This group traditionally has a lower graft survival and is considered high risk. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 1 year between the two groups (70% graft survival in both). In the DST group, 30% of potential donors were not able to be used because of sensitisation. Immunosuppression was not given during the transfusion periods. Bordes-Aznar et al. did not clearly state sample size or immunosuppression regimen, and the randomization method was not

explained. In 2006, Marti et al.6 reported a prospective study of 61 potential allograft recipients (adults >16 years), both living related and unrelated, RG7204 supplier who received DSTs and compared them to carefully selected matched controls from the Collaborative Transplant Study Group (CTS). The controls were matched for age, sex, related vs unrelated, original disease, cold ischemia time, number of transplants, year of transplant, time on dialysis and HLA match. All patients were on cyclosporin and prednisone with 31/55

also receiving either azathioprine or mycophenolate. There was no significant difference in induction therapy between the DST and matched control group. Although there was a trend to better allograft survival in the DST group (98% vs. 82%) this failed to reach statistical significance and when examined on an intention-to-treat basis, the 6-year graft survival of the DST group was 88.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in 1-year serum creatinine or treated acute rejection rate between the two groups. Of concern was the fact that 10% of patients (n = 6) in the DST group developed positive T cell crossmatches following the transfusions and ABT-263 cost living donation did not proceed. This study was underpowered to look at graft survival differences and historical controls were

used. There were more pre-emptive transplants in the DST group (although time on dialysis was similar). Sonoda and Ishibashi7 retrospectively analyzed patients in the Japanese transplant registry. One HLA haplotype mismatch living related donor (LRD) patients (n = 1292) were analyzed in subgroups according to immunosuppression (cyclosporin n = 315; no cyclosporine n = 977) and DST transfusion (97/315 cyclosporin; 298/977 without cyclosporin). In the cyclosporin groups, the graft Molecular motor survival rate at 4 years for those with DST was 93.5%, compared with 76.2% for those with third-party transfusion (not DST) and 62.7% for those without transfusion. This improvement in graft survival was not seen in the non-cyclosporin group, where the 4-year graft survival for DST was 73.3%, 73.2% for third-party transfusion and 69.0% for those with no transfusion. Davies et al.8 prospectively (not randomized) compared three different protocols for DST: 1 multiple pre-transplant DST with azathioprine during the period and oral cyclosporin post-transplant (n = 34), All patients were LRD recipients with a 1 haplotype mismatch.