Validation of the Living Kidney Donor Profile Index in a European cohort and comparison of long-term outcomes with US results

Clinical performance of the iPREDICTLIVING tool for the prediction of the post-transplant recipient and living donor outcomes in a European cohort

A living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the best treatment for ESRD. A prediction tool based on clinical and demographic data available pre-KT was developed in a Norwegian cohort with three different models to predict graft loss, recipient death, and donor candidate's risk of death, the iPREDICTLIVING tool. No external validations are yet available. We sought to evaluate its predictive performance in our cohort of 352 pairs LKDT submitted to KT from 1998 to 2019. The model for censored graft failure (CGF) showed the worse discriminative performance with Harrell's C of .665 and a time-dependent AUC of .566, with a calibration slope of .998. For recipient death, at 10 years, the model had a Harrell's C of .776, a time-dependent AUC of .773, and a calibration slope of 1.003. The models for donor death were reasonably discriminative, although with a poor calibration, particularly for 20 years of death, with a Harrell's C of .712 and AUC of .694 with a calibration slope of .955. These models have moderate discriminative and calibration performance in our population. The tool was validated in this Northern Portuguese cohort, Caucasian, with a low incidence of diabetes and other comorbidities. It can improve the informed decision-making process at the living donor consultation joining clinical and other relevant information.

Validation of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) for deceased donor kidney transplants in China

BACKGROUND

The kidney donor profile index (KDPI) evaluates kidney donor's age, height, weight, ethnicity, cause of death, high blood pressure, diabetes, exposure to hepatitis C and estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR). Kidneys with lower KDPI scores are expected to function longer that those with higher KPDI values. The applicability of KDPI score in Chinese kidney transplant donation has not yet been validated. This study evaluated the prognostic value of KDPI score in Chinese kidney transplant patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 184 deceased donors and 353 corresponding kidney transplant patients at the Organ Transplantation Department of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University between 2018 and 2021. The donors and recipients were stratified into four groups based on their KDPI score: KDPI 85-100, KDPI 60-84, KDPI 21-59, and KDPI 0-20.

RESULTS

As expected, the KDPI 85-100 group was associated with a poor short-term renal function (both postoperative creatinine and eGFR with P > 0.05), a higher incidence of delayed graft function (DGF; 25.5% for KDPI 85-100 group vs. 10.2% for KDPI 60-84 group vs. 5.4% for KDPI 21-59 group vs. 0 for KDPI 0-20 group, all P > 0.05). Furthermore, the same groups showed worse 3-year patient survival rate: 86.3% for KDPI 85-100 group vs. 97.01% for KDPI 60-84 group vs. 97.83% for KDPI 21-59 group vs. 100% for KDPI 0-20 group, all P > 0.05); and renal survival rate: 82.6% for KDPI 85-100 group vs. 92.99% KDPI 60-84 group vs.97.83% for KDPI 21-59 group vs. 100% for KDPI 0-20 group, all P > 0.05). Our analysis showed that the KDPI score had a good predictive value for the survival of kidney transplants and patients in our center (area under the curve: 0.728 and 0.76, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that the KDPI scoring system can be employed as an effective tool to predict kidney transplantation outcomes in deceased donation in China.

Clinical relevance of the living kidney donor profile index in Korean kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was developed in the United States to predict graft outcomes based on donor characteristics. However, there are significant differences in donor demographics, access to transplantation, proportion of ABO incompatibility, and posttransplant mortality in Asian countries compared with the United States.

METHODS

We evaluated the clinical relevance of the LKDPI score in a Korean kidney transplant cohort by analyzing 1860 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 2000 and 2019. Patients were divided into three groups according to LKDPI score: <0, 1-19.9, and ≥20.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 119 months, 232 recipients (12.5%) experienced death-censored graft loss, and 98 recipients (5.3%) died. High LKDPI scores were significantly associated with increased risk of death-censored graft loss independent of recipient characteristics (LKDPI 1-19.9: HR 1.389, 95% CI 1.036-1.863; LKDPI ≥20: HR 2.121, 95% CI 1.50-2.998). High LKDPI score was also significantly associated with increased risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection and impaired graft renal function. By contrast, overall patient survival rates were comparable among the LKDPI groups.

CONCLUSION

High LKDPI scores were associated with an increased risk of death-censored graft loss, biopsy-proven acute rejection, and impaired graft renal function among a Korean kidney transplant cohort.

An external validation of the Kidney Donor Risk Index in the UK transplant population in the presence of semi-competing events

BACKGROUND

Transplantation represents the optimal treatment for many patients with end-stage kidney disease. When a donor kidney is available to a waitlisted patient, clinicians responsible for the care of the potential recipient must make the decision to accept or decline the offer based upon complex and variable information about the donor, the recipient and the transplant process. A clinical prediction model may be able to support clinicians in their decision-making. The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) was developed in the United States to predict graft failure following kidney transplantation. The survival process following transplantation consists of semi-competing events where death precludes graft failure, but not vice-versa.

METHODS

We externally validated the KDRI in the UK kidney transplant population and assessed whether validation under a semi-competing risks framework impacted predictive performance. Additionally, we explored whether the KDRI requires updating. We included 20,035 adult recipients of first, deceased donor, single, kidney-only transplants between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2018, collected by the UK Transplant Registry and held by NHS Blood and Transplant. The outcomes of interest were 1- and 5-year graft failure following transplantation. In light of the semi-competing events, recipient death was handled in two ways: censoring patients at the time of death and modelling death as a competing event. Cox proportional hazard models were used to validate the KDRI when censoring graft failure by death, and cause-specific Cox models were used to account for death as a competing event.

RESULTS

The KDRI underestimated event probabilities for those at higher risk of graft failure. For 5-year graft failure, discrimination was poorer in the semi-competing risks model (0.625, 95% CI 0.611 to 0.640;0.611, 95% CI 0.597 to 0.625), but predictions were more accurate (Brier score 0.117, 95% CI 0.112 to 0.121; 0.114, 95% CI 0.109 to 0.118). Calibration plots were similar regardless of whether the death was modelled as a competing event or not. Updating the KDRI worsened calibration, but marginally improved discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive performance for 1-year graft failure was similar between death-censored and competing event graft failure, but differences appeared when predicting 5-year graft failure. The updated index did not have superior performance and we conclude that updating the KDRI in the present form is not required.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography-based renal blood perfusion in brain-dead donors predicts early graft function

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify renal microcirculatory perfusion in braindead donors using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), and to establish an accurate, noninvasive, and convenient index for predicting delayed graft function (DGF) post-transplantation.

METHODS

In total, 90 brain-dead donor kidneys (training group, n=60; validation group, n=30) examined between August 2020 and November 2022 were recruited in this prospective study. CEUS was performed on the kidneys of brain-dead donors 24 hours before organ procurement and time-intensity curves were constructed. The main measures were arrival time, time to peak, and peak intensity of the kidney segmental arteries, cortex, and medulla. Recipients were divided into DGF and non-DGF groups according to early post-transplant graft function. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

The arrival time of the kidney segmental artery and cortex and the time interval between the time to peak of the segmental artery and cortex were identified as independent factors associated with DGF by multivariate stepwise regression analysis. A new index for the joint prediction model of three variables, the contrast-enhanced ultrasonography/Kidney Donor Profile index (CEUS-KDPI), was developed. CEUS-KDPI showed high accuracy for predicting DGF (training group: AUC, 0.91; sensitivity, 90.5%; specificity, 92.3%; validation group: AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 75.0%; specificity, 92.3%).

CONCLUSION

CEUS-KDPI accurately predicted DGF after kidney transplantation. CEUS may be a potential noninvasive tool for bedside examinations before organ procurement and may be used to predict early renal function after kidney transplants kidneys from donors after brain death.

Kidney transplant in the next decade: Strategies, challenges and vision of the future

Although the results of kidney transplantation (KT) have improved substantially in recent years, a chronic and inexorable loss of grafts mainly due to the death of the patient and chronic dysfunction of the KT, continues to be observed. The objectives, thus, to optimize this situation in the next decade are fundamentally focused on minimizing the rate of kidney graft loss, improving patient survival, increasing the rate of organ procurement and its distribution, promoting research and training in health professionals and the development of scientific registries providing clinical and reliable information that allow us to optimize our clinical practice in the field of KT. With this perspective, this review will deep into: (1) strategies to avoid chronic dysfunction and graft loss in the medium and long term; (2) to prolong patient survival; (3) strategies to increase the donation, maintenance and allocation of organs; (4) promote clinical and basic research and training activity in KT; and (5) the analysis of the results in KT by optimizing and merging scientific registries.

Comprehensive Analysis of Donor Factors for Allograft Survival in Living Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Various donor characteristics have been reported as predictive factors for graft survival in kidney transplantations. The living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) was established in 2016 to evaluate the quality of living donor kidneys. Herein, we verified whether the index score was associated with graft survival and analyzed various donor factors to identify predictors of graft survival in living donor kidney transplantations.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 130 patients who received a living donor kidney between 2006 and 2019 at our hospital. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the medical records. Living donor kidneys were categorized into 3 groups by LKDPI score, and the death-censored graft survival and predictors of graft survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median LKDPI score was 35 (IQR: 17-53). The index scores of the living donor kidneys in this study were higher than in previous studies. The groups with the highest scores (LKDPI >40) had significantly shorter death-censored graft survival compared with the group with the lowest scores (LKDPI <20; hazard ratio = 4.0, P = .005). There were no significant differences between the group with the middle scores (LKDPI, 20-40) and the other 2 groups. Donor/recipient weight ratio <0.9, ABO incompatibility, and 2 HLA-DR mismatches were identified as independent predictive factors for shorter graft survival.

CONCLUSION

The LKDPI was correlated with death-censored graft survival in this study. However, more studies are required to establish a modified index that is more accurate for Japanese patients.

The living kidney donor profile index fails to discriminate allograft survival: implications for its use in kidney paired donation programs

The inclusion of blood group- and human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor and recipient pairs (CPs) in kidney paired donation (KPD) programs is a novel strategy to increase living donor (LD) transplantation. Transplantation from a donor with a better Living Donor Kidney Profile Index (LKDPI) may encourage CP participation in KPD programs. We undertook parallel analyses using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry to determine whether the LKDPI discriminates death-censored graft survival (DCGS) between LDs. Discrimination was assessed by the following: (1) the change in the Harrell C statistic with the sequential addition of variables in the LKDPI equation to reference models that included only recipient factors and (2) whether the LKDPI discriminated DCGS among pairs of prognosis-matched LD recipients. The addition of the LKDPI to reference models based on recipient variables increased the C statistic by only 0.02. Among prognosis-matched pairs, the C statistic in Cox models to determine the association of the LKDPI with DCGS was no better than chance alone (0.51 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient and 0.54 in the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry cohorts). We conclude that the LKDPI does not discriminate DCGS and should not be used to promote CP participation in KPD programs.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation.

DESIGN

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION

Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users.

CONCLUSION

There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported.

Disqualification of Donor and Recipient Candidates From the Living Kidney Donation Program: Experience of a Single-Center in Germany

Background

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with a superiority of graft survival after living kidney donation (LKD) compared to deceased donation. However, a large part of potential donors and recipients are ineligible for LKD. Here, we analyze the leading causes for disqualification of potential living donor-recipient pairs from the LKD program and the health-related consequences for ESKD patients excluded from the LKD program in a German transplant center.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective cohort study we evaluated all candidates (potential donors and recipients) presenting for assessment of LKD from 2012 to 2020 at our transplant center. Thereby we focused on candidates excluded from the LKD program. Main reasons for disqualification were categorized as medical (donor-related), psychosocial, immunological, recipient-related, and unknown.

Results

Overall, 601 donor-recipient pairs were referred to our transplant center for LKD assessment during the observation time. Out of those, 326 (54.2%) discontinued the program with 52 (8.7%) dropouts and 274 (45.6%) donor-recipient pairs being ineligible for LKD. Donor-related medical contraindications were the main reason for disqualification [139 out of 274 (50.7%) potential donors] followed by recipient-related contraindications [60 out of 274 (21.9%) of potential donor-recipient pairs]. Only 77 out of 257 (29.9%) potential recipients excluded from the LKD program received a kidney transplant afterward with a median waiting time of 2 (IQR: 1.0–4.0) years. Overall, 18 (7.0%) ESKD patients initially declined for LKD died in this period.

Conclusion

A large percentage of donor-recipient pairs are disqualified from the German LKD program, mostly due to medical reasons related to the donor and with partly severe consequences for the potential recipients. For these, alternative solutions that promptly enable kidney transplantation are essential for improving patient quality of life and survival.

Using Information Available at the Time of Donor Offer to Predict Kidney Transplant Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Prediction Models

Statistical models that can predict graft and patient survival outcomes following kidney transplantation could be of great clinical utility. We sought to appraise existing clinical prediction models for kidney transplant survival outcomes that could guide kidney donor acceptance decision-making. We searched for clinical prediction models for survival outcomes in adult recipients with single kidney-only transplants. Models that require information anticipated to become available only after the time of transplantation were excluded as, by that time, the kidney donor acceptance decision would have already been made. The outcomes of interest were all-cause and death-censored graft failure, and death. We summarised the methodological characteristics of the prediction models, predictive performance and risk of bias. We retrieved 4,026 citations from which 23 articles describing 74 models met the inclusion criteria. Discrimination was moderate for all-cause graft failure (C-statistic: 0.570–0.652; Harrell’s C: 0.580–0.660; AUC: 0.530–0.742), death-censored graft failure (C-statistic: 0.540–0.660; Harrell’s C: 0.590–0.700; AUC: 0.450–0.810) and death (C-statistic: 0.637–0.770; Harrell’s C: 0.570–0.735). Calibration was seldom reported. Risk of bias was high in 49 of the 74 models, primarily due to methods for handling missing data. The currently available prediction models using pre-transplantation information show moderate discrimination and varied calibration. Further model development is needed to improve predictions for the purpose of clinical decision-making.

Systematic Review Registration:https://osf.io/c3ehp/l.

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) Correlates With Histopathologic Findings in Post-reperfusion Baseline Biopsies and Predicts Kidney Transplant Outcome

Background

The increasing organ shortage in kidney transplantation leads to the necessity to use kidneys previously considered unsuitable for transplantation. Numerous studies illustrate the need for a better decision guidance rather than only the classification into kidneys from standard or expanded criteria donors referred to as SCD/ECD-classification. The kidney donor profile index (KDPI) exhibits a score utilizing a much higher number of donor characteristics. Moreover, graft biopsies provide an opportunity to assess organ quality.

Methods

In a single center analysis 383 kidney transplantations (277 after deceased and 106 after living donation) performed between January 1st, 2006, and December 31st, 2016, retrospectively underwent SCD/ECD and KDPI scoring. Thereby, the quality of deceased donor kidneys was assessed by using the KDPI and the living donor kidneys by using the living KDPI, in the further analysis merged as (L)KDPI. Baseline biopsies taken 10 min after the onset of reperfusion were reviewed for chronic and acute lesions. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis within a 5-year follow-up.

Results

The (L)KDPI correlated with glomerulosclerosis (r = 0.30, p < 0.001), arteriosclerosis (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), interstitial fibrosis, and tubular atrophy (r = 0.28, p < 0.001) as well as the extent of acute tubular injury (r = 0.20, p < 0.001). The C-statistic of the (L)KDPI concerning 5-year death censored graft survival was 0.692. Around 48% of ECD-kidneys were classified as (L)KDPI<85%. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis including (preformed) panel reactive antibodies, cold ischemia time, (L)KDPI, and SCD/ECD-classification, the (L)KDPI was significantly associated with risk of graft loss (hazard ratio per 10% increase in (L)KDPI: 1.185, 95% confidence interval: 1.033–1.360, p = 0.025). Survival analysis revealed decreased death censored (p < 0.001) and non-death censored (p < 0.001) graft survival in kidneys with an increasing (L)KDPI divided into groups of <35, 35–85, and >85%, respectively.

Conclusion

With a higher granularity compared to the SCD/ECD-classification the (L)KDPI is a promising tool to judge graft quality. The correlation with chronic and acute histological lesions in post-reperfusion kidney biopsies underlines the descriptive value of the (L)KDPI. However, its prognostic value is limited and underlines the urgent need for a more precise prognostic tool adopted to European kidney transplant conditions.

Motivations and outcomes of compatible living donor-recipient pairs in paired exchange

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program

Background

Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient's donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A.

Methods

This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ.

Results

Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain _1.201.52_1.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain _0.931.03_1.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A's kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE.

Conclusion

This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.

Covariates adjustment questioned conclusions of predictive analyses: an illustration with the Kidney Donor Risk Index

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to illustrate that considering covariates can lead to meaningful interpretation of the discriminative capacities of a prognostic marker. For this, we evaluated the ability of the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) to discriminate kidney graft failure risk.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

From 4114 French patients, we estimated the adjusted area under the time-dependent ROC curve by standardizing the marker and weighting the observations. By weighting the contributions, we also studied the impact of KDRI-based transplantations on the patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

The covariate-adjusted AUC varied from 55% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51-60%) for a prognostic up to 1 year post-transplantation to 56% (95% CI: 52-59%) up to 7 years. The Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) was 6.44 years for high-quality graft recipients (95% CI: 6.30-6.56) and would have been 6.31 years (95% CI: 6.13-6.46) if they had medium-quality transplants. The RMST was 5.10 years for low-quality graft recipients (95% CI: 4.90-5.31) and would have been 5.52 years (95% CI: 5.17-5.83) if they had medium-quality transplants.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that the KDRI discriminative capacities were mainly explained by the recipient characteristics. We also showed that counterfactual estimations, often used in causal studies, are also interesting in predictive studies, especially regarding the new available methods.

Clinical outcomes in donors and recipients of kidney transplantations involving medically complex living donors - a retrospective study

We retrospectively compared the post-transplantation graft survival and the donor's estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) following living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) involving medically complex living donors (MCLDs) (the elderly and patients with obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or reduced renal function) and standard living donors (SLDs). The clinical data on patients who underwent LDKTs at our institution from 2006-2019, including 192 SLDs and 99 MCLDs, were evaluated. Regarding recipients, the log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses showed a higher incidence of overall and death-censored graft loss in the recipients who received kidneys from MCLDs (Hazard ratio = 2.16 and 3.25, P = 0.015 and 0.004, respectively), after adjusting for recipient-related variables including age, sex, duration of dialysis, ABO compatibility, and donor-specific antibody positivity. Regarding donors, a linear mixed model showed significantly lower postdonation eGFRs (-2.25 ml/min/1.73 m² , P = 0.048) at baseline in MCLDs than SLDs, but comparable change (difference = 0.01 ml/min/1.73 m² /year, P = 0.97). In conclusion, although kidneys from MCLDs are associated with impaired graft survival, the donation did not adversely affect the MCLDs' renal health in at least the short-term. LDKTs involving carefully selected MCLDs would be an acceptable alternative for recipients with no SLDs.

Is the Living Donor Kidney Profile Index Valuable in Japanese Patients?

INTRODUCTION

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was recently proposed in the United States to evaluate living donor quality. Japan has a largely different renal transplant circumstance, such as a high ABO incompatibility rate. The aim of this study was to validate the LKDPI among the Japanese population and adjust the score.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 living donors in renal transplant in our institution. We analyzed the clinical characteristics and outcomes, and created a modified LKDPI score considering the favorable ABO incompatible kidney transplant outcomes in Japan.

RESULTS

Median (interquartile range [IQR]) donor age was 59 (51 to 65) and median (IQR) body mass index was 22.9 kg/m² (20.9 to 25.2). ABO incompatibility rate was 28.5%. Median (IQR) donor estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation) was 108.7 mL/min/1.73 m² (99.9 to 115.5). The 1-year graft survival rate was 98.5%, and the 3-year graft survival rate was 97%. The incidence of antibody mediated rejection was 5.2%. The median (IQR) LKDPI score was 30.2 (11.8 to 46.8). This was significantly higher than the previously reported score in the United States, which was 12.8 (-0.8 to 27.2). The modified LKDPI (mLKDPI) score was 23.2 (4.1 to 35.1). LKDPI and mLKDPI did not show a diagnostic value in graft survival; however, LKDPI and mLKDPI showed significant diagnostic value in eGFR at 1 year (area under the curve [AUC]=0.627, P = .017; and AUC=0.673, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our outcomes had better survival even though with higher ABO incompatibility rate. According to original LKDPI, our donor pool is higher than the general US population. In this study, lower LKDPI tended to be associated with good allograft function, and mLKDPI has better diagnostic value than LKDPI. To compare internationally, an adjusted model for Japan might be necessary based on the outcomes of a large population.

Retroactive Application of a New Risk Index for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation to Renal Transplants in Veracruz, Mexico

BACKGROUND

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was recently created. This model predicts recipient risk of graft loss after living donor transplant. Herein, we applied the LDKPI to our population to analyze its performance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all living donor kidney transplants from 2003 to 2018 from 2 transplant centers in Veracruz, Mexico, was used. LKDPI was calculated in a webpage (www.transplantmodels.com). Donor and recipient demographics and transplant data included in the model were registered. Pearson correlation between the LKDPI percentage and death-censored graft survival was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival (log-rank) and Cox regression analysis were compared between the LKPDI quartiles. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In total, 821 transplants were included (mean age 31.7 ± 10.5 years, 62.5% male, n = 513). Mean follow-up was 64.7 ± 46.2 months. Mean estimated survival (Kaplan-Meier) was 128.9 ± 3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 123-134). Ten-year death-censored graft survival was 61.4%. Median LKPDI was -2%, and mean LKDPI was -2.6% ± 14.6% (range, -50% to 42%). Pearson coefficient correlation between the LKDPI and death-censored graft survival was 0.024 (P = .4). Area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic [ROC]) for the LKDPI and death-censored graft loss was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.505-0.591) (P = .04). Recipients with the lowest LKDPI had lower risk of death-censored graft loss than other quartiles (P = .014 log-rank). Cox regression analysis was significant for the lower LKDPI quartile (<20%) (Exp B = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.9; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The LKDPI applies with moderate discrimination predictive power in our population. The best LKDPI patient has better death-censored graft survival. Further studies might continue to validate the LKDPI in other cohorts.

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.

Histological and clinical evaluation of marginal donor kidneys before transplantation: Which is best?

Organ shortage represents one of the major limitations to the development of kidney transplantation. To increase the donor pool and to answer the ever increasing kidney request, physicians are recurring to marginal kidneys as kidneys from older donors, from hypertensive or diabetic donors and from non-heart beating donors. These kidneys are known to have frequently a worse outcome in the recipients. To date major problem is to evaluate such kidneys in order to use or to discard them before transplantation. The use of such kidneys create other relevant question as whether to use them as single or dual transplant and to allocate them fairly according transplant programs. The pre-transplant histological evaluation, the clinical evaluation of the donor or both the criteria joined has been used and according the time each criterion prevailed over the others. Aim of this review has been to examine the advantages and the drawbacks of any criterion and how they have changed with time. To date any criterion has several limitations and several authors have argued for the development of new guidelines in the field of the kidney evaluation for transplantation. Several authors argue that the use of omic technologies should improve the organ evaluation and studies are ongoing to evaluate these technologies either in the donor urine or in the biopsies taken before transplantation.

Assessing the discrimination of the Kidney Donor Risk Index/Kidney Donor Profile Index scores for allograft failure and estimated glomerular filtration rate in Ireland's National Kidney Transplant Programme

Background

The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI)/Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) is relied upon for donor organ allocation in the USA, based on its association with graft failure in time-to-event models. However, the KDRI/KDPI has not been extensively evaluated in terms of predictive metrics for graft failure and allograft estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) outside of the USA.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes in the Irish National Kidney Transplant Service Registry for the years 2006–13. Associations of the KDRI/KDPI score with eGFR at various time points over the follow-up and ultimate graft failure were modelled.

Results

A total of 772 patients had complete data regarding KDRI/KDPI calculation and 148 of these allografts failed over the follow-up. The median and 25–75th centile for KDRI/KDPI was 51 (26–75). On repeated-measures analysis with linear mixed effects models, the KDRI/KDPI (fixed effect covariate) associated with eGFR over 5 years: eGFR = −0.25 (standard error 0.02; P < 0.001). The variability in eGFR mathematically accounted for by the KDRI/KDPI score was only 21%. The KDRI/KDPI score did not add significantly to graft failure prediction above donor age alone (categorized as > and <50 years of age) when assessed by the categorical net reclassification index.

Conclusions

In this cohort, while the KDRI/KDPI was predictive of eGFR over the follow-up, it did not provide additive discrimination above donor age alone in terms of graft failure prediction. Therefore it is unlikely to help inform decisions regarding kidney organ allocation in Ireland.