Kidney Donor Profile Index Score Research Articles

Evidence of potent humoral immune activity in COVID-19-infected kidney transplant recipients.

Whether kidney transplant recipients are capable of mounting an effective anti‐severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) adaptive immune response despite chronic immunosuppression is unknown and has important implications for therapy. Herein, we analyzed peripheral blood cell surface and intracellular cytokine phenotyping by flow cytometry along with serum antibody testing in 18 kidney transplant recipients with active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection and 36 matched, transplanted controls without COVID‐19. We observed significantly fewer total lymphocytes and fewer circulating memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the COVID‐19 subjects. We also showed fewer anergic and senescent CD8+ T cells in COVID‐19 individuals, but no differences in exhausted CD8+ T cells, nor in any of these CD4+ T cell subsets between groups. We also observed greater frequencies of activated B cells in the COVID‐19 patients. Sixteen of 18 COVID‐19 subjects tested for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 serum antibodies showed positive immunoglobulin M or immunoglobulin G titers. Additional analyses showed no significant correlation among immune phenotypes and degrees of COVID‐19 disease severity. Our findings indicate that immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients admitted to the hospital with acute COVID‐19 infection can mount SARS‐CoV‐2‐reactive adaptive immune responses. The findings raise the possibility that empiric reductions in immunosuppressive therapy for all kidney transplant recipients with active COVID‐19 may not be required.

P1725USAGE AND OUTCOMES FOR EXPANDED CRITERIA DONOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION IN THE KOREA CHARACTERIZED BY KIDNEY DONOR PROFILE INDEX, SINGLE CENTER STUDY

Abstract Background and Aims The demand for Kidney transplantation (KT) is increasing and the number of patients who are waiting for KT is steadily increasing. Therefore, there is an increasing prevalence of KT done by cadaver donor especially, expanded criteria donor. We used Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) to predict the renal prognosis of expanded criteria donor (ECD) KT recipient. Method We investigated patients undergo KT by ECD from March 2013 to June 2018 respectively. Through the donor’s last creatinine level, KDPI score, and Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) score the renal survival rate was compared with ROC curve analysis. Results The mean age of a total 59 ECD KT recipient is 53.85 ± 9.9 years old. Mean follow up duration after KT was 35.0 ± 18.5 months. 10 patients had KDPI score above 85 (KDPI ≥ 85). Five cases undergo dialysis after KT. Nine cases expired during follow up (four sepsis, three sudden cardiac arrest, one hyperkalemia). Glomerular filtration rate one year after KT was significantly associated with KDPI (r=-0.772, p<0.001). The area under curve (AUC) of KDPI was 0.700 (95% CI 0.494-0.906) and cut off point was 75.5. All renal survival patients had KDPI score below 75.5 Conclusion Our results show that KDPI could be used as an indicator for predicting the prognosis of the Korean ECD KT.

Ten Years of Kidney Paired Donation at Mayo Clinic: The Benefits of Incorporating ABO/HLA Compatible Pairs.

We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time. We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018. The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs. KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.

Kidney Donor Risk Index Score Is More Reliable Than Kidney Donor Profile Index in Kidney Transplantation From Elderly Deceased Donors

BackgroundIt is unclear whether both Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) scores can be applied to elderly deceased donors (DDs). This study aimed to compare the predictive values of KDRI and KDPI for the occurrence of delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney transplantation (KT) from elderly DDs. MethodsThe data for 1049 DD KTs from the database of the Korean Organ Transplant Registry were reviewed retrospectively. ResultsThe mean age of the 1049 DDs was 50.94 ± 10.57 years. A total of 224 DDs were ≥60 years old (21.35%). The mean KDRI and KDPI were 1.24 ± 0.40 and 63.58 ± 25.16, respectively. Ninety (8.6%) recipients had DGF postoperatively. The right-skewed distributions of KDRI in both elderly and nonelderly DDs were similar. However, the KDPI curve showed a sharp increase from a KDPI score of 60 in DDs aged ≥60 years. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of receiver operator characteristics (ROC) for KDPI and KDRI were different. In DDs aged <60 years, the estimated AUCs of ROC showed significant values for KDPI (0.577, 95% confidence interval, 0.503-0.637; P = .048) and KDRI (0.576, 0.505-0.639; P = .043). However, in DDs aged ≥60 years, KDRI score, not KDPI, was a significant value: KDRI, 0.633 (0.498-0.767; P = .034); KDPI, 0.530 (0.476-0.643; P = .138). ConclusionKDRI was more reliable in predicting graft outcome than KDPI in KT from elderly DDs. A longer follow-up period is needed to assess predictors for postoperative renal functions.

Impact of Kidney Donor Profile Index Scores on Post-Transplant Clinical Outcomes Between Elderly and Young Recipients, A Multicenter Cohort Study

We investigated if clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT) from deceased donors (DDs) with high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) can be different according to the age of KT recipients (KTRs). Six-hundred fifty-seven KTRs from 526 DDs were included from four transplant centers. We divided KTRs into elderly-KTR and young-KTR groups based on age 60 and each group was subdivided into high- or low-KDPI subgroup based on KDPI score of 65%. We compared short-term and long-term clinical outcomes among those four subgroups (low KDPI-young KTR, low KDPI-elderly-KTR, high KDPI-young-KTR, high KDPI-elderly-KTR). In short-term outcomes including acute rejection, BK virus and CMV infection, there was no significant difference among the four subgroups. In the long-term outcomes, the development of cardiovascular disease was higher in the high KDPI-elderly-KTR group than the other groups. In comparison of allograft survival rate, the high KDPI-young KTR subgroup showed highest risk for allograft failure and there was significant interaction between high-KDPI donors and young-KTR on allograft survival rate (P = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in comparison of the patient survival rate. In conclusion, clinical impact of high-KDPI in DDs on post-transplant allograft survival may be less significant in elderly-KTR than in young-KTR.

Kidney Donor Profile Index in a Transplant Center in Mexico

BackgroundThe Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) was created in 2014 to measure the likelihood of graft failure for a given donor compared with the median kidney donor from the previous year. This scale is based on the American population only. Mexico is one of the countries with greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, a long waiting list, and not enough kidney donors with KDPI smaller than 80%. This has led transplant centers to take kidney grafts with a higher KDPI. ObjectiveTo investigate the agreement between the KDPI and histologic scores (preimplantation renal biopsy) and assess the relationship between the Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI), KDPI, and the histologic score on graft survival. MethodsA retrospective, analytical, transversal study was performed. Data were collected from patients with kidney grafts from deceased donors from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2019, at our hospital. The variables analyzed were age, weight, height, sex, race and/or ethnicity, history of hypertension or diabetes, cause of death, serum creatinine, KDPI, KDRI, and biopsy result from each graft prior to transplant. ResultsThe total population was 59 deceased kidney donors. For our patients, a high KDPI did not increase mortality rate; it provided greater benefit than staying on dialysis. ConclusionsWe conclude that the use of KDRI should only be considered to assess the degree of fibrosis, not to rule out a transplantable kidney, in addition to the consistent demonstration that high KDPI kidneys (even 91%-100%) confer greater survival benefits to patients regarding the waiting list.

Kidney Transplant From Elderly Donors: A Center Experience

BackgroundRenal transplantation is the treatment of choice in end-stage renal disease. With the aging of the population and better medical care available, the number of high-risk patients in terms of age and comorbidities on transplant waiting lists is increasing. Due to severe organ shortage, the use of expanded criteria and elderly donors is also increasing. We will review the outcomes of graft function and survival from a series of transplants from elderly deceased donors and compare the characteristics of the organs from donors older and younger than 70 years. MethodsWe collected data from our transplant unit from 1993 until May 2019 and considered 2 groups of donors: donors A (aged ≥70 years) and donors B (aged <70 years). ResultsThe donors A group had more comorbidities with consequently higher Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than the donors B group, although there was no statistical difference regarding pre-donation serum creatinine level. Among transplant recipients, we also considered 2 groups, according to the age of the organ received: recipients A and recipients B. No difference was found between groups regarding the number of HLA mismatches, incidence of delayed graft function, number of hospitalizations, or incidence of acute rejection. Recipients’ age, cold ischemia time, and graft function 1 year after transplant were worse in the recipients A group. ConclusionsAlthough kidney graft function was worse in recipients from elderly donors, this difference had no clinical relevance, showing a possible benefit in patient survival compared with permanence in dialysis, so this type of transplant could be considered for older recipients.

Center Volume and Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Pediatric Patients

Rationale & ObjectivesRecent data demonstrate that center volume is not a factor in the outcomes of adult kidney transplant recipients. This study assessed whether center volume affects graft survival in pediatric patients who received a kidney transplant.Study DesignCase-cohort study.Setting & ParticipantsKidney transplantation centers, recipients younger than 18 years.ResultsData were retrieved from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for transplantations performed July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015, and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for transplantations performed January 1, 2010, to December 30, 2015. Center volume was divided into 3 groups: low (<4 per year), intermediate (4-8 per year), and high (>8 per year). The primary outcome was 3-year graft survival rate. Outcomes were reviewed in 115 centers that performed 3,762 transplantations. There were no substantive differences in sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, and kidney donor profile index score in the 3 transplantation center volume categories. During the 5-year period (July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015), 3-year graft survival in centers with low, intermediate, and high volumes were 88.4%, 90.3%, and 92.1%, respectively; P = 0.02. Although outcomes for deceased donor kidney recipients were similar in the 3 volume categories, outcomes in patients who received a living kidney donation were better in the high-volume centers. Low household income was associated with poorer outcomes. However, 3-year graft survival was similar in the 3 center volume categories in high and low mean household income states.LimitationsLack of information for complications and individual family household income of recipients.ConclusionsTransplantation outcomes are worse in pediatric patients treated at lower-volume centers. The difference was more pronounced for patients receiving living versus deceased donor kidneys. The distribution of household income in pediatric transplant recipients may also be a factor that contributes to lower 3-year graft survival in low-volume centers.

Machine Perfusion Decreases Delayed Graft Function in Donor Grafts With High Kidney Donor Profile Index.

Kidney transplant is the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. The effects of using machine perfusion for donor kidneys with varying Kidney Donor Profile Index scores are unknown. We sought to assess the impact of machine perfusion on the incidence of delayed graft function in different score groups of kidney grafts classified with the Kidney Donor Profile Index. We conducted a retrospective analysis from January 2008 through September 2017 of adult recipients (≥ 18 years old) undergoing kidney-only transplant from deceased donors. All transplant recipients were followed until December 2017. Recipients who received multiorgan transplants or kidneys from living donors were excluded from our analyses. Recipients were divided according to 5 donor categories of Kidney Donor Profile Index scores (0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100). Logistic regression analysis was performed for each score group to determine the effects of machine perfusion on development of delayed graft function within each score group. Our study included 101222 recipients who met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate analysis revealed that machine perfusion was associated with significantly decreased development of delayed graft function only in donors with high-risk profiles: the 61 to 80 score group (odds ratio = 0.83; confidence interval, 0.78-0.89) and the 81 to 100 score group (odds ratio = 0.72; confidence interval, 0.67-0.78). Machine perfusion is beneficial in reducing delayed graft function only in donor kidneys with a higher risk profile.

Usefulness of Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) to predict graft survival in a South Brazilian Cohort.

Introduction:Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been incorporated in the United States to improve the kidney transplant allocation system.Objectives:To evaluate deceased kidney donors’ profile using KDPI and compare to the previous United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) definition of expanded criteria donors (ECD) and assess the KDPI applicability to predict five-year graft survival and renal function in our sample.Methods:Retrospective cohort of 589 kidney transplants from deceased donors performed from January 2009 to May 2013 with follow-up until May 2018.Results:In 589 kidney transplants, 36.6% of donors were classified as ECD and 28.8% had KDPI ≥ 85%. Mean KDPI was 63.1 (95%CI: 60.8-65.3). There was an overlap of standard and ECD in KDPI between 60 and 95 and a significantly lower death-censored graft survival in KDPI ≥ 85% (78.6%); KDPI 0-20: 89.8%, KDPI 21-59: 91.6%, and KDPI 60-84: 83.0%; p = 0.006. The AUC-ROC was 0.577 (95%CI: 0.514-0.641; p = 0.027). Renal function at 5 years was significantly lower according to the incremental KDPI (p < 0.002). KDPI (HR 1.011; 95%CI 1.001-1.020; p = 0.008), donor-specific antibodies (HR 2.77; 95%CI 1.69-4.54; p < 0.001), acute rejection episode (HR 1.73; 95%CI 1.04-2.86; p = 0.034) were independent and significant risk factors for death-censored graft loss at 5 years.Conclusion:In our study, 36.6% were classified as ECD and 28.8% had KDPI ≥ 85%. KDPI score showed a moderate power to predict graft survival at 5 years. Renal function was significantly lower in patients with higher KDPI.

National Trends in Utilization and 1-Year Outcomes with Transplantation of HCV-Viremic Kidneys.

Recent pilot trials have demonstrated the safety of transplanting HCV-viremic kidneys into HCV-seronegative recipients. However, it remains unclear if allograft function is impacted by donor HCV-viremia or recipient HCV-serostatus. We used national United States registry data to examine trends in HCV-viremic kidney use between 4/1/2015 and 3/31/2019. We applied advanced matching methods to compare eGFR for similar kidneys transplanted into highly similar recipients of kidney transplants. Over time, HCV-seronegative recipients received a rising proportion of HCV-viremic kidneys. During the first quarter of 2019, 200 HCV-viremic kidneys were transplanted into HCV-seronegative recipients, versus 69 into HCV-seropositive recipients, while 105 HCV-viremic kidneys were discarded. The probability of HCV-viremic kidney discard has declined over time. Kidney transplant candidates willing to accept a HCV-seropositive kidney increased from 2936 to 16,809 from during this time period. When transplanted into HCV-seronegative recipients, HCV-viremic kidneys matched to HCV-non-viremic kidneys on predictors of organ quality, except HCV, had similar 1-year eGFR (66.3 versus 67.1 ml/min per 1.73 m2, P=0.86). This was despite the much worse kidney donor profile index scores assigned to the HCV-viremic kidneys. Recipient HCV-serostatus was not associated with a clinically meaningful difference in 1-year eGFR (66.5 versus 71.1 ml/min per 1.73 m2, P=0.056) after transplantation of HCV-viremic kidneys. By 2019, HCV-seronegative patients received the majority of kidneys transplanted from HCV-viremic donors. Widely used organ quality scores underestimated the quality of HCV-viremic kidneys based on 1-year allograft function. Recipient HCV-serostatus was also not associated with worse short-term allograft function using HCV-viremic kidneys.

SLPI in the perfusion solution helps to identify graft quality in kidney transplants.

Aim: It is important to find biomarkers that identify the graft quality in kidney transplantation. Results &methodology: The level of SLPIin the cold preservation solution was used as a marker to predict early kidney graft function after transplantation. Before transplantation, kidneys were washed and SLPI was measured in the discarded solution. A retrospective analysis showed that patients with delayed graft function or rejection episodes in post-trasplant, had higher SLPI concentrations in the perfusion solution than patients without delayed graft function or rejections. Furthermore, SLPI could discriminate between patients with better or worse estimated glomerular filtration rate among low-risk patients (kidney donor profile index<80). Discussion &conclusion: These results suggest that the SLPI concentration in the perfusion solutions could be a predictor of short-term organ function and a complement to the kidney donor profile index score.

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.

Clinical significance of the Kidney Donor Profile Index in deceased donors for prediction of post-transplant clinical outcomes: A multicenter cohort study.

BackgroundWe investigated whether the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) system is useful in predicting clinical outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT).MethodsFour hundred sixty-nine kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) receiving kidneys from 359 deceased donors were included in this study, which involved three transplant centers. KTRs were divided into high and low KDPI KTR groups based on the median KDPI score of 67%. We compared clinical outcomes between the high KDPI and low KDPI groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed graft function and acute rejection between high and low KDPI KTR groups. In comparison with histologic findings in allograft tissues obtained within three months from KT, the proportion of glomerulosclerosis was significantly higher in the high KDPI KTR group than in the low KDPI KTR group. With Kaplan-Meier analysis, the graft survival rate was significantly lower in the high KDPI KTR group than in the low KDPI KTR group (Log rank, P = 0.017), and multivariate analysis also demonstrated that a high KDPI score was a significant risk factor for death censored allograft failure (HR 2.62, 95% CI, 1.29–5.33, P = 0.008).ConclusionThe KDPI scoring system is useful in predicting allograft outcomes in a Korean DDKT cohort.

Who can tolerate a marginal kidney? Predicting survival after deceased donor kidney transplant by donor-recipient combination.

The impact of donor quality on post-kidney transplant (KT) survival may vary by candidate condition. Characterizing this variation would increase access to KT without sacrificing outcomes. We developed a tool to estimate post-KT survival for combinations of donor quality and candidate condition. We studied deceased donor KT recipients (n=120818) and waitlisted candidates (n=376272) between 2005 and 2016 by using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Donor quality and candidate condition were measured by using the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score. We estimated 5-year post-KT survival based on combinations of KDPI and EPTS score using random forest algorithms and waitlist survival by EPTS score using Weibull regressions. Survival benefit was defined as absolute reduction in mortality risk with KT. For candidates with an EPTSscore of80, 5-year waitlist survival was 47.6%, and 5-year post-KT survival was 78.9% after receiving kidneys with a KDPIof20 and was 70.7% after receiving kidneys with a KDPIof80. The impact of KDPI on survival benefit varied greatly by EPTS score. For candidates with low EPTS scores (eg, <40), the KDPI had limited impact on survival benefit. For candidates with middle or high EPTS scores (eg, >40), survival benefit decreased with higher KDPI but was still substantial even with a KDPIof100 (>16 percentage points). Our prediction tool (www.transplantmodels.com/kdpi-epts) can support individualized decision-making on kidney offers in clinical practice.

Machine perfusion and long-term kidney transplant recipient outcomes across allograft risk strata.

The use of machine perfusion (MP) in kidney transplantation lowers delayed graft function (DGF) and improves 1-year graft survival in some, but not all, grafts. These associations have not been explored in grafts stratified by the Kidney Donor Profile index (KDPI). We analyzed 78207 deceased-donor recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2006 to 2013. The cohort was stratified using the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor (ECD)/donation after cardiac death (DCD)/donation after brain death (DBD) classification and the KDPI scores. In each subgroup, MP use was compared with cold storage. The overall DGF rate was 25.4% and MP use was associated with significantly lower DGF in all but the ECD-DCD donor subgroup. Using the donor source classification, the use of MP did not decrease death-censored graft failure (DCGF), except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.98]}. In the ECD-DBD subgroup, higher DCGF from 1 to 5 years was noted [aHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.31)]. Also, MP did not lower all-cause graft failure except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year [aHR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91)]. Using the KDPI classification, MP did not lower DCGF or all-cause graft failure, but in the ≤70 subgroup, higher DCGF [aHR 1.16 (95% CI 1.05-1.27)] and higher all-cause graft failure [aHR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.18)] was noted. Lastly, MP was not associated with mortality in any subgroup. Overall, MP did not lower DCGF. Neither classification better risk-stratified kidneys that have superior graft survival with MP. We question their widespread use in all allografts as an ideal approach to organ preservation.

Effect of the Opioid Crisis on the Donor Pool for Kidney Transplantation: An Analysis of National Kidney Deceased Donor Trends from 2010–2016

Background: The opioid crisis has led to a dramatic increase in the number of drug overdose deaths in the United States. Little is known about the effect of the opioid crisis on the kidney transplant donor pool, particularly on hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected donors. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from 2010 to 2016. We determined the changes in characteristics of kidney transplant donors and evaluated which changes may be directly related to the opioid crisis. Results: Between 2010 and 2016, we found a 26% increase in overall donors, including a 277% increase in the number of donors who died from drug overdose. Nineteen percent of donors who died of drug overdose had HCV infection. Donors who die from drug overdose and donors with HCV infection are younger, less likely to have diabetes or hypertension, and have favorable kidney donor profile index scores compared to average donors. Despite these favorable characteristics, HCV-infected donors appear to be notably underutilized, with substantially lower kidneys per donor being transplanted compared to HCV uninfected donors. Conclusion: The opioid crisis in the United States has substantially altered the kidney donor pool. Strategies to increase utilization of all potentially viable kidneys for transplant are needed, particularly in this era of new, highly effective, direct-acting antiviral therapy for HCV infection.

Impact of KDPI On Shared Decision-Making.

Background: Currently, kidneys are dichotomously classified as either Standard Criteria Donor (SCD) or Extended Criteria Donor (ECD). ECDs account for ˜15% of kidneys. In contrast, the new kidney allocation system will rank all kidneys using a kidney donor risk index modified into a continuous kidney donor profile index (KDPI) with 1 (best) to 100 (worst). Method: Online and paper surveys sent to nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons regarding KDPI and how they would allocate kidneys using KDPI. Results: 86 of 424 participants (20%) returned partial or complete surveys. Three completed surveys were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. The respondents included 42% nephrologists and 58% transplant surgeons, with approximately half over 50 years of age. 62% of respondents supported the use of KDPI. Respondents were asked to select a KDPI cut-off score for typical candidates (not highly sensitized, doing well on dialysis) of different age ranges. Scores (mean, 25%-75%) for each age group were: < 18 years (39, 25-50), 18-34 years (48, 39-60), 35-49 years (57, 40-74), 50-60 years (66, 50-80), and > 60 years (76, 70-95). 51% (32/63) said that there should not be a KDPI score above which candidates should have to opt-in, and 38% of respondents selected a KDPI opt-in score less than 85, the score currently selected by UNOS. The majority (89.3%) of respondents thought that KDPI alone was inadequate for deciding about whether to accept all kidneys. About half of respondents thought that telling specific KDPI scores to candidates would increase patient autonomy (51%, 34/67), increase shared decision-making (48%, 31/65), and would have no impact on physician autonomy (52%, 34/66). Discussion: The new kidney allocation proposal was developed to increase efficiency and reduce organ waste. Physician preferred KDPI cut-off levels for typical candidates of various ages suggest there will be a high rate of refusal of kidneys with higher KDPI scores. Whether this will result in greater organ wastage or change the demographic profile of deceased donor transplant recipients to an older population with poorer expected survival is not known. Respondents were divided about its impact on patient autonomy, physician autonomy and shared decision-making.

New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes.

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States approved a new national deceased donor kidney allocation policy that introduces the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), which gives scores of 0%-100% based on 10 donor factors. Kidneys with lower KDPI scores are associated with better post-transplant survival. Important features of the new policy include first allocating kidneys from donors with a KDPI≤20% to candidates in the top 20th percentile of estimated post-transplant survival, adding waiting time from dialysis initiation, conferring priority points for a calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA)>19%, broader sharing of kidneys for candidates with a CPRA≥99%, broader sharing of kidneys from donors with a KDPI>85%, eliminating the payback system, and allocating blood type A2 and A2B kidneys to blood type B candidates. We simulated the distribution of kidneys under the new policy compared with the current allocation policy. The simulation showed increases in projected median allograft years of life with the new policy (9.07 years) compared with the current policy (8.82 years). With the new policy, candidates with a CPRA>20%, with blood type B, and aged 18-49 years were more likely to undergo transplant, but transplants declined in candidates aged 50-64 years (4.1% decline) and ≥65 years (2.7% decline). These simulations demonstrate that the new deceased donor kidney allocation policy may improve overall post-transplant survival and access for highly sensitized candidates, with minimal effects on access to transplant by race/ethnicity and declines in kidney allocation for candidates aged ≥50 years.