The Collaborative Innovation and Improvement Network (COIIN): Effect on donor yield,waitlist mortality,transplant rates,and offer acceptance

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented the Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (COIIN) to improve the use of donors with kidney donor profile index >50%. COIIN recruited 2 separate cohorts of kidney transplant programs. Cohort A included 19 programs of 44 applicants (January 1, 2017, to September 30, 2017), and cohort B included 39 programs of 47 applicants (October 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018). We investigated the effect of COIIN on kidney yield (number of kidneys transplanted from donors from whom any organ was recovered), offer acceptance, deceased donor transplant rates, and waitlist mortality rates for January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2019. COIIN did not notably affect kidney yield or waitlist mortality rates. Cohort A, but not cohort B, had significantly higher deceased donor transplant and offer acceptance rates during its intervention period than programs not in COIIN (adjusted transplant rate ratio: cohort A, _1.081.17_1.27, cohort B, _0.941.01_1.08; adjusted offer acceptance ratio: cohort A, _1.081.18_1.29, cohort B, _0.931.00_1.08). Thus, COIIN improved the use of kidneys at programs in cohort A but not at those in cohort B. Further research is necessary to understand the different effects for cohorts A and B, and further monitoring of posttransplant outcomes is required.     

Reasons Why Organs From Deceased Donors Were Not Accepted for Transplantation

IntroductionThe rate of organ donations from deceased donors in Turkey is among the lowest in the world. We analyzed the reasons why some potential donors whose families had given consent did not become actual solid organ donors.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the organ donation, retrieval, and transplantation registries of 102 potential donors from the Ministry of Health Organ and Tissue Transplant Coordination Centre of Istanbul Region from the year 2015.ResultsCardiac arrest occurred in 8 of the potential donors while waiting for organ procurement or during surgery. The organ specific suitability ratio was 83% for kidneys, 82% for livers, 72% for hearts, and 75% for lungs. Of these suitable organs, the transplantation rates were as follows: kidneys 88%, livers 70%, hearts 30%, and lungs 13%. Medical reasons (donor unsuitable) (14%–24%) and poor organ function (2%–24%) were the reasons most organs were not accepted for transplant. These reasons included diabetes insipidus, electrolyte imbalance caused by neuro-humoral changes, inotrope/vasopressor requirement for hemodynamic instability, hypoperfusion, and myocardial dysfunction after brain death.ConclusionThe mismatch between organ donation and demand is a major problem worldwide. In addition to low organ donation rates, late diagnosis of potential donors or inappropriate management of the pathophysiological consequences of brain death reduce the number of transplantable organs even more in our country. In order to overcome these setbacks, we need education programs to improve quality and decrease donor losses in an intensive care unit goal-directed protocol for the management of potential donors.     

Organ Donation and Utilization in the United States: 1998–2007

Organ transplantation remains the only life-saving therapy for many patients with organ failure. Despite the work of the Organ Donation and Transplant Collaboratives, and the marked increases in deceased donors early in the effort, deceased donors only rose by 67 from 2006 and the number of living donors declined during the same time period. There continues to be increases in the use of organs from donors after cardiac death (DCD) and expanded criteria donors (ECD). This year has seen a major change in the way organs are offered with increased patient safety measures in those organ offers made by OPOs using DonorNet^©. Unfortunately, the goals of 75% conversion rates, 3.75 organs transplanted per donor, 10% of all donors from DCD sources and 20% growth of transplant center volume have yet to be reached across all donation service areas (DSAs) and transplant centers; however, there are DSAs that have not only met, but exceeded, these goals. Changes in organ preservation techniques took place this year, partly due to expanding organ acceptance criteria and increasing numbers of ECDs and DCDs. Finally, the national transplant environment has changed in response to increased regulatory oversight and new requirements for donation and transplant provider organizations.     

Controlled donation after cardiac death: a European perspective

Terminally ill patients who do not meet brain death criteria and die of cardiac arrest after withdrawal of life support may be considered as potential organ donors: such donors are referred to as controlled donors after cardiac death (DCD). Controlled DCD donors are increasingly being used in Northern Europe and the United States in an effort to expand the donor pool. Ethical concerns regarding the diagnosis of death based on cardiopulmonary rather than neurological criteria have largely been resolved over the past decade. Follow-up studies of recipients by several transplant centers have shown that functioning controlled DCD kidneys are equivalent to kidneys from conventional brain-dead donors with respect to long-term prognosis. Concerns about long-term repercussions for the higher incidence of delayed graft function with DCD kidneys are not supported by the current evidence. The donor pool may be further expanded by transplanting selected kidneys from older DCD, in particular for the increasing population of older kidney transplant candidates. Successful transplantation of these delicate organs is possible when donors and recipients are carefully managed by well-trained, motivated, and effectively collaborating transplant personnel.     

A call to action: Feasible strategies to reduce the discard of transplantable kidneys in the United States

Changes to the United States kidney allocation system targeted at reducing organ discard have failed to improve organ utilization. High Kidney Donor Profile Index kidneys continue to be discarded at high rates as a result of the regulatory and financial barriers to widespread utilization of these organs. However, there are potential changes to clinical practice that could improve organ utilization. Expediting the time from initial offer to final organ acceptance would reduce cold ischemic time and should improve utilization. Implementation of procurement biopsy standards to avoid biopsy of low risk organs may prevent organ discards due to inaccurate data or excessive cold ischemia time. Further, standardization of procurement biopsy pathological interpretation coupled with electronic accessibility would enable early acceptance of difficult to transplant organs. These changes to allocation practice patterns are vital given proposals to expand the geographic sharing of deceased donor kidneys. Implementation of new allocation policies must be evaluated to ensure they result in higher transplant rates and acceptable post-transplant outcomes.     

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.     

Tackling the shortage of donor kidneys: how to use the best that we have

Shortage of kidney donor is still a major limitation for renal transplantation programs. This review focuses on the emerging practices, adopted to increase transplant activities, of expanding the criteria for donor and recipient selection without exposing the recipient to the drawbacks of a graft with inadequate nephron mass. Expanding the donor pool inevitably led to consideration for kidney transplantation of organs from older donors or from donors with hypertension, diabetes or other renal diseases. To fit the reduced performance of these suboptimal organs with the renal requirement of the recipient, selection of recipients with reduced metabolic requirements or increase of nephron mass by simultaneous transplantation of two suboptimal kidneys in the same recipient have been pursued. However, a critical aspect of both approaches is to quantify functioning nephron mass provided to the recipient by pre-transplant kidney biopsies. Morphological parameters assessed on kidney biopsies at the time of donor evaluation may serve to quantify the preserved tissue and to discriminate chronic irreversible lesions from acute changes that may account for a transiently impaired renal function in the donor, but that may recover after transplant.     

Should Pediatric Patients Wait for HLA‐DR‐Matched Renal Transplants?

Graft survival rates from deceased donors aged 35 years or less among all primary pediatric kidney transplant recipients in the United States between 1996 and 2004 were retrospectively examined to determine the effect of HLA‐DR mismatches on graft survival. Zero HLA‐DR‐mismatched kidneys had statistically comparable 5‐year graft survival (71%), to 1‐DR‐mismatched kidneys (69%) and 2‐DR‐mismatched kidneys (71%). When compared to donors less than 35 years of age, the relative rate of allograft failure was 1.32 (p = 0.0326) for donor age greater than or equal to age 35. There was no statistical increase in the odds of developing a panel‐reactive antibody (PRA) greater than 30% at the time of second waitlisting, based upon the degree of HLA‐A, ‐B or ‐DR mismatch of the first transplant, nor was there a ‘dose effect’ when more HLA antigens were mismatched between the donor and recipient. Therefore, pediatric transplant programs should utilize the recently implemented Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network's (OPTN) allocation policy, which prioritizes pediatric recipients to receive kidneys from deceased donors less than 35 years of age, and should not turn down such kidney offers to wait for a better HLA‐DR‐matched kidney.     

Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from marginal donors

Long-term survival of kidneys from suboptimal donors is known to be not as good as that from optimal ones. However, the shortage of donors has led many transplant centers to consider accepting older donors with comorbidities. We analyzed 238 patients who received deceased donor renal transplants in the period 2000-2005. The recipients were matched to be no more than 15 years older or younger than the corresponding donors. Among them 125 received a single and 18 a double transplantation from donors considered marginal, according to UNOS criteria for expanded criteria donor (ECD). Most kidneys were evaluated with a pretransplant biopsy, using the scoring system introduced by Karpinski in 1999. The analysis indicated clearly better results in the non-ECD group: both patients and graft survival rates were 10% higher at 1, 2, and 3 years. However, the ECD group showed satisfactory outcomes, confirming the utility of this procedure. The long-term survival rates of single or double grafts from marginal donors are satisfactory, confirming the practice of allocating kidneys after a preimplantation histological evaluation, allowing expansion of the donor pool and providing older patients access to the waiting lists.     

Optimizing outcomes by preconditioning the donor

The criteria that define a so-called “marginal donor” kidney have been standardized since 2002. However, every transplant center must establish its own guidelines on organ acceptability. An expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney is age at least 60 years, or 50 to 59 years with at least two of three specified comorbidities. Cadaveric kidneys have shown worse functional and survival outcomes compared with those from living donors. Thus, all efforts should be made to minimize the effects of ischemia on standard, non-heart-beating or ECD cadaveric donor kidneys. Because of an increasing shortfall between the diminishing number of deceased donor organs available and the increasing waiting lists, an increasing number of living donor transplantations are being performed in Europe. Among deceased donor kidneys, the largest percentage corresponds to ECD—aged or comorbidity donors—and donors after cardiac death. The results of transplants with kidneys from donors over 65 years are 10% to 15% lower than those from younger donors. Older donors present more comorbidities; however, acceptable results may be obtained with careful selection and shortened cold ischemic times. If the transplant center uses these donors to expand the pool of available organs, the donor must be evaluated according to age, vascular condition, renal function, and comorbidity. If the donor is accepted, suitable questions are: Has the potential donor undergone maneuvers to improve the quality of the kidneys? Which kind of approaches should we perform? Should we only use the biopsy information for a decision?     

Long-term graft survival after transplantation with kidneys from uncontrolled nonheartbeating donors

BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding the widely acknowledged organ-donor shortage coupled with the expanded waiting list for organs, many transplant programs have been reluctant to use kidneys from nonheartbeating donors. Some reasons expressed by those programs include a higher rate of delayed graft function, additional dialysis requirements, more medication usage, and inferior graft survival rates. To refute the common misperceptions, we reviewed our 4-year experience with 31 nonheartbeating donor kidneys recovered from uncontrolled donors (Maashticht classification) at our institution. METHODS: After cardiac arrest and declaration of death, all donors underwent intravascular and intraperitoneal cooling. Immediately after bilateral en bloc nephrectomy, kidneys were placed on the Waters MOX pulsatile preservation machine. Preservation parameters were monitored hourly, using pharmacologic agents (Stelazine, dexamethasone, Humulin R) as indicated by those parameters. RESULTS: The nonheartbeating donors ranged in age from 15 to 53 years, 83% were males, and 60% of deaths were caused by trauma. For the 21 recovered and transplanted at our center, delayed graft function occurred with 16 kidneys; there was no primary nonfunction. There was no obvious correlation between functional status and donor age. It was noted that the immediate-function kidneys had shorter warm ischemia and total preservation times compared with the delayed graft function group. Nineteen of the 21 grafts continue to function. All patients are surviving. CONCLUSIONS: This series suggests that to obtain excellent results with nonheartbeating donor kidneys certain principles should be followed: use machine preservation to resuscitate and evaluate viability, choose immunologically low-risk recipients, avoid immediate exposure to immunophilin antagonists, and perform biopsy frequently for allograft dysfunction to exclude low-grade rejection.     

Living donor kidney transplantation in a Veterans Administration medical center

BACKGROUND: A shortage of organ donors remains the major limiting factor in kidney transplantation. Living donor renal transplantation, especially living-unrelated donors, may expand the donor pool by providing another source of excellent grafts. METHODS: Between 1983 and 2003, 109 living donor kidney transplants were performed. Potential donors were assessed with a standardized routine. Antithymocyte serum (N-ATS) and Basiliximab were used as induction agents. Sandimmune, Gengraf, Neoral, and Prograf were the main immunosuppressants with Immuran, Mycophenolate Mofetil, and steroids. Eighty-two percent of the recipients were from out of state. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of the living donors were from living-related donors and 22% were from living-unrelated donors. One- and three-year patient survival rates were 97.6% and 93.2% with 1- and 3-year graft survival rates of 93.2% and 88.3%, respectively. There were 6 delayed graft functions (5.5%), 16 acute cellular rejections (10%), and 10 chronic rejections (9%). Twelve patients died, 7 of them with a functioning graft. In the past 6 years (1997-2003), the number of living donor kidney transplants surpassed deceased donor kidney transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited number of cadaveric kidneys available for transplant, living donors represent a valuable source, and the use of living-unrelated donors has produced an additional supply of organs. In our program, the proportion of living donors used for kidney transplant is comparable with other non-Veterans Administration programs and the survival of these allografts appears to be superior to deceased donor kidney transplants.     

Clinical results of an organ procurement organization effort to increase utilization of donors after cardiac death

BACKGROUND: To stimulate organ donation, an organ procurement organization (OPO)-wide effort was undertaken to increase donors after cardiac death (DCD) over a 5-year period. This included commonality of protocols, pulsatile perfusion of kidneys, centralization of data and a regional allocation variance designed to minimize cold ischemia times and encourage adoption of DCD protocols at transplant centers. RESULTS: In one OPO, eight centers initiated DCD programs in 11 hospitals. A total of 52 DCD donors were procured, increasing from four in 1999 to 21 in 2003. Eleven donors had care withdrawn in the operating room, whereas 41 had care withdrawn in the ICU. In all, 91 patients received renal transplants from these 52 donors (12 kidneys discarded, one double transplant), whereas 5 patients received liver transplants. One-, two-, and three-year kidney graft survival rates were 90%, 90%, and 82%, respectively. Fifty-five percent of patients needed at least one session of hemodialysis postoperatively. Mean recipient hospital length of stay was 11.1+/-6 days. Mean creatinine levels at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 1.65, 1.40, 1.41, and 1.40, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DCD donors can be an important source of donor organs and provide excellent overall outcomes. Regional cooperation and a prospectively considered allocation and distribution system are important considerations in stimulating DCD programs.     

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.     

Donor postextubation hypotension and age correlate with outcome after donation after cardiac death transplantation

BACKGROUND: Compared with standard donors, kidneys recovered from donors after cardiac death (DCD) exhibit higher rates of delayed graft function (DGF), and DCD livers demonstrate higher rates of biliary ischemia, graft loss, and worse patient survival. Current practice limits the use of these organs based on time from donor extubation to asystole, but data to support this is incomplete. We hypothesized that donor postextubation parameters, including duration and severity of hemodynamic instability or hypoxia might be a better predictor of subsequent graft function. METHODS: We performed a retrospective examination of the New England Organ Bank DCD database, concentrating on donor factors including vital signs after withdrawal of support. RESULTS: Prolonged, severe hypotension in the postextubation period was a better predictor of subsequent organ function that time from extubation to asystole. For DCD kidneys, this manifested as a trend toward increased DGF. For DCD livers, this manifested as increased rates of poor outcomes. Maximizing the predictive value of this test in the liver cohort suggested that greater than 15 min between the time when the donor systolic blood pressure drops below 50 mm Hg and flush correlates with increased rates of diffuse biliary ischemia, graft loss, or death. Donor age also correlated with worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Time between profound instability and cold perfusion is a better predictor of outcome than time from extubation to asystole. If validated, this information could be used to predict DGF after DCD renal transplant and improve outcomes after DCD liver transplant.     

Lack of impact of human leukocyte antigen matching in living donor kidney transplantation: experience at Akdeniz University

Lack of expansion of the deceased donor supply has resulted in a severe shortage of organs worldwide. Spousal donors are one possible alternative organ source for patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Despite human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching between recipients and unrelated donors being poor, the reported survival rates for these grafts, including spouses, are comparable to those for grafts from living related donors and higher than those for deceased donor kidneys. In 2000, our renal transplantation program began accepting living donor-recipient pairs with one or zero HLA matches. The purpose of this study was to assess this policy for accepting living unrelated donors. The 3-year graft survival rates for the transplants from living unrelated donors were similar to that for transplants from living related donors (log-rank = 0.078). The number of HLA mismatches did not significantly influence the survival rates for either of these groups of living donor transplants. Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis duration (P = .057) and recipient age (P = .066) negatively influenced patient survival in living donor kidney transplantation. The graft and patient survival rates for the donor transplantations were higher than those for deceased donor transplantations. In light of these findings and considering the increasing problem of organ shortage, we conclude that living unrelated kidney transplantation should be performed, with strict guidelines. Spousal donation is the most favorable form of living unrelated renal transplantation.     

Influence of kidney offer acceptance behavior on metrics of allocation efficiency

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

The use of expanded criteria cadaver and live donor kidneys for transplantation.

The use of expanded criteria donors (non-traditional donors) can help lessen the current shortage of kidneys available for transplantation. The use of older donors has accounted for a large measure of the increase in the organ donation rate; however, the most significant factors found to impact on transplant success negatively traditionally have been shown to be extremes of donor age and last-hour urine output. Less significant variables affecting success rates are average systolic blood pressure, terminal serum creatinine, and days of hospitalization. With the appropriate selection of organs from expanded donors, acceptable outcomes can be obtained. When living donors are selected properly, kidneys with anatomic variants without pathologic significance can be used safely. Kidneys with a heightened potential for the development of progressive disease should not be transplanted. Efforts to decrease the cold ischemia time by increasing the use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors may improve the outcome of transplantation further. Advances in surgical techniques, preservation solutions, and methods for predicting eventual long-term renal function in kidneys from expanded donors will be critical in allowing precise selection criteria for kidneys for transplantation, resulting in the optimum use of a scarce and precious resource. Until options such as xenotransplantation become clinically feasible, the challenge will be to identify which donor organs previously considered suboptimal can be used safely to expand the organ donor pool.     

Transplantation of kidneys with renal artery aneurysm

Olakkengil SA, Mohan Rao M. Transplantation of kidneys with renal artery aneurysm.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: E516–E519. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: The use of kidneys from a select group of living and deceased donors with renal artery aneurysms (RAA) is a novel way to increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Published literature on the outcome of transplanted kidneys with correctable vascular pathology has been reviewed. Materials and methods: The outcome of six transplant recipients who received kidneys after the repair of RAA is presented. Results: Aneurysm was an incidental finding in two live donors, and two were noticed while preparing the deceased donor grafts for transplantation. Two kidneys were salvaged after nephrectomy as the choice of treatment for the aneurysm. All grafts functioned immediately with no post‐operative complications. Conclusions: While there is scarcity for donor kidneys, these repaired kidneys should not be overlooked. Live donor kidneys with aneurysms can be transplanted successfully after appropriate surgical corrections.