Better graft outcomes from offspring donor kidneys among living donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001‐2016 to evaluate death‐censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15‐year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = _0.730.77_0.82, P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR _0.770.85_0.95; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR _0.770.84_0.91, P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15‐year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = _1.021.06_1.10, P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = _0.930.97_1.01, P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.     

A donor risk index for graft loss in pediatric living donor kidney transplantation

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates often have multiple potential living donors (LDs); no evidence‐based tool exists to compare potential LDs, or to decide between marginal LDs and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation (KT). We developed a pediatric living kidney donor profile index (P‐LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI by using Cox regression to model the risk of all‐cause graft loss as a function of living donor characteristics and DD KDPI. HLA‐B mismatch (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per mismatch = _1.041.27_1.55), HLA‐DR mismatch (aHR per mismatch = _1.021.23_1.49), ABO incompatibility (aHR = _1.203.26_8.81), donor systolic blood pressure (aHR per 10 mm Hg = _1.011.07_1.18), and donor estimated GFR (eGFR; aHR per 10 mL/min/1.73 m² = _0.880.94_0.99) were associated with graft loss after LDKT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) P‐LKDPI was ?25 (?56 to 12). 68% of donors had P‐LKDPI <0 (less risk than any DD kidney) and 25% of donors had P‐LKDPI >14 (more risk than median DD kidney among pediatric KT recipients during the study period). Strata of LDKT recipients of kidneys with higher P‐LKDPI had a higher cumulative incidence of graft loss (39% at 10 years for P‐LDKPI ≥20, 28% for 20> P‐LKDPI ≥?20, 23% for ?20 > P‐LKDPI ≥?60, 19% for P‐LKDPI <?60 [log rank P < .001]). The P‐LKDPI can aid in organ selection for pediatric KT recipients by allowing comparison of potential LD and DD kidneys.     

Electronic messaging and communication with living kidney donors

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow‐up for 2 years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e‐mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e‐mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow‐up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e‐mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e‐mail or text messaging at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse _2.075.81_16.36, P = .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e‐mail (IRR nonresponse _0.110.28_0.71, P = .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, P = .4) and age (IRR 1.00, P > .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2 years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.     

Your Path to Transplant: A randomized controlled trial of a tailored expert system intervention to increase knowledge,attitudes, and pursuit of kidney transplant

Individually tailoring education over time may help more patients, especially racial/ethnic minorities, get waitlisted and pursue deceased and living donor kidney transplant (DDKT and LDKT, respectively). We enrolled 802 patients pursuing transplant evaluation at the University of California, Los Angeles Transplant Program into a randomized education trial. We compared the effectiveness of Your Path to Transplant (YPT), an individually tailored coaching and education program delivered at 4 time points, with standard of care (SOC) education on improving readiness to pursue DDKT and LDKT, transplant knowledge, taking 15 small transplant-related actions, and pursuing transplant (waitlisting or LDKT rates) over 8 months. Survey outcomes were collected prior to evaluation and at 4 and 8 months. Time to waitlisting or LDKT was assessed with at least 18 months of follow-up. At 8 months, compared to SOC, the YPT group demonstrated increased LDKT readiness (47% vs 33%, P = .003) and transplant knowledge (effect size [ES] = 0.41, P < .001). Transplant pursuit was higher in the YPT group (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.79, P = .002). A focused, coordinated education effort can improve transplant-seeking behaviors and waitlisting rates. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02181114.     

Patterns and predictors of fatigue following living donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

This study sought to identify the prevalence, pattern, and predictors of clinical fatigue in 193 living kidney donors (LKDs) and 20 healthy controls (HCs) assessed at predonation and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation. Relative to HCs, LKDs had significantly higher fatigue severity (P = .01), interference (P = .03), frequency (P = .002), and intensity (P = .01), and lower vitality (P < .001), at 1‐month postdonation. Using published criteria, significantly more LKDs experienced clinical fatigue at 1 month postdonation, compared to HCs, on both the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (60% vs. 37%, P < .001) and SF‐36 Vitality scale (67% vs. 16%, P < .001). No differences in fatigue scores or clinical prevalence were observed at other time points. Nearly half (47%) reported persistent clinical fatigue from 1 to 6 months postdonation. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs presenting for evaluation with a history of affective disorder and low vitality, those with clinical mood disturbance and anxiety about future kidney failure after donation, and those with less physical activity engagement were at highest risk for persistent clinical fatigue 6 months postdonation. Findings confirm inclusion of fatigue risk in existing OPTN informed consent requirements, have important clinical implications in the care of LKDs, and underscore the need for further scientific examination in this population.     

Factors associated with perceived donation‐related financial burden among living kidney donors

The perception of living kidney donation–related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self‐reported and ZIP code–level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation‐related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6‐fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6‐fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation‐related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation‐related financial burden.     

How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney‐paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non‐KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009‐December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012‐December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014‐December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: _1.741.85_1.97, P < .001 and for KPD: _1.702.20_2.84, P < .001), the likelihood of non‐KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: _0.690.82_0.97, P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%‐99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non‐KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non‐KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.     

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney‐only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre‐KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post‐KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre‐ and post‐KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18‐34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre‐KAS and post‐KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post‐KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: _0.180.21_0.25, P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: _1.121.20_1.29, P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post‐KAS: kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post‐KAS (adjusted odds ratio: _0.610.77_0.98, P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI < 35% post‐KAS to the same extent they were used pre‐KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.     

Racial differences in completion of the living kidney donor evaluation process

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non‐AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non‐AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non‐AA: _0.260.47 _0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in‐person evaluation (aHR: _0.410.62_0.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: _0.28 0.51_0.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: _0.781.02_1.33; P = .95) and from in‐person evaluation to clearance (aHR: _0.59 0.93_1.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidate's social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.     

Transplant social worker and donor financial assistance to increase living donor kidney transplants among African Americans: The TALKS Study,a randomized comparative effectiveness trial

Lack of donors hinders living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) for African Americans. We studied the effectiveness of a transplant social worker intervention (TALK SWI) alone or paired with living donor financial assistance to activate African Americans’ potential living kidney donors. African Americans (N = 300) on the transplant waiting list were randomly assigned to usual care; TALK SWI; or TALK SWI plus Living Donor Financial Assistance. We quantified differences in live kidney donor activation (composite rate of live donor inquiries, completed new live donor evaluations, or live kidney donation) after 12 months. Participants’ mean age was 52 years, 56% were male, and 43% had annual household income less than $40,000. Most previously pursued LDKT. Participants were highly satisfied with TALK social workers, but they rarely utilized Financial Assistance. After 12 months, few (n = 39, 13%) participants had a new donor activation event (35 [12%] new donor inquiries; 17 [6%] new donor evaluations; 4 [1%] LDKT). There were no group differences in donor activation events (subdistribution hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.09 [0.51–2.30] for TALK SWI and 0.92 [0.42–2.02] for TALK SWI plus Financial Assistance compared to Usual Care, p = 91). Alternative interventions to increase LDKT for African Americans on the waiting list may be needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02369354).     

Screening of Living Kidney Donors for Genetic Diseases Using a Comprehensive Genetic Testing Strategy

Related living kidney donors (LKDs) are at higher risk of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with unrelated LKDs. A genetic panel was developed to screen 115 genes associated with renal diseases. We used this panel to screen six negative controls, four transplant candidates with presumed genetic renal disease and six related LKDs. After removing common variants, pathogenicity was predicted using six algorithms to score genetic variants based on conservation and function. All variants were evaluated in the context of patient phenotype and clinical data. We identified causal variants in three of the four transplant candidates. Two patients with a family history of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease segregated variants in PKD1. These findings excluded genetic risk in three of four relatives accepted as potential LKDs. A third patient with an atypical history for Alport syndrome had a splice site mutation in COL4A5. This pathogenic variant was excluded in a sibling accepted as an LKD. In another patient with a strong family history of ESRD, a negative genetic screen combined with negative comparative genomic hybridization in the recipient facilitated counseling of the related donor. This genetic renal disease panel will allow rapid, efficient and cost‐effective evaluation of related LKDs.     

Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess fear of kidney failure following living donation

Living kidney donors (LKDs) may feel more anxious about kidney failure now that they have only one kidney and the security of a second kidney is gone. The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to develop and empirically validate a self‐report scale for assessing fear of kidney failure in former LKDs. Participants were 364 former LKDs within the past 10 years at five US transplant centers and 219 healthy nondonor controls recruited through Mechanical Turk who completed several questionnaires. Analyses revealed a unidimensional factor structure, excellent internal consistency (α = 0.88), and good convergent validity for the Fear of Kidney Failure questionnaire. Only 13% of former donors reported moderate to high fear of kidney failure. Nonwhite race (OR = 2.9, P = 0.01), genetic relationship with the recipient (OR = 2.46, P = 0.04), and low satisfaction with the donation experience (OR = 0.49, P = 0.002) were significant predictors of higher fear of kidney failure. We conclude that while mild anxiety about kidney failure is common, high anxiety about future renal failure among former LKDs is uncommon. The Fear of Kidney Failure questionnaire is reliable, valid, and easy to use in the clinical setting.     

Temporal trends in utilization and outcomes of steatotic donor livers in the United States

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization–level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non‐SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005‐2007:_13.1515.28_17.74; 2008‐2011:_11.7713.41_15.29; 2012‐2014:_9.8711.37_13.10; 2015‐2017:_7.798.89_10.15, P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.430.54_0.68, P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.420.53_0.67, P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.901.04_1.21, P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.901.04_1.20, P = .6) to recipients of non‐SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.     

Use of expanded-criteria donors and > 85 KDPI kidneys for pediatric kidney transplantation in the United States

Pediatric kidney transplant outcomes associated with expanded-criteria donors (ECD) and high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) kidneys are unknown. We reviewed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 1987-2017 to identify 96 ECD and 92 > 85 KDPI kidney recipients (<18 years). Using propensity scores, we created comparison groups of 375 non-ECD and 357 ≤ 85 KDPI recipients for comparisons with ECD and > 85 KDPI transplants, respectively. We used Cox regression for patient/graft survival and sequential Cox approach for survival benefit of ECD and > 85 KDPI transplantationvs remaining on the waitlist. After adjustment, ECD recipients were at significantly increased risk of graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.6; P = .001) but not of mortality (aHR = 1.33; P = .15) compared with non-ECD recipients. We observed no survival benefit of ECD transplants vs remaining on the waitlist (aHR = 1.05; P = .83). We found no significant difference in graft failure (aHR = 1.27; P = .12) and mortality (aHR = 1.41; P = .13) risks between > 85 KDPI and ≤ 85 KDPI recipients. However, > 85 KDPI transplants were associated with a survival benefit vs remaining on the waitlist (aHR = 0.41; P = .01). ECD transplantation in children is associated with a high graft loss risk and no survival benefit, whereas > 85 KDPI transplantation is associated with a survival benefit for children vs remaining on the waitlist.     

Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: Focus on 55 donors undergoing right hepatectomy

Although laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is increasingly common, few centers with substantial experience have reported the results of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH). Here, we report the experiences of 60 consecutive liver donors undergoing pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH), with most undergoing right hepatectomy. None of the 60 donors who underwent PLDH had intraoperative complications and none required transfusions, reoperation, or conversion to open hepatectomy. Forty‐five donors who underwent PLDRH between November 2015 and December 2016 were compared with 42 who underwent conventional donor right hepatectomy (CDRH) between May 2013 and February 2014. The total operation time was longer (330.7 vs 280.0 minutes; P < .001) and the percentage with multiple bile duct openings was higher (53.3% vs 26.2%; P = .010) in the PLDRH group. However, the length of postoperative hospital stay (8.4 vs 8.2 days; P = .495) and rate of complications (11.9% vs 8.9%; P = .733) and re‐hospitalizations (4.8% vs 4.4%; P = 1.000) were similar in both groups. PLDH, including PLDRH, is feasible when performed by a highly experienced surgeon and transplant team. Further evaluation, including long‐term results, may support these preliminary findings of comparative outcomes for donors undergoing PLDRH and CDRH.     

Quantifying infection risks in incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = _0.771.40_2.56,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = _0.881.35_2.06,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = _1.332.22_3.72,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = _2.623.57_4.88, P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = _1.154.01_13.95,P = .03). Post–KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.     

Delayed graft function and acute rejection following HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR = _1.031.68_2.72). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF = _1.452.09_3.02; PFNC = _1.672.40_3.46; PCC = _1.482.24_3.37). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR = _1.341.62_1.95) than CLDKT (aHR = _1.962.29_2.67) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered.     

Outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation based on donor resuscitation

It has been hypothesized that transplanting simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) grafts from donors with a history of cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CACPR) leads to inferior posttransplant outcomes due to organ hypoperfusion during cardiac arrest and mechanical trauma during resuscitation. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 13 095 SPK transplants from 2000‐2018, of which 810 (6.2%) were from donors with a history of CACPR. After inverse probability of treatment weighting on donor and recipient characteristics, we found that 1‐, 5‐, and 10‐year patient (CACPR: 96.4%, 89.9%, and 78.9%; non‐CACPR: 96.3%, 88.9%, and 76.0%; P = .3), death‐censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non‐CACPR: 89.9%, 82.7%, 76.3%; P = .7), and death‐censored kidney graft survival (CACPR: 97.0%, 89.5%, 78.2%; non‐CACPR: 96.9.9%, 88.7%, 80.0%; P = .4) were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the risk of pancreatitis (CACPR: 2.9%, non‐CACPR: 2.4%; weighted OR = _0.74 1.22 _2.02; P = .4), anastomotic leak (CACPR: 1.6%, non‐CACPR: 2.0%; weighted OR = _0.54 1.02 _1.93; P > .9), or median length of hospital stay (CACPR: 8 days, non‐CACPR: 9 days; P = .6) for recipients of CACPR vs non‐CACPR donors. Our findings suggest that CACPR donors could be used to expand the SPK donor pool without compromising short‐ or long‐term outcomes.     

T cell–mediated rejection is a major determinant of inflammation in scarred areas in kidney allografts

Inflammation in fibrosis areas (i‐IF/TA) of kidney allografts is associated with allograft loss; however, its diagnostic significance remains to be determined. We investigated the clinicohistologic phenotype and determinants of i‐IF/TA in a prospective cohort of 1539 kidney recipients undergoing evaluation of i‐IF/TA and tubulitis in atrophic tubules (t‐IF/TA) on protocol allograft biopsies performed at 1 year posttransplantation. We considered donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, immunosuppression, and histological diagnoses in 2260 indication biopsies performed within the first year posttransplantation. Nine hundred forty‐six (61.5%) patients presented interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA Banff grade > 0) at 1 year posttransplant, among whom 394 (41.6%) showed i‐IF/TA. i‐IF/TA correlated with concurrent t‐IF/TA (P < .001), interstitial inflammation (P < .001), tubulitis (P < .001), total inflammation (P < .001), peritubular capillaritis (P < .001), interstitial fibrosis (P < .001), and tubular atrophy (P = .02). The independent determinants of i‐IF/TA were previous T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) (P < .001), BK virus nephropathy (P = .007), steroid therapy (P = .039), calcineurin inhibitor therapy (P = .011), inosine‐5′‐monophosphate dehydrogenase inhibitor therapy (P = .011), HLA‐B mismatches (P = .012), and HLA‐DR mismatches (P = .044). TCMR patients with i‐IF/TA on posttreatment biopsy (N = 83/136, 61.0%) exhibited accelerated progression of IF/TA over time (P = .01) and decreased 8‐year allograft survival (70.8% vs 83.5%, P = .038) compared to those without posttreatment i‐IF/TA. Our results support that i‐IF/TA may represent a manifestation of chronic active TCMR.     

Hospital readmissions following HLA‐incompatible live donor kidney transplantation: A multi‐center study

Thirty percent of kidney transplant recipients are readmitted in the first month posttransplantation. Those with donor‐specific antibody requiring desensitization and incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) constitute a unique subpopulation that might be at higher readmission risk. Drawing on a 22‐center cohort, 379 ILDKTs with Medicare primary insurance were matched to compatible transplant‐matched controls and to waitlist‐only matched controls on panel reactive antibody, age, blood group, renal replacement time, prior kidney transplantation, race, gender, diabetes, and transplant date/waitlisting date. Readmission risk was determined using multilevel, mixed‐effects Poisson regression. In the first month, ILDKTs had a 1.28‐fold higher readmission risk than compatible controls (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13‐1.46; P < .001). Risk peaked at 6‐12 months (relative risk [RR] 1.67, 95% CI 1.49‐1.87; P < .001), attenuating by 24‐36 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10‐1.40; P < .001). ILDKTs had a 5.86‐fold higher readmission risk (95% CI 4.96‐6.92; P < .001) in the first month compared to waitlist‐only controls. At 12‐24 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77‐0.95; P = .002) and 24‐36 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66‐0.84; P < .001), ILDKTs had a lower risk than waitlist‐only controls. These findings of ILDKTs having a higher readmission risk than compatible controls, but a lower readmission risk after the first year than waitlist‐only controls should be considered in regulatory/payment schemas and planning clinical care.