1
|
Beyond Graft Survivl: A National Cohort Study Quantifying the Impact of Increasing Kidney Donor Profile Index on Recipient Outcomes 1 Year Post-transplantation. Transplant Direct 2022; 8:e1308. [PMID: 35474655 PMCID: PMC9029898 DOI: 10.1097/txd.0000000000001308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2022] [Accepted: 01/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. The reporting of a locally validated kidney donor profile index (KDPI) began in Australia in 2016. Across diverse populations, KDPI has demonstrated utility in predicting allograft survival and function. A metric that incorporates both elements may provide a more comprehensive picture of suboptimal recipient outcomes. Methods. A retrospective cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients in Australia (January 2009 to December 2014) was conducted. Conventional recipient outcomes and a composite measure of suboptimal outcome (1-y allograft failure or estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30 mL/min) were evaluated across KDPI intervals (KDPI quintiles and 5-point increments in the KDPI 81–100 cohort). The impact of increasing KDPI on allograft function (1-y eGFR) and a suboptimal outcome was explored using multivariable regression models, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In 2923 donor kidneys eligible for analysis, median KDPI was 54 (interquartile range [IQR], 31–77), and Kidney Donor Risk Index was 1.39 (IQR, 1.03–1.67). The median 1-y eGFR was 52.74 mL/min (IQR, 40.79–66.41 mL/min). Compared with the first quintile reference group, progressive reductions in eGFR were observed with increasing KDPI and were maximal in the fifth quintile (adjusted β-coefficient: −27.43 mL/min; 95% confidence interval, –29.44 to –25.42; P < 0.001). A suboptimal outcome was observed in 359 recipients (12.3%). The adjusted odds for this outcome increased across quintiles from a baseline of odds ratio of 1.00 (first quintile) to odds ratio of 11.68 (95% confidence interval, 6.33-21.54, P < 0.001) in the fifth quintile cohort. Conclusions. Increases in donor KDPI were associated with higher probabilities of a suboptimal outcome and poorer baseline allograft function, particularly in the KDPI > 80 cohort. These findings may inform pretransplant discussions with potential recipients of high-KDPI allografts.
Collapse
|
2
|
Pippias M, Stel VS, Arnol M, Bemelman F, Berger SP, Ponikvar JB, Kramar R, Magaz Á, Nordio M, Peters-Sengers H, Reisæter AV, Sørensen SS, Massy ZA, Jager KJ. Temporal Trends in the Quality of Deceased Donor Kidneys and Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Europe: an analysis by the ERA-EDTA Registry. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; 37:175-186. [PMID: 33848355 PMCID: PMC8719578 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfab156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background We investigated 10-year trends in deceased donor kidney quality expressed as the kidney donor risk index (KDRI) and subsequent effects on survival outcomes in a European transplant population. Methods Time trends in the crude and standardized KDRI between 2005 and 2015 by recipient age, sex, diabetic status and country were examined in 24 177 adult kidney transplant recipients in seven European countries. We determined 5-year patient and graft survival probabilities and the risk of death and graft loss by transplant cohort (Cohort 1: 2005–06, Cohort 2: 2007–08, Cohort 3: 2009–10) and KDRI quintile. Results The median crude KDRI increased by 1.3% annually, from 1.31 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.08–1.63] in 2005 to 1.47 (IQR 1.16–1.90) in 2015. This increase, i.e. lower kidney quality, was driven predominantly by increases in donor age, hypertension and donation after circulatory death. With time, the gap between the median standardized KDRI in the youngest (18–44 years) and oldest (>65 years) recipients widened. There was no difference in the median standardized KDRI by recipient sex. The median standardized KDRI was highest in Austria, the Netherlands and the Basque Country (Spain). Within each transplant cohort, the 5-year patient and graft survival probability were higher for the lowest KDRIs. There was no difference in the patient and graft survival outcomes across transplant cohorts, however, over time the survival probabilities for the highest KDRIs improved. Conclusions The overall quality of deceased donor kidneys transplanted between 2005 and 2015 has decreased and varies between age groups and countries. Overall patient and graft outcomes remain unchanged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Pippias
- Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,North Bristol, NHS Trust, Renal Unit, Bristol, UK.
| | - Vianda S Stel
- ERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC-location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the, Netherlands.
| | - Miha Arnol
- Department of Nephrology, Centre for Kidney Transplantation, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| | - Frederike Bemelman
- Department of Nephrology, Amsterdam, UMC-location, AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the, Netherlands.
| | - Stefan P Berger
- Division of Nephrology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the, Netherlands.
| | - Jadranka Buturovic Ponikvar
- Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| | - Reinhard Kramar
- Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry, A-4532 Rohr, im Kremstal, Austria.
| | - Ángela Magaz
- Unidad de Información sobre Pacientes Renales de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (UNIPAR), Basque, country, Spain.
| | - Maurizio Nordio
- Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Treviso General Hospital AULSS2, Treviso, Italy.
| | - Hessel Peters-Sengers
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,the Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
| | - Anna Varberg Reisæter
- Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway. areisate@ous, -hf.no
| | - Søren S Sørensen
- Department of Nephrology P, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Ziad A Massy
- Division of Nephrology, Ambroise Pare University Hospital, APHP, University of Paris Ouest-Versailles-St-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), Boulogne, -Billancourt, /Paris, France.,Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) U1018, Team 5, CESP UVSQ, University Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France.
| | - Kitty J Jager
- Kitty J. Jager Professor, : ERA, -EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, UMC-location, AMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
Obesity is now common among children and adults who are kidney transplant candidates and recipients. It is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and kidney failure. This also pertains to potential living kidney donors with obesity. Obese patients with end-stage renal disease benefit from transplantation as do nonobese patients, but obesity is also associated with more risk. A complicating factor is that obesity is also associated with increased survival on maintenance dialysis in adults, but not in children. The assessment of obesity and body habitus should be individualized. Body mass index is a common but imperfect indicator of obesity. The medical management of obesity in renal failure patients is often unsuccessful. Bariatric surgery, specifically laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, can result in significant weight loss with reduced morbidity, but many patients do not agree to undergo this treatment. The best approach to manage obese transplant candidates and recipients is yet unresolved.
Collapse
|