Citations

Background/Objectives: With the growing population of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) in intensive care units (ICUs), understanding their prognostic outcomes is critical. As conflicting findings exist, we aim to systematically evaluate and meta-analyze ICU outcomes in kidney transplant recipients compared to non-recipients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, from inception through 23 December 2024, to identify relevant studies comparing the outcomes of KTRs and non-transplant ICU patients. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I V2 tool. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024595104). Results: Seven studies, including 12,062 patients, were analyzed. Demographics, including age and sex, were comparable across groups. No statistically significant associations were found for overall mortality (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.79 to 4.16), ICU mortality (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.48), or 28/30-day mortality (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 0.30 to 14.10) in KTRs, though there was a trend suggesting a potential increase in the odds of overall mortality. KTRs tended to have longer ICU stays (WMD: +1.96 days, 95% CI: 0.81–3.11) and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (WMD: +0.79, 95% CI: −0.78–2.36), but these findings did not reach statistical significance. One study reported higher 1-year and 5-year mortality for KTRs. Sensitivity analyses revealed one influential study. Begg’s test for overall mortality suggested non-significant publication bias (p = 1.0). Conclusions: KTRs in ICUs are at significantly higher risk for long-term mortality, emphasizing the need for tailored critical care strategies and long-term management. Future research should focus on standardizing methodologies, reducing heterogeneity, and addressing gaps in data to improve evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.