score ≥85%. Kidneys for cluster 2 patients had longer cold ischaemia time and the highest use of machine perfusion. Recipients in clusters 1 and 2 were more likely to be on dialysis at the time of transplant (88.3%, 89.4%). Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be preemptive (39%) or had a dialysis duration less than 1 year (24%). These recipients received living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 3 had the most favourable post-transplant outcomes. Compared with cluster 3, cluster 1 had comparable survival but higher death-censored graft failure, while cluster 2 had lower patient survival, higher death-censored graft failure and more acute rejection. Conclusions: Our study used an unsupervised ML approach to cluster very elderly kidney transplant recipients into three clinically unique clusters with distinct post-transplant outcomes. These findings from an ML clustering approach provide additional understanding towards individualised medicine and opportunities to improve care for very elderly kidney transplant recipients.