Donor Kidney Exchanges

Kidney transplantation from live donors achieves an excellent outcome regardless of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch. This development has expanded the opportunity of kidney transplantation from unrelated live donors. Nevertheless, the hazard of hyperacute rejection has usually precluded the transplantation of a kidney from a live donor to a potential recipient who is incompatible by ABO blood type or HLA antibody crossmatch reactivity. Region 1 of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has devised an alternative system of kidney transplantation that would enable either a simultaneous exchange between live donors (a paired exchange), or a live donor/deceased donor exchange to incompatible recipients who are waiting on the list (a live donor/list exchange). This Regional system of exchange has derived the benefit of live donation, avoided the risk of ABO or crossmatch incompatibility, and yielded an additional donor source for patients awaiting a deceased donor kidney. Despite the initial disadvantage to the list of patients awaiting an O blood type kidney, as every paired exchange transplant removes a patient from the waiting list, it also avoids the incompatible recipient from eventually having to go on the list. Thus, this approach also increases access to deceased donor kidneys for the remaining candidates on the list.     

Increasing the supply of kidneys for transplantation

Kidney transplantation confers a survival advantage for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) when compared to dialysis and improves the quality of life in a cost-effective manner. Currently there are more than 60,000 patients on the U.S. waiting list for kidney transplantation. In 2004, 16,879 kidney transplants, including 880 simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplants, were performed in this country. Recent strategies for increasing the supply of kidneys hold promise, such as systematic programs designed to improve consent rates for deceased donor organ procurement. Efforts to increase donation after cardiac death (DCD) have been highly successful and now account for more than 5% of all deceased organ donors. Transplantation of kidneys from DCD donors yields 1-year graft and patient survival rates equivalent to kidneys from brain-dead donors. Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donors > or = 60 years of age (or donors age 50-59 years with certain comorbidities) confer a survival benefit for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients compared to remaining on dialysis on the waiting list. The number of live donor kidney transplants, both from biologically related and unrelated donors, is increasing. Paired live donor kidney transplants provide yet another transplantation opportunity for ESRD patients with willing but incompatible (by ABO or direct antibody) living donors.     

Allocation of Deceased Donor Kidneys in São Paulo, Brazil: Effect of Human Leukocyte Antigen Compatibility on Graft Survival

In Brazil, organ transplantation has been regulated by a federal law since 1997. This law was created to guarantee equal access to treatment on a national scale. Deceased donor organ procurement and sharing are centralized and controlled by the Health Department of each state of the nation, following a regional allocation policy. In São Paulo, time on the waiting list was the main criterion adopted to allocate deceased donor kidneys up to January 1, 2002. After that, HLA mismatches (MM) were the main criterion. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of HLA compatibility on graft survival among 3312 consecutive kidney recipients. The 2-year kidney graft survival rates were compared among recipients transplanted based on the waiting time policy and based on HLA MM. Better results were observed in the HLA MM group (78.1% vs 64.9%; P < .0001). Regarding kidney allocation based on HLA MM, recipients transplanted with 0 HLA-A, -B, or -DR MM showed significantly better 5-year survival rates than those with 1-2 or 3-4 or 5-6 HLA-A, -B, or -DR MM (70.36% vs 64.71% vs 58.07% vs 55.64%; P < .050). We concluded that HLA compatibility is a feasible criterion to allocate deceased donor kidneys in Brazil.     

The Impact of Transplantation with Deceased Donor Hepatitis C-Positive Kidneys on Survival in Wait-Listed Long-term Dialysis Patients

Whether transplantation of deceased donor kidney allografts from donors with antibodies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) confers a survival advantage compared with remaining on the kidney transplant waiting list is not yet known. We studied 38,270 USRDS Medicare beneficiaries awaiting kidney transplantation who presented with end-stage renal disease from April 1, 1995 to July 31, 2000. Cox regression was used to compare the adjusted hazard ratios for death among recipients of kidneys from deceased donors, and donors with antibodies against hepatitis C (DHCV+), controlling for demographics and comorbidities. In comparison to staying on the waiting list, transplantation from DHCV+ was associated with improved survival among all patients (adjusted hazard ratio for death 0.76, 95% CI 0.60, 0.96). Of patients receiving DHCV+ kidneys, 52% were themselves hepatitis C antibody positive (HCV+), so outcomes associated with use of these grafts may have particular implications for HCV+ transplant candidates. Recommendations for use of DHCV+ kidneys may require analysis of data not currently collected from either dialysis or transplant patients. However, transplantation of DHCV+ kidneys is associated with improved patient survival compared to remaining wait-listed and dialysis dependent.     

Allocation of cadaver donor kidneys in Australia

The national allocation of kidneys in Australia is based on a combination of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and equity factors designed to make transplantation accessible to as many patients as possible. A points system has been designed that deducts points for HLA mismatches but adds points for factors such as levels of HLA sensitization, waiting time on dialysis, and a loading for pediatric patients. Kidneys that do not reach the level of matching required for national allocation are transplanted in the donor state using both matching and waiting time criteria, which caters to minority groups with rare HLA types.     

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.     

Renal transplantation across the ABO barrier using A2 kidneys.

BACKGROUND: The waiting list for cadaveric kidney transplantation has continued to grow, and with the relative scarcity of cadaver donors, the median waiting time for patients in the United States increased to 824 days in 1994. The median waiting times for patients with blood groups B or O were 1329 and 1007 days, respectively. Allocation of blood group A2 kidneys (20% of group A) to blood group O and B patients expands their potential donor pool and shortens their waiting time for a kidney transplantation. METHODS: Between May 1991 and June 1998, we transplanted 15 A2 kidneys into 6 blood group O and 9 blood group B patients. Anti-A isoagglutinins were measured before transplantation, and patients with anti-A1 titers > or = 1:8 underwent plasmapheresis (PP). RESULTS: One patient with high titer anti-A antibodies, who did not receive PP, lost her allograft because of hyperacute rejection. Allograft function was excellent in the remaining 14 patients, with a mean serum creatinine level of 1.7 (+/-0.89) mg/dl at 1 month and 1.3 (+/-0.34) mg/dl at 1 year. The actuarial 1-year graft survival rate was 93.3+/-6.4% and the patient survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the allocation of blood group A2 kidneys for blood group O and B recipients is a practical way to expand the donor pool for these transplant candidates. PP may be important for reducing the levels of anti-A1 and anti-A2 antibodies and for reducing the risk of hyperacute rejection. Splenectomy seems to be unnecessary.     

Strong human leukocyte antigen matching effect in nonsensitized kidney recipients with high pretransplant soluble CD30

The influence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching on graft survival is greater in patients with preformed lymphocytotoxic antibodies than in nonsensitized patients. Pretransplant serum soluble CD30 (sCD30) affects graft outcome independently of presensitization status. The impact of HLA compatibility on kidney transplant survival was analyzed in 3980 nonsensitized first cadaveric kidney recipients in relation to the pretransplant serum sCD30 content. Although HLA compatibility influenced graft outcome only marginally in nonsensitized recipients with low sCD30 (at 3 years: P=0.0095; at 5 years: P=0.1033), a strong HLA matching effect was observed in nonsensitized recipients with high sCD30 (at 3 years: P<0.0001; at 5 years: P=0.0001). Nonsensitized patients with high pretransplant sCD30 benefit from an HLA well-matched kidney. Patients should be tested for sCD30 while on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, and HLA well-matched kidneys should be allocated to patients with high sCD30.     

A new allocation plan for renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: A novel plan of renal allograft allocation has been conducted by United Network for Organ Sharing Region 1 transplant centers since September 3, 1996, based upon HLA matching, time waiting, and population distance points. The objectives of this plan were to achieve a balance between increasing the opportunity of renal transplantation for those patients listed with long waiting times and promoting local organ donor availability. METHODS: A single list of candidates was formulated for each cadaver donor, assigning a maximum of 8 points for time waiting, a maximum of 8 points for population distance from the donor hospital, and HLA points based upon the degree of B/DR mismatch. Additional points were awarded to a cross-match-negative patient with a panel-reactive antibody of >80%, and to pediatric patients. RESULTS: The total number of kidneys transplanted to patients who had waited >3 years was 100 (46%), and to patients who had waited >2.5-3 years was 29 (13%). However, the total number of kidneys transplanted to patients with the maximum population distance points was only 72 (33%). Thus, although the plan achieved a favorable distribution of kidneys to patients with longer waiting times (nearly 60%), the other, equally important objective of promoting local donor availability was not initially accomplished. Moreover, minor HLA B/DR differences between the donor and the recipient (i.e., not phenotypically matched) were unexpectedly consequential in determining allocation. As a result of these observations, the following adjustments were made in the plan (as of December 3, 1997): a maximum of 10 points for population distance, a maximum of 8 points for time waiting (both by a linear correlation), and the retention of HLA points for 0 B/DR mismatch only. After these interval changes, the percentage of patients receiving a kidney with some population distance points increased from 85% to 96%. Conclusions. We have shown that a heterogeneous region of multiple transplant centers can devise (and modify) an innovative and balanced plan that provides an equitable system of allocation for an ever-increasing number of patients.     

Should we use kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury for renal transplantation?

The scarcity of donor organs for transplant results in long waiting times for kidney transplantation and low transplant rate worldwide. Utilization of kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the strategies that has attracted attention recently. This article reviewed the outcomes of transplanted renal allografts from donors with acute kidney injury. Key findings about the transplant outcomes included a higher incidence of delayed graft function and primary non function, but respectable outcomes in the context of similar acute rejection rates, and graft function and graft survival. Against this background and with evidence of high mortality for patients remaining on waiting list of transplant, we advocate consideration of AKI donors for kidney transplantation.     

Increased Access to Transplantation for Blood Group B Cadaveric Waiting List Candidates by Using A2 Kidneys: Time for a New National System?

Since blood group B end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have less access to donor kidneys and a higher minority composition than any other blood group, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) approved a voluntary national kidney allocation variance to allow organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to preferentially allocate A2 and A2B kidneys to B candidates. The Midwest Transplant Network OPO has preferentially allocated and transplanted kidneys from blood group A2 and A2B donors to our blood group B waiting list candidates for more than 7 years to increase access to kidneys for the B candidates on our OPO-wide waiting list. Between 1994 and 2000, a total of 121 blood group B ESRD patients from our OPO-wide cadaveric kidney waiting list were transplanted. Thirty-four per cent (41/121) of those B candidates received either an A2 or an A2B kidney. One- and 5-year graft survival rates for the group of B recipients of A2 or A2B kidneys were 91 and 85% (died with functioning graft [DWFG] censored), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of 91 and 80% for the 80 B recipients of B or O kidneys (Wilcoxon = 0.48; log-rank = 0.55). These data support the national trial for additional OPOs to voluntarily allocate A2 and A2B kidneys preferentially to B waiting list candidates, thus increasing access of blood group B patients to renal transplantation.     

Renal Transplant Register of Andalusia, 2010 Report: survival in relation to the factors used in recipient selection

Kidney transplantation is the best therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In recent years a significant advance has been made in Andalusia in graft and recipient survival as seen in our 2009 publication. In the current work we analyzed 2989 kidney transplantations performed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 based on data obtained from the Renal Transplant Registry of Andalusia. We studied the influence on graft and patient survival of factors, such as donor and recipient age, HLA matching, HLA immunization, and duration of previous renal replacement therapy. Patient survival was influenced by age at the time of transplantation and by donor age; the younger the donor, the more it was improved. Graft survival was determined by the donor age group, with no differences at each level according to the recipient age group. No significant differences were observed in patient survival or graft or death-censored graft survival according to HLA matching. Patient and graft survivals were significantly affected by the duration of the previous renal replacement therapy. Despite this being a preliminary study, we have shown the importance of nonmodifiable factors in transplant survival, such as donor and recipient age, with HLA matching having a limited effect. These latter findings should be confirmed in the future by multivariate analyses.     

Early Graft Loss After Kidney Transplantation: Risk Factors and Consequences

Early graft loss (EGL) after kidney transplantation is a catastrophic outcome that is assumed to be more likely after the use of kidneys from suboptimal donors. We therefore examined its incidence, risk factors and consequences in our center in relation to different donor types. Of 801 recipients who received a kidney‐only transplant from deceased donors, 50 (6.2%) suffered EGL within 30 days of transplantation. Significant risks factors for EGL were donation after circulatory death (DCD) (odds ratio [OR] 2.88; p = 0.006), expanded criteria donor (ECD) transplantation (OR 4.22; p = 0.010), donor age (OR 1.03; p = 0.044) and recipient past history of thrombosis (OR 4.91; p = 0.001). Recipients with EGL had 12.28 times increased risk of death within the first year, but long‐term survival was worse for patients remaining on the waiting list. In comparison with patients on the waiting list but not transplanted, and with all patients on the waiting list, the risk of death after EGL decreased to baseline 4 and 23 months after transplantation, respectively. Our findings suggest that DCD and ECD transplantation are significant risk factors for EGL, which is a major risk factor for recipient death. However, long‐term mortality is even greater for those remaining on the waiting list.     

An algorithm for cadaver kidney allocation based on a multivariate analysis of factors impacting on cadaver kidney graft survival and function

Abstract The large imbalance between cadaver kidney supply and demand makes the implementation of equitable and effective organ allocation systems an urgent need. This has triggered a revision of the criteria used so far for cadaver kidney allocation within the North Italy Transplant program, not least in the light of the many changes that have occurred recently with respect to broader criteria for admission of patients to the waiting list, donor selection, tissue‐typing methods, organ preservation and immunosuppressive protocols. We based the critical revision of our cadaver kidney allocation algorithm on univariate and multivariate analysis of a number of immunological, clinical, social and administrative factors that impacted on the transplant outcome in 2,917 patients transplanted in the 12 transplant centers operating within our organization from 1 January 1990 to 30 September 1997. This analysis indicated that younger donor age, absence of pretransplant transfusions, patient dialysis center and level of HLA match showed statistically significant positive associations with graft survival. Younger donor age and male donor gender showed a statistically significant association with excellent graft function at 4 years. The results of this analysis were used to develop a new computer‐assisted version of our adult kidney allocation algorithm. It works in two steps (local pool first, then the entire waiting list) and four levels (0‐1 HLA MM, PRA +; 2 HLA MM, PRA +; 0‐1 MM, PRA‐; 2‐4 HLA MM, PRA‐); within each level, selection takes into account waiting time and age difference from donor age. The evaluation of 731 transplants allocated in 19 months with the new algorithm, as against 698 transplants allocated in the preceding 19 months according to the previous algorithm, showed a significantly higher proportion of recipients who had been on the waiting list for more than 3 years (33.2% versus 22.6%). The use of the new algorithm was also associated with a significantly increased number of transplanted alloimmunized patients (18.8% versus 9.2% with the previous algorithm) and recipients with 0‐1 HLA mismatches (22% versus 14.3%). Furthermore, the number of kidneys used locally has steadily increased. Differences in 6‐month graft survival and percentage of patients with excellent function at 6 months were not statistically significant in recipients transplanted with the new versus the previous algorithm. Survivals were 93.7% versus 91.8%. Percentages of patients with excellent renal function were 69.9% and 71.8%, respectively. These preliminary data suggest that the new algorithm improves HLA match and reduces the number of patients on the waiting list for 3 or more years without determining significant modifications of 6‐month graft survival and function. Moreover, it facilitates the achievement of a fair local balance between organs retrieved and transplanted, the compliance of operators with objective allocation rules and the documentation of the whole allocation process.     

Comparison of blood group versus HLA-dependent transplantation and its influence on donor kidney survival.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of organ allocation based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing are controversial. This evaluation compares the results of HLA-dependent and non-HLA-dependent allocation in the transplantation of donor kidneys. METHODS: Seventy-seven donor kidney pairs explanted locally between 1984 and 1994 were examined. One half of each pair was transplanted locally in Bonn on the basis of criteria including blood group, waiting time and currently negative cross-match. The other half of these pairs was allocated in accordance with the Eurotransplant (ET) criteria. RESULTS: Cold ischaemia time was an average of 14.02 h in Bonn vs. 24.18 h in the ET group (P<0.0001). The number of HLA mismatches was calculated and, for example, for locus A it was 1.13 in Bonn vs. 0.73 in the ET group (P=0.0003). One-year graft survival for the locally transplanted kidneys was 92.2% and, for the ET kidneys, 90.9%. Five-year survival was 79.5% vs. 81.7%, respectively. Patient survival after 1 year was 100% vs. 97.4%, and after 5 years, 93.4% vs. 93.1%. CONCLUSION: The results show that it is possible to provide patients with a locally allocated kidney graft that enables good function after a short waiting period. This procedure avoids long cold ischaemia time and long waiting periods.     

Living donor kidney paired donation transplantation: experience as a founding member center of the National Kidney Registry

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a safe and effective means of transplantation for transplant candidates with willing but incompatible donors. We report our single-center experience with KPD through participation in the National Kidney Registry. Patient demographics, transplant rates, and clinical outcomes including delayed graft function (DGF), rejection, and survival were analyzed. We also review strategies employed by our center to maximize living donor transplantation through KPD. We entered 44 incompatible donor/recipient pairs into KPD from 9/2007 to 1/2011, enabling 50 transplants. Incompatibility was attributable to blood type (54.4%) and donor-specific sensitization (43.2%). Thirty-six candidates (81.8%) were transplanted after 157 d (median), enabling pre-emptive transplantation in eight patients. Fourteen candidates on the deceased donor waiting list also received transplants. More than 50% of kidneys were received from other transplant centers. DGF occurred in 6%; one-yr rejection rate was 9.1%. One-yr patient and graft survival was 98.0% and 94.8%. KPD involving participation of multiple transplant centers can provide opportunities for transplantation, with potential to expand the donor pool, minimize waiting times, and enable pre-emptive transplantation. Our experience demonstrates promising short-term outcomes; however, longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of KPD on the shortage of organs available for transplantation.     

The Dutch algorithm for allocation in living donor kidney exchange

The shortage of kidneys from brain-dead donors for transplantation has made it necessary to look for alternatives. Living kidney donation is one possibility. However, because of ABO blood group incompatibility or immunological reasons, transplantation of kidneys from a living donor is not always possible. The seven Dutch kidney transplantation centers have developed a joint protocol for crossover, or paired donor exchange, kidney transplantation. To ensure a fair chance for all participating donor-recipient pairs, the Dutch Transplantation Foundation has developed an allocation algorithm to match compatible donor-recipient pairs. A crossover match is performed every 3 months. The computer program developed by the Dutch Transplantation Foundation to match compatible donor-recipient pairs calculates the match probability (MP) of every potential recipient. The MP takes into account the peak panel-reactive antibodies (%PRA) of the recipient, the incidence within the crossover donor population of (compatible) ABO blood group, and HLA unacceptables of the recipient. The potential recipient with the lowest MP, in other words, the recipient with the smallest chance of finding a compatible donor in the pool, is ranked first. Until now, three matches have been performed in the Netherlands. A total of 53 pairs from all seven Dutch transplantation centers have participated. For 22 of the pairs a compatible donor-recipient pair was found.     

Differences in perceived health status between kidney transplant recipients and dialyzed patients are based mainly on the selection process

Rosenberger J, van Dijk JP, Prihodova L, Majernikova M, Nagyova I, Madarasova Geckova A, Roland R, van den Heuvel WJA, Groothoff JW. Differences in perceived health status between kidney transplant recipients and dialyzed patients are based mainly on the selection process.
Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 358–365. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Kidney transplantation offers longer survival, less morbidity and lower costs than dialysis. It is also believed to improve quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare prospectively the perceived health status (PHS) of dialyzed patients on a waiting list with kidney transplant recipients after transplantation, matched for age, gender and comorbidity. The sample consisted of 93 dialyzed patients on a waiting list for deceased‐donor kidney transplantation and 87 incident transplant recipients. A total of 62 dialyzed patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity with 62 transplant recipients. PHS was measured using the SF‐36 questionnaire. Data from baseline and after 12 months were compared between the groups. Patients on dialysis had worse physical (49 ± 21) and mental (59 ± 18) PHS than transplant recipients (56 ± 21 and 64 ± 18, p ≤ 0.05), but when matched pairs were compared, no differences in PHS were found. After 12 months, PHS did not change significantly in either group. The PHS of patients after kidney transplantation is better than that of those on dialysis. However, this fact is significantly influenced by the selection procedure, as only some dialyzed patients are put onto the waiting list while others were actually transplanted. The differences disappear with matching.     

Long-Term Outcome on Kidney Retransplantation: A Review of 100 Cases From a Single Center

Renal transplantation has become an effective form of treatment for end-stage renal failure. Unfortunately, as a consequence of immunological and nonimmunological pathogenic mechanisms, chronic allograft nephropathy is responsible for the loss of a large proportion of kidney grafts after several years and return to dialysis. We have reported herein our 24 years of experience with second kidney transplantations. Of 1302 kidney transplantations between January 1983 and June 2007 performed in our transplantation center, 100 were second transplantations. Kidney retransplantation was performed in 74 men and 26 women of overall mean age of 35.4 ± 12.6 years. Cadaveric donor grafts were transplanted in 92 patients, whereas the remaining 8 were living-related donor kidneys. At 1, 5, and 10 years after kidney transplantation, patient survival rates were 100%, 96%, and 92%, respectively, whereas graft survival rates were 85%, 72%, and 53%, respectively. Immunosuppressive therapy included induction therapy with polyclonal anti-lymphocyte antibodies (ALG/ATG) or (starting from 1999) monoclonal anti CD 25 antibody. Our results demonstrated good outcomes for kidney retransplantations with allocation based on anti- HLA antibody identification together with induction immunosuppression.     

Frequency and clinical implications of development of donor-specific and non-donor-specific HLA antibodies after kidney transplantation

The involvement of immunologic and nonimmunologic events in long-term kidney allograft failure is difficult to assess. The development of HLA antibodies after transplantation is the witness of ongoing reactivity against the transplant, and several studies have suggested that the presence of HLA antibodies correlates with poor graft survival. However, they have not discriminated between donor-specific (DS) and non-specific (NDS) antibodies. A total of 1229 recipients of a kidney graft, transplanted between 1972 and 2002, who had over a 5-yr period a prospective annual screening for HLA antibodies with a combination of ELISA, complement-dependent cytotoxicity, and flow cytometry tests were investigated; in 543 of them, the screening was complete from transplantation to the fifth year postgrafting. Correlations were established between the presence and the specificity of the antibodies and clinical parameters. A total of 5.5% of the patients had DS, 11.3% had NDS, and 83% had no HLA antibodies after transplantation. NDS antibodies appeared earlier (1 to 5 yr posttransplantation) than DS antibodies (5 to 10 yr). In multivariate analysis, HLA-DR matching, pretransplantation immunization, and acute rejection were significantly associated with the development of both DS and NDS antibodies and also of DS versus NDS antibodies. The presence of either DS or NDS antibodies significantly correlated with lower graft survival, poor transplant function, and proteinuria. Screening of HLA antibodies posttransplantation could be a good tool for the follow-up of patients who receive a kidney transplant and allow immunosuppression to be tailored.