Background. Frailty is a multidimensional condition and is the result of the body’s age-associated decline in physical, cognitive, physiological, and immune reserves. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the quality of evidence of the included studies, determine the prevalence of frailty among kidney transplant candidates, and evaluate the relationship between frailty and associated patient characteristics and outcomes after kidney transplantation. Methods. A systematic search was performed for relevant literature on frailty and kidney transplantation. This was followed by a meta-analysis for patient characteristics and outcomes reported by a minimum of 2 studies including mean age, gender, mean body mass index, type of kidney transplantation, dialysis, previous kidney transplantation, comorbidities, hypertension, race, preemptive kidney transplantation, delayed graft function, and length of stay. Results. A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review and 14 of those studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of frailty before transplantation was estimated at 17.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.4-18.7). Frailty was significantly associated with higher age (mean difference, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.9), lower rate of preemptive transplantation (relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), longer duration of delayed graft function (relative risk, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), and length of stay longer than 2 wk (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3). Conclusions. One in 6 kidney transplant recipients is frail before transplantation. The presence of frailty is associated with lower rates of preemptive transplantation, older recipient age, higher rates of delayed graft function, and longer length of stay. Future research is required to explore the association of frailty with other adverse outcomes after kidney transplantation and the effects of intervention programs to improve the different frailty domains.

Background: Endovascular access is usually achieved through the common femoral artery due to its large size and accessibility. Access through the upper extremity can however be necessary due to anatomic reasons, obesity, or peripheral arterial disease. The 2 main methods of access are surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study we compared complication risks for both surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture of an upper arm approach. Materials and Methods: Data was obtained from patients receiving endovascular access through the brachial or axillar y arter y between 2005 and 2018. A total of 109 patients were included. Patient demographics including age, sex, medical history, smoking status, and actual medication were registered, as well as postoperative complications including hematoma, thrombosis, dissection, infection, pseudoaneurysm, nerve injury, reoperation, and readmission. Results: Access was achieved through surgical cutdown in 53% ( n = 58) and through percutaneous puncture in 47% ( n = 51) of patients. Fifty-eight percent ( n = 63) received access via the brachial artery (BA) and 42% ( n = 46) via the axillary artery. Complication rate was 25.0% (3 of 12) for surgical cutdown via the BA, 29.4% (15 of 51) for percutaneous puncture via the BA, and 10.9% (5 of 46) for surgical cutdown via the axillary artery. Major complication rate was 8.3% (1 of 12) for surgical cutdown via the BA, 13.7% (7 of 51) for percutaneous puncture via the BA, and 4.3% (2 of 46) for surgical cutdown via the axillary artery. There was no association between baseline patient characteristics and complication rate. Conclusions: In this nonrandomized retrospective study, surgical cutdown via the axillary artery was the safest option with fewest complications, but selection of patients may have blurred the results. Surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture seem equally safe in terms of complication rate in the BA.