BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Transplant. Mar 18, 2026; 16(1): 114233
Published online Mar 18, 2026. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v16.i1.114233
Table 1 Summary of kidney allograft outcomes in combined solid organ transplantation based on major published studies
Type of combined transplant
Delayed graft function
Acute rejection
Kidney graft failure/survival
Patient survival
SLK(1) 39% of cases (Lunsford et al[11]); (2) Higher with high MELD, vasopressor use, or poor hemodynamic status; and (3) Delayed kidney implantation (up to 48 hours) reduces DGFPossible lower rejection rates vs KTA thought to be due to an immunomodulatory mechanism conferred by liver(1) Renal allograft futility in 20.7% (death or dialysis by 3 months, Lunsford et al[11]); and (2) Early graft loss linked to hemodynamic instability and high MELDEarly mortality higher in high-MELD SLK recipients, but long-term survival similar to KTA once stabilized
SHKT(1) 27%-37% of cases (Swanson et al[1], Grupper et al[16]); (2) Linked to pre-transplant mechanical circulatory support and RV pressure elevation; and (3) Delayed kidney implantation (up to 69 hours) can reduce riskNo significant difference vs KTA5-year-graft survival 72% (vs 73% in KTA, Choudhury et al[9])5-year patient survival lower (75% vs 84%) due to cardiac comorbidities (Choudhury et al[9])
SLKT(1) Higher DGF risk than kidney-after-lung (3 vs 0 cases; Mesnard et al[31]); and (2) Often due to circulatory shock during lung transplantInsufficient data on rejection rates(1) > 3 times high hazard of kidney graft loss (HR = 3.27, P < 0.001, Chen et al[4]); and (2) Primarily from death with functioning graftOverall survival lower than KTA due to lung-related mortality, not renal factors
SPK(1) Lower DGF incidence vs KTA (Israni et al[41]); and (2) Improved ischemia times metabolic milieu from normoglycemiaNo significant difference vs KTASuperior long term graft year survival. 10-year survival 78% (vs 60%-65% for KTA, Reddy et al[36], Esmeijer et al[37])Improved patient survival and reduced cardiovascular mortality (3.3% vs 19%, Lange et al[39])