Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.     

Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes

Singh RP, Farney AC, Rogers J, Zuckerman J, Reeves‐Daniel A, Hartmann E, Iskandar S, Adams P, Stratta RJ. Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 255–264. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in recipients of kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors compared to donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Methods: Single‐center retrospective study to evaluate the impact of DGF on controlled (Maastricht category III) DCD donor kidney transplant outcomes. Results: From 10/01 to 6/08, 578 adult deceased donor kidney transplants were performed including 70 (12%) from DCD and 508 (88%) from DBD donors. Mean follow‐up was 36 months. DCD donor kidney transplants had significantly greater rates of DGF (57% DCD vs. 21% DBD, p < 0.0001)) and acute rejection (29% DCD vs. 16% DBD, p = 0.018) compared to DBD donor kidney transplants, but patient and graft survival rates were similar. DBD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 109) had significantly greater rates of death‐censored graft loss (12.5% DCD vs. 31% DBD), primary non‐function (0 DCD vs. 10% DBD) and higher 2 year mean serum creatinine levels (1.4 DCD vs. 2.7 mg/dL DBD) compared to DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 40, all p < 0.04). On univariate analysis, the presence of acute rejection and older donor age were the only significant risk factors for death‐censored graft loss in DCD donor kidney transplants, whereas DGF was not a risk factor. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of DGF and acute rejection in DCD donor kidney transplants, subsequent outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF are better than in DBD donor kidney transplants experiencing DGF, and similar to outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants without DGF.     

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.

     

Does Expanded Criteria Donor Status Modify the Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation From Donors After Cardiac Death?

The outcomes of kidney transplants that simultaneously exhibit donation after cardiac death (DCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) characteristics have not been well studied. We examined the outcomes of DCD versus non‐DCD kidney transplants as a function of ECD status and the kidney donor risk index (KDRI). A cohort study of 67 816 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (KTR), including 562 ECD/DCD KTR, from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 was conducted using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, the modestly increased risk of total graft failure in DCD versus non‐DCD KTR was not significantly modified by ECD status (hazard ratio1.07 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.15] for non‐ECD vs. 1.21 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.40] for ECD, p for interaction = 0.14).Moreover, the hazard ratios did not significantly vary by KDRI quintiles (p = 0.40). Similar trends were seen for death‐censored graft failure and death with graft function. In conclusion, ECD status or higher KDRI score did not appreciably increase the relative hazard of adverse graft and patient outcomes in DCD KTR. These findings suggest that the judicious use of ECD/DCD donor kidneys may be an appropriate strategy to expand the donor pool.     

Expanding the Donor Kidney Pool: Utility of Renal Allografts Procured in a Setting of Uncontrolled Cardiac Death

The chronic shortage of deceased kidney donors has led to increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys, the majority of which are procured in a controlled setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate transplantation outcomes from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) donors and evaluate their utility as a source of donor kidneys. From January 1995 to December 2004, 75,865 kidney-alone transplants from donation after brain death (DBD) donors and 2136 transplants from DCD donors were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Among the DCD transplants, 1814 were from controlled and 216 from uncontrolled DCD donors. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. The incidence of delayed graft function in controlled DCD (cDCD) was 42% and in uDCD kidneys was 51%, compared to only 24% in kidneys from DBD donors (p < 0.001). The overall graft and patient survival of DCD donors was similar to that of DBD donor kidneys (p = 0.66; p = 0.88). Despite longer donor warm and cold ischemic times, overall graft and patient survival of uDCD donors was comparable to that of cDCD donors (p = 0.65, p = 0.99). Concerted efforts should be focused on procurement of uDCD donors, which can provide another source of quality deceased donor kidneys.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes with the Use of Kidneys and Livers Donated after Cardiac Death

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys and livers for transplantation has prompted the use of organs from donors deceased after cardiac death (DCD). We used the UNOS database to examine patient and graft survival following transplantation of DCD organs compared to those following grafts from donors deceased after brain death (DBD; for livers, grafts from donors < 60 years old were labeled '< 60 yrs'). Of 44035 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 1177 (3%) received a DCD kidney. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 5 years (DCD vs. DBD: 81.3% vs. 80.8% and 66.9% vs. 66.5%; p = 0.70 and p = 0.52 respectively). Of 24688-deceased donor liver transplant recipients, 345 (1.4%) were from DCD donors and 20289 (82%) were from '< 60 yrs' DBD donors. Three-year patient and graft survival were inferior in the DCD group (DCD vs. '< 60 yrs' DBD: 77% vs. 80% and 65% vs. 75%; p = 0.016 and p < 0.0001 respectively) but were comparable to current alternatives, '>/= 60 yrs' DBD livers (donor age >/= 60) and split livers. DCD livers are a reasonable option when death is imminent. Our study demonstrates good outcomes using DCD kidneys and livers and encourages their use.     

Outcome in recipients of dual kidney transplants: an analysis of the dual registry patients

BACKGROUND: A novel but controversial method to increase the utilization of aged donor kidneys is the transplantation of both kidneys as a dual transplant. Initial single-center reports demonstrated outcomes similar to single kidneys from younger donors. In this report, we compare outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age who received a single kidney transplant reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Scientific Registry versus a dual kidney transplant reported to the Dual Kidney Registry. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed, comparing four donor and nine recipient and outcome variables between recipients of a single versus a dual transplant between March 1993 and March 1999. RESULTS: Dual versus single transplants from donors > or =54 years of age have a significantly decreased incidence of delayed graft function, and lower serum creatinines up to 2 years after transplant despite having kidneys from significantly older donors with poorer HLA matching. CONCLUSIONS: Dual kidney transplants improve graft performance and outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age.     

The deceased donor score system in kidney transplants from deceased donors after cardiac death

A clinical score to identify kidneys from donors after cardiac death (DCD) with a high risk of dysfunction following transplantation could be a useful tool to guide the introduction of new algorithms for the preservation of these organs and improve their outcome after transplantation. We investigated whether the deceased donor score (DDS) system could identify DCD kidneys with higher risk of early post‐transplant dysfunction. The DDS was validated in a cohort of 168 kidney transplants from donors after brain death (DBD) and then applied to a cohort of 56 kidney transplants from DCD. In the DBD cohort, the DDS grade predicted the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) and levels of serum creatinine at 3 and 12 months post‐transplant. Similarly, in the DCD cohort, the DDS grade correlated with DGF and also predicted the levels of serum creatinine at 3 and 12 months. Interestingly, the DDS identified a subgroup of marginal DCD kidneys in which minimization of cold ischemia time produced better early clinical outcome. These results highlight the impact of early interventions on clinical outcome of marginal DCD kidneys and open the possibility of using the DDS to identify those kidneys that may benefit most from therapeutic interventions before transplantation.     

The Impact of Anastomosis Time During Kidney Transplantation on Graft Loss: A Eurotransplant Cohort Study

Recent studies raised the concern that warm ischemia during completion of vascular anastomoses in kidney implantation harms the transplant, but its precise impact on outcome and its interaction with other risk factors remain to be established. We investigated the relationship between anastomosis time and graft survival at 5 years after transplantation in 13 964 recipients of deceased donor solitary kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region. Anastomosis time was independently associated with graft loss after adjusting for other risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.10 for every 10‐min increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.14; p < 0.0001), whereas it did not influence recipient survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.02). Kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) were less tolerant of prolonged anastomosis time than kidneys from donation after brain death (p = 0.02 for interaction). The additive effect of anastomosis time with donor warm ischemia time (WIT) explains this observation because DCD status was no longer associated with graft survival when adjusted for this summed WIT, and there was no interaction between DCD status and summed WIT. Time to create the vascular anastomoses in kidney transplantation is associated with inferior transplant outcome, especially in recipients of DCD kidneys.     

Donor kidney disease and transplant outcome for kidneys donated after cardiac death

Background:

Although outcomes of kidney transplants following donation after cardiac death (DCD) and donation after brainstem death (DBD) are similar, generally only optimal younger DCD donors are considered. This study examined the impact of pre‐existing donor kidney disease on the outcome of DCD transplants.

Methods:

This retrospective study compared the outcome of all DCD kidney transplants performed during 1996–2006 with contemporaneous kidney transplants from DBD donors. Implantation biopsies were scored for glomerular, tubular, parenchymal and vascular disease (global histology score). There were 104 DCD and 104 DBD kidney transplants.

Results:

Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred more frequently in DCD than DBD kidneys (64·4 versus 28·8 per cent; P < 0·001). Long‐term graft outcome was similar. The only donor factor that influenced outcome was baseline kidney disease, which was similar in both groups, even though DCD donors were younger, with a higher predonation estimated glomerular filtration rate. The global histology score predicted DGF (odds ratio 1·85 per unit; P = 0·006) and graft failure (relative risk 1·55 per unit; P = 0·001), although there was no difference for DCD and DBD kidneys.

Conclusion:

Transplant outcomes for DCD and DBD kidneys are comparable. Baseline donor kidney disease influences DGF and graft survival but the impact is no greater for DCD kidneys. Copyright © 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: A cohort study of data from a long‐standing deceased‐donor kidney transplantation program

Despite good long‐term outcomes of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there are few uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs. This longitudinal study compares outcomes for all uDCD (N = 774) and all donation after brain death (DBD) (N = 613) kidney transplants performed from 1996 to 2015 at our center. DBD transplants were divided into those from standard‐criteria (SCD) (N = 366) and expanded‐criteria (N = 247) brain‐dead donors (ECD). One‐, 5‐, and 10‐year graft survival rates were 91.7%, 85.7%, and 80.6% for SCD; 86.0%, 75.8%, and 61.4% for ECD; and 85.1%, 78.1%, and 72.2% for uDCD, respectively. Graft survival was worse in recipients of uDCD kidneys than of SCD (P = .004) but better than in transplants from ECD (P = .021). The main cause of graft loss in the uDCD transplants was primary nonfunction. Through logistic regression, donor death due to pulmonary embolism (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.65‐11.23), extrahospital CPR time ≥75 minutes (OR1.94, 95%CI 1.18‐3.22), and in‐hospital CPR time ≥50 minutes (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09‐2.93) emerged as predictive factors of primary nonunction. According to the outcomes of our long‐standing kidney transplantation program, uDCD could help expand the kidney donor pool.     

Does DCD Donor Time‐to‐Death Affect Recipient Outcomes? Implications of Time‐to‐Death at a High‐Volume Center in the United States

For donation after circulatory death (DCD), many centers allow 1 h after treatment withdrawal to donor death for kidneys. Our center has consistently allowed 2 h. We hypothesized that waiting longer would be associated with worse outcome. A single‐center, retrospective analysis of DCD kidneys transplanted between 2008 and 2013 as well as a nationwide survey of organ procurement organization DCD practices were conducted. We identified 296 DCD kidneys, of which 247 (83.4%) were transplanted and 49 (16.6%) were discarded. Of the 247 recipients, 225 (group 1; 91.1%) received kidneys with a time to death (TTD) of 0–1 h; 22 (group 2; 8.9%) received grafts with a TTD of 1–2 h. Five‐year patient survival was 88.8% for group 1, and 83.9% for group 2 (p = 0.667); Graft survival was also similar, with 5‐year survival of 74.1% for group 1, and 83.9% for group 2 (p = 0.507). The delayed graft function rate was the same in both groups (50.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.984). TTD was not predictive of graft failure. Nationally, the average maximum wait‐time for DCD kidneys was 77.2 min. By waiting 2 h for DCD kidneys, we performed 9.8% more transplants without worse outcomes. Nationally, this practice would allow for hundreds of additional kidney transplants, annually.     

Dual kidney transplants from very old or very young donors: long-term outcomes and complications

The disparity between donors and the demand for organ transplants grows steadily. Annually, 4700 patients die on the kidney transplant waiting list in the United States. To increase utilization of deceased donor organs, we expanded our acceptable criteria to include very old (VO) or very young (VY) donors. We transplanted both such kidneys (dual transplant) into a single recipient and evaluated the long-term outcomes and complications. From July 2001 to December 2005, 16 patients (mean age 68, range 60-78) received dual kidneys from VO (mean age 72, range 60-79) donors and 6 patients (mean age 47, range 27-72) were transplanted from VY (mean age 17 months, range 2-36) donors. Seventy-four percent of these kidneys were imported after rejection by their local center due to low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and extreme age. One- and 5-year patient survival rates were 100% and 88%, respectively. Death-censored 1- and 5-year graft survival rates for recipient of VO kidneys were 95% and 93%, and 66% and 50% for recipients of VY kidneys, respectively. Five-year graft survival rate for recipients of VO donor kidneys was 93% and was equal to the survival of standard deceased donor (SCD) kidney transplants (87%). The 5-year survival of dual transplants from VO donors was higher than expanded criteria deceased donor (ECD; P = .05). Over a mean follow-up of 66 ± 28 months, rejection rates were 10%, not statistically different than other groups. Of 22 dual transplants, four patients experienced urinary tract infections; three developed incisional subcutaneous seromas, and there were more urinary leaks compared to SCD (13.6% vs 2%, P = .002). The average 1- and 5-year estimated GFR (Cockcroft-Gault) was 57.4 and 54.6 mL/min, respectively. When properly placed in a single patient, such marginal organs are a valuable resource that offer comparable outcomes to SCD transplants and superior outcomes to ECD organs.     

Single versus dual renal transplantation from donors with significant arteriosclerosis on pre-implant biopsy

Abstract: Background: Transplantation of kidneys from donor with arteriosclerosis seen on pre‐implantation biopsy has not been well studied. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 20 dual kidney transplant (DKT) and 28 single (SKT) kidney transplant recipients with ≥12 months follow‐up from donors with moderate arteriosclerosis (≥25% luminal diameter narrowing). Results: Death censored graft survival was 100% and 79%, respectively (p = 0.0339). DKT recipients had significantly lower mean creatinine levels at one, three, six, and nine months and spent somewhat less time on the waiting list (181 ± 160 vs. 318 ± 306 d, p = 0.1429). DKT patients received kidneys from significantly older donors (64 ± 7 vs. 54 ± 11 yr; p = 0.0012), proportionately more expanded criteria donors (95% vs. 54%; p = 0.0029), and more donors with hypertension (81% vs. 48%, p = 0.0344) and death related to cerebrovascular accident (100% vs. 71%, p = 0.0143); however, more DKT kidneys underwent machine perfusion (95% vs. 57%, p = 0.0068). Baseline recipient variables were comparable between the two groups including age, race, gender, retransplantation, and HLA mismatch. Pre‐implant biopsy was notable for similar frequencies of moderate interstitial fibrosis (10% vs. 14%, respectively) and glomerulosclerosis. Conclusion: Among recipients of deceased‐donor kidneys with >25% arteriosclerosis, short‐term outcomes after DKT were superior to that of SKT grafts. This approach may help to expand the donor‐organ pool while optimizing outcomes.     

Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005

Kidney and pancreas transplantation in 2005 improved in quantity and outcome quality, despite the increasing average age of kidney graft recipients, with 56% aged 50 or older. Geography and ABO blood type contribute to the discrepancy in waiting time among the deceased donor (DD) candidates. Allocation policy changes are decreasing the median times to transplant for pediatric recipients. Overall, 6% more DD kidney transplants were performed in 2005 with slight increases in standard criteria donors (SCD) and expanded criteria donors (ECD). The largest increase (39%) was in donation after cardiac death (DCD) from non‐ECD donors. These DCD, non‐ECD kidneys had equivalent outcomes to SCD kidneys. 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year unadjusted graft survival was 91%, 80% and 70% for non‐ECD‐DD transplants, 82%, 68% and 53% for ECD‐DD grafts, and 95%, 88% and 80% for living donor kidney transplants. In 2005, 27% of patients were discharged without steroids compared to 3% in 1999. Acute rejection decreased to 11% in 2004. There was a slight increase in the number of simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplants (895), with fewer pancreas after kidney transplants (343 from 419 in 2004), and a stable number of pancreas alone transplants (129). Pancreas underutilization appears to be an ongoing issue.     

Risk stratification of kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors and the utility of machine perfusion

Cantafio AW, Dick AAS, Halldorson JB, Bakthavatsalam R, Reyes JD, Perkins JD. Risk stratification of kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors and the utility of machine perfusion.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: E530–E540. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: There has been a dramatic increase in the utilization of kidneys from donors after cardiac death (DCD). While these organs represent an opportunity to expand the donor pool, the assessment of risk and optimal perioperative management remains unclear. Our primary aim was to identify risk factors for objective outcomes, and secondarily, we sought to determine what impact pulsatile machine perfusion (PMP) had on these outcomes. From 1993 to November 2008, 6057 DCD kidney transplants were reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, with complete endpoints for delayed graft function (DGF) and graft survival (GS). Risk factors were identified using a multivariable regression analysis adjusted for recipient factors. Age (50 yr) [OR 1.81, p < 0.0001] and cold ischemia time (CIT) (>30 h) [OR 3.22, p < 0.0001] were the strongest predictors of DGF. The use of PMP decreased the incidence of DGF only when donor age was >60 yr and improved long‐term graft survival when donor age was >50 yr. Donor warm ischemia time >20 min was also found to correlate with increased DGF. While the incidence of DGF in DCD kidneys is significantly higher, the only factors the transplant surgeon can control are CIT and the use of PMP. The data suggest that the use of PMP in DCD kidneys <50 yr old provides little clinical benefit and may increase CIT.     

Outcomes of Kidneys from Donors After Cardiac Death: Implications for Allocation and Preservation

Although donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys have a high incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) and have been considered marginal, no tool for stratifying risk of graft loss nor a specific policy governing their allocation exist. We compared outcomes of 2562 DCD, 62,800 standard criteria donor (SCD) and 12,812 expanded criteria donor (ECD) transplants reported between 1993 and 2005, and evaluated factors associated with risk of graft loss and DGF in DCD kidneys. Donor age was the only criterion used in the definition of ECD kidneys that independently predicted graft loss among DCD kidneys. Kidneys from DCD donors <50 had similar long-term graft survival to those from SCD (RR 1.1, p = NS). While DGF was higher among DCD compared to SCD and ECD, limiting cold ischemia (CIT) to <12 h decreased the rate of DGF 15% among DCD <50 kidneys. These findings suggest that DCD <50 kidneys function like SCD kidneys and should not be viewed as marginal or ECD, and further, limiting CIT <12 h markedly reduces DGF.     

The duration of asystolic ischemia determines the risk of graft failure after circulatory‐dead donor kidney transplantation: A Eurotransplant cohort study

Circulatory death donor (DCD) kidney transplantations are steadily increasing. Consensus reports recommend limiting donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) in DCD donation, although an independent effect on graft outcome has not been demonstrated. We investigated death‐censored graft survival in 18 065 recipients of deceased‐donor kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region: 1059 DCD and 17 006 brain‐dead donor (DBD) kidney recipients. DWIT was defined as time from circulatory arrest until cold flush. DCD donation was an independent risk factor for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.10‐1.46), due to an increased risk of primary nonfunction (62/1059 vs 560/17 006; P < .0001). With DWIT in the model, DCD donation was no longer a risk factor, demonstrating that DWIT explains the inferior graft survival of DCD kidneys. Indeed, DCD transplants with short DWIT have graft survival comparable to that of standard‐criteria DBD transplants (P = .59). DWIT also associated with graft failure in DCDs (adjusted HR 1.20 per 10‐minute increase, 95% CI 1.03‐1.42). At 5 years after transplantation, graft failure occurred in 14 of 133 recipients (10.5%) with DWIT <10 minutes, 139 of 555 recipients (25.0%) with DWIT between 10 and 19 minutes, and 117 of 371 recipients (31.5%) with DWIT ≥20 minutes. These findings support the expert opinion–based guidelines to limit DWIT.     

Impact of donor age on long‐term outcomes after delayed graft function: 10‐year follow‐up

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative impact on graft survival in donation after brain death (DBD) but not for donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. However, older donor age is associated with graft loss in DCD transplants. We sought to examine the interaction between donor age and DGF in DBD kidneys. This is a single‐center, retrospective review of 657 consecutive DBD recipients transplanted between 1990 and 2005. We stratified the cohort by decades of donor age and studied the association between DGF and graft failure using Cox models. The risk of graft loss associated with DGF was not significantly increased for donor age below 60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12, 1.51, and 0.90, respectively, for age <40, 41–50 and 51–60 years) but significantly increased after 60 years (aHR 2.67; P = 0.019). Analysis of death‐censored graft failure yielded similar results for donor age below 60 years and showed a substantially increased risk with donors above 60 years (aHR 6.98, P = 0.002). This analysis reveals an unexpectedly high impact of older donor age on the association between DGF and renal transplant outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best use of kidneys from donors above 60 years old, where DGF is expected.     

Transplanting Kidneys from Deceased Donors With Severe Acute Kidney Injury

Our aim was to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injury, defined as a donor with terminal serum creatinine ≥2.0 mg/dL, or a donor requiring acute renal replacement therapy. We included all patients who received deceased donor kidney transplant from June 2004 to October 2013. There were 162 AKI donor transplant recipients (21% of deceased donor transplants): 139 in the standard criteria donor (SCD) and 23 in the expanded criteria donor (ECD) cohort. 71% of the AKI donors had stage 3 (severe AKI), based on acute kidney injury network (AKIN) staging. Protocol biopsies were done at 1, 4, and 12 months posttransplant. One and four month formalin‐fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) biopsies from 48 patients (24 AKI donors, 24 non‐AKI) underwent global gene expression profiling using DNA microarrays (96 arrays). DGF was more common in the AKI group but eGFR, graft survival at 1 year and proportion with IF/TA>2 at 1 year were similar for the two groups. At 1 month, there were 898 differentially expressed genes in the AKI group (p‐value <0.005; FDR <10%), but by 4 months there were no differences. Transplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKI is safe and has excellent outcomes.