Deceased donor kidneys allocated out of sequence by organ procurement organizations

Personal Viewpoint: Navigating Challenges in Recipient Selection for End-Chain Kidneys

As a result of the increasing number of transplants being facilitated by kidney paired donation, and newer initiatives such as voucher donation, end-chain kidneys now constitute a considerable proportion of kidney paired donation transplants in the United States. Data on end-chain kidneys are limited. They may be lower in quality compared to non-end chain living donor kidneys. However, they can provide unique opportunities for recipient candidates without living donors. There are no data or algorithms available to guide recipient selection for end-chain kidneys accepted by a transplant center. Considering the ethical principles of utility, justice, and respect for persons that underlie organ allocation, we discuss three potential approaches for recipient selection: 1) adherence to the Kidney Allocation System, 2) utility maximization and 3) priority to high-risk candidates, along with examples from our own center's experience. Similar considerations are also relevant to selection of recipients for non-directed donor organs, and to out-of-sequence allocation for deceased organ donors. Since end-chain kidneys represent an increasingproportion of kidney paired donation-facilitated living kidney donor transplantation in the United States, and will likely get more medically and surgically complex over time, ongoing research on their utilization and outcomes is needed.

Changing Landscape of Open Offers in Liver Transplantation in the Machine Perfusion Era: Exposure, Equity, and Economics

BACKGROUND

Open offers (OOs) in liver transplantation (LT) result from bypassing the traditional allocation system. Little is known about the trends of OOs or the differences in donor/recipient characteristics compared to traditionally placed organs. We aim to quantify modern practices regarding OOs and understand NMP's impact, focusing on social determinants of health (SDH), cost, and graft-associated risk.

METHODS

LTs from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2023 at a single center were included. NMP was implemented on 10/1/2022. The CDC (centers for disease control)-validated social vulnerability index (SVI) and donor risk index (DRI) were calculated. Comprehensive complications index (CCI), Clavien-Dindo grades, patient and graft survival, and costs of transplantation were included.

RESULTS

1162 LTs were performed; 193 (16.8%) from OOs. OOs were more common in the post-NMP era (26.5% vs. 13.3%, p < 0.001). Pre-NMP, patients receiving OOs had longer waitlist times (118 vs. 69 days, p < 0.001), lower MELDs (17 vs. 25 points, p < 0.001), and riskier grafts (DRI = 1.8 vs. 1.6, p = 0.004) compared to standard offers. Post-NMP, recipients receiving OOs demonstrated no difference in waitlist time (27 vs. 20 days, p = 0.21) or graft risk (DRI = 2.03 vs. 2.23, p = 0.17). OO recipient MELD remained lower (16 vs. 22, p < 0.001). OO recipients were more socially vulnerable (SVI), pre-NMP (0.41 vs. 0.36, p = 0.004), but less vulnerable after NMP (0.23 vs. 0.36, p = 0.019). Despite increased graft risk, pre-NMP OO-LTs were less expensive in the 90-day global period ($154 939 vs. $178 970, p = 0.002) and the 180-days pre-/post-LT ($208 807 vs. $228 091, p = 0.021). Cost trends remained similar with NMP.

CONCLUSION

OOs are increasingly utilized and may be appealing due to demonstrated cost reductions even with NMP. Although most OO-related metrics in our center remain similar before and after machine perfusion, programs should take caution that increasing use does not worsen organ access for socially vulnerable populations.

Contemporary Prevalence and Practice Patterns of Out-of-Sequence Kidney Allocation

Since 2021, the OPTN has reported a nearly 10-fold rise in out-of-sequence (OOS) kidney allocation, generating concern and halting development of continuous distribution policies. We report contemporary (2022-2023) practice patterns in OOS allocation using OPTN data. We examined in sequence vs. OOS donors with multivariable logistic regression and skipped vs. OOS-accepting recipients with conditional logistic regression. Nearly 20% of kidney placements were OOS, varying from 0% to 43% across OPOs; the 5 highest-OOS OPOs accounted for 29% of all OOS. Of OOS kidneys, 33% were declined >100 times in the standard allocation sequence and 51% were declined by >10 centers before OOS allocation began; 4.5% were made without any in-sequence declines. Nearly all OOS offers were open offers. OOS kidneys were more likely to be from female, Black, older, DCD, hypertensive, diabetic, and elevated creatinine donors. Candidates receiving OOS kidneys were more likely female, Asian, and older than skipped candidates. Higher-volume centers and centers with more White, fewer Hispanic, and more educated waiting list patients transplanted disproportionately more OOS kidneys. These findings suggest that the current, highly variable, discretionary use of OOS might exacerbate disparities, yet the impact of OOS on organ utilization cannot be determined with data now collected.

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

The Kidney Not Taken: Single-Kidney Use in Deceased Donors

BACKGROUND

The nonuse rate for kidneys recovered from deceased donors is increasing, rising to 27% in 2023. In 10% of these cases, 1 kidney is transplanted but the mate kidney is not.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective, single-center cohort study from December 2001 to May 2023 comparing single kidneys transplanted at our center (where the contralateral kidney was not used) to kidneys where both were transplanted separately, at least 1 of which was at our center.

RESULTS

We performed 395 single deceased-donor kidney transplants in which the mate kidney was not transplanted. Primary reasons for mate kidney nonuse were as follows: no recipient located or list exhausted (33.4%), kidney trauma or injury or anatomic abnormalities (18.7%), biopsy findings (16.7%), and poor renal function (13.7%). Mean donor and recipient ages were 51.5 ± 14.2 and 60 ± 12.6 years, respectively. Mean kidney donor profile index was 73% ± 22%, and 104 donors (26.3%) had kidney donor profile index >85%. Mean cold ischemia was 25.6 ± 7.4 hours, and 280 kidneys (70.7%) were imported. Compared with 2,303 concurrent control transplants performed at our center, primary nonfunction or thrombosis (5.1% single vs 2.8% control) and delayed graft function (35.4% single vs 30.1% control) were greater with single-kidney use (both p < 0.05). Median patient and death-censored graft survival were shorter in the single group (11.6 vs 13.5 years, p = 0.03 and 11.6 vs 19 years, p = 0.003), although the former was at least double median survival on the waiting list. In patients with functioning grafts in the single-kidney group, 1-year mean serum creatinine was 1.77 ± 0.8 mg/dL and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 44.8 ± 20 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that many mate kidneys are being inappropriately rejected, given the acceptable outcomes that can be achieved by transplanting the single kidney in appropriately selected recipients.

Re-assessing prolonged cold ischemia time in kidney transplantation through machine learning consensus clustering

BACKGROUND

We aimed to cluster deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) using an unsupervised machine learning approach.

METHODS

We performed consensus cluster analysis on 11 615 deceased donor kidney transplant patients with CIT exceeding 24 h using OPTN/UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. Cluster characteristics of clinical significance were identified, and post-transplant outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Consensus cluster analysis identified two clinically distinct clusters. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, non-diabetic patients who received kidney transplants from young, non-hypertensive, non-ECD deceased donors with lower KDPI scores. In contrast, the patients in cluster 2 were older and more likely to have diabetes. Cluster 2 recipients were more likely to receive transplants from older donors with a higher KDPI. There was lower use of machine perfusion in Cluster 1 and incrementally longer CIT in Cluster 2. Cluster 2 had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (42% vs. 29%), and lower 1-year patient (95% vs. 98%) and death-censored (95% vs. 97%) graft survival compared to Cluster 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsupervised machine learning characterized deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged CIT into two clusters with differing outcomes. Although Cluster 1 had more favorable recipient and donor characteristics and better survival, the outcomes observed in Cluster 2 were also satisfactory. Overall, both clusters demonstrated good survival suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase CIT.

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.

Population Characteristics and Organ Procurement Organization Performance Metrics

Importance

In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule updating the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) Conditions for Coverage. This rule evaluates OPO performance based on an unadjusted donation rate and an age-adjusted transplant rate; however, neither considers other underlying population differences.

Objective

To evaluate whether adjusting for age and/or area deprivation index yields the same tier assignments as the cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) tier used by CMS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study examined the performance of 58 OPOs from 2018 to 2020 across the entire US. A total of 12 041 778 death records were examined from the 2017 to 2020 National Center for Health Statistics' Restricted Vital Statistics Detailed Multiple Cause of Death files; 399 530 of these met the definition of potential deceased donor. Information about 42 572 solid organ donors from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was also used. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2017 to December 2020.

Exposure

Area deprivation of donation service areas and age of potential donors.

Main Outcome and Measures

OPO performance as measured by donation and transplant rates.

Results

A total of 399 530 potential deceased donors and 42 572 actual solid donor organs were assigned to 1 of 58 OPOs. Age and ADI adjustment resulted in 19.0% (11 of 58) to 31.0% (18 of 58) reclassification of tier ratings for the OPOs, with 46.6% of OPOs (27 of 58) changing tier ranking at least once during the 3-year period. Between 6.9% (4 of 58) and 12.1% (7 of 58) moved into tier 1 and up to 8.6% (5 of 58) moved into tier 3.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of population characteristics and OPO performance metrics found that adjusting for area deprivation and age significantly changed OPO measured performance and tier classifications. These findings suggest that underlying population characteristics may alter processes of care and characterize donation and transplant rates independent of OPO performance. Risk adjustment accounting for population characteristics warrants consideration in prospective policy and further evaluation of quality metrics.

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.

Increased volume of organ offers and decreased efficiency of kidney placement under circle-based kidney allocation

The newest kidney allocation policy kidney allocation system 250 (KAS250) broadened geographic distribution while increasing allocation system complexity. We studied the volume of kidney offers received by transplant centers and the efficiency of kidney placement since KAS250. We identified deceased-donor kidney offers (N = 907,848; N = 36,226 donors) to 185 US transplant centers from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021 (policy implemented March 15, 2021). Each unique donor offered to a center was considered a single offer. We compared the monthly volume of offers received by centers and the number of centers offered before the first acceptance using an interrupted time series approach (pre-/post-KAS250). Post-KAS250, transplant centers received more kidney offers (level change: 32.5 offers/center/mo, P < .001; slope change: 3.9 offers/center/mo, P = .003). The median monthly offer volume post-/pre-KAS250 was 195 (interquartile range 137-253) vs. 115 (76-151). There was no significant increase in deceased-donor transplant volume at the center level after KAS250, and center-specific changes in offer volume did not correlate with changes in transplant volume (r = -0.001). Post-KAS250, the number of centers to whom a kidney was offered before acceptance increased significantly (level change: 1.7 centers/donor, P < .001; slope change: 0.1 centers/donor/mo, P = .014). These findings demonstrate the logistical burden of broader organ sharing, and future allocation policy changes will need to balance equity in transplant access with the operational efficiency of the allocation system.

Characterization of Transplant Center Decisions to Allocate Kidneys to Candidates With Lower Waiting List Priority

Importance

Allocation of deceased donor kidneys is meant to follow a ranked match-run list of eligible candidates, but transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization have full discretion to decline offers for higher-priority candidates and accept them for lower-ranked candidates at their center.

Objective

To describe the practice and frequency of transplant centers placing deceased donor kidneys with candidates who are not the highest rank at their center according to the allocation algorithm.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used 2015 to 2019 organ offer data from US transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization, following candidates for transplant events from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were deceased kidney donors with a single match-run and at least 1 kidney transplanted locally and adult, first-time, kidney-only transplant candidates receiving at least 1 offer for a locally transplanted deceased donor kidney. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022 to March 28, 2023.

Exposure

Demographic and clinical characteristics of donors and recipients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was kidney transplantation into the highest-priority candidate (defined as transplanted after zero declines for local candidates in the match-run) vs a lower-ranked candidate.

Results

This study assessed 26 579 organ offers from 3136 donors (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-51] years; 2903 [62%] men) to 4668 recipients. Transplant centers skipped their highest-ranked candidate to place kidneys further down the match-run for 3169 kidneys (68%). These kidneys went to a median (IQR) of the fourth- (third- to eighth-) ranked candidate. Higher kidney donor profile index (KDPI; higher score indicates lower quality) kidneys were less likely to go to the highest-ranked candidate, with 24% of kidneys with KDPI of at least 85% going to the top-ranked candidate vs 44% of KDPI 0% to 20% kidneys. When comparing estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) scores between the skipped candidates and the ultimate recipients, kidneys were placed with recipients with both better and worse EPTS than the skipped candidates, across all KDPI risk groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of local kidney allocation at isolated transplant centers, we found that centers frequently skipped their highest-priority candidates to place kidneys further down the allocation prioritization list, often citing organ quality concerns but placing kidneys with recipients with both better and worse EPTS with nearly equal frequency. This occurred with limited transparency and highlights the opportunity to improve the matching and offer algorithm to improve allocation efficiency.

Beyond donation to organ utilization in the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The deceased donor organ pool has broadened beyond young, otherwise healthy head trauma victims. But an abundance of donated organs only benefits patients if they are accepted, expeditiously transported and actually transplanted. This review focuses on postdonation challenges and opportunities to increase the number of transplants through improved organ utilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

We build upon recently proposed changes in terminology for measuring organ utilization. Among organs recovered for transplant, the nonuse rate (NUR REC ) has risen above 25% for kidneys and pancreata. Among donors, the nonuse rate (NUR DON ) has risen to 40% for livers and exceeds 70% for thoracic organs. Programme-level variation in offer acceptance rates vastly exceeds variation in the traditional, 1-year survival benchmark. Key opportunities to boost utilization include donation after circulatory death and hepatitis C virus (HCV)+ organs; acute kidney injury and suboptimal biopsy kidneys; older and steatotic livers.

SUMMARY

Underutilization of less-than-ideal, yet transplant-worthy organs remains an obstacle to maximizing the impact of the U.S. transplant system. The increased risk of inferior posttransplant outcomes must always be weighed against the risks of remaining on the waitlist. Advanced perfusion technologies; tuning allocation systems for placement efficiency; and data-driven clinical decision support have the potential to increase utilization of medically complex organs.

The Benefits of Preemptive Transplantation Using High-Kidney Donor Profile Index Kidneys

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) is a percentile score summarizing the likelihood of allograft failure: A KDPI ≥85% is associated with shorter allograft survival, and 50% of these donated kidneys are not currently used for transplantation. Preemptive transplantation (transplantation without prior maintenance dialysis) is associated with longer allograft survival than transplantation after dialysis; however, it is unknown whether this benefit extends to high-KDPI transplants. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether the benefit of preemptive transplantation extends to recipients of transplants with a KDPI ≥85%.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared the post-transplant outcomes of preemptive and nonpreemptive deceased donor kidney transplants using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. 120,091 patients who received their first, kidney-only transplant between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, were studied, including 23,211 with KDPI ≥85%. Of this cohort, 12,331 patients received a transplant preemptively. Time-to-event models for the outcomes of allograft loss from any cause, death-censored graft loss, and death with a functioning transplant were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with recipients of nonpreemptive transplants with a KDPI of 0%-20% as the reference group, the risk of allograft loss from any cause in recipients of a preemptive transplant with KDPI ≥85% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64) was lower than that in recipients of nonpreemptive transplant with a KDPI ≥85% (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.21 to 2.58) and similar to that of recipients of a nonpreemptive transplant with a KDPI of 51%-84% (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive transplantation is associated with a lower risk of allograft failure, irrespective of KDPI, and preemptive transplants with KDPI ≥85% have comparable outcomes with nonpreemptive transplants with KDPI 51%-84%.

Identify Hard-to-Place Kidneys for Early Engagement in Accelerated Placement With a Deep Learning Optimization Approach

Recommended practices that follow match-run sequences for hard-to-place kidneys succumb to many declines, accruing cold ischemic time and exacerbating kidney quality that may lead to unnecessary kidney discard. Hard-to-place deceased donor kidneys accepted and transplanted later in the match-run sequence may threaten higher graft failure rates. Accelerated placement is a practice for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to allocate high-risk kidneys out of sequence and reach patients at aggressive transplant centers. The current practice of assessing hard-to-place kidneys and engaging in accelerated kidney placements relies heavily on the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) and the number of declines. Although this practice is reasonable, it also accrues cold ischemic time and increases the risk for kidney discard. We use a deep learning optimization approach to quickly identify kidneys at risk for discard. This approach uses Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to model kidney disposition. We filter discards and develop a model to predict transplant and discard of recovered and not transplanted kidneys. Kidneys with a higher probability of discard are deemed hard-to-place kidneys, which require early engagement for accelerated placement. Our approach will aid in identifying hard-to-place kidneys before or after procurement and support OPOs to deviate from the match-run for accelerated placement. Compared with the KDPI-only prediction of the kidney disposition, our approach demonstrates a 10% increase in correctly predicting kidneys at risk for discard. Future work will include developing models to identify candidates with an increased benefit from using hard-to-place kidneys.

The New Distance-Based Kidney Allocation System: Implications for Patients, Transplant Centers, and Organ Procurement Organizations

Purpose of Review

The goal of deceased donor kidney allocation policy is to provide objective prioritization for donated kidneys, and policy has undergone a series of revisions in the past decade in attempt to achieve equity and utility in access to kidney transplantation. Most recently, to address geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation, the Kidney Allocation System changed to a distance-based allocation system—colloquially termed “KAS 250”—moving away from donor service areas as the geographic basis of allocation. We review the early impact of this policy change on access to transplant for patients, and on complexity of organ allocation and transplantation for transplant centers and organ procurement organizations.

Recent Findings

Broader sharing of kidneys has increased complexity of the allocation system, as transplant centers and OPOs now interact in larger networks. The increased competition resulting from this system, and the increased operational burden on centers and OPOs resulting from greater numbers of organ offers, may adversely affect organ utilization. Preliminary results suggest an increase in transplant rate overall but a trend toward higher kidney discard and increased cold ischemia time.

Summary

The KAS 250 allocation policy changed the geographic basis of deceased donor kidney distribution in a manner that is intended to reduce geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation. Close monitoring of this policy’s impact on patients, transplant center behavior, and process measures is critical to the aim of maximizing access to transplant while achieving transplant equity.