SAT-080 External validation of the living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI)

Use of the Living Kidney Donor Profile Index in the Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipient Population: A Validation Study

Background:

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was derived in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) from the United States to predict the risk of total graft failure. There are important differences in patient demographics, listing practices, access to transplantation, delivery of care, and posttransplant mortality in Canada as compared with the United States, and the generalizability of the LKDPI in the Canadian context is unknown.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to externally validate the LKDPI in a large contemporary cohort of Canadian KTR.

Design:

Retrospective cohort validation study.

Setting:

Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Patients:

A total of 645 adult (≥18 years old) living donor KTR between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 with follow-up until December 31, 2017 were included in the study.

Measurements:

The predictive performance of the LKDPI was evaluated. The outcome of interest was total graft failure, defined as the need for chronic dialysis, retransplantation, or death with graft function.

Methods:

The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relation between the LKDPI and total graft failure. The Cox proportional hazards model was also used for external validation and performance assessment of the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model performance. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell’s C statistic and calibration was assessed graphically, comparing observed versus predicted probabilities of total graft failure.

Results:

A total of 645 living donor KTR were included in the study. The median LKDPI score was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.1, 29.9). Higher LKDPI scores were associated with an increased risk of total graft failure (hazard ratio = 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.02; P = .02). Discrimination was poor (C statistic = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.48-0.61). Calibration was as good at 1-year posttransplant but suboptimal at 3- and 5-years posttransplant.

Limitations:

Limitations include a relatively small sample size, predicted probabilities for assessment of calibration only available for scores of 0 to 100, and some missing data handled by imputation.

Conclusions:

In this external validation study, the predictive ability of the LKDPI was modest in a cohort of Canadian KTR. Validation of prediction models is an important step to assess performance in external populations. Potential recalibration of the LKDPI may be useful prior to clinical use in external cohorts.