Clinical outcomes of multicenter domino kidney paired donation

Increasing Kidney-Exchange Options Within the Existing Living Donor Pool With CIAT: A Pilot Implementation Study

Computerized integration of alternative transplantation programs (CIAT) is a kidney-exchange program that allows AB0- and/or HLA-incompatible allocation to difficult-to-match patients, thereby increasing their chances. Altruistic donors make this available for waiting list patients as well. Strict criteria were defined for selected highly-immunized (sHI) and long waiting (LW) candidates. For LW patients AB0i allocation was allowed. sHI patients were given priority and AB0i and/or CDC cross-match negative HLAi allocations were allowed. A local pilot was established between 2017 and 2022. CIAT results were assessed against all other transplant programs available. In the period studied there were 131 incompatible couples; CIAT transplanted the highest number of couples (35%), compared to the other programs. There were 55 sHI patients; CIAT transplanted as many sHI patients as the Acceptable Mismatch program (18%); Other programs contributed less. There were 69 LW patients; 53% received deceased donor transplantations, 20% were transplanted via CIAT. In total, 72 CIAT transplants were performed: 66 compatible, 5 AB0i and 1 both AB0i and HLAi. CIAT increased opportunities for difficult-to-match patients, not by increasing pool size, but through prioritization and allowing AB0i and "low risk" HLAi allocation. CIAT is a powerful addition to the limited number of programs available for difficult-to-match patients.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients.

METHODS

To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed.

RESULTS

In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative.

CONCLUSIONS

CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.

Can We Improve the Effectiveness of the Spanish Nondirected Donation Program?

BACKGROUND

A nondirected altruistic living kidney donor is a person who wants to donate a kidney to anyone in need. In 2010, the Spanish National Transplant Organization developed a national protocol to make the assessment of every potential nondirected living kidney donor. The aim of this study was to describe the potential donor pool and its characteristics and the overall effect of the program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the Spanish National Registry of Transplant Activity, and the Nondirected Donors National Database, between 2010 and 2017. Data related to sociodemographic characteristics, main motivations toward donation, and causes of dismissal were collected from all potential donors. The assessment of each candidate was carried out in a step-by-step process based on the national protocol.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-two people contacted us, showing interest in the nondirected kidney donation, only 203 people underwent the early triage, and 16 of them successfully completed the assessment proces s, representing 8% of the total. The main motivation toward anonymous donation (n = 161) was: social awareness (22%) and to improve the quality of life of other people (9%). One hundred eighty-two candidates did not proceed, due to medical and psychological contraindications (42%) or donor refusal after specific information about the donation process (33%). The number of utilized nondirected altruistic living donors was 13 out of 203 (6%) of the candidates who began the early triage. Twelve transplant chains and a direct donation were performed, which made 38 kidney transplants possible (2.9 transplants per nondirected donor).

CONCLUSIONS

We have to continue working to optimize our program. Our next steps will be to review the evaluation process, to detect areas for improvement, to understand why we lost many possible donors, and to ascertain if any of the reasons could be avoided.

Liver paired exchange: Can the liver emulate the kidney?

Kidney paired exchange (KPE) constitutes 12% of all living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) in the United States. The success of KPE programs has prompted many in the liver transplant community to consider the possibility of liver paired exchange (LPE). Though the idea seems promising, the application has been limited to a handful of centers in Asia. In this article, we consider the indications, logistical issues, and ethics for establishing a LPE program in the United States with reference to the principles and advances developed from experience with KPE. Liver Transplantation 24 677-686 2018 AASLD.

Past, present and future of kidney paired donation transplantation in India

One third of healthy willing living kidney donors are rejected due to ABO blood group incompatibility and donor specific antibody. This increases pre-transplant dialysis duration leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the kidney transplantation waiting list. Over the last decade kidney paired donation is most rapidly increased source of living kidney donors. In a kidney transplantation program dominated by living donor kidney transplantation, kidney paired donation is a legal and valid alternative strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation. This is more useful in countries with limited resources where ABO incompatible kidney transplantation or desensitization protocol is not feasible because of costs/infectious complications and deceased donor kidney transplantation is in initial stages. The matching allocation, ABO blood type imbalance, reciprocity, simultaneity, geography were the limitation for the expansion of kidney paired donation. Here we describe different successful ways to increase living donor kidney transplantation through kidney paired donation. Compatible pairs, domino chain, combination of kidney paired donation with desensitization or ABO incompatible transplantation, international kidney paired donation, non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor chain and list exchange are different ways to expand the donor pool. In absence of national kidney paired donation program, a dedicated kidney paired donation team will increase access to living donor kidney transplantation in individual centres with team work. Use of social networking sites to expand donor pool, HLA based national kidney paired donation program will increase quality and quantity of kidney paired donation transplantation. Transplant centres should remove the barriers to a broader implementation of multicentre, national kidney paired donation program to further optimize potential of kidney paired donation to increase transplantation of O group and sensitized patients. This review assists in the development of similar programs in other developing countries.

Six end-stage renal disease patients benefited from first non-simultaneous single center 6-way kidney exchange transplantation in India

AIM

To avoid desensitization protocols and ABO incompatible kidney transplantation (KT) due to high costs and increased risk of infections from intense immunosuppression.

METHODS

We present institutional ethical review board - approved study of single center 6-way kidney exchange transplantation. The participants comprised ABO incompatibility (n = 1); positive cross-match and/or presence of donor specific antibody (n = 5). The average time required from registration in kidney paired donation (KPD) registry to find suitable donors was 45 d and time required to perform transplants after legal permission was 2 mo.

RESULTS

Graft and patient survival were 100%, and 100%, respectively. One patient had biopsy-proven acute borderline T cell rejection (Banff update 2013, type 3). Mean serum creatinine was 0.8 mg/dL at 9 mo follow-up. The waiting time in KPD was short as compared to deceased donor KT.

CONCLUSION

We report first non-simultaneous, single center, 6-way kidney exchange transplantation from India. Our experience will encourage other centers in India to undertake this practice.

Alternative Living Kidney Donation Programs Boost Genetically Unrelated Donation

Donor-recipient ABO and/or HLA incompatibility used to lead to donor decline. Development of alternative transplantation programs enabled transplantation of incompatible couples. How did that influence couple characteristics? Between 2000 and 2014, 1232 living donor transplantations have been performed. In conventional and ABO-incompatible transplantation the willing donor becomes an actual donor for the intended recipient. In kidney-exchange and domino-donation the donor donates indirectly to the intended recipient. The relationship between the donor and intended recipient was studied. There were 935 conventional and 297 alternative program transplantations. There were 66 ABO-incompatible, 68 domino-paired, 62 kidney-exchange, and 104 altruistic donor transplantations. Waiting list recipients (n = 101) were excluded as they did not bring a living donor. 1131 couples remained of whom 196 participated in alternative programs. Genetically unrelated donors (486) were primarily partners. Genetically related donors (645) were siblings, parents, children, and others. Compared to genetically related couples, almost three times as many genetically unrelated couples were incompatible and participated in alternative programs (P < 0.001). 62% of couples were genetically related in the conventional donation program versus 32% in alternative programs (P < 0.001). Patient and graft survival were not significantly different between recipient programs. Alternative donation programs increase the number of transplantations by enabling genetically unrelated donors to donate.

Allocation and matching in kidney exchange programs

Living donor kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients suffering from end-stage renal disease. To alleviate the shortage of kidney donors, many advances have been made to improve the utilization of living donors deemed incompatible with their intended recipient. The most prominent of these advances is kidney paired donation (KPD), which matches incompatible patient-donor pairs to facilitate a kidney exchange. This review discusses the various approaches to matching and allocation in KPD. In particular, it focuses on the underlying principles of matching and allocation approaches, the combination of KPD with other strategies such as ABO incompatible transplantation, the organization of KPD, and important future challenges. As the transplant community strives to balance quantity and equity of transplants to achieve the best possible outcomes, determining the right long-term allocation strategy becomes increasingly important. In this light, challenges include making full use of the various modalities that are now available through integrated and optimized matching software, encouragement of transplant centers to fully participate, improving transplant rates by focusing on the expected long-run number of transplants, and selecting uniform allocation criteria to facilitate international pools.

Chain transplantation: initial experience of a large multicenter program

We report the results of a large series of chain transplantations that were facilitated by a multicenter US database in which 57 centers pooled incompatible donor/recipient pairs. Chains, initiated by nondirected donors, were identified using a computer algorithm incorporating virtual cross-matches and potential to extend chains. The first 54 chains facilitated 272 kidney transplants (mean chain length = 5.0). Seven chains ended because potential donors became unavailable to donate after their recipient received a kidney; however, every recipient whose intended donor donated was transplanted. The remaining 47 chains were eventually closed by having the last donor donate to the waiting list. Of the 272 chain recipients 46% were ethnic minorities and 63% of grafts were shipped from other centers. The number of blood type O-patients receiving a transplant (n = 90) was greater than the number of blood type O-non-directed donors (n = 32) initiating chains. We have 1-year follow up on the first 100 transplants. The mean 1-year creatinine of the first 100 transplants from this series was 1.3 mg/dL. Chain transplantation enables many recipients with immunologically incompatible donors to be transplanted with high quality grafts.

New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation

In the literature, varying terminology for living organ donation can be found. However, there seems to be a need for a new classification to avoid confusion. Therefore, we assessed existing terminology in the light of current living organ donation practices and suggest a more straightforward classification. We propose to concentrate on the degree of specificity with which donors identify intended recipients and to subsequently verify whether the donation to these recipients occurs directly or indirectly. According to this approach, one could distinguish between "specified" and "unspecified" donation. Within specified donation, a distinction can be made between "direct" and "indirect" donation.

Altruistic donor triggered domino-paired kidney donation for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program

Between January 2000 and July 2009, 132 individuals inquired about altruistic kidney donation to strangers. These donors were willing to donate to genetically and emotionally unrelated patients. Some altruistic donors wished to donate to a specific person, but most wished to donate anonymously. In domino-paired donation, the altruistic donor donates to the recipient of an incompatible couple; the donor of that couple (domino-donor) donates to another couple or to the waiting list. In contrast to kidney-exchange donation where bilateral matching of couples is required, recipient and donor matching are unlinked in domino-paired donation. This facilitates matching for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program where blood type O prevails in recipients and is under-represented in donors. Fifty-one altruistic donors (39%) donated their kidney and 35 domino-donors were involved. There were 29 domino procedures, 24 with 1 altruistic donor and 1 domino-donor, 5 with more domino-donors. Eighty-six transplantations were performed. Donor and recipient blood type distribution in the couples limited allocation to blood type non-O waiting list patients. The success rate of domino-paired donation is dependent on the composition of the pool of incompatible pairs, but it offers opportunities for difficult to match pairs that were unsuccessful in the kidney-exchange program.