Graft Arteriosclerosis and Glomerulosclerosis Correlate With Flow and Resistance to Machine Perfusion in Kidney Transplantation

Preimplantation Histological Score Associates with 6-Month GFR in Recipients of Perfused, Older Kidney Grafts: Results from a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Biopsy-guided selection of older kidneys safely expands the organ pool, and pretransplant perfusion improves the preservation of these fragile organs. Herein, we studied morphofunctional variables associated with graft outcomes in perfused, histologically evaluated older kidneys.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort pilot study evaluated the relationships between preimplantation histologic scores and renal perfusion parameters during hypothermic, pulsatile, machine perfusion (MP) and assessed whether these morphofunctional parameters associated with GFR (iohexol plasma clearance) at 6 months after transplantation in 20 consecutive consenting recipients of a biopsy-guided single or dual kidney transplant from >60-year-old deceased donors.

RESULTS

The donor and recipient age was 70.4 ± 6.5 and 63.6 ± 7.9 years (p = 0.005), respectively. The kidney donor profile index (KDPI) was 93.3 ± 8.4% (>80% in 19 cases), histologic score 4.4 ± 1.4, and median (IQR) cold ischemia time 19.8 (17.8-22.8 h; >24 h in 5 cases). The 6-month GFR was 41.2 (34.9-55.7) mL/min. Vascular resistances positively correlated with global histologic score (p = 0.018) at MP start and then decreased from 0.88 ± 0.43 to 0.36 ± 0.13 mm Hg/mL/min (p < 0.001) in parallel with a three-fold renal flow increase from 24.0 ± 14.7 to 74.7 ± 31.8 mL/min (p < 0.001). Consistently, vascular resistance reductions positively correlated with global histologic score (p = 0.009, r = -0.429). Unlike KDPI or vascular resistances, histologic score was independently associated with 6-month GFR (beta standardized coefficient: -0.894, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

MP safely improves graft perfusion, particularly in kidneys with severe histologic changes that would not be considered for transplantation because of high KDPI. The preimplantation histologic score associates with the functional recovery of older kidneys even in the context of a standardized program of pulsatile perfusion.

Renal resistance thresholds during hypothermic machine perfusion and transplantation outcomes - a retrospective cohort study

Renal resistance (RR), of allografts undergoing hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP), is considered a measure of organ quality. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult deceased donor kidney transplant (KT) recipients whose grafts underwent HMP. Our aim was to evaluate whether RR is predictive of death-censored graft failure (DCGF). Of 274 KT eligible for analysis, 59% were from expanded criteria donor. RR was modeled as a categorical variable, using a previously identified terminal threshold of 0.4, and 0.2 mmHg/ml/min (median in our cohort). Hazard ratios (HR) of DCGF were 3.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-9.34, P = 0.03] and 2.67 [95% CI: 1.14-6.31, P = 0.02] in univariable models, and 2.67 [95% CI: 0.91-7.86, P = 0.07] and 2.42 [95% CI: 1.02-5.72, P = 0.04] in multivariable models, when RR threshold was 0.4 and 0.2, respectively. Increasing risk of DCGF was observed when RR over the course of HMP was modeled using mixed linear regression models: HR of 1.31 [95% CI: 1.07-1.59, P < 0.01] and 1.25 [95% CI: 1.00-1.55, P = 0.05], in univariable and multivariable models, respectively. This suggests that RR during HMP is a predictor of long-term KT outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to assess the survival benefit of patients receiving KT with higher RR in comparison with staying wait-listed.

High-Resolution Imaging Using the VisualSonics Vevo 2100 on Isolated, Perfused Porcine Kidneys on Mechanical Circulatory Support

Despite many improvements in the field of renal transplantation, the key problem that persists is the lack of organs for all the patients who need kidneys. This problem continues despite the addition of extended criteria donors and donation after cardiac death. Compounding this issue is the high discard rate and there are no good means to truly predict renal function using current pretransplantation testing parameters. In an isolated renal perfusion model using porcine kidneys, we tested the proof of principle that a Vevo 2100 high-frequency high-resolution ultrasound system (Fujifilm VisualSonics, Inc., Toronto, Canada) could assess renal parenchymal perfusion and flow in the central renal vessels which could not assess by conventional ultrasound. Images and velocities were easily obtained during these studies. High-frequency ultrasound imaging may be a feasible and reproducible method for assessing renal parenchymal integrity and function pretransplantation. Further studies are required to determine the sensitivity and specificity of this approach in comparison with traditional renal biopsy pretransplantation with the goal of increasing the identification and use of donated kidneys for transplantation.

Pretransplant biopsy in expanded criteria donors: do we really need it?

INTRODUCTION

Renal transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, including when using expanded criteria donors (ECD) kidneys. However, these suboptimal kidneys should be evaluated rigorously to meet their usefulness. Opinions differ about the best way to evaluate them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed kidneys from ECD harvested by a single academic institution between January 2008 and September 2013. Needle biopsies were performed at the time of the harvest when considered relevant by the transplant team. Two pathologists where responsible for their analysis; the Remuzzi classification has been used in all cases.

RESULTS

We evaluated 560 ECD kidneys. Biopsies were made in 197 (35.2%) organs, 20 of which were considered not usable and 36 good only for double transplantation. Sixty-three kidneys (11.3%) were discarded by the transplant team based on the biopsy result and clinical criteria. Donors who underwent a biopsy were older (P < .001) and had a worse glomerular filtration rate (GFR; P = .001). Comparing donors approved and rejected by the biopsy, the rejected donors were heavier (P = .003) and had a lower GFR (P = .002). Cold ischemia time was longer for the biopsy group (P < .001). Regarding graft function, the biopsy overall score correlated with the transplant outcome in the short and long term. Separately, glomeruli and interstitium scores were correlated with recipient's GFR in the earlier periods (3 months; P = .025 and .037), and the arteries and tubules correlated with GFR in the longer term (at 3 years P = .004 and .010).

CONCLUSION

The decision on the usability of ECD grafts is complex. At our center, we chose a mixed approach based on donor risk. Low-risk ECD do not require biopsy. In more complex situations, especially older donors or those with a lower GFR, prompted a pretransplant biopsy. The biopsy results proved to be useful as they relate to subsequent transplant outcomes, thereby allowing us to exclude grafts whose function would most probably be less than optimal.

Assessment of donor biopsies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an up-to-date overview about the assessment of donor biopsies and to discuss the current problems and chances of preimplantation biopsies for transplant allocation with a focus on the technical work up and the histological variables scored.

RECENT FINDINGS

Preimplantation biopsy results are the major reason for discarding procured extended donor criteria kidneys in the USA. There is neither a consensus on the work up, nor the reporting of preimplantation donor biopsies, nor the importance of the biopsy findings in the process of allocation. The best available data have been collected in the context of single vs. double kidney transplantation. A clinical risk factor score may help to define kidneys when a preimplantation biopsy is warranted. Punch biopsies using a skin punch device appear to be a reasonable alternative for surgeons fearing needle biopsies.

SUMMARY

Donor biopsies are very useful as zero-hour biopsies establishing baseline information for comparison with subsequent transplant biopsies. As none of the histological variables and scores provides perfect prediction, preimplantation biopsy results have to be interpreted in the context of all available donor and recipient information.