Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review and meta-analysis shows favorable outcomes in PKD patients post-transplant, suggesting better survival rates.
Polycystic kidney disease (PKD) represents one of the most prevalent inherited renal disorders and constitutes the fourth leading etiology of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). While renal transplantation remains the optimal therapeutic intervention for ESKD, existing evidence regarding post-transplant survival rates and graft loss in PKD recipients remains contentious. This systematic review incorporated studies from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases, with a preregistered protocol on PROSPERO (CRD420251002570). We evaluated the impact of PKD on post-transplant outcomes through comparative analyses of patient survival and graft survival at 1-, 5-, and 10-year intervals between PKD and non-PKD cohorts. Secondary outcomes included complication profiles. Methodological quality was appraised using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. From 1,187 screened records, 23 studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis demonstrated superior 1-year patient survival in PKD kidney transplant recipients (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.08-1.56; 19 studies, I²=0.0%) and enhanced 10-year graft survival (OR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.52-1.62; 20 studies, I²=73.5%) compared to non-PKD counterparts. Subgroup analyses revealed amplified survival advantages in retrospective studies (OR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.35-2.07; 7 studies, I²=23.6%) and cohorts with unspecified donor types (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.53; 13 studies, I²=0.0%). Notably, PKD recipients exhibited higher incidence of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (OR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.40-1.81; I²=85.4%), while acute rejection episodes, infectious complications, and malignancy rates showed no intergroup divergence. PKD kidney transplant recipients demonstrate favorable short-term survival and long-term graft retention compared to non-PKD patients. However, residual confounding from donor characteristics, sample size heterogeneity, and methodological variations necessitate cautious interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: