Histopathological evaluation of pretransplant donor biopsies in expanded criteria donors with high kidney donor profile index: a retrospective observational cohort study

Pre-Implantation Kidney Biopsies in Extended Criteria Donors: From On Call to Expert Pathologist, from Conventional Microscope to Digital Pathology

The number of patients awaiting a kidney transplant is constantly rising but lack of organs leads kidneys from extended criteria donors (ECD) to be used to increase the donor pool. Pre-transplant biopsies are routinely evaluated through the Karpinski-Remuzzi score but consensus on its correlation with graft survival is controversial. This study aims to test a new diagnostic model relying on digital pathology to evaluate pre-transplant biopsies and to correlate it with graft outcomes. Pre-transplant biopsies from 78 ECD utilized as single kidney transplantation were scanned, converted to whole-slide images (WSIs), and reassessed by two expert nephropathologists using the Remuzzi-Karpinski score. The correlation between graft survival at 36 months median follow-up and parameters assigned by either WSI or glass slide score (GSL) by on-call pathologists was evaluated, as well as the agreement between the GSL and the WSIs score. No relation was found between the GSL assessed by on-call pathologists and graft survival (P = 0.413). Conversely, the WSI score assigned by the two nephropathologists strongly correlated with graft loss probability, as confirmed by the ROC curves analysis (DeLong test P = 0.046). Digital pathology allows to share expertise in the transplant urgent setting, ensuring higher accuracy and favoring standardization of the process. Its employment may significantly increase the predictive capability of the pre-transplant biopsy evaluation for ECD, improving the quality of allocation and patient safety.

Evaluation of Expanded Criteria Donors Using the Kidney Donor Profile Index and the Preimplantation Renal Biopsy

The increasing comorbidity of kidney transplant (KT) donors make it necessary to develop scores to correctly assess the quality of kidney grafts. This study analyzes the usefulness of the preimplantation biopsy and the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) as indicators of KT survival from expanded criteria donors (ECD). Retrospective study of KT in our center between January 2010 to June 2019 who received a kidney from an ECD and underwent a preimplantation biopsy. 266 KT were included. Graft survival was categorized by KDPI quartiles: Q1 = 86%, Q2 = 95%, Q3 = 99% and Q4 = 100%. KT from KDPI Q1 presented better survival (p = 0.003) and Q4 donors had worse renal function (p = 0.018) and poorer glomerular filtration rate (3rd month; p = 0.017, 1st year; p = 0.010). KT survival was analyzed according to KDPI quartile and preimplantation biopsy score simultaneously: Q1 donors with biopsy score ≤3 had the best survival, especially comparing against Q3 with a biopsy score >3 and Q4 donors (p = 0.014). In multivariable analysis, hyaline arteriopathy, glomerulosclerosis, and KDPI Q4 were predictors for graft survival. High KDPI and a greater histological injury in the preimplantation biopsy, especially glomerular and vascular lesions, were related to a higher rate of KT loss from ECD.

Abnormal time-zero histology is predictive of kidney transplant outcomes

Time-zero biopsies can detect donor-derived lesions at the time of kidney transplantation, but their utility in predicting long-term outcomes is unclear under the updated Kidney Allocation System. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 272 consecutive post-reperfusion time-zero biopsies. We tested the hypothesis that abnormal time-zero histology is a strong indicator of donor quality that increases the precision of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) score to predict long-term outcomes. We detected abnormal biopsies in 42% of the cohort, which were independently associated with a 1.2-fold increased hazard for a composite of acute rejection, allograft failure, and death after adjusting for clinical characteristics including KDPI. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, the relationship between abnormal time-zero histology and the composite endpoint was only significant in the subgroup of deceased donor kidney transplants with KDPI scores > 35. Abnormal time-zero histology, particularly vascular intimal fibrosis and arteriolar hyalinosis scores, was independently associated with lower 12-month estimated GFR. In conclusion, abnormal time-zero histology is relatively common and identifies a group of kidney recipients at increased risk for worse long-term outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal patient population in which to deploy time-zero biopsies as an additional surveillance tool. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Retransplanting a previously transplanted kidney: A safe strategy in times of organ shortage?

BACKGROUND

The shortage of organs for transplantation remains a global problem. The retransplantation of a previously transplanted kidney might be a possibility to expand the pool of donors. We provide our experience with the successful reuse of transplanted kidneys in the Eurotransplant region.

METHODS

A query in the Eurotransplant database was performed between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2015, to find kidney donors who themselves had previously received a kidney graft.

RESULTS

Nine out of a total of 68,554 allocated kidneys had previously been transplanted. Four of these kidneys were transplanted once again. The mean interval between the first transplant and retransplantation was 1689±1682 days (SD; range 55-5,333 days). At the time of the first transplantation the mean serum creatinine of the donors was 1.0 mg/dl (.6-1.3 mg/dl) and at the second transplantation 1.4 mg/dl (.8-1.5 mg/dl). The mean graft survival in the first recipient was 50 months (2-110 months) and in the second recipient 111 months (40-215 months).

CONCLUSION

Transplantation of a previously transplanted kidney may successfully be performed with well-preserved graft function and long-term graft survival, even if the first transplantation was performed a long time ago. Such organs should be considered even for younger recipients in carefully selected cases.

Variations in deceased donor kidney procurement biopsy practice patterns: A survey of U.S. organ procurement organizations

BACKGROUND

Procurement biopsies have become a common practice in the evaluation and allocation of deceased donor kidneys in the United States despite questions about their value and reproducibility. We sought to determine the extent of OPO-level differences in criteria used to decide which deceased donor kidneys undergo a procurement biopsy and to assess the degree of variability in procurement biopsy technique and interpretation across OPOs.

METHODS

Each of the country's 58 OPOs were invited to participate in the survey. OPOs were divided into two groups based on organ availability ratio and deceased donor kidney discard rate.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Fifty-out-of-fifty-eight invited OPOs (86% response rate) responded to the survey between November 2020 and December 2020. Thirty (60%) OPOs reported that they have formal criteria for performing kidney procurement biopsy, but for 29 of these OPOs, transplant centers can request biopsy on kidneys that do not meet criteria. OPOs used a total of seven different variables and 12 different numerical thresholds to define impaired kidney function that would prompt a procurement biopsy. Additionally, wide variability was seen in biopsy technique and procedures for biopsy interpretation and reporting of findings to transplant programs. These findings identify a clear opportunity for standardization of procurement biopsies to best practices.

Modeling patients as decision making units: evaluating the efficiency of kidney transplantation through data envelopment analysis

The main applications of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to medicine focus on evaluating the efficiency of different health structures, hospitals and departments within them. The evolution of patients after undergoing a medical procedure or their response to a given treatment are not generally studied through this programming technique. In addition to the difficulty inherent to the collection of this type of data, the use of a technique that is mainly applied to evaluate the efficiency of decision making units representing industrial and production structures to analyze the evolution of human patients may seem inappropriate. In the current paper, we illustrate how this is not actually the case and implement a decision engineering approach to model kidney transplantation patients as decision making units. As such, patients undergo three different phases, each composed by specific as well as interrelated variables, determining the potential success of the transplantation process. DEA is applied to a set of 12 input and 6 output variables - retrieved over a 10-year period - describing the evolution of 485 patients undergoing kidney transplantation from living donors. The resulting analysis allows us to classify the set of patients in terms of the efficiency of the transplantation process and identify the specific characteristics across which potential improvements could be defined on a per patient basis.

Predicting Clinical Outcome in Expanded Criteria Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background:

The gaps in organ supply and demand necessitate the use of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys.

Objective:

To identify which pre-transplant and post-transplant predictors are most informative regarding short- and long-term ECD transplant outcomes.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

Single center, Quebec, Canada.

Patients:

The patients were 163 consecutive first-time ECD kidney only transplant recipients who underwent transplantation at McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 and had frozen section wedge procurement biopsies.

Measurements:

Short-term graft outcomes, including delayed graft function and 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), as well as long-term outcomes including all-cause graft loss (defined as return to dialysis, retransplantation, and death with function).

Methods:

Pre-transplant donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics were assessed as predictors of transplant outcomes. The added value of post-transplant predictors, including longitudinal eGFR, was also assessed using time-varying Cox proportional hazards models.

Results:

In univariate analyses, among the pre-transplant donor characteristics, histopathologic variables did not show evidence of association with delayed graft function, 1-year post-transplant eGFR or all cause graft loss. Recipient age was associated with all-cause graft loss (hazard ratio: 1.038 [95% confidence interval: 1.002-1.075] and the model produced only modest discrimination (C-index: 0.590; standard error [SE]: 0.045). Inclusion of time-dependent post-transplant eGFR improved the model’s prediction accuracy (C-index: 0.711; SE = 0.047). Pre-transplant ECD characteristics were not associated with long-term survival, whereas post-transplant characteristics allowed better model discrimination.

Limitations:

Single-center study, small sample size, and potential incomplete capture of all covariate data.

Conclusions:

Incorporation of dynamic prediction models into electronic health records may enable timely mitigation of ECD graft failure risk and/or facilitate planning for renal replacement therapies. Histopathologic findings on preimplantation biopsies have a limited role in predicting long-term ECD outcomes.

Trial registration:

Not applicable.

Marginal kidney transplantation: the road less traveled

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Kidney transplantation indisputably confers a significant survival advantage and a better quality of life compared with dialysis, however, because of the increasing demand for kidney transplantation many patients continue to wait prolonged periods for kidney transplantation. The first step to alleviate the shortage is to reduce the discard rate by utilizing more marginal kidneys. This review studied the recent literature on marginal kidney transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

More than 60% of high-KDPI kidneys are discarded. Despite the increase in posttransplant costs, use of high KDPI transplants suggests a gain in survival years, thus making marginal kidney transplant cost effective. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that marginal kidney transplantation shows a survival benefit compared with remaining in the waitlist and minimizes the kidney discard rate.

SUMMARY

Transplantation with marginal kidneys provides a survival benefit over dialysis or waiting for a low-KDPI kidney. As a result, clinicians should strongly consider transplantation of marginal kidneys as opposed to waiting for a better offer.

Polymorphisms in vasoactive eicosanoid genes of kidney donors affect biopsy scores and clinical outcomes in renal transplantation

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes metabolize arachidonic acid to vasoactive eicosanoids such as epoxyeicosatrienoic acids (EETs) and 20-Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (20-HETE), whilst soluble epoxide hydrolase, encoded by the EPHX2 gene, is in charge of EETs degradation. We aimed to analyze the influence of common, functional polymorphisms in four genes of the donor on the renal biopsy scores independently assigned by pathologists. Additionally, we examined whether this score or the presence of these SNPs were independent risk factors of clinical outcomes in the first year after grafting. A cohort of 119 recipients and their corresponding 85 deceased donors were included in the study. Donors were genotyped for the CYP4F2 V433M, CYP2C8*3, CYP2J2*7, EPHX2 3’UTR A>G, EPHX2 K55R and EPHX2 R287Q polymorphisms. The association of the donors’ SNPs with the biopsy scores and clinical outcomes was retrospectively evaluated by multivariate regression analysis. The CYP2C8*3 polymorphism in the donor was significantly associated with higher scores assigned to pretransplant biopsies [OR = 3.35 (1.03–10.93), p = 0.045]. In turn, higher scores were related to an increased risk of acute rejection [OR = 5.28 (1.32–21.13), p = 0.019] and worse glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (45.68±16.05 vs. 53.04±16.93 ml/min in patients whose grafts had lower scores, p = 0.010) one year after transplant. Patients whose donors carried the CYP4F2 433M variant showed lower eGFR values (48.96±16.89 vs. 55.94±18.62 ml/min in non-carriers, p = 0.038) and higher risk of acute rejection [OR = 6.18 (1.03–37.21), p = 0.047]. The CYP2J2*7 SNP in the donor was associated with elevated risk of delayed graft function [OR = 25.68 (1.52–43.53), p = 0.025]. Our results taken together suggest that donor genetic variability may be used as a predictor of tissue damage in the graft as well as to predict clinical outcomes and graft function in the recipient.

Histological and clinical evaluation of marginal donor kidneys before transplantation: Which is best?

Organ shortage represents one of the major limitations to the development of kidney transplantation. To increase the donor pool and to answer the ever increasing kidney request, physicians are recurring to marginal kidneys as kidneys from older donors, from hypertensive or diabetic donors and from non-heart beating donors. These kidneys are known to have frequently a worse outcome in the recipients. To date major problem is to evaluate such kidneys in order to use or to discard them before transplantation. The use of such kidneys create other relevant question as whether to use them as single or dual transplant and to allocate them fairly according transplant programs. The pre-transplant histological evaluation, the clinical evaluation of the donor or both the criteria joined has been used and according the time each criterion prevailed over the others. Aim of this review has been to examine the advantages and the drawbacks of any criterion and how they have changed with time. To date any criterion has several limitations and several authors have argued for the development of new guidelines in the field of the kidney evaluation for transplantation. Several authors argue that the use of omic technologies should improve the organ evaluation and studies are ongoing to evaluate these technologies either in the donor urine or in the biopsies taken before transplantation.

To discard or not to discard: transplantation and the art of scoring

The growing gap between inadequate supply and constantly high demand for kidney transplantation observed in the last two decades led to exploring the possibility of using organs from older donors with an increasing number of comorbidities. The main issue in this scenario is to identify transplantable organs and to allocate them to the most suitable recipients. A great number of clinical investigations proposed several acceptance/allocation criteria to reduce the discard rate of these kidneys and to improve their outcome, including histological features at the time of transplant. Despite the widespread use of several histological scoring systems, there is no consensus on their value in predicting allograft survival and there is established evidence that histological analysis is the most common reason to discard expanded criteria donor kidneys. To overcome this issue, a clinical scoring system, the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), was developed on the basis of easily accessible donor features. The KDPI score, adopted in the new US allocation procedure, has good reproducibility but presents several limitations, as suggested also in this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal. This observation should stimulate the search for novel scores combining clinical, histological and molecular features in an attempt to improve the decision process.

Pretransplant Biopsy of Marginal Kidneys: Is It Necessary?

INTRODUCTION

Pretransplant kidney biopsy from marginal donors is used to guide the decision of whether to accept or discard organs for transplantation; however, there is controversy about this procedure, and the need for a pretransplant biopsy is still a debate. We sought to determine if histologic evaluation before implantation of marginal kidneys would influence the outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of marginal donor transplants at Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra was done. From 2009 to 2016, 650 marginal kidney transplants were analyzed. We evaluated long-term graft survival in a cohort of patients who received marginal kidneys. The recipients were divided into 2 groups based on whether a pretransplant donor biopsy was performed. Continuous variables were summarized by mean and standard deviation or median and range, as applicable. Categorical variables were summarized by relative and absolute frequencies. The survival analysis was obtained and plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median age of recipients and donors were statistically different between both groups (P < .001), with the donors and the recipients being younger in the group without a pretransplant biopsy. The median cold ischemia time was higher in the biopsy group (P = .01). The survival analysis showed that graft survival didn't differ between the groups (P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of kidneys based on histological findings may not influence the graft survival and implies a higher cold ischemia time. More data are necessary to provide insight into which clinical, histologic, and biochemical parameters are necessary for decision making on kidney acceptance.

Histopathologic Findings on Implantation Renal Allograft Biopsies Correlate With Kidney Donor Profile Index and 30-Day Serum Creatinine

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) provides a numerical estimate of deceased donor kidney quality. The KDPI uses 10 donor factors but it does not consider histopathologic findings. We examined whether the KDPI and its component donor factors correlate with the degree of histopathologic changes seen in implantation renal allograft biopsies.

METHODS

All deceased donor kidney transplants at our institution from July 1, 2016 to March 15, 2017 that had an implantation biopsy were included. The biopsies were graded based on the Banff criteria for interstitial fibrosis, tubular atrophy, arterial intimal fibrosis, and arteriolar hyalinosis, as well as percent glomerulosclerosis. Linear and logistic regression were used to assess the correlation between histopathologic findings and KDPI and the ability of these variables to predict 30-day serum creatinine (SCr) and delayed graft function (DGF).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four recipients from 107 donors were included. All histopathologic features examined correlated significantly with KDPI, with arteriolar hyalinosis correlating most strongly. Arteriolar hyalinosis was also associated with the most component donor factors of the KDPI. Histopathologic findings alone or in combination with KDPI predicted 30-day SCr but not DGF. Using the KDPI in combination with degree of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy was the best predictor of 30-day SCr.

CONCLUSION

Histopathologic changes seen in implantation renal allograft biopsies correlate with KDPI and predict 30-day SCr. Using a combination of donor histopathologic findings and KDPI may be the best predictor of short-term graft function.

Usefulness of the KDPI in Spain: A comparison with donor age and definition of standard/expanded criteria donor

INTRODUCTION

Kidney donor shortage requires expanding donor selection criteria, as well as use of objective tools to minimize the percentage of discarded organs. Some donor pre-transplant variables such as age, standard/expanded criteria donor (SCD/ECD) definition and calculation of the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), have demonstrated correlations with patient and graft outcomes. We aimed to establish the accuracy of the three models to determine the prognostic value of kidney transplantation (KT) major outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in deceased donor KTs at our institution. Unadjusted Cox and Kaplan-Meier survival, and multivariate Cox analyses were fitted to analyze the impact of donor age, SCD/ECD and KDPI on outcomes.

RESULTS

389 KTs were included. Mean donor age was 53.6±15.2 years; 163 (41.9%) came from ECD; mean KDPI was 69.4±23.4%. Median follow-up was 51.9 months. The unadjusted Cox and Kaplan-Meier showed that the three prognostic variables of interest were related to increased risk of patient death, graft failure and death-censored graft failure. However, in the multivariate analysis only KDPI was related to a higher risk of graft failure (HR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.05]; p=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

SCD/ECD classification did not provide significant prognostic information about patient and graft outcomes. KDPI was linearly related to a higher risk of graft failure, providing a better assessment. More studies are needed before using KDPI as a tool to discard or accept kidneys for transplantation.

Renal Transplants from Older Deceased Donors: Use of Preimplantation Biopsy and Differential Allocation to Dual or Single Kidney Transplant according to Histological Score Has No Advantages over Allocation to Single Kidney Transplant by Simple Clinical Indication

BACKGROUND

Grafts from elderly donors (ECD) are increasingly allocated to single (SKT) or dual (DKT) kidney transplantation according to biopsy score. Indications and benefits of either procedure lack universal agreement.

METHODS

A total of 302 ECD-transplants in period from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2015, were allocated to SKT (SKTpre) on clinical grounds alone (before Dec 2010, pre-DKT era, n = 170) or according to a clinical-histological protocol (after Dec 2010, DKT era, n = 132) to DKT (n = 48), SKT biopsy-based protocol ("high-risk", SKThr, n = 51), or SKT clinically based protocol ("low-risk", SKTlr, n = 33). Graft and patient survival were compared between the two periods and between different transplant categories.

RESULTS

Graft and overall survival in recipients from ECD in pre-DKT and DKT era did not differ (5-year graft survival 87.7% and 84.2%, resp.); equal survival in the 2 ECD periods was shown in both donor age ranges of 60-69 and >70-years, and in low-risk or high-risk ECD categories. Within the DKT protocol SKThr showed worst graft and overall survival in the 60-69 donor age range; DKT did not result in significantly better outcome than SKT from ECD in either era. One-year posttransplant creatinine clearance in recipients did not differ between any ECD transplant category. At 3 and 5 years after transplantation there were significantly higher total dialysis-free recipient life years from an equal donor number in the pre-DKT era than in the DKT protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a biopsy-based protocol to allocate grafts from aged donors to SKT or DKT did not result in better short term graft survival than a clinically based protocol with allocation only to SKT and reduced overall recipient dialysis-free life years in time.