The aggressive phenotype: center-level patterns in the utilization of suboptimal kidneys

Factors Underlying Racial Disparity in Utilization of Hepatitis C-Viremic Kidneys in the United States

Utilization of hepatitis C (HCV) viremic kidneys is increasing in the United States. We examined racial disparity in this utilization using UNOS/OPTN data (2014-2020) and mixed effects models adjusting for donor/recipient/center factors. Included in the study were 58,786 adults receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant from 191 centers. Two thousand six hundred thirteen (4%) received kidneys from HCV-viremic donors. Of these, 1598 (61%) were HCV seronegative and 1015 (49%) were HCV seropositive. Among seronegative recipients, before adjusting for waiting time and education, Blacks (OR 0.69, 95%CI (0.60, 0.80)), Hispanics (OR 0.63, 95%CI (0.51, 0.79)), and Asians (OR 0.69, 95%CI (0.53, 0.90)) were less likely than Whites to receive HCV-viremic kidneys. In final models, effect of race was attenuated. Notably, shorter waiting time (OR 0.65, 95%CI (0.63, 0.67)) and increasing educational level (grade school less likely compared to high school OR 0.67, 95% CI (0.49, 0.92) and college more likely than high school (OR 1.16 95% CI (1.02, 1.31)) were associated with receipt of HCV-viremic kidneys. Among HCV-seropositive recipients, recipient race was not independently associated with receipt of HCV-viremic kidneys; however, centers with larger populations of Black waitlisted patients were more likely to utilize HCV-viremic kidneys (OR 1.71, 95%CI (1.20, 2.45)) compared to other centers. Our results suggest recipient race does not independently determine who receives HCV-viremic kidneys; however, other underlying factors including waiting time, education (among seronegative), and center racial mix (among seropositive) contribute to the current differential distribution of HCV-viremic kidneys among races.

Beyond donation to organ utilization in the UK

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Optimizing deceased donor organ utilization is gaining recognition as a topical and important issue, both in the United Kingdom (UK) and globally. This review discusses pertinent issues in the field of organ utilization, with specific reference to UK data and recent developments within the UK.

RECENT FINDINGS

A multifaceted approach is likely required in order to improve organ utilization. Having a solid evidence-base upon which transplant clinicians and patients on national waiting lists can base decisions regarding organ utilization is imperative in order to bridge gaps in knowledge regarding the optimal use of each donated organ. A better understanding of the risks and benefits of the uses of higher risk organs, along with innovations such as novel machine perfusion technologies, can help clinician decision-making and may ultimately reduce the unnecessary discard of precious deceased donor organs.

SUMMARY

The issues facing the UK with regards to organ utilization are likely to be similar to those in many other developed countries. Discussions around these issues within organ donation and transplantation communities may help facilitate shared learning, lead to improvements in the usage of scarce deceased donor organs, and enable better outcomes for patients waiting for transplants.

Broad organ acceptance and equitable access to early kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Broad organ acceptance can increase early kidney transplantation (KTX) within <1-year of dialysis initiation while improving access inequity.

METHODS

Single-center data of adult isolated deceased-donor KTX recipients between 2013 and 2020 were stratified into three 2.5-year periods before-, early after-, and late after our center's deceased-donor organ acceptance practice change, excluding a 6-month implementation period. Outcomes were assessed within five recipient subgroups based on demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 704 recipients, the frequency of early KTX was 22% pre-change, 36% early post-change, and 34% late post-change. Given similar post-change frequencies of early KTX, post-change eras were combined to improve analytic power of subgroup analyses. After the organ acceptance practice change (vs. pre-change), the likelihood of early KTX increased variably within historically underserved groups, including recipients who were older (37%-39%, p = .859), Black (10%-21%, p = .136), female (21%-37%, p = .034), diabetic (13%-32%, p = .010), and BMI≥35 kg/m² (20%-34%, p = .007). Despite the practice change, Black recipients continued to experience less early KTX compared to non-Black recipients. The likelihood of delayed graft function was significantly increased (p < .001), and 1-year creatinine was significantly higher (p < .001) post-practice change, but between-era risk-adjusted death-censored graft survival was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Transition to broader donor acceptance was associated with more early KTXs among historically underserved patient subgroups. However, the effect was non-significant among Black recipients, suggesting the need for additional strategies to impact early transplant access for this population. Studies of broad organ acceptance are needed to examine both access and outcomes.

Kidney utility and futility

Changes in kidney allocation coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic have placed tremendous strain on current systems of organ distribution and logistics. Although the number of deceased donors continues to rise annually in the United States, the proportion of marginal deceased donors (MDDs) is disproportionately growing. Cold ischemia times and kidney discard rates are rising in part related to inadequate planning, resources, and shortages. Complexity in kidney allocation and distribution has contributed to this dilemma. Logistical issues and the ability to reperfuse the kidney within acceptable time constraints increasingly determine clinical decision-making for organ acceptance. We have a good understanding of the phenotype of "hard to place" MDD kidneys, yet continue to promote a "one size fits all" approach to organ allocation. Allocation and transportation systems need to be agile, mobile, and flexible in order to accommodate the expanding numbers of MDD organs. By identifying "hard to place" MDD kidneys early and implementing a "fast-track" or open offer policy to expedite placement, the utilization rate of MDDs would improve dramatically. Organ allocation and distribution based on location, motivation, and innovation must lead the way. In the absence of change, we are sacrificing utility for futility and discard rates will continue to escalate.

Listing at non-local transplant centers is associated with increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient's assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

Examining utilization of kidneys as a function of procurement performance

Questions have arisen around new metrics for organ procurement organizations (OPO) due to the perception that low-performing OPOs may be limited by local centers' acceptance of marginal organs. We reviewed 2013-2019 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OTPN) and National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) data to explore the relationship between objectively measured OPO performance and utilization of deceased donor kidneys. We found that although donor recovery declined with rising age and kidney donor profile index (KDPI), OPO performance differences were evident within each age/KDPI group. By contrast, the number of discards per donor did not vary with OPO performance. Centers in donor service areas (DSAs) with lower-performing OPOs had higher local utilization and greater import of high-KDPI kidneys than did those with higher-performing OPOs. Lower rates of donor availability relative to waitlist additions may contribute to observed center acceptance behavior. Differences in center-level performance were highly visible in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) organ acceptance metrics, while SRTR OPO metrics did not detect large or persistent variation in procurement performance. Cumulatively, our findings suggest that objective measures of procurement performance can inform discussions of organ utilization, allowing for alignment of metrics in all elements of the procurement-transplantation system.

Offer Acceptance Patterns for Liver Donors Aged 70 and Older

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

Trends in the procurement and discard of kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injury

Kidney allocation trends from deceased donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) have not been characterized since initial Kidney Donor Profile Index reporting in 2012 and its use under the revised Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. We conducted a retrospective analysis of US registry data to characterize kidney procurement and discard trends in deceased donors with AKI, defined by ≥50% or ≥0.3 mg/dl (≥4.0 mg/dl or ≥200% for stage 3) increase in terminal serum creatinine from admission. From 2010 to 2020, 172 410 kidneys were procured from 93 341 deceased donors 16 years or older; 34 984 kidneys were discarded (17 559 from AKI donors). The proportion of stage 3 AKI donors doubled from 6% (412/6841) in 2010 to 12% (1365/11493) in 2020. Procurement of stage 3 AKI kidneys increased from 51% (423/824) to 80% (2183/2730). While discard of stage 3 AKI kidneys increased from 41% (175/423) in 2010 to 44% (960/2183) in 2020, this increase was not statistically significant in interrupted time-series analysis following KAS implementation (slope difference -0.41 [-3.22, 2.4], and level change 3.09 [-6.4, 12.6]). In conclusion, the absolute number of stage 3 AKI kidneys transplanted has increased. Ongoing high discard rates of these kidneys suggest opportunities for improved utilization.

The use of marginal kidneys in dual kidney transplantation to expand kidney graft utilization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to chronicle the history of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) and identify opportunities to improve utilization of marginal deceased donor (MDD) kidneys through DKT.

RECENT FINDINGS

The practice of DKT from adult MDDs dates back to the mid-1990s, at which time the primary indication was projected insufficient nephron mass from older donors. Multiple subsequent studies of short- and long-term success have been reported focusing on three major aspects: Identifying appropriate selection criteria/scoring systems based on pre- and postdonation factors; refining technical aspects; and analyzing longer-term outcomes. The number of adult DKTs performed in the United States has declined in the past decade and only about 60 are performed annually. For adult deceased donor kidneys meeting double allocation criteria, >60% are ultimately not transplanted. MDDs with limited renal functional capacity represent a large proportion of potential kidneys doomed to either discard or nonrecovery.

SUMMARY

DKT may reduce organ discard and optimize the use of kidneys from MDDs. New and innovative technologies targeting ex vivo organ assessment, repair, and regeneration may have a major impact on the decision whether or not to use recovered kidneys for single or DKT.

Dual kidney transplants from adult marginal donors: Review and perspective

The practice of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) from adult marginal deceased donors (MDDs) dates back to the mid-1990s with initial pioneering experiences reported by the Stanford and Maryland groups, at which time the primary indication was estimated insufficient nephron mass from older donors. Multiple subsequent studies of short and long-term success have been reported focusing on three major aspects of DKT: Identifying appropriate selection criteria and developing scoring systems based on pre- and post-donation factors; refining technical aspects; and analyzing mid-term outcomes. The number of adult DKTs performed in the United States has declined in the past decade and only about 60 are performed annually. For adult deceased donor kidneys meeting double allocation criteria, >60% are ultimately not transplanted. Deceased donors with limited renal functional capacity represent a large proportion of potential kidneys doomed to either discard or non-recovery. However, DKT may reduce organ discard and optimize the use of kidneys from MDDs. In an attempt to promote utilization of MDD kidneys, the United Network for Organ Sharing introduced new allocation guidelines pursuant to DKT in 2019. The purpose of this review is to chronicle the history of DKT and identify opportunities to improve utilization of MDD kidneys through DKT. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Kidney Allocation Policy: Past, Present, and Future

Despite an increase in the number of kidney transplants performed annually, there remain more than 90,000 individuals awaiting transplantation in the United States. As kidney transplantation has evolved, so has kidney allocation policies. The Kidney Allocation System, which was introduced in 2014, made significant strides to improve utility and equity, but regional and geographic disparities remain. Further modifications eliminating donor service areas have been introduced. Moving forward, systems involving continuous distribution and artificial intelligence may provide further advancement toward an ideal allocation system.

Pancreas utilization rates in the UK - an 11-year analysis

Utilization of pancreases for transplantation remains inferior to that of other organs. Herein, we analysed UK pancreas discards to identify the reasons for the low utilization rates. Data on all pancreases offered first for solid organ transplantation between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2015 were extracted from the UK Transplant Registry. The number of organs discarded, reasons and the time point of discard were analysed. A centre specific comparison was also undertaken. 7367 pancreases were offered first for solid organ transplantation. 35% were donors after circulatory death (DCD). 3668 (49.7%) organs were not retrieved. Of the 3699 pancreases retrieved, 38% were initially accepted but subsequently discarded. 2145 (29%) grafts offered were transplanted as simultaneous pancreas-kidney or solitary pancreas. 1177 (55%) were transplanted on the first offer whilst the remaining 968 were transplanted after a median of three offers. 52% DBD pancreases were accepted and transplanted on the first offer compared with 68% DCD grafts. There were significant differences in discard rates between centres (30-80% for DBD and 3-78% for DCD, P < 0.001). A significant number of solid pancreases are discarded. Better graft assessment at retrieval could minimize unnecessary organ travel and discards. Closer links with islet programmes may allow for better utilization of discarded grafts.

Prediction of Kidney Allograft Discard Before Procurement: The Kidney Discard Risk Index

OBJECTIVES

There is an 18.9% discard rate among kidney allografts. Here, we aimed to determine predictors of kidney discard and construct an index to identify high-probability discard kidney allografts prior to procurement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 102 246 potential kidney allograft donors from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database were used in this analysis. The cohort was randomized into 2 groups. The training set included 67% of the cohort and was used to derive a predictive index for discard that comprised 21 factors identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The validation set included 33% and was used to internally validate the kidney discard risk index.

RESULTS

In 77.3% of donors, at least 1 kidney was used for transplant, whereas in 22.7% of donors, both kidneys were discarded. The kidney discard risk index was highly predictive of discard with a C statistic of 0.89 (0.88-0.89). The bottom 10th percentile had a discard rate of 0.73%, whereas the top 10th percentile had a discard rate of 83.65%. The 3 most predictive factors for discard were age, creatinine level, and hepatitis C antibody status.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 21 factors predictive of discard prior to donor procurement and used these to develop a kidney discard risk index with a C statistic of 0.89.

The Advantage of Multiple Listing Continues in the Kidney Allocation System Era

BACKGROUND

Transplant candidates can be listed at multiple transplant centers to increase the probability of receiving an organ. We evaluated the association between multilisting (ML) status and access to a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) to determine if ML provides a long-term advantage regarding wait-list mortality and recipient outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Candidates between January 2010 and October 2017 were identified as either singly or multiply listed using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data and cohorts before and after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Cross-sectional logistic regression was used to assess relationships between candidate factors and ML prevalence (5.4%).

RESULTS

Factors associated with ML pre-KAS included having blood type B (reference, type O; odds ratio [OR], 1.20; P < .001), having private insurance (OR, 1.5; P < .001), wait time (OR, 1.28; P < .001), and increasing calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) (reference, cPRA 0-100; OR for cPRA 80-98, 2.83; OR for cPRA 99, 3.47; OR for cPRA 100, 5.18; P < .001). Transplant rates were double for multilisted vs singly listed recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.16; P < .001). Extra-donor service area ML candidates received transplants 2.5 years quicker than single-listing (SL) candidates, conferring a 42% wait-list advantage. Recipient death (aHR, 0.94; P = .122) and graft failure (aHR, 0.91; P = .006) rates were also lower for ML recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the KAS era, ML continues to increase the likelihood of receiving a DDKT and lower the incidence of wait-list mortality, and it confers a survival advantages over SL.

Impact of the elimination of the donation service area on United States lung transplant practices and outcomes at high and low competition centers

In November 2017, the donation service area (DSA) was removed as the primary unit of US donor lung allocation. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of this change on recipient characteristics, the use of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and on index hospitalization length of stay (LOS) and early posttransplant complications. We also assessed whether these outcomes differed in high and low competition centers, as defined by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Following DSA removal, there was a 9-day decrease in median waitlist time (P = .001) and an increase in median lung allocation score (40 vs 42, P < .0001) but no difference in the need for pretransplant ECMO (incidence rate ratio = 1.16, P = .12). Median LOS increased from 17 to 19 days in the post-DSA era (P = .01). There was no difference in posttransplant outcomes, including prolonged ventilation, new dialysis, or early survival, in the general cohort or between competition groups. High competition centers saw an 18.5-minute increase in ischemic time compared to low competition centers (P = .04) but did not differentially increase single lung transplants or pretransplant ECMO utilization. Overall, DSA elimination was associated with increased posttransplant LOS but no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other posttransplant outcomes. Effects were largely similar at low and high competition centers.

Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients

BACKGROUND

Geographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear.

METHODS

To compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant.

RESULTS

Candidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Large differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.

Accelerating kidney allocation: Simultaneously expiring offers

Using nonideal kidneys for transplant quickly might reduce the discard rate of kidney transplants. We studied changing kidney allocation to eliminate sequential offers, instead making offers to multiple centers for all nonlocally allocated kidneys, so that multiple centers must accept or decline within the same 1 hour. If more than 1 center accepted an offer, the kidney would go to the highest-priority accepting candidate. Using 2010 Kidney-Pancreas Simulated Allocation Model-Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data, we simulated the allocation of 12 933 kidneys, excluding locally allocated and zero-mismatch kidneys. We assumed that each hour of delay decreased the probability of acceptance by 5% and that kidneys would be discarded after 20 hours of offers beyond the local level. We simulated offering kidneys simultaneously to small, medium-size, and large batches of centers. Increasing the batch size increased the percentage of kidneys accepted and shortened allocation times. Going from small to large batches increased the number of kidneys accepted from 10 085 (92%) to 10 802 (98%) for low-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys and from 1257 (65%) to 1737 (89%) for high-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys. The average number of offers that a center received each week was 10.1 for small batches and 16.8 for large batches. Simultaneously expiring offers might allow faster allocation and decrease the number of discards, while still maintaining an acceptable screening burden.

A Donor Utilization Index to Assess the Utilization and Discard of Deceased Donor Kidneys Perceived as High Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of patients on the waitlist for a kidney transplant indicates a need to effectively utilize as many deceased donor kidneys as possible while ensuring acceptable outcomes. Assessing regional and center-level organ utilization with regards to discard can reveal regional variation in suboptimal deceased donor kidney acceptance patterns stemming from perceptions of risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We created a weighted donor utilization index from a logistic regression model using high-risk donor characteristics and discard rates from 113,640 deceased donor kidneys procured for transplant from 2010 to 2016, and used it to examine deceased donor kidney utilization in 182 adult transplant centers with >15 annual deceased donor kidney transplants. Linear regression and correlation were used to analyze differences in donor utilization indexes.

RESULTS

The donor utilization index was found to significantly vary by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network region (P<0.001), revealing geographic trends in kidney utilization. When investigating reasons for this disparity, there was no significant correlation between center volume and donor utilization index, but the percentage of deceased donor kidneys imported from other regions was significantly associated with donor utilization for all centers (rho=0.39; P<0.001). This correlation was found to be particularly strong for region 4 (rho=0.83; P=0.001) and region 9 (rho=0.82; P=0.001). Additionally, 25th percentile time to transplant was weakly associated with the donor utilization index (R ²=0.15; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked center-level variation in the use of deceased donor kidneys with less desirable characteristics both within and between regions. Broader utilization was significantly associated with shorter time to transplantation.

National Variation in Increased Infectious Risk Kidney Offer Acceptance

BACKGROUND

Despite providing survival benefit, increased risk for infectious disease (IRD) kidney offers are declined at 1.5 times the rate of non-IRD kidneys. Elucidating sources of variation in IRD kidney offer acceptance may highlight opportunities to expand use of these life-saving organs.

METHODS

To explore center-level variation in offer acceptance, we studied 6765 transplanted IRD kidneys offered to 187 transplant centers between 2009 and 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We used multilevel logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with offer acceptance and to calculate the median odds ratio (MOR) of acceptance (higher MOR indicates greater heterogeneity).

RESULTS

Higher quality kidneys (per 10 units kidney donor profile index; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.95), higher yearly volume (per 10 deceased donor kidney transplants; aOR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.06-1.10), smaller waitlist size (per 100 candidates; aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98), and fewer transplant centers in the donor service area (per center; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) were associated with greater odds of IRD acceptance. Adjusting for donor and center characteristics, we found wide heterogeneity in IRD offer acceptance (MOR, 1.96). In other words, if listed at a center with more aggressive acceptance practices, a candidate could be 2 times more likely to have an IRD kidney offer accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide national variation in IRD kidney offer acceptance limits access to life-saving kidneys for many transplant candidates.

Regional Disparities in Transplantation With Deceased Donor Kidneys With Kidney Donor Profile Index Less Than 20% Among Candidates With Top 20% Estimated Post Transplant Survival

INTRODUCTION

The Kidney Allocation System in the United States prioritizes candidates with Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS) ≤20% to receive deceased donor kidneys with Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) ≤20%.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We compared access to KDPI ≤ 20% kidneys for EPTS ≤ 20% candidates across the United States to determine whether geographic disparities in access to these low KDPI kidneys exist.

DESIGN

We identified all incident adult deceased donor kidney candidates wait-listed January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018, using United Network for Organ Sharing data. We calculated the proportion of candidates transplanted, final EPTS, and KDPI of transplanted kidneys for candidates listed with EPTS ≤ 20% versus >20%. We compared the odds of receiving a KDPI ≤ 20% deceased donor kidney for EPTS ≤ 20% candidates across regions using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 121 069 deceased donor kidney candidates, 28.5% had listing EPTS ≤ 20%. Of these, 16.1% received deceased donor kidney transplants (candidates listed EPTS > 20%: 17.1% transplanted) and 12.3% lost EPTS ≤ 20% status. Only 49.4% of transplanted EPTS ≤ 20% candidates received a KDPI ≤ 20% kidney, and 48.3% of KDPI ≤ 20% kidneys went to recipients with EPTS > 20% at the time of transplantation. Odds of receiving a KDPI ≤ 20% kidney were highest in region 6 and lowest in region 9 (odds ratio 0.19 [0.13 to 0.28]). The ratio of KDPI ≤ 20% donors per EPTS ≤ 20% candidate and likelihood of KDPI ≤ 20% transplantation were strongly correlated (r ² = 0.84).

DISCUSSION

Marked geographic variation in the likelihood of receiving a KDPI ≤ 20% deceased donor kidney among transplanted EPTS ≤ 20% candidates exists and is related to differences in organ availability within allocation borders. Policy changes to improve organ sharing are needed to improve equity in access to low KDPI kidneys.

Center-level trends in utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV-uninfected kidney and liver transplant recipients in the United States

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation.

Expanding deceased donor kidney transplantation: medical risk, infectious risk, hepatitis C virus, and HIV

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Due to the organ shortage, which prevents over 90 000 individuals in the United States from receiving life-saving transplants, the transplant community has begun to critically reevaluate whether organ sources that were previously considered too risky provide a survival benefit to waitlist candidates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Organs that many providers were previously unwilling to use for transplantation, including kidneys with a high Kidney Donor Profile Index or from increased risk donors who have risk factors for window period hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV infection, have been shown to provide a survival benefit to transplant waitlist candidates compared with remaining on dialysis. The development of direct-acting antivirals to cure HCV infection has enabled prospective trials on the transplantation of organs from HCV-infected donors into HCV-negative recipients, with promising preliminary results. Changes in legislation through the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act have legalized transplantations from HIV-positive deceased donors to HIV-positive recipients for the first time in the United States.

SUMMARY

Critical reexamination of deceased donor organs that were previously discarded has resulted in greater utilization of these organs, an increased number of deceased donor transplants, and the provision of life-saving treatment to more transplant waitlist candidates.

Association of Kidney Transplant Center Volume With 3-Year Clinical Outcomes

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

A robust relationship between procedure volume and clinical outcomes has been demonstrated across many surgical fields. This study assessed whether a center volume-outcome relationship exists for contemporary kidney transplantation, specifically for diabetic recipients, older recipients (aged ≥65 years), and recipients of high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥ 85) kidneys.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adult kidney-only transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between 2009 and 2013 (N = 79,581).

EXPOSURES

The primary exposure variable was center volume, categorized into quartiles based on the total kidney transplantation volume. Quartile 1 (Q1) centers performed a mean of fewer than 66 kidney transplantations per year, whereas Q4 centers performed a mean of more than 196 kidney transplantations per year.

OUTCOMES

All-cause graft failure and mortality within 3 years of transplantation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multivariable Cox frailty models were used to adjust for donor characteristics, recipient characteristics, and cold ischemia time.

RESULTS

Minor differences in rates of 3-year deceased donor all-cause graft failure across quartiles of center volume were observed (14.9% for Q1 vs 16.7% for Q4), including in subgroups (diabetic recipients, 18.4% for Q1 vs 19.7% for Q4; older recipients, 19.4% for Q1 vs 22.5% for Q4; recipients of high KDPI kidneys, 26.5% for Q1 vs 26.5% for Q4). Results were similar for 3-year mortality. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and graft characteristics using Cox regression, center volume was not significantly associated with all-cause graft failure or mortality within 3 years, except that diabetic recipients at Q3 centers had slightly lower mortality (compared with Q1 centers, adjusted HR of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]).

LIMITATIONS

Potential unmeasured confounding from patient comorbid conditions and organ selection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide little evidence that care in higher volume centers is associated with better adjusted outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, even in populations anticipated to be at increased risk for graft failure or death.

Maximizing Utilization in Pancreas Transplantation: Phenotypic Characteristics Differentiating Aggressive From Nonaggressive Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

Maximizing pancreas utilization requires a balance between judicious donor selection and transplant center aggressiveness. We sought to determine how such aggressiveness affects transplant outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 28 487 deceased-donor adult pancreas transplants. Donor and recipient demographic factors indicative of aggressiveness were used to score center aggressiveness. We compared outcomes of low (> 1 SD below mean), medium (± 1 SD from mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) aggressiveness centers using bivariate and multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient aggressiveness demonstrated a roughly linear relationship (R = 0.20). Center volume correlated moderately with donor (rs = 0.433) and recipient (rs = 0.270) aggressiveness. In bivariate analysis, there was little impact of donor selection aggressiveness on graft survival. Further, for simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants, centers with greater recipient aggressiveness selection had better graft survival. High-volume centers had better graft survival than low-volume centers. In multivariable analysis, donor aggressiveness did not have an effect on graft survival, whereas graft survival for medium (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.53-0.83) and high (HR, 0.67; CI, 0.51-0.86) recipient aggressiveness performed better than low-aggressiveness centers. There was a clear volume effect, with high-volume centers (>20 transplants/year; HR, 0.69; CI, 0.61-0.79) performing better than low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Center practice patterns using higher-risk donors and recipients did not negatively affect outcomes. This effect is likely mediated through efficiencies gained with the increased transplant volumes at these centers.

How patients choose kidney transplant centers: A qualitative study of patient experiences

Little is known about how patients make the critical decision of choosing a transplant center. In the United States, acceptance criteria, waiting times, and mortality vary significantly by geography and center. We sought to understand patients' experiences and perspectives when selecting transplant centers. We included 82 kidney transplant patients in 20 semi-structured interviews, nine focus groups with local candidates, and three focus groups with national recipients. Sites included two local transplant centers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and national recipients from across the United States. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged related to priorities and barriers when choosing a center. Patients were often unfamiliar with options, even with multiple local centers. Patients described being referred to a specific center by a trusted provider. Patients prioritized perceived reputation, comfort, and convenience. Insurance coverage was both a source of information and a barrier to options. Patients underestimated differences across centers and the effects on being waitlisted and receiving a transplant. Barriers in decision making included an overwhelming scope of information and difficulty locating information relevant to patients with unique medical needs. Informed decisions could be improved by the dissemination of understandable information better tailored to individual patient needs.

Prospective Validation of Prediction Model for Kidney Discard

BACKGROUND

Many kidneys are discarded every year, with 3631 kidneys discarded in 2016 alone. Identifying kidneys at high risk of discard could facilitate "rescue" allocation to centers more likely to transplant them. The Probability of Delay or Discard (PODD) model was developed to identify marginal kidneys at risk of discard or delayed allocation beyond 36 hours of cold ischemia time. However, PODD has not been prospectively validated, and patterns of discard may have changed after policy changes such as the introduction of Kidney Donor Profile Index and implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS).

METHODS

We prospectively validated the PODD model using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data in the KAS era (January 1, 2015, to March 1, 2018). C statistic was calculated to assess accuracy in predicting kidney discard. We assessed clustering in centers' utilization of kidneys with PODD >0.6 ("high-PODD") using Gini coefficients. Using match run data from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016, we examined distribution of these high-PODD kidneys offered to centers that never accepted a high-PODD kidney.

RESULTS

The PODD model predicted discard accurately under KAS (C-statistic, 0.87). Compared with utilization of low-PODD kidneys (Gini coefficient = 0.41), utilization of high-PODD kidneys was clustered more tightly among a few centers (Gini coefficient, 0.84 with >60% of centers never transplanted a high-PODD kidneys). In total, 11684 offers (35.0% of all high-PODD offers) were made to centers that never accepted a high-PODD kidney.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing allocation of high-PODD kidneys to centers that are more likely to transplant them might help reduce kidney discard.

Patients prioritize waitlist over posttransplant outcomes when evaluating kidney transplant centers

Factors that patients value when choosing a transplant center have not been well studied. In order to guide the improvement of patient-facing materials, we conducted an anonymous electronic survey of patients that assessed the relative importance of patient experience, practical considerations, transplant center reputation, center experience, and waitlist when selecting a transplant center. A total of 409 respondents completed the survey, of whom 68% were kidney transplant recipients and 32% had chronic kidney disease or were on dialysis. Participants had mean age 56 ± 12 years and were predominantly female (61%), white (79%), and had an associate's degree or higher (68%). Participants most often prioritized waitlist when evaluating transplant centers (transplanted 26%, chronic kidney disease 40%), and waitlist was almost twice as likely as outcomes to be ranked most important (30% vs 17%). Education level and transplant status were significantly associated with factors used for center prioritization. Waitlisted respondents most commonly (48%) relied on physicians for information when selecting a center, while a minority cited transplant-specific organizations. In order to improve shared decision-making, materials outlining center-specific waitlist features should be prioritized. Novel patient-oriented metrics for measuring transplant center quality that align with patient priorities must be explored.

Measuring and monitoring equity in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network monitors progress toward strategic goals such as increasing the number of transplants and improving waitlisted patient, living donor, and transplant recipient outcomes. However, a methodology for assessing system performance in providing equity in access to transplants was lacking. We present a novel approach for quantifying the degree of disparity in access to deceased donor kidney transplants among waitlisted patients and determine which factors are most associated with disparities. A Poisson rate regression model was built for each of 29 quarterly, period-prevalent cohorts (January 1, 2010-March 31, 2017; 5 years pre-kidney allocation system [KAS], 2 years post-KAS) of active kidney waiting list registrations. Inequity was quantified as the outlier-robust standard deviation (SD_w ) of predicted transplant rates (log scale) among registrations, after "discounting" for intentional, policy-induced disparities (eg, pediatric priority) by holding such factors constant. The overall SD_w declined by 40% after KAS implementation, suggesting substantially increased equity. Risk-adjusted, factor-specific disparities were measured with the SD_w after holding all other factors constant. Disparities associated with calculated panel-reactive antibodies decreased sharply. Donor service area was the factor most associated with access disparities post-KAS. This methodology will help the transplant community evaluate tradeoffs between equity and utility-centric goals when considering new policies and help monitor equity in access as policies change.

Geographic disparity in kidney transplantation under KAS

The Kidney Allocation System fundamentally altered kidney allocation, causing a substantial increase in regional and national sharing that we hypothesized might impact geographic disparities. We measured geographic disparity in deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate under KAS (6/1/2015-12/1/2016), and compared that with pre-KAS (6/1/2013-12/3/2014). We modeled DSA-level DDKT rates with multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for allocation factors under KAS. Using the model we calculated a novel, improved metric of geographic disparity: the median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of transplant rate, a measure of DSA-level variation that accounts for patient casemix and is robust to outlier values. Under KAS, MIRR was _1.75 1.81_1.86 for adults, meaning that similar candidates across different DSAs have a median 1.81-fold difference in DDKT rate. The impact of geography was greater than the impact of factors emphasized by KAS: having an EPTS score ≤20% was associated with a 1.40-fold increase (IRR = _1.35 1.40_1.45 , P < .01) and a three-year dialysis vintage was associated with a 1.57-fold increase (IRR = _1.56 1.57_1.59 , P < .001) in transplant rate. For pediatric candidates, MIRR was even more pronounced, at _1.66 1.92_2.27 . There was no change in geographic disparities with KAS (P = .3). Despite extensive changes to kidney allocation under KAS, geography remains a primary determinant of access to DDKT.

Impact of cold ischemia time on the outcomes of kidneys with Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥85%: mate kidney analysis - a retrospective study

The new kidney allocation system recommends local and regional sharing of deceased donor kidneys (DDK) with 86-100% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) to minimize discard. Regional sharing can increase cold ischemia time (CIT) which may negatively impact transplant outcomes. Using a same donor mate kidney model, we aimed to define a CIT that should be targeted to optimize outcomes. Using Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified recipients of DDK from 2000 to 2013 with ≥85% KDPI. From this cohort, three groups of mate kidney recipients were identified based on CIT: group 1 (≥24 vs. ≥12 to <24 h), group 2 (≥24 vs. <12 h), and group 3 (≥12 to <24 vs. <12 h). Adjusted delayed graft function (DGF), and graft and patient survivals were compared for mate kidneys. DGF risk was significantly lower for patients with CIT <12 vs. ≥24 h in group 2 (adjusted OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P < 0.001) while trending lower for CIT ≥12 to <24 vs. ≥24 h in group 1 (adjusted OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.59-1.03, P = 0.08) and CIT <12 vs. ≥12 to <24 h in group 3 (adjusted OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-1.0, P = 0.05). Adjusted graft and patient survivals were similar between mate kidneys in all groups. Minimizing CIT improves outcomes with regional sharing of marginal kidneys.

PROviding Better ACcess To ORgans: A comprehensive overview of organ-access initiatives from the ASTS PROACTOR Task Force

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) PROviding better Access To Organs (PROACTOR) Task Force was created to inform ongoing ASTS organ access efforts. Task force members were charged with comprehensively cataloguing current organ access activities and organizing them according to stakeholder type. This white paper summarizes the task force findings and makes recommendations for future ASTS organ access initiatives.

Influence of kidney offer acceptance behavior on metrics of allocation efficiency

We investigated associations of deceased donor kidney offer acceptance with likelihood of the kidney being discarded, cold ischemia time at transplant (CIT), and likelihood of the kidney being exported outside the donation service area (DSA). We used kidney offers from donors in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016, and a stratified logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of acceptance for candidates wait-listed in a DSA. We estimated associations between these ratios and likelihood of discard or export and CIT at transplant. Approximately 0.50 kidneys were discarded per donor; lower DSA-specific offer acceptance ratios were associated with more discards (R=-0.20; P=0.006). For a median donor, the DSA with the highest acceptance ratio would place 0.12 more kidneys per donor than the DSA with the lowest ratio. Low acceptance ratios were associated with higher CIT (R=-0.23; P<0.001). For the median donor, CIT was 2.9 hours shorter for the DSA with the highest versus lowest acceptance ratio. Low acceptance ratios were associated with more exports (R=-0.43; P<0.001); the probability was 15% higher for a median donor in the DSA with the lowest versus highest acceptance ratio. Improving lower-than-expected offer acceptance would likely reduce discards, CIT, and exports.

Impact of Cold Ischemia Time in Kidney Transplants From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

BACKGROUND

Deceased-donor kidneys are exposed to ischemic events from donor instability during the process of donation after circulatory death (DCD). Clinicians may be reluctant to transplant DCD kidneys with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) for fear of an additional deleterious effect.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study examining US registry data between 1998 and 2013 of adult first-time kidney-only recipients of paired kidneys (derived from the same donor transplanted into different recipients) from DCD donors.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, death-censored graft survival (DCGS) was comparable between recipients of kidneys with higher CIT relative to paired donor recipients with lower CIT when the CIT difference was 1 hour or longer (adjusted hazard ratio, [aHR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.17; n = 6276), 5 hours or longer (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.19; n = 3130), 10 hours or longer (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.82-1.60; n = 1124) or 15 hours (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.66-1.99; n = 498). There was a higher rate of primary non function in the long CIT groups for delta 1 hour or longer (0.89% vs 1.63%; P = 0.006), 5 hours (1.09% vs 1.67%, P = 0.13); 10 hours (0.53% vs 1.78%; P = 0.03), and 15 hours (0.40% vs 1.61%; P = 0.18), respectively. Between each of the 4 delta CIT levels of shorter and longer CIT, there was a significantly and incrementally higher rate of delayed graft function in the long CIT groups for delta 1 hour or longer (37.3% vs 41.7%; P < 0.001), 5 hours (35.9% vs 42.7%; P < 0.001), 10 hours (29.4% vs 44.2%, P < 0.001), and 15 hours (29.6% vs 46.1%, P < 0.001), respectively. Overall patient survival was comparable with delta CITs of 1 hour or longer (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.08), 5 hours (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20), and 15 hours (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.79-2.06) but not 10 hours (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that in the setting of a prior ischemic donor event, prolonged CIT has limited bearing on long-term outcomes.

Survival Benefit in Older Patients Associated With Earlier Transplant With High KDPI Kidneys

BACKGROUND

Given high dialysis mortality rates for patients older than 60 years, accepting a kidney with a high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score could enable earlier and potentially preemptive transplantation (preKT). However, evidence regarding the risks of high KDPI allografts in older patients is limited. Our objective was to determine the relative benefit for older patients of KDPI greater than 85% transplant either preemptively or not compared with remaining on the waitlist.

METHODS

United Network of Organ Sharing data from 2003 to 2012 for adult deceased donor kidney transplant candidates was analyzed to evaluate patient survival in patients older than 60 years for preKT and non-preKT KDPI greater than 85% transplants compared with candidates remaining on the waitlist including patients who received KDPI 0% to 85% transplants according to multivariate Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In the first year posttransplant for KDPI greater than 85% of transplants in recipients older than 60 years, preKT had a reduced mortality hazard (hazards ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.41-0.90) and non-preKT an increased mortality hazard (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) compared with the waitlist including KDPI 0% to 85% transplant recipients. At 1 to 2 years and after 2 years, both KDPI greater than 85% groups had significant reductions in mortality (1-2 years: preKT HR, 0.38; 95% CI, [0.23-0.60] and non-preKT HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.61; and 2+ years: preKT HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66 and non-preKT HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.70, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PreKT and non-preKT KDPI greater than 85% transplant was associated with lower mortality hazard after the first year compared with the waitlist including KDPI 0% to 85% transplants in patients older than 60 years. Further consideration should be given to increased utilization of high KDPI grafts in older patients with the goal of avoiding or limiting time on dialysis.

Increasing the Use of Kidneys From Unconventional and High-Risk Deceased Donors

In this paper, we have reviewed the literature and report on kidney donors that are currently used at relatively low rates. Kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) seem to have outcomes equivalent to those from donors without AKI, provided one can rule out significant cortical necrosis. Kidneys from donors with preexisting diabetes or hypertension may have marginally lower aggregate survival but still provide patients with a significant benefit over remaining on the wait list. The Kidney Donor Profile Index derives only an aggregate association with survival with a very modest C statistic; therefore, the data indicated that this index should not be the sole reason to discard a kidney, except perhaps in patients with extremely low estimated posttransplant survival scores. It is important to note that the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients models of risk adjustment should allay concerns regarding regulatory issues for observed outcomes falling below expectations. The successful utilization of kidneys from donation after cardiac death over the past decade shows how expanding our thinking can translate into more patients benefiting from transplantation. Given the growing number of patients on the wait list, broadening our approach to kidney acceptance could have an important impact on the population with end-stage renal disease. Many lives could be prolonged by carefully considering use of kidneys that are often discarded.

Changes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation One Year After KAS Implementation

After over a decade of discussion, analysis, and consensus-building, a new kidney allocation system (KAS) was implemented on December 4, 2014. Key goals included improving longevity matching between donor kidneys and recipients and broadening access for historically disadvantaged subpopulations, in particular highly sensitized patients and those with an extended duration on dialysis but delayed referral for transplantation. To evaluate the early impact of KAS, we compared Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data 1 year before versus after implementation. The distribution of transplants across many recipient characteristics has changed markedly and suggests that in many ways the new policy is achieving its goals. Transplants in which the donor and recipient age differed by more than 30 years declined by 23%. Initial, sharp increases in transplants were observed for Calculated Panel-Reactive Antibody 99-100% recipients and recipients with at least 10 years on dialysis, with a subsequent tapering of transplants to these groups suggesting bolus effects. Although KAS has arguably increased fairness in allocation, the potential costs of broadening access must be considered. Kidneys are more often being shipped over long distances, leading to increased cold ischemic times. Delayed graft function rates have increased, but 6-month graft survival rates have not changed significantly.

Association Between Organ Procurement Organization Social Network Centrality and Kidney Discard and Transplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Given growth in kidney transplant waitlists and discard rates, donor kidney acceptance is an important problem. We used network analysis to examine whether organ procurement organization (OPO) network centrality affects discard and outcomes.

METHODS

We identified 106,160 deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplant from 2000 to 2010 in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We constructed the transplant network by year with each OPO representing a node and each kidney-sharing relationship between OPOs representing a directed tie between nodes. Primary exposures were the number of different OPOs to which an OPO has given a kidney or from which an OPO has received a kidney in year preceding procurement year. Primary outcomes were discard, cold-ischemia time, delayed graft function, and 1-year graft loss. We used multivariable regression, restricting analysis to the 50% of OPOs with highest discard and stratifying remaining OPOs by kidney volume. Models controlled for kidney donor risk index, waitlist time, and kidney pumping.

RESULTS

An increase in one additional OPO to which a kidney was given by a procuring OPO in a year was associated with 1.4% lower likelihood of discard for a given kidney (odds ratio, 0.986; 95% confidence interval, 0.974-0.998) among OPOs procuring high kidney volume, but 2% higher likelihood of discard (odds ratio, 1.021; 95% confidence interval, 1.006-1.037) among OPOs procuring low kidney volume, with mixed associations with recipient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the value of network analysis in revealing how broader kidney sharing is associated with levels of organ acceptance. We conclude interventions to promote broader inter-OPO sharing could be developed to reduce discard for a subset of OPOs.

New Solutions to Reduce Discard of Kidneys Donated for Transplantation

Kidney transplantation is a cost-saving treatment that extends the lives of patients with ESRD. Unfortunately, the kidney transplant waiting list has ballooned to over 100,000 Americans. Across large areas of the United States, many kidney transplant candidates spend over 5 years waiting and often die before undergoing transplantation. However, more than 2500 kidneys (>17% of the total recovered from deceased donors) were discarded in 2013, despite evidence that many of these kidneys would provide a survival benefit to wait-listed patients. Transplant leaders have focused attention on transplant center report cards as a likely cause for this discard problem, although that focus is too narrow. In this review, we examine the risks associated with accepting various categories of donated kidneys, including discarded kidneys, compared with the risk of remaining on dialysis. With the goal of improving access to kidney transplant, we describe feasible proposals to increase acceptance of currently discarded organs.

Associations of deceased donor kidney injury with kidney discard and function after transplantation

Deceased donor kidneys with acute kidney injury (AKI) are often discarded due to fear of poor outcomes. We performed a multicenter study to determine associations of AKI (increasing admission-to-terminal serum creatinine by AKI Network stages) with kidney discard, delayed graft function (DGF) and 6-month estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In 1632 donors, kidney discard risk increased for AKI stages 1, 2 and 3 (compared to no AKI) with adjusted relative risks of 1.28 (1.08-1.52), 1.82 (1.45-2.30) and 2.74 (2.0-3.75), respectively. Adjusted relative risk for DGF also increased by donor AKI stage: 1.27 (1.09-1.49), 1.70 (1.37-2.12) and 2.25 (1.74-2.91), respectively. Six-month eGFR, however, was similar across AKI categories but was lower for recipients with DGF (48 [interquartile range: 31-61] vs. 58 [45-75] ml/min/1.73m(2) for no DGF, p < 0.001). There was significant favorable interaction between donor AKI and DGF such that 6-month eGFR was progressively better for DGF kidneys with increasing donor AKI (46 [29-60], 49 [32-64], 52 [36-59] and 58 [39-71] ml/min/1.73m(2) for no AKI, stage 1, 2 and 3, respectively; interaction p = 0.05). Donor AKI is associated with kidney discard and DGF, but given acceptable 6-month allograft function, clinicians should consider cautious expansion into this donor pool.

Market competition influences renal transplantation risk and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of market competition on patient mortality and graft failure after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Kidneys are initially allocated within 58 donation service areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers. Market competition is generally considered beneficial.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), a measure of market competition, was calculated for each DSA from 2003 to 2012. Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥ 85) was modeled with multivariable logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were created for graft failure and patient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 127,355 adult renal transplants were performed. DSAs were categorized as 7 no (HHI = 1), 17 low (HHI = 0.52-0.97), 17 medium (HHI = 0.33-0.51), or 17 high (HHI = 0.09-0.32) competition. For deceased donor kidney transplantation, increasing market competition was significantly associated with mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.11, P = 0.01], graft failure (HR: 1.18, P = 0.0001), and greater use of low-quality kidneys (odds ratio = 1.39, P < 0.0001). This was not true for living donor kidney transplantation (mortality HR: 0.94, P = 0.48; graft failure HR: 0.99, P = 0.89). Competition was associated with longer waitlists (P = 0.04) but not with the number of transplants per capita in a DSA (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing market competition is associated with increased patient mortality and graft failure and the use of riskier kidneys. These results may represent more aggressive transplantation and tolerance of greater risk for patients who otherwise have poor alternatives. Market competition should be better studied to ensure optimal outcomes.

Survival benefit of primary deceased donor transplantation with high-KDPI kidneys

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been introduced as an aid to evaluating deceased donor kidney offers, but the relative benefit of high-KDPI kidney transplantation (KT) versus the clinical alternative (remaining on the waitlist until receipt of a lower KDPI kidney) remains unknown. Using time-dependent Cox regression, we evaluated the mortality risk associated with high-KDPI KT (KDPI 71-80, 81-90 or 91-100) versus a conservative, lower KDPI approach (remain on waitlist until receipt of KT with KDPI 0-70, 0-80 or 0-90) in first-time adult registrants, adjusting for candidate characteristics. High-KDPI KT was associated with increased short-term but decreased long-term mortality risk. Recipients of KDPI 71-80 KT, KDPI 81-90 KT and KDPI 91-100 KT reached a "break-even point" of cumulative survival at 7.7, 18.0 and 19.8 months post-KT, respectively, and had a survival benefit thereafter. Cumulative survival at 5 years was better in all three high-KDPI groups than the conservative approach (p < 0.01 for each comparison). Benefit of high-KDPI KT was greatest in patients age >50 years and patients at centers with median wait time ≥33 months. Recipients of high-KDPI KT can enjoy better long-term survival; a high-KDPI score does not automatically constitute a reason to reject a deceased donor kidney.

The discard of deceased donor kidneys in the UK

It is essential to minimize the unnecessary discard of procured deceased donor kidneys, but information on discard rates and the extent to which discard can be avoided are limited. Analysis of the UK Transplant Registry revealed that the discard rate of procured deceased donor kidneys has increased from 5% in 2002-3 to 12% in 2011-12. A national offering system for hard-to-place kidneys was introduced in the UK in 2006 (the Declined Kidney Scheme), but just 13% of kidneys that were subsequently discarded until 2012 were offered through the scheme. In order to examine the appropriateness of discard, 20 consecutive discarded kidneys from 13 deceased donors were assessed to determine if surgeons agreed with the decision that they were not implantable. Donors had a median (range) age of 67 (31-80) yr. Kidneys had been offered to a median of 3 (1-12) centers before discard. Four (20%) of the discarded kidneys were thought to be usable, and nine (45%) were possibly usable. As a result of these findings, major changes to the UK deceased donor kidney offering system have been implemented, including simultaneous offering and broader entry criteria for hard-to-place kidneys. Organizational changes are necessary to improve utilization of deceased donor kidneys.