Median Kidney Donor Profile Index Research Articles

Single center utilization and post-transplant outcomes of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion deceased cardiac donor organs.

Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88%vs. 72%, p=.02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27%vs. 44%, p=.045). Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

Pretransplant malignancy in pediatrics is not a risk factor for renal graft failure.

In adults, pretransplant malignancy (PTM) negatively impacts patient survival due to immunosuppression regimens influencing post-transplantation tumor growth. Few reports investigate the outcomes of pediatric kidney transplantation with PTM. We compare transplant outcomes for pediatric patients with PTM to matched controls, including cancer types extending beyond Wilms tumor. The United Network of Organ Sharing Database was queried to identify pediatric transplant recipients with histories of PTM. All PTM patients were matched to non-PTM patients, at a 1:1 ratio, with 0.001 match tolerance. Matching variables included transplant year, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, donor type, and prior transplant. Death-censored graft and patient survival were analyzed. All statistics were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). After propensity matching, 285 PTM and 285 non-PTM patients were identified, with transplant dates from 1990 to 2020. Median Kidney Donor Profile Index values were comparable between cohorts, 17% and 12%, respectively (p = .065). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that PTM patients did not have a significantly different rate of death-censored graft failure, compared to the non-PTM group [HR 0.76; 95% CI (0.54-1.1)]. There was also no difference in the overall survival between the two groups of patients [HR 1.1; 95% CI (0.66-2.0)]. A history of pediatric malignancy has minimal independent effect on their post-transplant survival. Additionally, pediatric patients with PTM demonstrated equivalent rates of graft survival. Thus, in contrast to adults, renal failure in children with history of pediatric malignancies should not be considered a complicating factor for renal transplantation.

Increasing Discards as an Unintended Consequence of Recent Changes in United States Kidney Allocation Policy

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for end-stage kidney disease.1Wolfe RA Ashby VB Milford EL et al.Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant.N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 1725-1730Crossref PubMed Scopus (3958) Google Scholar Despite a shortage of donated kidneys, the United States has the highest proportion of deceased donor kidneys (DDKs) recovered for transplant that are subsequently discarded, resulting in federal government prioritization of improving organ utilization.2Aubert O Reese PP Audry B et al.Disparities in Acceptance of Deceased Donor Kidneys Between the United States and France and Estimated Effects of Increased US Acceptance.JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179: 1365-1374Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar,3ESRD Treatment Choices (ETC) Model. (Accessed 5 October 2022, at https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/esrd-treatment-choices-model.)Google Scholar Simultaneously, there is increased emphasis on improving equity in transplant access, including a revised allocation system (“KAS250”) in March 2021 that removed strict geographic boundaries previously used in local organ allocation in an effort to reduce geographical heterogeneity in transplant rates.4Klarman SE Formica Jr., RN The Broader Sharing of Deceased Donor Kidneys Is an Ethical and Legal Imperative.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020; 31: 1174-1176Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar However, KAS250 dramatically increased the complexity of interactions between transplant centers and organ procurement organizations (OPOs),5Adler JT Husain SA King KL Mohan S Greater complexity and monitoring of the new Kidney Allocation System: Implications and unintended consequences of concentric circle kidney allocation on network complexity.Am J Transplant. 2021; 21: 2007-2013Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar and the impacts of this change on organ utilization are not yet understood. Among these 96,834 DDKs recovered during the study period, 21,411 were discarded (22%), including 13,229/64,281 (21%) pre-KAS250 and 8,182/32,553 (25%) with KAS250 (p=0.004)— an increase that occurred despite similar overall quality of recovered DDKs in both eras (median Kidney Donor Profile Index [KDPI] 48% vs 51%). DDK discard has increased across all adult donor age groups (18-60 years: 16% vs 21%; ≥60 years: 54% vs 60%, Supplemental Figure S1), among DDKs with medium (18% vs 22%) and high KDPI (64% vs 68%; Figure 1A), and for DDKs from donors after both cardiac death (22% vs 31%) and brain death (20% vs 23%; Figure 1B). Discard of low KDPI DDKs was unchanged (3% vs 3%). An interrupted time series analysis also demonstrates an accelerated increase in DDK discards after the policy change (Supplemental Figure S2). DDK discard has also increased broadly among OPOs with high, medium, and low performance ratings (Figure 1C), indicating that this is not a geographic- or OPO-specific concern. The current discard rate for kidneys if present in prior years, after accounting for differences in discard rates for different quality organs, would result in 967 and 805 fewer transplants occurring in 2019 and 2020, respectively (Supplemental Table S1). Importantly, reasons for DDK discard also shifted with KAS250, with a greater proportion of discards attributable to exhaustion of the list of eligible candidates without organ acceptance (Figure 1D), supporting logistical complexity as a driver of worsened utilization. While the absolute number of DDK transplants has increased, over 1 in 4 DDKs recovered for transplant are not being transplanted, representing missed opportunities for hundreds of patients annually and increased healthcare system cost. This unintended deleterious consequence of the allocation system change requires urgent intervention to ensure that priceless organs are not wasted and that efforts to improve geographic equity in transplant do not come at a cost of worsening DDK utilization. SAH is supported by NIDDK grant K23 DK133729. Disclosures None Download .pdf (.27 MB) Help with pdf files

336.3: Clinical Utility of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA During the Period of Recovery of Renal Function After Kidney Transplantation

Background: The transplant of kidneys with high KDPI, and the incidence and duration of delayed graft function (DGF) are risk factors associated with incomplete recovery of kidney function (IRF). In both situations, kidney biopsies are essential to exclude the diagnosis of acute rejection (AR). Purpose: This study evaluates the clinical utility of monitoring donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), a biomarker of kidney injury, in recipients of high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) transplants during the period of kidney function recovery. Methods: This is a single center, prospective, cohort study in recipients of high KDPI kidneys who developed delayed graft function (DGF), defined as the need for dialysis within the first week after transplantation. All patients received a single 3 mg/kg anti-thymocyte globulin dose, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisone. Blood samples were obtained at 14 (D14) and 30 (D30) days to measure the percentage (%) of dd-cfDNA. The dd-cfDNA > 1% is associated with increased probability for acute rejection (AR). Results: This preliminary analysis includes data from 69 patients. The median KDPI was 73% [IQR 47-87] and the mean cold ischemia time was 27± 7 hours. The incidence of DGF was 89.8% with a median duration of 6 (IQR 2 – 9) days. At D14 the median GFR was 12 ml/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 6-21) and the median dd-cfDNA levels were 0.43% (IQR 0.02-0.78), with 19 patients (28%) showing dd-cfDNA >1%. Surveillance biopsies during DGF were performed in 42 (61%) patients showing one T-cell mediated rejection IA (dd-cfDNA of 0.41%) and 4 borderline changes (dd-cfDNA 0.82%, 0.85%, 0.98%, 1.90%). Using dd-cfDNA >1% to guide the indication of the surveillance biopsy, we would have avoided 22 (52%) biopsies but missed 1 (2%) patient with AR. At D30, the median GFR was 36 ml/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 28-48) and the median dd-cfDNA levels were 0.40% (IQR 0.01-0.66), with 12 patients (19%) showing dd-cfDNA >1%. Surveillance biopsies performed in 21 (30.43%) patients with incomplete recovery of kidney function showed 4 borderline changes (dd-cfDNA 0.17%, 0.66%, 0.67%, and 2.80%). Using dd-cfDNA >1% to guide the indication of the surveillance biopsy, we would have avoided 12 (57%) biopsies without missing any AR episodes. Overall, 5 (7%) patients showed dd-cfDNA >1% at D14 and D30, but none of them showed biopsy confirmed AR. Conclusions: This preliminary analysis suggests that monitoring dd-cfDNA may assist clinical decision during the period of DGF and in kidney transplant recipients with incomplete recovery of graft function.

Solid organ transplantation from COVID positive donors in the United States: Analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing database.

BackgroundSignificant uncertainties remain regarding the utilization of organs for solid organ transplantation (SOT) from donors with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The aim of this study was to assess the trends in utilization of organs from donors with COVID‐19 and their short‐term outcomes.MethodsDeceased donors between March 2020 and December 2021 with a positive COVID nucleic acid test from respiratory tract within 14 days of transplantation were analyzed using the de‐identified United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Donor and recipient characteristics of COVID‐19 positive (COVID+) organs were compared to COVID‐19 negative (COVID−) organs during this period. We analyzed the trends in the utilization of SOT from COVID+ donors across the United States, donor characteristics, and the quality of donor organ and recipient outcomes (length of hospitalization, rates of organ rejection, delayed graft function, 30‐day graft/patient survival).ResultsDuring the study period, 193 COVID+ donors led to the transplantation of 281‐kidneys, 106‐livers, and 36‐hearts in 414 adult recipients. COVID+ patients donated a median of two organs. These donors were younger and had a lower median Kidney Donor Profile Index (0.37 vs. 0.50, p < .001), lower median serum creatinine (0.8 vs. 1.0 mg/dl, p = .003), similar median serum total bilirubin (0.6 mg/dl, p = .46), and similar left ventricular ejection fraction (60%, p = .84) when compared to COVID− donors. Short‐term outcomes, including 30‐day graft/patient survival, were similar in both groups.ConclusionsAnalysis of short‐term outcomes from the UNOS database indicates that a positive COVID test in an otherwise medically suitable donor should not preclude consideration of non‐lung solid organ transplantation.

PO2 21% oxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion in kidney transplantation: Any clinical benefit?

In deceased donor kidney transplantation (KT), the use of hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) has been acquiring the status of best practice in the pre-transplant management of kidney grafts. Two types of HMP are currently available, oxygenated HMP and non-oxygenated HMP. However, data on the real clinical impact of oxygenation on KT outcome are still heterogeneous. Retrospective study on a cohort of 103 patients transplanted with a single kidney graft that was managed either with end-ischemic oxygenated (O2 group, Waves Machine, n = 51, 49.5%) or non-oxygenated HMP (no-O2 group, Life Port Kidney Transporter Machine, n = 52, 50.5%), during the period January 2016-December 2020. Oxygenation was performed at pO2 21%. The median cold ischemia time was 29 h:40 min [IQR 26 h:55 min-31 h:10 min] and the prevalence of grafts from extended criteria donors (ECD) was 46.7%, with a median kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of 72 [41-94]. The study groups were homogeneous in terms of recipient characteristics, ischemia times and donor characteristics. O2 and no-O2 groups showed comparable outcomes in terms of delayed graft function (O2 vs no-O2, 21.5% vs 25%, p = 0.58), vascular (0.2% vs 0.2%, p > 0.99) and urologic (13.7% vs 11.5%, p = 0.77) complications, and episodes of graft rejection (11.7% vs 7.7%, p = 0.52). At 1 year follow up, even creatinine serum levels were comparable between the groups (1.27 mg/dL [1.09 and 1.67] vs 1.4 mg/dL [1.9-1.78], p = 0.319), with similar post-transplant trend (p = 0.870). No significant benefit was either observed in ECD or KDPI > 60 subgroups, respectively. Oxygenation at pO2 21% during HMP seems not to significantly enhance the KT outcomes in terms of postoperative complications or graft function.

Beyond Graft Survivl: A National Cohort Study Quantifying the Impact of Increasing Kidney Donor Profile Index on Recipient Outcomes 1 Year Post-transplantation.

Background.The reporting of a locally validated kidney donor profile index (KDPI) began in Australia in 2016. Across diverse populations, KDPI has demonstrated utility in predicting allograft survival and function. A metric that incorporates both elements may provide a more comprehensive picture of suboptimal recipient outcomes.Methods.A retrospective cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients in Australia (January 2009 to December 2014) was conducted. Conventional recipient outcomes and a composite measure of suboptimal outcome (1-y allograft failure or estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30 mL/min) were evaluated across KDPI intervals (KDPI quintiles and 5-point increments in the KDPI 81–100 cohort). The impact of increasing KDPI on allograft function (1-y eGFR) and a suboptimal outcome was explored using multivariable regression models, adjusting for potential confounding factors.Results.In 2923 donor kidneys eligible for analysis, median KDPI was 54 (interquartile range [IQR], 31–77), and Kidney Donor Risk Index was 1.39 (IQR, 1.03–1.67). The median 1-y eGFR was 52.74 mL/min (IQR, 40.79–66.41 mL/min). Compared with the first quintile reference group, progressive reductions in eGFR were observed with increasing KDPI and were maximal in the fifth quintile (adjusted β-coefficient: −27.43 mL/min; 95% confidence interval, –29.44 to –25.42; P < 0.001). A suboptimal outcome was observed in 359 recipients (12.3%). The adjusted odds for this outcome increased across quintiles from a baseline of odds ratio of 1.00 (first quintile) to odds ratio of 11.68 (95% confidence interval, 6.33-21.54, P < 0.001) in the fifth quintile cohort.Conclusions.Increases in donor KDPI were associated with higher probabilities of a suboptimal outcome and poorer baseline allograft function, particularly in the KDPI > 80 cohort. These findings may inform pretransplant discussions with potential recipients of high-KDPI allografts.

Are Kidney Donor Risk Index/Kidney Donor Profile Index Scores Predictor of Future Graft Function?

Kidney donor profile index (KDPI) is a method developed to assess donor kidney quality for cadaveric transplants. We investigated the relationship between kidney donor risk index (KDRI) and KDPI scores of cadaveric transplants in the last five years in our clinic and current graft conditions. Forty people (12 females, 28 males; mean age, 46.35 + 8.94 years), who underwent cadaveric transplantation between January 2013 and March 2018, were participated in this study. At the same time, the KPDI and KDRI scores of the donor's kidneys were calculated and then compared with that of the recipients' data. The mean KDRI value of donors was 1.11 ± 0.33 and the median KDPI value was 60.50%. KDRI/KDPI scores were found to be high in women (P = 0.021) and, when the posttransplant findings of the recipients were evaluated by bivariate correlation analysis KDRI/KDPI scores were positively correlated with the day when creatinine (Cr) values started to fall off spontaneously (r = 0.457, P = 0.003). It was observed that recipients who were transplanted from the donors with high KDRI/KDPI scores had higher Cr levels (P <0.01) and this relationship did not change over time (P = 0.115). When the donors were grouped as the standard-criteria donor and expanded-criteria donor (ECD); we found that the relationship between KDRI/KDPI, creatinine, and time was more significant in the ECD group (P = 0.04). KDRI/KDPI scores are closely related to graft outcomes especially in recipients that have kidneys from marginal donors. Therefore, evaluation of KDRI/KDPI scores might be required in marginal donors.

Evaluating Factors Associated With Blood Pressure Control in the Early Post-Kidney Transplant Period.

Background: Shortened allograft survival, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are consequences of inadequate control of hypertension for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Literature suggests the risk is multifactorial, although few studies have evaluated risk factors in relation to guideline recommended blood pressure (BP) goals in the early post-kidney transplant period. This study will elucidate factors associated with controlled BP in KTRs. Methods: Adult KTRs who were transplanted between January 1, 2013, and October 31, 2018, were evaluated. Coprimary outcomes included the proportion of patients who had controlled BP at postoperative day (POD) 30 and identification of the covariates associated with controlled BP at POD 30. Additional outcomes included the proportion of patients who had controlled BP at POD 60 and 90; the difference in the average number of antihypertensive medications taken pretransplant vs POD 30, 60, and 90 for patients with controlled BP at POD 30; antihypertensive use rates pretransplant vs POD 30 and 90; and class of antihypertensive used pretransplant vs POD 30 and 90. Results: At POD 30, 44% (100/226) of patients had controlled BP. The proportion of patients with controlled BP at POD 60 and 90 were 37% (82/220) and 40% (79/196), respectively. In bivariate analyses, lack of recipient hypertension (75% vs 42.5%, P = .04); fewer days on dialysis (1684 vs 2189 days, P = .005); absence of delayed graft function (51.2% vs 35.6%, P = .02); younger donor age (30 vs 40 years, P < .001); absence of donor hypertension (46.9% vs 29.3%, P = .004); and a lower median kidney donor profile index (29% vs 40%, P = .03) were associated with controlled BP at POD 30. In a multivariate analysis, donor age was independently associated with controlled BP at POD 30 (P = .03). Conclusions: This study suggests that younger donor age is associated with controlled BP, and conversely, older donor age is associated with uncontrolled BP in KTRs in the early post-kidney transplant period. Patients receiving a graft from older donors should have their BP closely monitored.

Geographic Variation in the Availability of Deceased Donor Kidneys per Wait-Listed Candidate in the United States

Geographic Variation in the Availability of Deceased Donor Kidneys per Wait-Listed Candidate in the United States

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.

Transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody positive, nucleic acid test negative donor kidneys to HCV negative patients frequently results in seroconversion but not HCV viremia.

Anecdotal reports have suggested that transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody positive (Ab+)/nucleic acid test negative (NAT-) donor kidneys into HCV negative recipients is not associated with HCV transmission. We reviewed our center's outcomes of 32 HCV negative patients who received kidney allografts from 25 donors who were HCV Ab+/NAT-. The mean recipient age was 56.9±12.1years and the mean donor age was 41.5±14years, with a median Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of 68%. Twelve donors (48%) met Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk status. All patients received antithymocyte globulin induction followed by tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid maintenance immunosuppression. With a mean follow-up posttransplant of 10±2.7months, 1- and 3- month serum creatinine levels were 1.7±0.8 and 1.3±0.4, respectively, and patient and graft survival rates were 100% and 97%, respectively. Fourteen patients (44%) seroconverted and became HCV Ab+ posttransplant. However, all 32 patients were HCV RNA negative at 1- and 3- months posttransplant, and 27 and 8 patients tested at 6- and 12-months posttransplant, respectively, remain HCV RNA negative. In conclusion, transplantation of HCV Ab+/NAT- kidneys to HCV negative recipients frequently causes HCV Ab seroconversion but not HCV viremia.

Organs from deceased donors with false-positive HIV screening tests: An unexpected benefit of the HOPE act.

Organs from deceased donors with suspected false-positive HIV screening tests were generally discarded due to the chance that the test was truly positive. However, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act now facilitates use of such organs for transplantation to HIV-infected (HIV+) individuals. In the HOPE in Action trial, donors without a known HIV infection who unexpectedly tested positive for anti-HIV antibody (Ab) or HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) were classified as suspected false-positive donors. Between March 2016 and March 2018, 10 suspected false-positive donors had organs recovered for transplant for 21 HIV+recipients (14 single-kidney, 1 double-kidney, 5 liver, 1 simultaneous liver-kidney). Median donor age was 24years; cause of death was trauma (n = 5), stroke (n =4), and anoxia (n = 1); three donors were labeled Public Health Service increased infectious risk. Median kidney donor profile index was 30.5 (IQR 22-58). Eight donors were HIV Ab+/NAT-; two were HIV Ab-/NAT+. All 10 suspected false-positive donors were confirmed to be HIV-noninfected. Given the false-positive rates of approved assays used to screen>20000 deceased donors annually, we estimate 50-100 HIV false-positive donors per year. Organ transplantation from suspected HIV false-positive donors is an unexpected benefit of the HOPE Act that provides another novel organ source.

Assessment of the Kidney Donor Profile Index in a European cohort.

Recently, transplant societies have had to change their allocation policies to counter global organ shortages. However, strategies differ significantly and long-term outcomes and cross-regional applicability remain to be evaluated. Therefore, we retrospectively analysed the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of 987 adult kidney transplants at our centre using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as a reference. In our cohort, the median KDPI was 66%, with a higher proportion of >85% KDPI kidneys compared with the US cohort (32.3% versus 9.2%). Among elderly patients (≥65 years of age), 62% received >95% KDPI kidneys, which were primarily allocated within the Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP). After 10 years, the rate of death-censored graft survival was 70.5%. Recipients of >85% KDPI kidneys were significantly older, demonstrating higher mortality, poorer graft survival and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients receiving ≥99% KDPI kidneys had a satisfactory 5-year death-censored graft survival (72.9%). The 5-year survival rate of patients living with a functioning graft exceeded the matched OPTN data in the whole KDPI range, despite a higher proportion of elderly recipients. Multivariate analysis revealed KDPI as an independent risk factor for graft loss (hazard ratio 1.14/10%, P < 0.001), although C-statistics of 0.62 indicated limited discriminative ability for individuals. The analysis demonstrated KDPI as a potentially useful tool for donor quality assessment in a European cohort. Most importantly, our analysis revealed acceptable outcomes even for very high KDPI kidneys.

Turn down for what? Patient outcomes associated with declining increased infectious risk kidneys.

Transplant candidates who accept a kidney labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) accept a low risk of window period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or never even come. To characterize survival benefit of accepting IRD kidneys, we used 2010-2014 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 104998 adult transplant candidates who were offered IRD kidneys that were eventually accepted by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 30 (16-49). We followed patients from the offer decision until death or end-of-study. After 5years, only 31.0% of candidates who declined IRDs later received non-IRD deceased donor kidney transplants; the median KDPI of these non-IRD kidneys was 52, compared to 21 of the IRDs they had declined. After a brief risk period in the first 30days following IRD acceptance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] accept vs decline: 1.22 2.063.49 , P=.008) (absolute mortality 0.8% vs. 0.4%), those who accepted IRDs were at 33% lower risk of death 1-6months postdecision (aHR0.50 0.670.90 , P=.006), and at 48% lower risk of death beyond 6months postdecision (aHR 0.46 0.520.58 , P<.001). Accepting an IRD kidney was associated with substantial long-term survival benefit; providers should consider this benefit when counseling patients on IRD offer acceptance.

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

There is no consensus on the allocation of renal transplants from expanded criteria donors (ECD). The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) is used without the need for pretransplant donor biopsies (PTDB). We explored whether PTDB based on Remuzzi Score (RS) allows identification of those marginal kidneys in the highest calculated KDPI risk group (>91%) that appropriate for single transplantation. A retrospective study was conducted of 485 consecutive kidneys procured from a single center and transplanted if the RS was ≤4. We compared 5-year kidney and patients survival between KDPI groups and between RS <4 or =4 in the highest KDPI group. The median KDPI (interquartile range) was 71 (66-76) for KDPI <80% (n=77), 86 (81-90) for KDPI 81-90% (n=82), and 97 (94-100) for KDPI >91% (n=205). Patient survival at 5years was 85.7%, 85.3%, and 76.09% (P=0.058) and death-censored graft survival was 84.4%, 86.5%, 73.6% (P=0.015), respectively for each KDPI group. In >91% calculated KDPI group, there were no differences in graft survival depending on the RS (<4 vs. =4) (P=0.714). The implementation of PTDB based on RS used for allocation of organs with the highest KDPI range could support to the acceptance of suitable organs for single transplantation with good patient and graft survival rate.

The Impact of the New Kidney Allocation System on Prior Living Kidney Donors' Access to Deceased Donor Kidney Transplants: An Early Look.

This study investigated the early effects of the new kidney allocation system (KAS) on the access of prior living kidney donors (PLDs) to deceased donor kidney transplants. Using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, we compared prevalent and incident cohorts of PLDs in the 1-year periods before and after KAS implementation (pre-KAS group: December 4, 2013, to December 3, 2014, n = 50 [newly listed PLDs]; post-KAS group: December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2015, n = 39). We assessed transplant rates per active patient-year, waiting times, and Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of transplanted kidneys. Transplant rates were not statistically different before and after KAS implementation for either prevalent (2.37 vs. 2.29, relative risk [RR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.49) or incident (4.76 vs. 4.36, RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.53-1.60) candidates. Median waiting time (MWT) to deceased donor kidney transplant for prevalent PLDs in the post-KAS cohort was 102.6 days compared with 82.3 days in the pre-KAS cohort (p = 0.98). The median KDPI for PLD recipients was 31% with KAS versus 23% before KAS (p = 0.02). Despite a sharp decrease in the MWT for highly prioritized candidates with calculated panel reactive antibodies of 98-100% (from >7000 to 1164 days), PLDs still had much shorter waiting times (MWT 102.6 days). The new system continues to provide quick access to high-quality organs for PLDs.

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of Marginal Donors Allocated by Standardized Pretransplant Donor Biopsy Assessment: Distribution and Association With Graft Outcomes

Pretransplant donor biopsy (PTDB)-based marginal donor allocation systems to single or dual renal transplantation could increase the use of organs with Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) in the highest range (e.g. >80 or >90), whose discard rate approximates 50% in the United States. To test this hypothesis, we retrospectively calculated the KDPI and analyzed the outcomes of 442 marginal kidney transplants (340 single transplants: 278 with a PTDB Remuzzi score <4 [median KDPI: 87; interquartile range (IQR): 78–94] and 62 with a score = 4 [median KDPI: 87; IQR: 76–93]; 102 dual transplants [median KDPI: 93; IQR: 86–96]) and 248 single standard transplant controls (median KDPI: 36; IQR: 18–51). PTDB-based allocation of marginal grafts led to a limited discard rate of 15% for kidneys with KDPI of 80–90 and of 37% for kidneys with a KDPI of 91–100. Although 1-year estimated GFRs were significantly lower in recipients of marginal kidneys (−9.3, −17.9 and −18.8 mL/min, for dual transplants, single kidneys with PTDB score <4 and =4, respectively; p < 0.001), graft survival (median follow-up 3.3 years) was similar between marginal and standard kidney transplants (hazard ratio: 1.20 [95% confidence interval: 0.80–1.79; p = 0.38]). In conclusion, PTDB-based allocation allows the safe transplantation of kidneys with KDPI in the highest range that may otherwise be discarded.