Transplantation With Kidney Paired Donation to Increase the Donor Pool: A Single-Center Experience

Kidney Exchange Program Reporting Standards: Evidence-Based Consensus From Europe

Background: Kidney Exchange Programs can play an important role to increase access to the life saving and most cost-effective treatment for End Stage Renal Disease. The rise of national KEPs in Europe brings a need for standardized performance reporting to facilitate the development of an international evidence base on program practices.

Methods: We systematically searched and reviewed the literature to extract kidney exchange program performance measures. Reported measures were initially categorized as structure, process, and outcome measures. Expert feedback was used to redefine categories and extend the set of measures to be considered. Using the Delphi method and a panel of 10 experts, the resulting measures were subsequently classified as mandatory (Base set), optional (Extended set), or deleted.

Results: Out of the initial 1,668 articles identified by systematic literature search, 21 European publications on kidney exchange programs were included to collect performance measures, accompanied by three national program reports. The final measurement categories were Context, Population, Enrollment, Matching, Transplantation, and Outcomes. The set of performance measures resulting from the literature review was modified and classified as mandatory or optional. The resulting Base set and Extended set form the kidney exchange program reporting standard.

Conclusions: The evidence-based and consensus-based kidney exchange program reporting standard can harmonize practical and scientific reporting on kidney exchange programs, thus facilitating the advancement of national programs. In addition, the kidney exchange program reporting standard can promote and align cross-national programs.

Impact of single centre kidney paired donation transplantation to increase donor pool in India: a cohort study

In a living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) dominated transplant programme, kidney paired donation (KPD) may be a cost-effective and valid alternative strategy to increase LDKT in countries with limited resources where deceased donation kidney transplantation (DDKT) is in the initial stages. Here, we report our experience of 300 single-centre KPD transplantations to increase LDKT in India. Between January 2000 and July 2016, 3616 LDKT and 561 DDKT were performed at our transplantation centre, 300 (8.3%) using KPD. The reasons for joining KPD among transplanted patients were ABO incompatibility (n = 222), positive cross-match (n = 59) and better matching (n = 19). A total of 124 two-way (n = 248), 14 three-way (n = 42), one four-way (n = 4) and one six-way exchange (n = 6) yielded 300 KPD transplants. Death-censored graft and patient survival were 96% (n = 288) and 83.3% (n = 250), respectively. The mean serum creatinine was 1.3 mg/dl at a follow-up of 3 ± 3 years. We credit the success of our KPD programme to maintaining a registry of incompatible pairs, counselling on KPD, a high-volume LDKT programme and teamwork. KPD is legal, cost effective and rapidly growing for facilitating LDKT with incompatible donors. This study provides large-scale evidence for the expansion of single-centre LDKT via KPD when national programmes do not exist.

Paired kidney exchange transplantation: Maximizing the donor pool

In the last decade, paired kidney exchange (PKE) transplantation has gained popularity worldwide as a viable alternative for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients who have incompatible or sensitized donors. This study presents our experience with PKE transplantation and compares outcome between PKE and non-PKE renal transplant recipients. Between February 2010 and November 2013, 742 transplants were performed, of which 26 (3.5%) were PKE transplantations. All were two-way exchanges. PKE recipients were significantly older than non-PKE (46.73 ± 9.71 vs. 40.08 ± 13.36 years; P = 0.012) while donor ages were comparable. PKE patients had significantly higher number of HLA mismatches (5.03 ± 1.14 vs. 3.49 ± 1.57; P < 0.0001). After a median follow-up of 20 months (range: 3–47 months), there was no significant difference in patient survival (PKE 96.16% vs. non-PKE 96.65%; P = 0.596) and death censored graft survival (PKE 96.16% vs. non-PKE 96.37%; P = 1). Mean serum creatinine at 1 month and at last follow-up was lower in PKE versus non-PKE group (0.98 ± 0.33 vs. 1.3 ± 0.61 mg/dl; P = 0.008 and 0.96 ± 0.30 vs. 1.27 ± 0.57 mg/dl, P = 0.006, respectively). Biopsy proven acute rejection rate was 11.5% in PKE group and 16.89% in non-PKE patients (P = 0.6). To conclude, paired kidney donation is an excellent way of increasing the donor pool and needs to be promoted to overcome the shortage of suitable kidney in our country.

Outcome of kidney paired donation transplantation to increase donor pool and to prevent commercial transplantation: a single-center experience from a developing country

BACKGROUND

Economic constraints in operating an effective maintenance dialysis program leaves renal transplantation as the only viable option for end-stage renal disease patients in India. Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a rapidly growing modality for facilitating living donor (LD) transplantation for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing LD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The aim of our study was to report a single-center feasibilities and outcomes of KPD transplantation between 2000 and 2012. We performed KPD transplants in 70 recipients to avoid blood group incompatibility (n = 56) or to avoid a positive crossmatch (n = 14).

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 2.72 ± 2.96 years, one-, five- and ten-year patient survival were 94.6, 81, 81 %, and death-censored graft survival was 96.4, 90.2, 90.2 %, respectively. Ten percent of patients were lost, mainly due to infections (n = 4). There was 14.2 % biopsy-proven acute rejection, and 5.7 % interstitial fibrosis with tubular atrophy eventually leading to graft loss.

CONCLUSION

The incidences of acute rejection, patient/graft survival rates were acceptable in our KPD program and, therefore, we believe it should be encouraged. These findings are valuable for encouraging participation of KPD pairs and transplant centers in national KPD program. It should be promoted in centers with low-deceased donor transplantation. Our study findings are relevant in the context of Indian government amending the Transplantation of Human Organs Act to encourage national KPD program. To our knowledge, it is largest single-center report from India.

Paired exchange kidney donation in India: a five-year single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Paired exchange kidney donation (PKD) is an evolving strategy for overcoming the barriers that confront patients with end-stage renal disease, when the only living potential donors who are willing to donate to them are deemed to be unsuitable as donors for them owing to an incompatibility of blood type, of HLA cross-match, or of both. In the PKD, the incompatibility problems with two donor recipient pairs can be solved by exchanging donors. Although PKD is increasing worldwide, we in India have not nearly reached the estimated potential of this modality. Herein, we have reported our results with a living donor exchange program in past 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2006 and June 2011, we performed 44 living PKD transplantations. All donor and recipient procedures were performed successfully. ABO incompatibility or positive lymphocyte cross-match were found in 20 pairs and 2 pairs, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean recipient age was 42.5 years (range 33-59 years). The mean donor age was 38 years (range 31-56 years). At a median follow-up of 33 months (range 1-59 months), graft survival rate was 100 %. All patients have functioning grafts with a median serum Creatinine level of 1.13, 1.5, and 1.35 mg/dl at 3 month, 1 year, and 3 years, respectively. One patient died after 4 month of transplant due to pneumonitis with sepsis. Allograft dysfunction was not seen in any of the recipients.

CONCLUSION

The PKD transplantation is a viable procedure medically and economically, which can be promoted in centers with a low deceased donor transplantation rate and a high number of incompatible related donors. We achieved excellent graft outcome by using the PKD transplantation program as an option to reduce the donor organ shortage.

The utilization and advantages of an exchange donor program in living donor renal transplantation: a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

The availability of donors is a major limiting factor in living donor renal transplantation. Approximately one third of patients with end-stage renal disease have willing potential living donors who are blood type or cross-match incompatible. The living donor kidney exchange has become an efficient solution for recipients in this situation. We analyzed the outcome and advantages of an exchange donor program compared with ABO-incompatible transplantation and desensitized protocol transplantation for highly sensitized patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 exchange donor cases from 1991 to 2010. We analyzed the risk factors, outcomes, matching factors, complication rates, and acute rejection rates of this program compared with other alternative strategies.

RESULTS

In our center, 22% of total living donor kidney transplantations were performed through an exchange program and an expanded donor pool. The graft survival, complication, and acute rejection rates were not significantly different compared with the alternatives. The severe complication rates were lower than with the alternatives and the immunosuppressant protocol and preoperative preparation were simpler. Blood type O recipients who registered in the exchange program showed no significant differences from the living related groups (P = .45), which were similar to the proportions for other ABO types. Upon multivariate analysis, an acute rejection episode and use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) were significant factors associated with graft survival (P = .015 and P = .007; odds ratio [OR] 5.968 and 7.324; 95% confidence interval [CI] .003-.533 and .098-.690).

CONCLUSION

Although exchange donor programs are not the sole solution, they show several advantages, such as the prescription of standard immunosuppression, simple preoperative preparation, low cost, and modest rates of severe complications compared with ABO-incompatible transplantation or desensitized protocols.