Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury

Impact of Deceased-donor Acute Kidney Injury on Kidney Transplantation

Even as record numbers of deceased donors are undergoing organ recovery, the global transplant community continues to struggle with a shortage of donor organs and a high organ discard rate. Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs in many hospitalized patients, including up to 25% of patients in critical condition. Registry studies have shown a significant increase in nonrecovery or organ discard rates in AKI donors, despite most studies reporting similar clinical outcomes compared with non-AKI donors. This review aims to capture the salient information learned from these studies and to summarize the efforts that have been made to gain a more granular understanding of how kidneys from donors with AKI behave posttransplant. In particular, we reviewed the studies that analyzed the clinical outcomes in different stages of AKI and AKI in marginal donors, such as kidney donor profile index of >85%, older donors, and donation after circulatory death donors. We summarized studies investigating molecular biomarkers, transcriptomics, and possible future therapeutic targets for postdonation AKI.

Duration of Dialysis in Acute Kidney Injury Donors and Transplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys, including those from donors on dialysis, are often underutilized, although there is increasing data available demonstrating good transplant outcomes. To date, data on the duration of donor dialysis and transplant outcomes are limited.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-center study of deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2022. The study cohort consisted of recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors with AKI and on dialysis. Three groups were identified based on the predetermined interquartile range of donor dialysis duration: 1 to 2 dialysis days, 3 to 4 dialysis days, and 5 or more dialysis days.

RESULTS

During this period, 765 AKI deceased donor transplants were performed, of which 230 were from donors on dialysis. The median dialysis duration was 2 days with a maximum of 13 days. Across the 3 groups, there were no differences in recipient age (p = 0.23) or dialysis vintage (p = 0.70). Donor age (p = 0.86) and kidney donor profile index (p = 0.57) were comparable between the groups. Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors on dialysis 5 or more days had lower terminal creatinine levels (p = 0.003) and longer cold ischemia times (p = 0.04). Posttransplant, the median length of hospital stay was 3 days for all groups (p = 0.75). There were no differences in delayed graft function occurrence (94.4% vs 86.8% vs 92.1%, p = 0.19), duration of delayed graft function (p = 0.56), or readmissions (p = 0.99). At 1 year posttransplant, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.76), patient survival (p = 0.82), or death-censored graft survival (p = 0.28) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent outcomes have been observed in AKI deceased donor kidney transplants, including those coming from donors on dialysis. In this small cohort, the duration of donor dialysis did not adversely affect outcomes. Cautious expansion of the donor pool, including donors on dialysis, should be considered given the ongoing organ shortage.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation

INTRODUCTION

Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys.

METHODS

KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival.

CONCLUSION

During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Single center experience and literature review of kidney transplantation from non-ideal donors with acute kidney injury: Risk and reward

INTRODUCTION

There is limited experience transplanting kidneys from either expanded criteria donors (ECD) or donation after circulatory death (DCD) deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury (AKI).

METHODS

AKI kidneys were defined by a donor terminal serum creatinine level >2.0 mg/dL whereas non-ideal deceased donor (NIDD) kidneys were defined as AKI/DCD or AKI/ECDs.

RESULTS

From February 2007 to March 2023, we transplanted 266 single AKI donor kidneys including 29 from ECDs, 29 from DCDs (n = 58 NIDDs), and 208 from brain-dead standard criteria donors (SCDs). Mean donor age (43.7 NIDD vs. 33.5 years SCD), KDPI (66% NIDD vs. 45% SCD), and recipient age (57 NIDD vs. 51 years SCD) were higher in the NIDD group (all p < .01). Mean waiting times (17.8 NIDD vs. 24.2 months SCD) and dialysis duration (34 NIDD vs. 47 months SCD) were shorter in the NIDD group (p < .05). Delayed graft function (DGF, 48%) and 1-year graft survival (92.7% NIDD vs. 95.9% SCD) was similar in both groups. Five-year patient and kidney graft survival rates were 82.1% versus 89.9% and 82.1% versus 75.2% (both p = NS) in the NIDD versus SCD groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of kidneys from AKI donors can be safely liberalized to include selected ECD and DCD donors.

Novel Noninvasive Biomarkers in Liver Transplantation: A Tool on the Doorstep of Clinical Utilization

Biomarkers have the potential to transform the detection, treatment, and outcomes of liver transplant complications, though their application is limited because of the lack of prospective validation. Although many genetic, proteomic, and immune markers correlating with allograft rejection and graft dysfunction have been described, evaluation of these markers in combination and validation among a broad liver transplant recipient population remain understudied. In this review, we present evidence supporting biomarker applications in 5 clinical liver transplant scenarios: (i) diagnosis of allograft rejection, (ii) prediction of allograft rejection, (iii) minimization of immunosuppression, (iv) detection of fibrosis and recurrent disease, and (v) prediction of renal recovery following liver transplantation. Current limitations for biomarker utilization and opportunities for further investigation are discussed. Accurate risk assessment, diagnosis, and evaluation of treatment responses using such noninvasive tools will pave the way for a more personalized and precise approach to management of the liver transplant patients that has profound potential to reduce morbidity and improve graft and patient longevity.

Breaking Barriers and Bridging Gaps: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Kidney Transplant Care for Black and Hispanic Patients in the United States

Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.

Past, Current, and Future Perspectives on Transplanting Acute Kidney Injury Kidneys

(1) Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys have high non-utilization rates due to concerns regarding unfavorable outcomes. In this paper, we aimed to review the past, present, and future opinions on AKI kidneys. (2) Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for topics relevant to AKI kidney transplantation. (3) Results: Current short- and long-term data on AKI kidneys have demonstrated good outcomes including favorable graft function and survival. The role of procurement biopsies is controversial, but they have been shown to be beneficial in AKI kidneys by allowing clinicians to differentiate between reversible tubular injury and irreversible cortical necrosis. Machine perfusion has also been applied to AKI kidneys and has been shown to reduce delayed graft function (DGF). The incidence of DGF increases with AKI severity and its management can be challenging. Strategies employed to counteract this have included early initiation of dialysis after kidney transplantation, early targeting of adequate immunosuppression levels to minimize rejection risk, and establishment of outpatient dialysis. (4) Conclusions: Despite good outcomes, there continue to be barriers that impact AKI kidney utilization. Successful strategies have included use of procurement biopsies or machine perfusion and expectant management of DGF. With increasing experience, better use of AKI kidneys can result in additional opportunities to expand the donor pool.

Long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation from deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury: Single center experience and literature review

INTRODUCTION

Long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation from deceased donors (DDKTs) with terminal acute kidney injury (AKI) are not well defined.

METHODS

Single center retrospective review of DDKTs from 1/31/07-12/31/19. AKI kidneys were defined by a doubling of the donor's admission serum creatinine (SCr) level AND a terminal SCr ≥2.0 mg/dl.

RESULTS

A total of 188 AKI DDKTs were performed, including 154 from brain-dead standard criteria donors (SCD). Mean donor age was 36 years and mean Kidney Donor Profile Index was 50%; mean admission and terminal SCr levels were 1.3 and 3.1 mg/dl, respectively. With a mean follow-up of 94 months (median 89 months), overall patient (both 71.3%) and graft survival (54% AKI vs. 57% non-AKI) rates were comparable to concurrent DDKTs from brain-dead non-AKI SCDs (n = 769). Delayed graft function (DGF) was higher in AKI kidney recipients (47% vs. 20% non-AKI DDKTs, p < .0001). DGF was associated with lower graft survival in recipients of both AKI and non-AKI SCD kidneys but the impact was earlier and more pronounced in non-AKI recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having more than twice the incidence of DGF, kidneys from deceased donors with terminal AKI have long-term outcomes comparable to non-AKI SCD kidneys and represent a safe and effective method to expand the donor pool.

Delayed graft function: current status and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delayed graft function is a common early posttransplant event predictive of adverse outcomes including hospital readmission, impaired long-term graft function, and decreased graft and patient survival. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature describing delayed graft function in hopes of better understanding and managing this condition.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research efforts have been garnered towards risk factor modification, prevention, and earlier detection of delayed graft function. In this review, we aim to summarize current innovative approaches and future directions.

SUMMARY

Delayed graft function portends worse graft and patient outcomes. Continued research to prevent, and detect early perturbations in allograft function, and more optimally manage this disease will hopefully improve graft function, along with graft/patient survival.

Association of DGF and Early Readmissions on Outcomes Following Kidney Transplantation

Concerns regarding outcomes and early resource utilization are potential deterrents to broader use of kidneys at risk for delayed graft function (DGF). We assessed outcomes specific to kidneys with DGF that required early readmission following transplant. Three groups were identified: 1) recipients with DGF not requiring readmission, 2) recipients with DGF having an isolated readmission, and 3) recipients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions. Most recipients either required a single readmission (26.8%, n = 247) or no readmission (56.1%, n = 517); 17.1% (n = 158), had ≥2 readmissions. Recipients requiring ≥2 readmissions were likely to be diabetic (53.8%, p = 0.04) and have longer dialysis vintage (p = 0.01). Duration of DGF was longer with increasing number of readmissions (p < 0.001). There were no differences in patient survival for those with DGF and 0, 1 and ≥2 readmissions (p = 0.13). Graft survival, however, was lower for those with ≥2 readmissions (p < 0.0001). This remained true when accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.0012). Additional subgroup analysis was performed on mate kidneys with and without DGF and mate kidneys, both with DGF, with and without readmissions. For these subgroups, there were no differences in patient or graft survival. As a whole, patients with DGF have excellent outcomes, however, patients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions have lower graft survival. A better understanding of recipient variables contributing to multiple readmissions may allow for improvements in the utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Use of Machine Learning Consensus Clustering to Identify Distinct Subtypes of Kidney Transplant Recipients With DGF and Associated Outcomes

Data and transplant community opinion on delayed graft function (DGF), and its impact on outcomes, remains varied. An unsupervised machine learning consensus clustering approach was applied to categorize the clinical phenotypes of kidney transplant (KT) recipients with DGF using OPTN/UNOS data. DGF was observed in 20.9% (n = 17,073) of KT and most kidneys had a KDPI score <85%. Four distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were young, high PRA re-transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older diabetics and more likely to receive higher KDPI kidneys. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and non-diabetic; they received lower KDPI kidneys. Cluster 4 recipients were middle-aged, had diabetes or hypertension and received well-matched standard KDPI kidneys. By cluster, one-year patient survival was 95.7%, 92.5%, 97.2% and 94.3% (p < 0.001); one-year graft survival was 89.7%, 87.1%, 91.6%, and 88.7% (p < 0.001). There were no differences between clusters after accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.08). Clinically meaningful differences in recipient characteristics were noted between clusters, however, after accounting for death and return to dialysis, there were no differences in death-censored graft loss. Greater emphasis on recipient comorbidities as contributors to DGF and outcomes may help improve utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Kidney utilization in the Netherlands - do we optimally use our donor organs?

BACKGROUND

To ensure optimal utilization of deceased donor kidneys, it is important to understand the precise reasons why kidneys are discarded. In this study we aimed to obtain a comprehensive overview of kidney utilization and discard during the entire donation process in the Netherlands.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study we analysed kidney utilization of 3856 kidneys in the Netherlands between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020. For every kidney that was not transplanted, we determined the moment of and reason for discard through a unique case-by-case assessment.

RESULTS

Kidney discard according to the traditional definition (procured but not transplanted) was 7.8%. However, when kidneys that seemed medically suitable at the beginning of the donation process were also included, many more potential donor kidneys were lost and the total non-utilization was 24.4%. Subjectively presumed impaired organ quality was responsible for 34.2% of all discarded kidneys. Two-thirds of kidneys discarded due to acute kidney injury (AKI) had only AKI stage 1 or 2.

CONCLUSION

The classical definition of organ discard underestimates the non-utilization of deceased donor kidneys. Strategies to improve kidney utilization could be a revision of the maximum allowed agonal time in donation after circulatory death, careful consideration in reporting and accepting kidneys from donors with AKI and a prospectively filled registry of detailed organ discard reasons, including the 'silent' non-utilization before procurement.

Duration of delayed graft function and its impact on graft outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function.

METHODS

We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020. We determined factors associated with DGF duration. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: < 14 DGF days, 14-27 DGF days, > 28 DGF days. We studied the impact of DGF duration on survival and graft function and resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions.

RESULTS

1714 DDKT recipients were included, 59.4% (n = 1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted > 28 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting < 28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB number ID: 20-011561.

Impact of acute kidney injury on graft outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplantation: A nationwide registry-based matched cohort study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Favorable long-term and short-term graft survival and patient survival after kidney transplantation (KT) from deceased donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) have been reported. However, few studies have evaluated effects of donor AKI status on graft outcomes after KT in Asian population. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate graft function after KTs from donors with AKI compared to matched KTs from donors without AKI using a multicenter cohort in Korea.

METHODS

We analyzed a total of 1,466 KTs collected in Korean Organ Transplant Registry between April 2014 and December 2017. KTs from AKI donors (defined as donors with serum creatinine level ≥ 2 mg/dL) and non-AKI donors (275 cases for each group) were enrolled using a 1:1 propensity score matching. Graft outcomes including graft and patient survival, delayed graft function (DGF), rejection rate, and serially measured estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were evaluated.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, KTs from AKI donors showed higher rate of DGF (44.7% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.001). However, the rejection rate was not significantly different between the two groups (KTs from AKI donors vs. KTs from non-AKI donors). eGFRs measured after 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years were not significantly different by donor AKI status. With median follow-up duration of 3.52 years, cox proportional hazards models revealed hazard ratio of 0.973 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.584 to 1.621), 1.004 (95% CI, 0.491 to 2.054) and 0.808 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.426 to 1.532) for overall graft failure, death-censored graft failure and patient mortality, respectively, in KTs from AKI donors compared to KTs from non-AKI donors as a reference.

CONCLUSIONS

KTs from AKI donors showed comparable outcomes to KTs from non-AKI donors, despite a higher incidence of DGF. Results of this study supports the validity of using kidneys from deceased AKI donors in Asian population.

Deciphering transplant outcomes of expanded kidney allografts donated after controlled circulatory death in the current transplant era. A call for caution

Outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) after controlled circulatory death (cDCD) with highly expanded criteria donors (ECD) and recipients have not been thoroughly evaluated. We analyzed in a multicenter cohort of 1161 consecutive KT, granular baseline donor and recipient factors predicting transplant outcomes, selected by bootstrapping and Cox proportional hazards, and were validated in a contemporaneous European KT cohort (n = 1585). 74.3% were DBD and 25.7% cDCD-KT. ECD-KT showed the poorest graft survival rates, irrespective of cDCD or DBD (log-rank < 0.001). Besides standard ECD classification, dialysis vintage, older age, and previous cardiovascular recipient events together with low class-II-HLA match, long cold ischemia time and combining a diabetic donor with a cDCD predicted graft loss (C-Index 0.715, 95% CI 0.675-0.755). External validation showed good prediction accuracy (C-Index 0.697, 95%CI 0.643-0.741). Recipient older age, male gender, dialysis vintage, previous cardiovascular events, and receiving a cDCD independently predicted patient death. Benefit/risk assessment of undergoing KT was compared with concurrent waitlisted candidates, and despite the fact that undergoing KT outperformed remaining waitlisted, remarkably high mortality rates were predicted if KT was undertaken under the worst risk-prediction model. Strategies to increase the donor pool, including cDCD transplants with highly expanded donor and recipient candidates, should be performed with caution.

Intraoperative fluid management and kidney transplantation outcomes: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing kidney transplantation traditionally receive liberal amounts of fluid during surgery. However, excessive fluids can lead to fluid overload and ileus. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the effect of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy on kidney transplantation outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent deceased-donor kidney transplantation at Mayo Clinic from January 2014 to March 2019 were included. Those who received <3 L of intravenous fluids intraoperatively were categorized as "restrictive;" those who received ≥3 L were categorized as "liberal." The primary outcome was incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, readmission within 30 days, time to return of bowel function, and incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of the 1171 patients included, 557 were in the restrictive group and 614 in the liberal group. The mean (SD) fluid intake was 2.17 (.54) L in the restrictive group and 3.67 (.68) L in the liberal group (P<.001). There was no difference in DGF (relative risk, 1.03; P = .56), length of stay (P = .34), readmission (P = .80), return of bowel function (P = .71), or other postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative restrictive fluid therapy during kidney transplantation was not associated with DGF or worse outcomes when compared with liberal fluid therapy.

Successful outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injuryon temporary renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 172 recipients received a kidney from donors with acute kidney injury stage 3 (AKIN3) requiring RRT. We compared the study group to 528 recipients who received a kidney from donors with AKIN stage 3 not on RRT and 463 recipients who received < 85% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) AKIN stage 0 kidney.

RESULTS

The study group donors were younger compared to the 2 control groups. Despite higher DGF in the study group, the length of hospital stay and acute rejection were similar. Death censored graft survival (96% AKIN3-RRT vs. 97%AKIN3 no RRT vs. 96% KDPI < 85% AKIN0, P = 0.26) and patient survival with functioning graft at 1 year (95% across all groups, P = 0.402) were similar. The estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar across the 3 groups after first month. Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score ≥ 2 on protocol biopsy at time 0, 4 and 12 months were similar. Primary nonfunction was rare and associated with high KDPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKIN3 requiring RRT is safe and has good outcomes.

Implementation of donation after circulatory death kidney transplantation can safely enlarge the donor pool: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplantation has been introduced to address organ shortage. However, DCD kidneys are not accepted worldwide due to concerns about inferior quality. To investigate whether these concerns are justified, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate DCD graft outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from database inception until September 2020. Exclusion criteria were studies reporting on pediatric/dual kidney transplants, multi-organ transplants or studies including normothermic perfusion techniques. The primary outcome was graft survival. Secondary outcomes were primary non-function (PNF), delayed graft function (DGF), 3-months biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), 1-year estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), patient survival, and urologic complications. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was performed in case of high between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included, comprising 73,454 DCD and 518,229 DBD recipients. One-year graft loss was increased in DCD recipients (death-censored: risk ratio (RR) 1.10 (95%-confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.16), all-cause: RR 1.13 (95%-CI 1.08-1.19)). Ten-year graft loss was similar to DBD (death-censored: RR 1.02 (95%-CI 0.92-1.13), all-cause: RR 1.03 (95%-CI 0.94-1.13)). DCD recipients had an increased risk of PNF (RR 1.43 (95%-CI 1.26-1.62)), DGF (RR 2.02 (95%-CI 1.88-2.16)), and 1-year mortality (RR 1.10 (95%-CI 1.01-1.21)). No differences were observed for 3-months BPAR, ureter stenosis/leakage, 1-year eGFR and 10-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Long-term DCD kidney transplant outcomes are similar to DBD despite a higher risk of PNF, DGF, and a 13% increased risk of graft loss in the first year after transplantation. These results should encourage implementation of DCD programs.

Correlation of Chronic Histologic Changes on Preimplantation Frozen Section Biopsy With Transplant Outcomes After Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

CONTEXT.—

It is unclear if preimplantation frozen section biopsy correlates with outcomes after deceased donor kidney transplantation.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess if chronic histologic changes on the preimplant frozen section correlates with graft loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate independently of kidney donor profile index (KDPI).

DESIGN.—

Seven hundred three preimplantation biopsies were reviewed and a Banff sum score was calculated using glomerular sclerosis, interstitial fibrosis, vascular intimal thickening, and arteriolar hyalinosis. The posttransplant outcomes were compared for preimplantation biopsy Banff sum 0-1, 2-3, and 4-9. The cohort was also stratified by KDPI 85 or less versus more than 85.

RESULTS.—

For the entire biopsy cohort, graft survival, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year and chronic changes on a 1-year posttransplant biopsy were superior in the group with preimplantation Banff sum 0-1. After stratifying by KDPI, the Banff sum no longer correlated with graft survival. In a univariate mode, using the Banff sum score as a continuous variable, a higher Banff sum score was significantly associated with graft failure (P = .03); however, after adjusting the KDPI, the Banff sum score no longer correlated with graft failure (P = .45). The 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and 1 year biopsy changes were superior in the group with Banff sum 0-1 only in the cohort with KDPI 85 or less.

CONCLUSIONS.—

In donor kidneys used for transplant, preimplantation biopsy chronic changes correlate with estimated glomerular filtration rate and biopsy findings at 1 year, but biopsies with mostly mild chronicity and sum scores less than or equal to 5 did not impact graft survival beyond KDPI.

DCD Renal Transplantation From Donors With Acute Kidney Injury

BACKGROUND

Deceased donor kidneys with acute kidney injury (AKI) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidneys are viable sources of organs. The outcomes of renal transplantation from DCD donors with AKI are not known.

METHODS

A retrospective review of deceased donor renal transplants performed from 2006 to 2016 was conducted using the United Network for Organ Sharing dataset. Donors were stratified by DCD or brain dead status and by AKI stage. Recipients were followed until graft failure or the end of study. Cox regression was used to adjust for donor, recipient, and transplant covariates known to affect the incidence of delayed graft function and graft survival.

RESULTS

A total of 135 644 patients were included in the study. The odds of delayed graft function among DCD recipients were significantly higher across all donor AKI stages. The unadjusted risk of overall and death-censored graft failure were similar between the 2 groups. After adjusting for covariates, there was a significant increase in the risk of overall graft failure in recipients of DCD allografts from donors with stage 2 AKI. There was also a higher risk of death-censored graft failure among stage 1 and 2 AKI DCD recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

DCD renal allografts from donors experiencing stage 1 and 2 AKI have a higher adjusted risk of death-censored graft failure than AKI stage-matched donation after brain death renal allografts. Their use, however, is still associated with improved outcomes compared with waitlist mortality.

Transplant outcomes using kidneys from high KDPI acute kidney injury donors

Kidney transplant (KT) outcomes from high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥85%) donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) remain underreported. KT from 172 high KDPI Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage 0-1 donors and 76 high KDPI AKIN stage 2-3 donors from a single center were retrospectively assessed. The AKIN 2-3 cohort had more delayed graft function (71% vs. 37%, p < .001). At one year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (44 ± 17 vs. 46 ± 18, p = .42) or fibrosis on protocol biopsy (ci, p = .85). Donor terminal creatinine (p = .59) and length of delayed graft function (p = .39) did not impact one-year eGFR. There were more primary nonfunction (PNF) events in the high KDPI AKIN 2-3 group (5.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .02). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, one-year death-censored graft failure was 3.5% for AKIN 0-1 and 14.5% for AKIN 2-3 (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24-4.63, p = .01). Although AKIN stage 2-3 high KDPI kidneys had comparable one-year eGFR to AKIN stage 0-1 high KDPI kidneys, there were more PNF occurrences and one-year death-censored graft survival was reduced. Given these findings, additional precautions should be undertaken when assessing and utilizing kidneys from severe AKI high KDPI donors.

Kidney Allograft Fibrosis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies

Interstitial fibrosis with tubule atrophy (IF/TA) is the response to virtually any sustained kidney injury and correlates inversely with kidney function and allograft survival. IF/TA is driven by various pathways that include hypoxia, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, transforming growth factor (TGF)-β signaling, cellular rejection, inflammation and others. In this review we will focus on key pathways in the progress of renal fibrosis, diagnosis and therapy of allograft fibrosis. This review discusses the role and origin of myofibroblasts as matrix producing cells and therapeutic targets in renal fibrosis with a particular focus on renal allografts. We summarize current trends to use multi-omic approaches to identify new biomarkers for IF/TA detection and to predict allograft survival. Furthermore, we review current imaging strategies that might help to identify and follow-up IF/TA complementary or as alternative to invasive biopsies. We further discuss current clinical trials and therapeutic strategies to treat kidney fibrosis.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C141.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an updated perspective

Outcomes of both donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver and kidney transplants are improving. Experience in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) using DCD donors, however, remains limited. In an updated cohort (2010-2018), outcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Minnesota were reviewed. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was lower in the DCD SLK group (23 vs 29, P = .01). Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) rates were similar between the 2 groups (P = .11), although the duration of DGF was longer for DCD SLK recipients (20 vs 4 days, P = .01). Liver allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .29), kidney allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .91), and patient (96.7% vs 95.4%, P = .70) 1-year survival rates were similar. At 1 year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (57.7 ± 18.2 vs 56.3 ± 17.7, P = .75) or progression of fibrosis (ci) on protocol kidney biopsy (P = .67). A higher incidence of biliary complications was observed in the DCD SLK group, with ischemic cholangiopathy being the most common (10.0% vs 0.0%, P = .03). The majority of biliary complications resolved with endoscopic management. With appropriate selection, DCD SLK recipients can have results equivalent to those of DBD SLK recipients.