Deceased Donor Organ Transplantation With Expanded Criteria Donors: A Single-Center Experience From India

Introduction

Deceased donor organ transplantation (DDOT) accounts for <4% of renal transplants in India. Many volunteers come forth for organ donation with increasing awareness; unfortunately, the majority are marginal donors, but their rejection would hamper the DDOT program. Judicious use of marginal organs is a challenge for developing countries.

Patients and Methods

We performed 29 renal transplants from 21 expanded criteria donors (ECD) out of 115 DDOT between January 2006 to April 2009—10 dual (DKT) and 19 single (SKT). Fourteen donors had hypertension, a cerebrovascular accident as the cause of death, 9 had both, and 4 had diabetes. Mean donor age was 70.3 ± 8.9 years. Decisions on the procedure were based upon frozen section biopsy in 13 of 21 donors. Mean DKT donor age was 76 ± 9.7 years versu 64 ± 5.7 years of SKT donors. The native kidney diseases were chronic glomerulonephritis (n = 14), diabetic nephropathy (n = 7), tubulointerstitial nephritis (n = 4) and polycystic kidney disease, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, lupus nephritis and patchy cortical necrosis, (n = 1 each). Mean recipient age of DKT versus SKT was 43.5 versus 42.3 years. All recipients received rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin, followed by steroid, mycophenolate mofetil/calcinueurin inhibitor.

Results

Over a mean follow-up of 341 days, the mean serum creatinine (SCr) of 25/29 patients was 1.60 mg/dL (range, 1.0-2.6). The mean SCr of SKT patients was 1.59 ± 0.63 mg/dL and of DKT, 1.62 ± 0.48 mg/dL. Ten patients had delayed graft function and 11 had biopsy proven acute tubular necrosis. Seven (24%) patients had rejection (grade 3 Banff update '05, type IA; 4, type 2A); 6 responded to antirejection; 1 graft was lost at 7 months due to chronic rejection. Three (10.3%) patients were lost, 1 each due to AMI, sepsis, and CMV disease.

Conclusion

In the circumstances of organ shortage, DDOT with expanded criteria donor is a feasible option.     

Extended Criteria Donor Kidney Transplantation: Comparative Outcome Analysis Between Single versus Double Kidney Transplantation at 5 Years

Introduction

Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), using extended criteria donor (ECD) grafts not suitable for single kidney transplantation (SKT), has been suggested to expand the kidney donor pool. Herein, we reviewed the long-term outcomes of DKT to assess its results versus a control group of 179 ECD SKTs. The allocation policy was based on a Remuzzi score obtained from a pretransplant biopsy.

Materials and methods

We analyzed SKT in 179 (31.8%) and DKT in 41 (7.3%) of 563 cadaveric transplants from 2000 to 2008. Patients with DKT versus SKT showed mean recipient ages of 54 versus 51 years. We performed 17 ipsilateral and 24 bilateral DKT. The mean score was 2.78 for SKT and 4.3/4.6 for DKT.

Results

Delayed graft function requiring dialysis occurred in 23 (56.1%) DKT and 70 (39.1%) SKT recipients. Primary nonfunction was observed in 1 (2.4%) DKT and 7 (3.9%) SKT recipients respectively. One DKT patient underwent monolateral transplantectomy. In the DKT versus SKT group, patient survivals were 92% versus 95%, 89% versus 93%, and 89 versus 91% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P = .3). Graft survivals were 100% versus 94%, 95% versus 90%, and 89% versus 78% at 12, 36, and 60 months, respectively (P < .001). We observed a lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy (P = .01) and a higher incidence of surgical adverse events (P = .04) in DKT.

Conclusions

ECD graft survival using DKT provided better results compared with SKT, despite the use of organs from higher-risk donors. At 5 years follow-up, DKT was a safe strategy to face the organ shortage. To optimize the use of available kidneys, the criteria for DKT require further refinement and standardization. Preimplantation evaluation must maximize transplant success and protect recipients from receiving organs at increased risk of premature failure.     

Dual kidney transplantation: a case-control comparison with single kidney transplantation from standard and expanded criteria donors

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to perform a case-matched cohort analysis of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) compared to single kidney transplantation (SKT) from concurrent ECDs and standard criteria donors (SCDs, defined as non-ECD). METHODS: Deceased donor (DD) kidney transplants (KTs) performed at a single center between October 2001 and February 2006 were reviewed retrospectively. If the calculated DD creatinine clearance (CrCl) was <65 mL/min, then the kidneys were transplanted dually into a single patient. In the case of DKT and SKT from ECDs, low risk patients were chosen and informed consent was obtained. Patients in each group were matched for age, gender, race, transplant number, and time of transplant. RESULTS: Of 294 adult DD KTs performed, 16 (5%) were DKTs, which were matched with 16 concurrent SCD and 16 ECD SKT patients. Mean donor age in years (65 DKT vs. 33 SCD vs. 61 ECD; P<0.0001) and mean donor CrCl in ml/min (54 DKT vs. 91 SCD vs. 76 ECD; P=0.002) were different between groups. Patient survival was 100% in the DKT and SCD SKT groups and 94% in the ECD SKT group (mean follow up 23-28 months); graft survival rates in the DKT, SCD, and ECD groups were 81%, 81%, and 94%, respectively (P=NS). Graft function, rejection, and morbidity were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: DKT using kidneys from marginal ECDs is a viable option to counteract the growing shortage of available organs. Excellent short-term results and renal function can be achieved with older, low nephron mass donors provided that both kidneys are transplanted into a single recipient.     

Analysis of 80 dual-kidney transplantations: a multicenter experience

Introduction

The use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors (ECD) is an attractive strategy to enlarge the pool of organs available for transplantation. Considering the fact that ECD organs have a reduced nephron mass, they are preferentially allocated for dual-kidney transplantation (DKT). Authors have reported excellent results of DKT when pretransplant ECD organs are evaluated for histological scores. The aim of this study was to evaluate DKT donor and recipient characteristics for comparison with DKT posttransplant outcomes versus those of recipients of single-kidney transplantations from expanded criteria (edSKT) and ideal donors (idSKT). We analyzed the potential prognostic factors involved in DKT among a population derived from three transplant centers.

Materials and methods

Between 2001 and 2007, DKT (n = 80) were performed based upon the ECD kidney allocation assessed by biopsy.

Results

The average donor ages for the DKT, edSKT, and idSKT groups were 68.8 ± 7.8, 65.3 ± 7.2, and 40.1 ± 13.8 years, respectively (P < .001). The number of human leukocyte antigen mismatches was greater in the DKT group (3.1 ± 1.2, P < .05). Patient and graft 5-year survival rates were similar among DKT, edSKT, and idSKT recipients, namely, 97.5% versus 95.8% versus 96.9% and 93.7% versus 87.4% versus 86.9%, respectively. Mean serum creatinine values at discharge were lower in the DKT and idSKT recipients (1.5 ± 0.9 and 1.6 ± 0.7 mg/dL; P < .05) compared with the edSKT group (1.9 ± 0.7 mg/dL). Correlations between supposed prognostic factors and survival among the DKT group noted worse outcomes in reoperation cases (P < .05).

Conclusion

We confirmed that DKT produced successful outcomes. An accurate surgical procedure is particularly important to try to avoid reoperations. In our experience, the use of a biopsy as an absolute criterion to allocate ECD kidneys may be too protective.     

Outcomes of dual adult kidney transplants in the United States: an analysis of the OPTN/UNOS database

BACKGROUND: The organ shortage has resulted in increased use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors (ECD). For ECD kidneys unsuitable for single use, dual kidney transplants (DKT) may be possible. There are limited data comparing outcomes of DKT to single kidney ECD transplants, making it unclear where DKT fits in the current allocation scheme. Our purpose was to compare outcomes of DKT and ECD transplants in the United States. METHODS: From 2000 to 2005, a total of 625 DKT, 7686 single kidney ECD, and 6,044 SCD transplants from donors aged>or=50 years were identified from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing data. Allograft survival was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DKT comprised 4% of kidney transplants from donors aged>or=50 years. Compared to the ECD donor group, the DKT donor group was older (mean age 64.6+/-7.7 years vs. 59.9+/-6.2 years) and consisted of more African Americans (13.1% vs. 9.9%), and more diabetic donors (16.3% vs. 10.4%; P<0.001). Mean cold ischemic time was longer in DKT (22.2+/-9.7 hr), but rates of delayed graft function were lower (29.3%) compared to ECD transplants (33.6%, P=0.03). Three-year overall graft survival was 79.8% for DKT and 78.3% for ECD transplants. CONCLUSION: DKT were infrequent and had outcomes comparable to ECD transplants, despite the use of organs from higher risk donors. With a more upfront approach to DKT by offering this option to patients at the time of wait-listing as part of an ECD algorithm, we may be able to further optimize outcomes of DKT and minimize discard of potential organs.     

Patient and Graft Survival After Dual Kidney Transplantation With Marginal Donors in Comparison to Matched Control Groups

BackgroundPostmortal organ donor rates remain low in Germany, whereas donor age has been increasing considerably in the last decades. As a consequence of low donation rates older and more marginal donor kidneys are accepted for transplantation. However, procured kidneys from very old a/o marginal donors may be considered as not suitable for transplantation as a single organ and subsequently be discarded. However, dual transplantation of both kidneys from such donors may provide an opportunity to nevertheless use these organs for renal transplantation, thereby providing the twofold nephron mass as a single kidney transplantation.MethodsWe compared in this retrospective analysis the outcome of 10 recipients of a dual kidney transplantation (DKT) with 40 matched recipients of a single kidney transplantation (SKT). Recipients were matched for donor and recipient age (ie, a maximum age difference of ±10 years in a ratio of 1:4 for DKT vs SKT recipients). In addition, a second SKT control group of 10 SKT recipients being transplanted immediately before each DKT recipient with a kidney from a donor aged ≥65 years was used for comparison. All renal transplant recipients were observed for up to 3 years or until July 31, 2020.ResultsMean donor and recipient age was 77.2 ± 4.6/75.1 ± 6.6/82.1 ± 7.9 and 66.4 ± 5.8/66.1 ± 6.0/64.8 ± 8.4 for SKT group 1/SKT group 2/DKT, respectively. Procurement serum creatinine concentrations were significantly higher in the DKT group in comparison to the SKT control group 1 (P = .019) as was the rate of transplant artery atherosclerosis (P = .021). Furthermore, Kidney Donor Profile Index, and Kidney Donor Risk Index were significantly higher (P = .0138/P = .064, and P < .001/P = .038) in the DKT group than in SKT group 1 and 2. Rates of acute rejection and delayed graft function were not significantly different between groups, though biopsy-proven acute rejection was numerically higher in the SKT groups. Patient survival and overall and death-censored graft survival rates were also not significantly different between groups, although they tended to be higher after DKT.ConclusionsDKT provides an opportunity to successfully use postmortal kidneys even from donors aged >80 years and a Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥95% for renal transplantation. DKT may thereby increase the available pool of donors to better serve patients with end-stage renal disease on the waiting list.     

Long‐Term Results of Biopsy‐Guided Selection and Allocation of Kidneys From Older Donors in Older Recipients

In our old‐for‐old program, we discard or allocate older extended criteria donor kidneys to single (SKT) or dual kidney transplantation (DKT) depending on histological Remuzzi's score in recipients older than 60 years. Here, we analyze the long‐term results of this program and try to identify independent predictors of patient and graft survival. Between December 1996 and January 2008, we performed 115 SKT and 88 DKT. Discard rate was 15%. Acute rejection incidence was higher in SKT than in DKT (22.6% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.04). Renal function was better in DKT than in SKT up to 5 years after transplantation. Surgical complications were frequent in DKT. Ten‐year cumulative graft survival was significantly lower in the SKT group (31% vs. 53%, p = 0.03). In SKT, histological score 4 provided similar graft survival than 3 or less, whereas in DKT score 4, 5 or 6 displayed similar outcome. Finally, independent predictors of graft survival were history of major adverse cardiac event and 1‐year serum creatinine, rather than SKT or DKT. In conclusion, this biopsy‐guided old‐for‐old strategy resulted in acceptable long‐term graft survival. Our results suggest that DKT should be considered for scores of 5 or 6 only.     

Dual kidneys from marginal adult donors as a source for cadaveric renal transplantation in the United States

The current organ shortage has led to the utilization of double kidney transplants from marginal adult donors, but outcomes data are limited. The United Network for Organ Sharing registry database was used to compare the outcomes of 403 dual adult kidney transplantations (DKT) and 11,033 single kidney transplantations (SKT) from 1997 to 2000. Graft and patient survival and the effect of multiple risk factors were evaluated. It was found that DKT patients were older, less sensitized, and received grafts from older, more mismatched donors with longer cold ischemia times. There was also a greater percentage of donors with a history of diabetes or hypertension and African-American recipients and donors in the DKT group. Graft survival was inferior in the DKT group, with a 7% lower graft survival rate at 1 yr. There was a higher incidence of primary nonfunction in the DKT group, although the incidence of delayed graft function, early rejection treatment, and graft thrombosis did not differ. Multivariate analysis was used to identify African-American recipient ethnicity and retransplant as risk factors for graft loss. Graft survival was comparable in DKT and SKT with donors over 55 yr of age. DKT resulted in inferior graft outcomes compared with SKT. When compared with SKT with donors over 55 yr of age, DKT resulted in similar graft outcomes. These otherwise discarded kidneys should be cautiously considered as a source of marginal donors.     

Kidney transplantation outcomes from expanded criteria donors,standard criteria donors or living donors older than 60 years

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes in kidney allograft recipients from donors with expanded criteria (ECD) versus standard criteria (SCD) or living donors (LD) >60 years. Methods: We studied all patients who received a kidney between 2005 and 2011, focusing in recipients of kidneys from deceased ECD, SCD and LD >60 years. ECD was any deceased donor >60 years or >50 years with two of the following: hypertension (HTN), stroke as the cause of death, or serum creatinine >1.5?mg/dL. We recorded characteristics of the transplant procedure, patient, graft survival and renal function 1 year after transplantation and at the end of follow-up. Results: Six-hundred and five patients were transplanted between 2005 and 2011 in our department. There were 142 (25.1%) transplantations from ECD, 192 (33.98%) from SCD and 96 (16.99%) from LDs older than 60 years. In a mean follow-up time of 36.4 months, graft survival rates were similar for all groups. Calculated GFR was found statistically different between the ECD and SCD groups, but still satisfactory at first year, and at end of follow-up time. Comparison of the patients, who received transplants from ECD, even older than 70 years, and those from LD >60 years revealed equivalent renal function in short and long term. Conclusions: Utilization of marginal kidneys effectively doubled our deceased transplant volume in the period 2005–2011. Patients’ and graft survival were shown similar at the end of follow-up for all groups. Renal outcomes were shown equivalent between the ECD and LD >60 years groups, and although significantly lower between the ECD and the SCD group, were still very satisfactory.     

Safety of dual kidney transplantation compared to single kidney transplantation from expanded criteria donors: a single center cohort study of 39 recipients

Our objective was to compare the outcomes of dual kidney transplanataion (DKT) to single kidney transplantation (SKT) performed with grafts from expanded criteria donors (ECD) in recipients ≥65 years, focusing on surgical complications. All kidney transplantations (KT) performed between 2006 and 2014 in our institution were analysed. DKT was indicated according to the criteria of the French national Agence de la Biomedecine. Thirty‐nine DKT and 155 SKT were included, with a median follow‐up of 36 and 26.5 months, respectively. The rate of early surgical revisions was not significantly higher after DKT (23.1% vs 15.5% (P = 0.2593)) but more venous graft thromboses (12.8% vs 3.2% (P = 0.02)) were reported. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 24 months after KT was significantly higher after DKT (45.0 ± 16.3 vs 39.8 ± 13.8 ml/min/1.73m²; P = 0.04) and allowed shorter waiting time without a significant increased risk of surgical revision, excepted for venous graft thrombosis, more frequent after DKT. Graft survivals were not significantly different and GFR was higher after DKT. DKT seems to remain an appropriate strategy to address the growing graft shortage in elderly patients.     

Donor-Estimated GFR as an Appropriate Criterion for Allocation of ECD Kidneys into Single or Dual Kidney Transplantation

It has been suggested that dual kidney transplantation (DKT) improves outcomes for expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. However, no criteria for allocation to single or dual transplantation have been assessed prospectively. The strategy of DKT remains underused and potentially eligible kidneys are frequently discarded. We prospectively compared 81 DKT and 70 single kidney transplant (SKT) receiving grafts from ECD donors aged >65 years, allocated according to donor estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): DKT if eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min, SKT if eGFR greater than 60 mL/min. Patient and graft survival were similar in the two groups. In the DKT group, 13/81 patients lost one of their two kidneys due to hemorrhage, arterial or venous thrombosis. Mean eGFR at month 12 was similar in the DKT and SKT groups (47.8 mL/min and 46.4 mL/min, respectively). Simulated allocation of kidneys according to criteria based on day 0 donor parameters such as those described by Remuzzi et al., Andres et al. and UNOS, did not indicate an improvement in 12-month eGFR compared to our allocation based on donor eGFR.     

Renal Transplantation With Expanded Criteria Donors: The Experience of One Portuguese Center

Background

The shortage of kidneys available for transplantation has led to enlarged criteria donors (ECD): namely, donors older than 60 years or aged between 50 and 59 years with 2 of the following characteristics-hypertension, predonation serum creatinine level higher than 1.5 mg/dL or cerebrovascular disease as the cause of death. The aim of this study was to analyze renal transplants using ECD compared with standard criteria donors (SCD) concerning the incidences of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection episodes (ARE), and patient and graft survivals.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study of 409 cadaveric renal transplants over the last 4 years identified ECD in contrast with SCD.

Results

Of the transplants, 24.4% used ECD. The baseline characteristics of recipients of ECD versus SCD kidneys were similar, except for age and cold ischemia time. Comparing ECD and SCD, we observed an higher incidence of DGF (35% vs 18%), occurrence of ARE (34.4% vs 16.6%), average serum creatinine levels at 6 (1.87 vs 1.4 mg/dL), and 12 months (1.88 vs 1.43 mg/dL) as well as lower graft survival at 1 (82% vs 91%) and 3 years (75% vs 84%) after transplantation. Recipient survival at 1 year was not different. Multivariate analysis identified recipient age, cold ischemia time, ARE, and DGF as risk factors for graft failure.

Conclusions

Renal transplantation with grafts from ECD shows significantly worse outcomes with higher rates of DGF and ARE, worse graft function, and lower graft survival.     

Outcomes of Adult Dual Kidney Transplants by KDRI in the United States

UNOS guidelines provide inadequate discriminatory criteria for kidneys that should be transplanted as single (SKT) versus dual (DKT). We evaluated the utility of the kidney donor risk index (KDRI) to define kidneys with better outcomes when transplanted as dual. Using SRTR data from 1995 to 2010 of de novo KTX recipients of adult deceased‐donor kidneys, we examined outcomes of SKT and DKT stratified by KDRI group ≤1.4 (n = 49 294), 1.41–1.8 (n = 15 674), 1.81–2.2 (n = 6523) and >2.2 (n = 2791). DKT of kidneys with KDRI >2.2 was associated with significantly better overall graft survival [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.96] compared to single kidneys with KDRI >2.2. DKT was associated with significantly decreased odds of delayed graft function (top 2 KDRI categories) and significantly decreased odds of 1‐year serum creatinine level >2 mg/dL (top 3 KDRI categories). Among SKT and DKT from KDRI >2.2 there were 16.1 and 13.9 graft losses per 100 patient follow‐up years, respectively. KDRI >2.2 is a useful discriminatory cut‐off for the determination of graft survival benefit with the use of DKT; however, the benefit of increased graft years was less than half of single kidneys from donors in the same KDRI range.     

Is it safe to use a kidney from an expanded criteria donor?

Background

The use of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys has been encouraged to enlarge the donor pools due to the shortage of donors. However, a major concern with ECD kidneys is poor long-term graft survival. The objective of this study was to determine whether ECD kidneys had a negative impact on graft survival.

Methods

We analyzed all deceased donor renal transplantations at our center from September 1995 to December 2009.

Results

ECD donors show characteristics, such as comparatively older age, a history of hypertension and diabetes, the use of norepinephrine, high serum creatinine levels and deceased donor scores, and decreased albumin levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates. However, the occurrence of delayed graft function and primary nonfunction among ECD grafts was comparable to those of standard criteria donor (SCD) grafts. Graft survival was not significantly different between the two groups. Only serum creatinine levels at 3, 6, and 9 months after transplantation were lower in the ECD than the SCD group. Multivariate analysis identified longer hospital stay after transplantation, delayed graft function, and acute rejection episodes as independent predictors of poor graft survival.

Conclusion

Graft survival of ECD kidney was comparable to that of SCD kidneys. We observed that donor factors prior to procurement were not risk factors for graft failure.     

Increased kidney transplantation utilizing expanded criteria deceased organ donors with results comparable to standard criteria donor transplant

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in recipients of expanded criteria donor (ECD) versus standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys at a single center using a standardized approach with similar immunosuppression. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Expanded criteria deceased organ donors (ECD) are a source of kidneys that permit more patients to benefit from transplantation. ECD is defined as all deceased donors older than 60 years and donors older than 50 years with 2 of the following: hypertension, stroke as the cause of death, or pre-retrieval serum creatinine (SCr) greater than 1.5 mg/dl. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 90 recipients of adult deceased donor kidneys transplanted from October 1, 2001 to February 17, 2003, including 37 (41%) from ECDs and 53 (59%) from SCDs. ECD kidneys were used by matching estimated renal functional mass to recipient need, including the use of dual kidney transplants (n = 7). ECD kidney recipients were further selected on the basis of older age, HLA-matching, low allosensitization, and low body mass index. All patients received a similar immunosuppressive regimen. Minimum follow up was 9 months. RESULTS: There were significant differences in donor and recipient characteristics between ECD and SCD transplants. Patient (99%) and kidney graft survival (88%) rates and morbidity were similar between the 2 groups, with a mean follow-up of 16 months. Initial graft function and the mean 1-week and 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month SCr levels were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECD kidneys at our center effectively doubled our transplant volume within 1 year. A systematic approach to ECD kidneys based on nephron mass matching and nephron sparing measures may provide optimal utilization with short-term outcomes and renal function comparable to SCD kidneys.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation From Expanded-Criteria Deceased Donors: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Organ shortage has prompted the use of expanded-criteria donors (ECDs). Our objective was to compare long-term outcomes of kidney transplants from ECDs with those from concurrent standard-criteria donors (SCDs). In addition, we evaluated variables associated with graft survival in both groups.

Experience with deceased donor kidney transplantation in 114 patients over age 60

BACKGROUND: In the recent past, advanced age was a contraindication to kidney transplantation (KT). The purpose of this study was to review retrospectively our single center experience in deceased donor (DD) KT with respect to recipient age. METHODS: From 10/1/01 to 9/1/06, we performed 356 adult DD KTs. Patients received antibody induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and tapered steroids. RESULTS: A total of 114 (32%) patients were greater than 60 (including 25 >70 years), 186 (52%) were 40-59 years of age, and 56 (16%) were 19-39 years of age. Of the 114 older patients, 61 (54%) received KTs from expanded criteria DDs (ECD), more than the younger age groups (39% ECDs in patients 40-59 years versus 18% ECDs in patients 19-39 years, P < .0001). Mean waiting time (21 mo) was less for patients greater than 60 years compared with the other 2 groups combined (29 mo, P = .06). Patient survival was 91% in recipients greater than 60 years compared with 95% in those less than 60 years of age (P = NS) with a mean follow-up of 27 mo. Graft survival was similar for all 3 age groups (82% >60 years vs 83% in patients 40-59 years vs 87% in patients 19-39 years, P = NS). Initial and subsequent graft function, morbidity, and resource use were similar among groups. Patient survival [93% ECD vs 89% standard criteria DDs (SCD), P = NS) and graft survival (82% ECD vs 81% SCD, P = NS) rates were similar, whereas mean waiting times (18 mo ECD vs 25 mo SCD, P = .04) were less in patients greater than 60 years who received ECD KTs compared with patients greater than 60 years who received SCD KTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients greater than 60 years account currently for one third of DD KTs performed at our center, and more than half receive kidneys from ECDs. By preferentially directing ECD kidneys to appropriately selected elderly patients, waiting times can be decreased and survival is similar compared with SCD KTs in the elderly. In addition, short-term outcomes can be achieved in patients greater than 60 years that are comparable with those in younger patients.     

Influence of pulsatile perfusion preservation on outcomes in kidney transplantation from expanded criteria donors

BACKGROUND: Expanded criteria donors (ECDs) increase the donor organ pool, but the value of transplanting these kidneys has been questioned because of concerns about diminished survival, poorer renal function, and higher rates of delayed graft function. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of intermediate-term outcomes in ECD kidney transplantations according to method of preservation at a single center using a standardized approach. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, we performed 141 donations-after-brain-death ECD kidney transplantations into adult recipients. A total of 114 kidneys (81%) were managed with combined cold-storage and pulsatile perfusion preservation (PPP), and the remaining 27 (19%) were preserved with cold storage (CS). The PPP group had a higher proportion of kidneys preserved for longer than 30 hours (28% versus 0, p < 0.001) and a longer mean cold ischemia time (24.5 hours PPP versus 19 hours CS, p < 0.01). Other donor and recipient characteristics were similar between groups. Incidence of delayed graft function was 11% in PPP-stored kidneys versus 37% in CS kidneys (p = 0.002). With a mean followup of 27 months, patient (91% PPP versus 96% CS) and kidney graft survival (81% PPP versus 81.5% CS) rates were comparable. Mean 12-month serum creatinine (1.9 mg/dL) and calculated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease glomerular filtration rate (41 mL/min) values were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer cold ischemia times, recipients of ECD kidneys managed with PPP had similar survival and functional outcomes, but experienced a marked reduction in the rate of delayed graft function.     

Optimization of Expanded Donors Using Dual Kidney Transplantation: Case-control Study

Background

Cadaveric donation is now experiencing a trend toward the use of expanded criteria donors (ECD) who may not yield a suitable kidney for single organ transplantation which has occasionally led to their use as dual renal transplantations.

Material and Methods

We undertook a case-control study to analyze our experiences between May 2007 and March 2011 with 80 kidneys from ECD who were older than 65 years. Of these, 40 were used as single transplants (STX) and the other 40 as dual cases (DTX). Criteria to determine STX versus DTX were established by biopsy results and other donor factors.

Results

The mean age of the ECD for STX was 68.7 ± 3.0 years and for DTX, 74.2 ± 4.3 years (P < .001), with more women among DTX (75%) versus STX (40%; P < .001). The DTX kidneys showed higher biopsy scores than the STX organs. DTX were older than STX recipients, but there were no differences in cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, hemorrhagic complications or reinterventions. DTX recipients achieved better CrCl at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, although only significantly so at 6 months (53.4 ± 19.5 Ml/min versus 44.5 ± 15.6 mL/min; P < .05). Death-censored graft survival was 90% at 3 years for both groups.

Conclusions

DTX offered good results for graft survival and renal function, despite the more complicated surgery and worse quality of the allografts. DTX allowed the use of ECD kidneys that showed less satisfactory histologic and donor characteristics.     

Dual kidney transplantation as a strategy to use expanded criteria donors: a systematic review

The objective of this review was to assess whether dual kidney transplantation (DKT ) is better than single KT (SKT ) for optimizing the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys. We did a systematic literature search and meta‐analyses when possible, pooling data for calculating relative risks (RR ) of major outcomes. Twenty‐five studies met the inclusion criteria. One‐year serum creatinine was better after DKT vs. SKT (mean difference ?0.27 [?0.37, ?0.17], P  < 0.001), with less incidence of acute rejection (RR 0.66 [0.52, 0.85], P  < 0.001) and without differences at five years. Less DGF was seen in DKT (RR 0.88 [0.76, 1.02], P  = 0.09). Mortality at 1 and 3 years was similar after dual or SKT , but mortality at five years was lower after DKT (RR 0.71 [0.53, 0.94], P  = 0.02). One‐year graft loss was similar between dual (n  = 4158) and SKT (n  = 51 800) (RR 0.97 [0.87, 1.09], P  = 0.62). Three‐ and five‐year graft loss was not considered because of high heterogeneity between studies. In conclusion, short‐term graft function and long‐term patient survival are better in recipients receiving DKT vs. SKT . However, these differences are based on few retrospective reports with a relatively low number of cases. Good quality randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether the investment of two kidneys in one recipient is justified in face of the current organ shortage.