
==== Front
Ann Transplant
Ann Transplant
Annals of Transplantation
Annals of Transplantation
1425-9524
2329-0358
International Scientific Literature, Inc.

39252404
10.12659/AOT.944518
944518
Original Paper
Adipose Tissue Can Have a Protective Effect on Outcome After Simultaneous Pancreas–Kidney Transplantation in Non-Obese Recipients
Deeb Aladdin Ali ADEF
Schwenk Laura BC
Fritsch Johannes BC
Settmacher Utz ADEF
Rauchfuss Falk ADEF
Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
Corresponding Author: Aladdin Ali Deeb, e-mail: aladdin.ali-deeb@med.uni-jena.de
A Study Design

B Data Collection

C Statistical Analysis

D Data Interpretation

E Manuscript Preparation

F Literature Search

G Funds Collection

2024
10 9 2024
02 7 2024
29 e944518-1e944518-10
16 3 2024
13 5 2024
© Ann Transplant, 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Background

Obesity is suggested to impair the outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation, which affects survival, but the quantity and distribution of adipose tissue is not yet considered in obesity assessment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of body composition on outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from 40 patients who underwent simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation due to type 1 diabetes mellitus with consecutive end-stage renal disease. Uni- and multivariate analyses, including donor’s characteristics, were performed.

Results

Only 6 (15%) recipients were obese. The incidence of postoperative complications was correlated with lower body fat proportion (p=0.03). This correlation remained significant in the multivariate analysis (p=0.015). Nevertheless, obesity was significantly associated with worse overall survival (p<0.001). Visceral tissue proportion was correlated with a higher level of glycated hemoglobin in long-term follow-up (p=0.003).

Conclusions

Fat quantity and distribution should be included in the assessment of obesity. A protective effect of adipose tissue was detected on outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation in normosthenic recipients, but obesity still appears to have a negative effect on outcome after transplantation. Visceral fat distribution can promote de novo diabetes mellitus.

Kidney Transplantation
Obesity
Pancreas Transplantation
Body Composition
Diabetes Mellitus
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The prevalence of overweight and obese individuals is increasing at an alarming rate in developed and developing countries throughout the world [1,2]. In Western countries, overweight and obesity are highly prevalent [3], and obesity is considered to be among the most significant threats to human health [4]. The prevalence of overweight and obesity has been increasing in dialysis patients and kidney transplant candidates. In 2001, 60% of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) at the time of kidney transplant were obese or overweight, and the proportion of obese recipients increased from 11.6% in 1987 to 25.1% in 2001 [5]. Several studies suggest that obesity impairs the outcome after kidney, pancreas, or simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (SPK), which affects both patient and graft survival [6–10]. The assessment of obesity is conducted based on the body mass index (BMI) according to the definition of the World Health Organization. The quantity and distribution of adipose tissue are not included in this assessment, which could affect the accuracy of obesity assessment, especially in patients with renal edema due to end-stage renal disease on the waiting list for simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation. Furthermore, some epidemiologic studies with large samples of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease patients have reported that worse survival was observed with a lower body mass index (BMI), and higher values of BMI reflecting overweight or obesity seemed to be associated with better survival. This phenomenon has been referred to as the obesity paradox [11,12], which may play a role in patients after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of obesity, considering the quantity and distribution of adipose tissue, on the outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation.

Material and Methods

Ethics and Study Protocol

The study was registered and approved by the local ethics committee of Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena (registration number 4428-05/15), and written informed consent was obtained from the individual patients. All research was conducted in compliance with the ethics standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Declaration of Istanbul. Data collection and analysis were conducted retrospectively. We included 40 patients who underwent a simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation between 2007 and 2021 in Jena University Hospital. All patients were transplanted due to end-stage renal disease caused by type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM). Although there were no strictly defined selection criteria for recipients regarding obesity, patients with obesity-induced multimorbidity were not eligible for simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation SPK. This explains the small number of included obese recipients. We observed the distribution of body tissue composition and its impact on the outcome after transplantation. Since the measurement of body tissue composition had to be performed based on computed tomography (CT), 24 patients who did not undergo a CT during the evaluation procedure were excluded. This is because performing CT was not standard in the evaluation of recipients for SPK before 2015. Otherwise, there were no exclusion criteria. A standardized surgical approach and postoperative immunosuppression were performed according to the center protocol. The arterial vascularization of the pancreatic graft was prepared back-table. The superior mesenteric and splenic arteries were reconstructed using grafts from the iliac bifurcation of the donor. A medial laparotomy was performed in all cases. A sequential pancreas–kidney transplantation was performed. The arterial anastomoses were performed on the right and left common iliac arteries, and the venous anastomoses were performed on the vena cava and left common vein. The pancreatic graft was transplanted en bloc with the donor’s duodenum in the right abdomen for duodeno-jejunostomy. The kidney was transplanted in the left iliac fossa in the preperitoneal space. An antirefluxplasty of the ureter was always performed. A quadruple immunosuppression regimen was performed postoperatively using induction with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) for 7 days, followed by maintenance with calcineurin-inhibitor (tacrolimus), mycophenolic acid (mpa), and steroids (prednisolone). Somatostatin analogs were administered to reduce the pancreas secretions for 3 days after surgery.

Body Stem Composition Assay (Figure 1)

The body tissue composition assay was performed based on CT images at the venous phase with special computer software (Synapse 3D, FUJIFILM, Tokyo, Japan). The margins of the study area are standardized at the tenth thoracic vertebra as the upper margin and the pubic symphysis as the lower margin. Depending on a standard Hounsfield unit (HU) threshold of the adipose tissue (−200 to −50 HU), the subcutaneous and visceral fat mass are calculated automatically. For a better exploration of the adipose tissue, 2 ratios were included in the analysis: overall adipose tissue of body stem to stem volume, defined as percent adipose tissue (AT%), and visceral adipose tissue of body stem to cavity volume, defined as percent visceral adipose tissue (VT%). The WHO BMI classification was used to determine the overweight/obesity state (normal weight: BMI (kg/m2) >18 to <25, overweight: ≥25 to <30, obesity class 1: ≥30 to <35, class 2: ≥35 to <40, and class 3: ≥40).

Endpoints (Postoperative Outcome)

Complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification and overall survival (OS) were considered as primary endpoints. Severe complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo >IIIa [13]. The following functional parameters were considered as secondary endpoints: recurrence of DM defined as de novo need for insulin therapy, de novo need for hemodialysis, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (ml/min) (reference >90), C-peptide (ng/ml) (reference 1.1–4.4), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c%) (reference <6.5%).

Donor Characteristics

The following donor-specific variables and their potential impact on postoperative outcome were analyzed: age, BMI, P-PASS (Pre-procurement Pancreas Allocation Suitability Score) [14], and presence of extended donor criteria (EDC) according to the official guidelines issued through the German Medical Association. EDC include the following parameters: presence of malignancy in the donor’s history, drug abuse, viral hepatitis, sepsis with positive blood culture, and meningitis.

Statistical Analysis

The incidence of complication generally and severe complications specifically was considered the dependent variable. Age, BMI, sex, time between first diagnosis of DM and transplantation, adipose tissue, and psoas mass were considered independent variables. BMI was included as a commonly used parameter for estimating obesity, while the other measurements are novel, nonstandard factors for this aim. To avoid collinearity between BMI and other body composition-related factors, BMI was analyzed through bivariate Pearson’s correlation and excluded from the multivariate analysis. Box plots and the 2-sided Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare the distribution of continuous variables between independent groups. The median and range are provided for each group. Spearman’s correlation was used to examine the potential correlation between the adipose tissue and psoas mass of the patients and complication grade. To determine the effect size, we referred to Cohen’s classification (1992) as follows:

0.10≤ r<0.30 corresponds to a weak effect;

0.30≤ r<0.50 corresponds to a medium effect;

r ≥0.50 corresponds to a strong effect.

A multivariate analysis was performed through a backward stepwise binary logistic regression model. In this regression model, complications or severe complications were considered the dependent variable. Independent variables were as follows: donor’s and recipient’s age, sex, time interval between first diagnosis of DM and transplantation, AT%, VT%, and psoas mass. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and stepwise Cox regression with the same independent variables used in the binary logistic regression were applied for survival.

The significance level was set at p<0.05. All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Basic cohort characteristics and descriptive statistics of the investigated variables are provided in Table 1. In total, only 6 (15%) patients were obese, while 25 (62.5%) were normal weight, and the other 9 (22.5%) patients were overweight.

Complications occurred in 26 (65%) patients (Table 2) – 17 (42.5%) of them were >IIIa according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and 13 (32.5%) of them had to be reoperated on. Other severe complications included sepsis with multiorgan failure and necrotizing graft pancreatitis. The only patient who died in the early course after surgery due to necrotizing graft pancreatitis had a BMI of 37.1 kg/m2. The BMI correlated significantly with AT% (r=0.72, p<0.001) and VT% (r=0.58, p<0.001), but not with psoas (r=0.04, p=0.82). Males showed significantly greater AT% (p=0.03) and psoas mass (p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between age and body tissue components.

Central Tendency and Correlation Studies

Table 3 provides an overview of the univariate statistical analyses. In general, patients who developed complications and severe complications specifically showed a significant tendency to have lower total body fat (Figure 2). The subcutaneous adipose tissue was significantly correlated with fewer complications. Furthermore, AT% correlated significantly with complication grade, so the lower AT% was the higher complication grade (r=−0.35, p=0.03). There was no similar tendency or correlation regarding psoas mass. However, overall survival in obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) was significantly worse than in others (p<0.001) (Figure 3).

Recurrence of DM was not significantly different in the obese patients (p=0.43). De novo need for hemodialysis occurred in just 1 patient (BMI 25.8 kg/m2) 5 years after transplantation.

Donor Characteristics

The median age of the donors was 44.5 years (range, 6–58). The median BMI was 23.5 kg/m2 (range, 15–29). The median P-PASS was 17 (range, 10–22), and 14 donors (35%) had a P-PASS <17. There was only 1 donor with 1 extended donor criteria (meningitis). The univariate correlation studies showed donor age as the only significant factor influencing the incidence of severe complications (p=0.006) (Figure 4). The other characteristics showed no significant correlation.

Multivariate Analysis

Tables 4 and 5 present an overview of regression models between morbidity and body composition. There was a similar significant negative correlation between AT% and incidence of complications (β=−0.07, p=0.015) and correlation of severe complications with AT% (β=−0.06, p=0.053). The other included independent variables in the regression analysis showed no significant correlation and were excluded stepwise backward. Cox regression analysis showed no correlation between the included dependent variables, especially body composition, and overall survival or recurrence of DM. When the 6 obese patients were excluded, a similar correlation remained between AT% and incidence of complications as the dependent variable (β=−0.10, p=0.01).

Visceral Fat and Glycated Hemoglobin

There was generally no relationship between body composition and functional laboratory parameters in the early and long-term course after transplantation. However, at 5-year follow-up, a significant correlation between glycated hemoglobin and visceral fat was detected (r=0.53, p=0.003), VT% (r=0.47, p=0.01) (Figure 5).

Discussion

Obesity is thought to impair outcomes after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation affecting graft and patient survival. Sampaio et al [8] investigated the impact of obesity on post-transplant complications, patient death, and kidney and pancreas allograft failure in 5725 type 1 diabetic SPK recipients. They found that obesity in SPK recipients was associated with an increased risk of post-transplant complications, pancreas and kidney graft loss, and patient death. However, there have been few studies on this topic, and most of these are derived from single-center analysis. Further, the quantity and distribution of adipose tissue and its impact on outcome after SPK has not been investigated yet. In our study, we aimed to consider the body composition in the assessment of obesity and its impact on outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation in patients with end-stage renal disease due to type 1 diabetes mellitus. To our knowledge, this is the first clinical study describing this relationship, since the current literature addresses the relationship with obesity without regarding the adipose tissue itself as a body component. We found a potentially protective effect of adipose tissue on patients who undergo a SPK. The incidence of complications and severe complications was significantly lower in patients with higher fat proportion. Percent muscle mass did not affect the outcome after transplantation. However, these recent results refer more to normosthenic patients since most of the study cohort (85%) were not obese. On the other hand, the only 2 patients who died after transplantation had obesity class II (both with BMI=37.1 kg/m2). So, the overall survival in obese patients in our study was significantly inferior to the other study group. The only patient who died in the early postoperative course had the highest visceral fat proportion in the study (VT%=37). The P-PASS (Pre-procurement Pancreas Allocation Suitability Score) was implemented in 2009 in the Eurotransplant region to facilitate recognition of suitable pancreas donors. A combination of 9 clinical parameters available at the time of donor reporting – age, BMI, ICU stay, cardiac arrest, sodium, amylase, lipase, (nor)adrenaline, and dobutamine/dopamine are calculated, providing a P-PASS score between 9 and 27 for each donor. Vinkers et al showed that consideration of a combination of pre-procurement factors can help identify a suitable pancreas donor. Therefore, we recommend that a pancreas donor score be calculated for each potential pancreas donor, and all donors with a P-PASS <17 should be considered for pancreas donation. However, there was no effect of P-PASS on the outcome in our study. Nevertheless, donor age but not BMI was another significant independent variable affecting the postoperative outcome after SPK. This matches the results of Almeida et al [15]; no effect of donor’s BMI on outcome could be detected since all donors had a BMI <29 kg/m2. The same thing made exploration of the effect of P-PASS in that study meaningful since most donors had a low P-PASS. Another visceral fat-related factor was found in the long-term follow-up of glycated hemoglobin, in which there was a significant linear correlation between visceral fat proportion and HbA1c. This point represents a new correlation, which is not yet explored in the current literature. On the other hand, we found that subcutaneous adipose tissue was in general associated with lower morbidity. This is important, since both fat quantity and distribution (subcutaneous/visceral) can affect BMI assessment. For example, in one of our recent studies on liver regeneration, we found a positive effect of subcutaneous fat distribution on liver volume gain [16]. To better investigate the role of visceral distribution on HbA1c and possibly on the recurrence of diabetes mellitus, further follow-up body composition measurements should be done; however, radiation exposure should be taken into consideration since these measurements were performed based on computed tomography in this study. There are other methods that can be used to investigate body composition that can be performed without radiation exposure. For example, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a validated method for noninvasive assessment of body composition [17].

Frailty is a common problem in solid organ transplant candidates who are in the process of being listed for a transplant, as well as after transplantation. Frail patients have increased risk of morbidity and mortality after pancreas–kidney transplantation [18–20]. In our analysis, however, percent muscle mass was not associated with outcome after SPK. This could be due to the absence or scarcity of pathological values of psoas mass in the study cohort. The lack of predefined cutoff points for psoas mass and for fat proportion for our measurements impeded the statistical analysis and is a study limitation. Further studies on large cohorts with normal distribution are required to define cutoff points for sarcopenia using our recently proposed tool. Another limitation was the small sample size of obese patients, which was due to the eligibility criteria for SKP in our center.

Although most patients with type 1 DM are not obese, the results of this study show the potential effect of adipose tissue in non-obese recipients, independent of the level of obesity. Assessment of body composition and its potential consequences on patients undergoing evaluation for SPK is not yet part of routine clinical practice and should be further analyzed in the future.

Conclusions

We found a protective effect of adipose tissue on outcome after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation, although the small sample size limits the strength of our results. Obesity may have a negative effect on outcome after SPK. Visceral fat distribution is associated with de novo diabetes mellitus.

Figure 1 Body composition assay (figure created using Synapse 3D, FUJIFILM, Tokyo, Japan).

Figure 2 Significant tendency to have lower adipose tissue in body stem in patients, who developed complications after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (figure created using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, Armonk, New York, USA).

Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier estimator for overall survival after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation showing a significant disadvantage of the obesity state (figure created using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, Armonk, New York, USA).

Figure 4 Significant correlation between age of donor and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa) after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (figure created using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, Armonk, New York, USA).

Figure 5 Significant correlation between visceral fat proportion and glycated hemoglobin at 5-year follow-up after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (figure created using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, Armonk, New York, USA).

Table 1 Basic characteristics and descriptive statistics of investigated variables.

Variable	N=40	
Age (y)	43.5 (range 26–65)	
Sex	Male: 21 (52.5%), Female: 19 (47.5%)	
Height (m)	1.69 (range 1.50–1.86)	
Weight (kg)	69.5 (range 50–123)	
BMI (kg/m2)	23.9 (range 18.7–38.6)	
 Normal weight	25 (62.5%)	
 Overweight	9 (22.5%)	
 Obesity class 1	3 (7.5%)	
 Obesity class 2	3 (7.5%)	
 Obesity class 3	0	
Diagnosis of DM to Tx (y)	29.5 (range 16–46)	
Begin of Hemodialysis to Tx (y)	3 (range 1–7)	
AT (ml)	4447 (range 1455–20187)	
SAT (ml)	3480 (range 906–13772)	
VAT (ml)	1597 (range 427–6415)	
AT%	23.1 (range 8.8–53.9)	
VT%	15.8 (range 4.7–37)	
Psoas (ml)	356 (range 218–632)	
BMI – body mass index; DM – diabetes mellitus; Tx – transplantation; AT(ml) – estimated total adipose tissue in body stem; SAT(ml) – estimated subcutaneous adipose tissue in body stem; VAT(ml) – estimated visceral adipose tissue in body stem; AT% – [AT(ml)/stem volume(ml)]%; VT% – [VT(ml)/stem cavity volume(ml)]%. The value before brackets in the continuous treated values refers always to the median value.

Table 2 Severe complications after SPK (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa).

No.	BMI (kg/m2) (descending)	Clavien-Dindo	Complication	
1	37.1	V	Necrotizing graft-pancreatitis with consecutive fulminant bleeding and death	
2	28.6	IVb	Sepsis with respiratory failure and intermitted hemodialysis	
3	27.4	IIIb	Operative revision for thrombectomy of pancreatic graft without organ failure	
4	26.3	IIIb	Operative revision due to bleeding without organ failure	
5	25.8	IVa	Operative revision due to bleeding with hemorrhagic shock	
6	24.5	IVa	Operative revision due to colonic perforation	
7	23.7	IIIb	Operative revision due to bleeding without organ failure	
8	23.1	IIIb	Operative revision due to bleeding without organ failure	
9	22.3	IIIb	Operative revision for thrombectomy of pancreatic graft without organ failure	
10	22.2	IIIb	Intractable necrotizing graft-pancreatitis with consecutive removal of pancreatic graft	
11	21.7	IVa	Operative revision due to anastomosis leak of the doudenoileostomy with sepsis	
12	21.6	IIIb	Intractable necrotizing graft-pancreatitis with consecutive removal of pancreatic graft	
13	21.5	IIIb	Operative Revision due to bowel obstruction by volvulus	
14	21.3	IVa	Operative revision due to anastomosis leak of the doudenoileostomy with sepsis	
15	21.3	IVa	Operative revision due to bleeding with hemorrhagic shock	
16	20.2	IVa	Operative revision due to bleeding with hemorrhagic shock	
17	19.1	IIIb	Operative revision due to bleeding without organ failure	
BMI – body mass index; DM – diabetes mellitus; SPK – simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Nine (22.5%) patients with IIIb, Six (15%) patients with IVa, one patient with IVb, one patient with V.

Table 3 Univariate statistical analysis of morbidity and body composition.

Complication (yes/no)	Total adipose tissue of body stem (AT) (ml)	Visceral adipose tissue of body stem (VAT) (ml)	Subcutaneous adipose tisse of body stem (SAT) (ml)	Body fat percentage (AT%)	Visceral fat percentage (VT%)	Mass of psoas major muscle (ml)	
Mann-Whitney-U-Test	105.000	137.000	107.000	94.000	125.000	125.500	
Wilcoxon-W	456.000	488.000	458.000	445.000	476.000	230.500	
Z	−2.183	−1.276	−2.127	−2.495	−1.616	−1.602	
Asymptotic significance (2-tailed)	.029*	.202	.033*	.013*	.106	.109	
Exact significance (2-tailed)	.029*	.210	.033*	.012*	.110	.110	
Severe cmoplication (yes/no)	Total adipose tissue of body stem (AT) (ml)	Visceral adipose tissue of body stem (VAT) (ml)	Subcutaneous adipose tisse of body stem (SAT) (ml)	Body fat percentage (AT%)	Visceral fat percentage (VT%)	Mass of psoas major muscle (ml)	
Mann-Whitney-U-Test	122.000	161.000	120.000	117.000	148.000	176.000	
Wilcoxon-W	275.000	314.000	273.000	270.000	301.000	452.000	
Z	−2.011	−.944	−2.066	−2.148	−1.300	−.534	
Asymptotic significance (2-tailed)	.044*	.345	.039*	.032*	.194	.594	
Exact significance (2-tailed)	.045*	.356	.039*	.032*	.201	.607	
Clavien-Dindo-Classificatio (ordinal scale)	Total adipose tissue of body stem (AT) (ml)	Visceral adipose tissue of body stem (VAT) (ml)	Subcutaneous adipose tisse of body stem (SAT) (ml)	Body fat percentage (AT%)	Visceral fat percentage (VT%)	Mass of psoas major muscle (ml)	
Correlation coefficient	−.344	−.144	−.354	−.379	−.205	.194	
Significance (2-tailed)	.030*	.376	.025*	.016*	.205	.230	
N	40	40	40	40	40	40	
* Refers to significancy.

Table 4 Multivariate statistical analysis of morbidity and body composition.

Dependent variable=complication	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	
Step 1	Age	.034	.041	.674	1	.412	1.034	
Sex	.481	1.159	.173	1	.678	1.618	
Body fat percentage	−.123	.073	2.807	1	.094	.884	
Visceral fat percentage	.068	.093	.531	1	.466	1.070	
Mass of psoas major muscle	.004	.006	.359	1	.549	1.004	
Constant	−.558	3.841	.021	1	.885	.572	
Step 2	Age	.033	.041	.633	1	.426	1.033	
Body fat percentage	−.109	.065	2.805	1	.094	.896	
Visceral fat percentage	.053	.086	.383	1	.536	1.055	
Mass of psoas major muscle	.002	.005	.203	1	.653	1.002	
Constant	.605	2.667	.052	1	.820	1.832	
Step 3	Age	.033	.041	.677	1	.410	1.034	
Body fat percentage	−.125	.057	4.845	1	.028	.883	
Visceral fat percentage	.073	.074	.988	1	.320	1.076	
Constant	1.528	1.749	.763	1	.382	4.610	
Step 4	Body fat percentage	−.126	.056	5.138	1	.023	.882	
Visceral fat percentage	.088	.072	1.493	1	.222	1.092	
Constant	2.747	.983	7.800	1	.005	15.591	
Step 5	Body fat percentage	−.071	.029	5.897	1	.015*	.932	
Constant	2.704	.964	7.872	1	.005	14.938	
S.E. – standard Error; df – degrees of freedom; Sig. – significancy.

* Refers to significancy.

Table 5 Multivariate statistical analysis of severe morbidity and body composition.

Dependent variable=severe complication	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)	
Step 1	Age	.031	.039	.650	1	.420	1.032	
Sex	.011	1.092	.000	1	.992	1.011	
Body fat percentage	−.133	.078	2.886	1	.089	.876	
Visceral fat percentage	.107	.098	1.195	1	.274	1.113	
Mass of psoas major muscle	−.003	.005	.250	1	.617	.997	
Constant	1.041	3.430	.092	1	.761	2.833	
Step 2	Age	.031	.039	.654	1	.419	1.032	
Body fat percentage	−.132	.068	3.768	1	.052	.876	
Visceral fat percentage	.106	.088	1.477	1	.224	1.112	
Mass of psoas major muscle	−.003	.004	.351	1	.553	.997	
Constant	1.067	2.402	.197	1	.657	2.907	
Step 3	Age	.029	.038	.587	1	.443	1.030	
Body fat percentage	−.113	.059	3.649	1	.056	.893	
Visceral fat percentage	.083	.078	1.141	1	.286	1.087	
Constant	.065	1.702	.001	1	.969	1.068	
Step 4	Body fat percentage	−.119	.059	4.030	1	.045	.888	
Visceral fat percentage	.099	.075	1.745	1	.186	1.104	
Constant	1.219	.830	2.155	1	.142	3.383	
Step 5	Body fat percentage	−.055	.028	3.759	1	.053	.947	
Constant	1.174	.808	2.110	1	.146	3.235	
S.E. – standard Error; df – degrees of freedom; Sig. – significancy.

* Refers to significancy.

Conflict of interest: None declared

Declaration of Figures’ Authenticity: All figures submitted have been created by the authors, who confirm that the images are original with no duplication and have not been previously published in whole or in part.

Financial support: None declared

Statement: This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This study was initiated after approval by the local ethics committee (registration number 3826-07/13), and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (Aladdin Ali Deeb) upon reasonable request.
==== Refs
References

1 Abelson P Kennedy D The obesity epidemic Science 2004 304 5676 1413 15178768
2 Haslam DW James WP Obesity Lancet 2005 366 9492 1197 209 16198769
3 Purnell J Definitions, classification, and epidemiology of obesity MDText.com Inc South Dartmouth, MA, USA 2000
4 Cruz-Jentoft AJ Baeyens JP Bauer JM Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People Age Ageing 2010 39 4 412 23 20392703
5 Friedman AN Miskulin DC Rosenberg IH Levey AS Demographics and trends in overweight and obesity in patients at time of kidney transplantation Am J Kidney Dis 2003 41 2 480 87 12552513
6 Cacciola RA Pujar K Ilham MA Effect of degree of obesity on renal transplant outcome Transplant Proc 2008 40 10 3408 12 19100400
7 Hanish SI Petersen RP Collins BH Obesity predicts increased overall complications following pancreas transplantation Transplant Proc 2005 37 8 3564 66 16298662
8 Sampaio MS Reddy PN Kuo HT Obesity was associated with inferior outcomes in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant Transplantation 2010 89 9 1117 25 20164819
9 Bumgardner GL Henry ML Elkhammas E Obesity as a risk factor after combined pancreas/kidney transplantation Transplantation 1995 60 12 1426 30 8545869
10 Rogers J Chavin KD Baliga PK Influence of mild obesity on outcome of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation J Gastrointest Surg 2003 7 8 1096 101 14675721
11 Park J Ahmadi SF Streja E Obesity paradox in end-stage kidney disease patients Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2014 56 4 415 25 24438733
12 Park J Kidney disease and obesity paradox Kidney Res Clin Pract 2017 36 1 1 2 28428930
13 Dindo D Demartines N Clavien PA Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey Ann Surg 2004 240 2 205 13 15273542
14 Vinkers MT Rahmel AO Slot MC How to recognize a suitable pancreas donor: A Eurotransplant study of preprocurement factors Transplant Proc 2008 40 5 1275 78 18589086
15 Almeida C Sala I Malheiro J Impact of donor age on long-term outcomes in simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation Transplant Proc 2023 55 6 1404 7 37230903
16 Deeb AA Settmacher U Ardelt M Adipose tissue induces a better liver regeneration after living liver donation in normal weight donors Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2023 12 3 341 50 37351149
17 Yamada Y Nishizawa M Uchiyama T Developing and validating an age-independent equation using multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis for estimation of appendicular skeletal muscle mass and establishing a cutoff for sarcopenia Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017 14 7 809 28753945
18 Parajuli S Aziz F Garg N Frailty in pancreas transplantation Transplantation 2021 105 8 1685 94 33606487
19 Parsons RF Tantisattamo E Cheungpasitporn W Comprehensive review: Frailty in pancreas transplant candidates and recipients Clin Transplant 2023 37 2 e14899 36591953
20 Parajuli S Odorico J Breyer I Analysis of individual components of frailty in simultaneous pancreas and kidney, and solitary pancreas transplant recipients Transplant Direct 2023 9 9 e1523 37649788
