Pediatric Kidney Transplantation—Living or Deceased Donor?

BackgroundKidney transplantation is ideal for children and adolescents with chronic end-stage renal disease because it offers better growth, development, and quality of life. Donor choice is vitally important in this age group, given the long life expectancy of these patients.MethodsA retrospective analysis of pediatric patients (<18 years) who underwent kidney transplantation from January 1999 to December/2018 was performed. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between living and deceased donor transplants.ResultsWe included 59 pediatric kidney transplant recipients, 12 from a living donor and 47 from a deceased donor. Thirty-six (61.0%) patients were boys, and 5 (8.5%) had a retransplant. There were no differences between groups on sex, race, and weight of the recipient and donor, as well as the age and the etiology of the recipient's primary disease. Most recipients received induction immunosuppression with basiliximab and maintenance with triple therapy, with no differences between groups. Living donor transplants were mostly pre-emptive (58.3% vs 4.3%, P < .001) and had fewer HLA mismatches (≤3: 90.9% vs 13.0%, P < .001), older donors (38.4 vs 24.3 years, P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (8.8 vs 14.1 days, P = .004). There were no statistically significant differences regarding medical-surgical complications and graft or patient survival. However, we found that at 13 years post-transplant 91.7% of the living donor grafts were functioning vs 72.3% of the deceased donor grafts.ConclusionOur experience points out that a living donor graft in pediatric patients is associated with a higher probability of pre-emptive transplant, shorter hospital stay, greater HLA compatibility, and increased graft survival.     

Kidney transplant outcomes associated with the use of increased risk donors in children

Increased risk donors (IRDs) may inadvertently transmit blood‐borne viruses to organ recipients through transplant. Rates of IRD kidney transplants in children and the associated outcomes are unknown. We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to identify pediatric deceased donor kidney transplants that were performed in the United States between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015. We used the Cox regression analysis to compare patient and graft survival between IRD and non‐IRD recipients, and a sequential Cox approach to evaluate survival benefit after IRD transplants compared with remaining on the waitlist and never accepting an IRD kidney. We studied 328 recipients with and 4850 without IRD transplants. The annual IRD transplant rates ranged from 3.4% to 13.2%. IRDs were more likely to be male (P = .04), black (P < .001), and die from head trauma (P = .006). IRD recipients had higher mean cPRA (0.085 vs 0.065, P = .02). After multivariate adjustment, patient survival after IRD transplants was significantly higher compared with remaining on the waitlist (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26‐0.88, P = .018); however, patient (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.54‐1.59, P = .79) and graft survival (aHR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70‐1.13, P = .32) were similar between IRD and non‐IRD recipients. We recommend that IRDs be considered for transplant in children.     

Long-term kidney transplant graft survival—Making progress when most needed

Current short-term kidney post–transplant survival rates are excellent, but longer-term outcomes have historically been unchanged. This study used data from the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and evaluated 1-year and 5-year graft survival and half-lives for kidney transplant recipients in the US. All adult (≥18 years) solitary kidney transplants (n = 331,216) from 1995 to 2017 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 49.4 years (SD +/-13.7), 60% male, and 25% Black. The overall (deceased and living donor) adjusted hazard of graft failure steadily decreased from 0.89 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.91) in era 2000–2004 to 0.46 (95%CI: 0.45, 0.47) for era 2014–2017 (1995–1999 as reference). Improvements in adjusted hazards of graft failure were more favorable for Blacks, diabetics and older recipients. Median survival for deceased donor transplants increased from 8.2 years in era 1995–1999 to an estimated 11.7 years in the most recent era. Living kidney donor transplant median survival increased from 12.1 years in 1995–1999 to an estimated 19.2 years for transplants in 2014–2017. In conclusion, these data show continuous improvement in long-term outcomes with more notable improvement among higher-risk subgroups, suggesting a narrowing in the gap for those disadvantaged after transplantation.     

Crucial Role of Extended Criteria Donors in Deceased Donor Single Kidney Transplantation to Face Chronic Shortage in the Heart of the Mediterranean Basin: A Single-Center Experience

BackgroundThe gap between organ availability and patients on the waiting list for deceased donor kidney transplants has resulted in the wide use of extended criteria donors (ECDs).We aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of single kidney transplantation (KT) performed at our institute with standard criteria donor (SCD) or ECD grafts, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition. Patients and methods. Our retrospective analysis studied 115 adult recipients of KT from January 2016 to July 2018, with kidney grafts procured from adult donors after brain or circulatory death, performed at our institute. Among the 2 recipients’ groups, we compared the incidence of early graft loss, delayed graft function, hospitalization, and surgical complications. We compared the evaluation of time to early graft loss with Kaplan-Meier estimators and curves; the hypothesis of no difference in time to graft loss between the 2 groups was tested using the log-rank statistics.ResultsOf the 103 deceased donor kidney transplants during the study period, 129 grafts were used after the regional network sharing allocation. More frequently, ECDs had a greater body mass index than SCDs (25.2 ± 3.9 vs 27.7 ± 5.0, P = .005) and type II diabetes mellitus (0% vs 18%, P = .002). KT recipients who received an ECD graft (73, 63.5%) were older (59.8 ± 9.8 vs 45.2 ± 15.4, P < .001) and presented a higher rate of delayed graft function (56% vs 24%, P = .001). Post-transplant graft loss did not differ among the 2 groups.ConclusionBased on clinical experience in a single transplant center, ECD use for KTs is crucial in facing the organ shortage, without impairing post-deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes.     

The benefit to waitlist patients in a national paired kidney exchange program: Exploring characteristics of chain end living donor transplants

Nondirected kidney donors can initiate living donor chains that end to patients on the waitlist. We compared 749 National Kidney Registry (NKR) waitlist chain end transplants to other transplants from the NKR and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between February 2008 and September 2020. Compared to other NKR recipients, chain end recipients were more often older (53 vs. 52 years), black (32% vs. 15%), publicly insured (71% vs. 46%), and spent longer on dialysis (3.0 vs. 1.0 years). Similar differences were noted between chain end recipients and non-NKR living donor recipients. Black patients received chain end kidneys at a rate approaching that of deceased donor kidneys (32% vs. 34%). Chain end donors were older (52 vs. 44 years) with slightly lower glomerular filtration rates (93 vs. 98 ml/min/1.73 m²) than other NKR donors. Chain end recipients had elevated risk of graft failure and mortality compared to control living donor recipients (both p < .01) but lower graft failure (p = .03) and mortality (p < .001) compared to deceased donor recipients. Sharing nondirected donors among a multicenter network may improve the diversity of waitlist patients who benefit from living donation.     

Waitlist Outcomes for Patients Relisted Following Failed Donation After Cardiac Death Liver Transplant: Implications for Awarding Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease Exception Scores

Understanding of outcomes for patients relisted for ischemic cholangiopathy following a donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplant (LT) will help standardization of a Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease exception scheme for retransplantation. Early relisting (E‐RL) for DCD graft failure caused by primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) was defined as relisting ≤14 days after DCD LT, and late relisting (L‐RL) due to biliary complications was defined as relisting 14 days to 3 years after DCD LT. Of 3908 DCD LTs performed nationally between 2002 and 2016, 540 (13.8%) patients were relisted within 3 years of transplant (168 [4.3%] in the E‐RL group, 372 [9.5%] in the L‐RL group). The E‐RL and L‐RL groups had waitlist mortality rates of 15.4% and 10.5%, respectively, at 3 mo and 16.1% and 14.3%, respectively, at 1 year. Waitlist mortality in the L‐RL group was higher than mortality and delisted rates for patients with exception points for both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) at 3‐ to 12‐mo time points (p < 0.001). Waitlist outcomes differed in patients with early DCD graft failure caused by PNF or HAT compared with those with late DCD graft failure attributed to biliary complications. In L‐RL, higher rates of waitlist mortality were noted compared with patients listed with exception points for HCC or HPS.     

Predictors and outcomes of delayed graft function after living‐donor kidney transplantation

Delayed graft function (DGF) following deceased donor kidney transplantation is associated with inferior outcomes. Delayed graft function following living‐donor kidney transplantation is less common, but its impact on graft survival unknown. We therefore sought to determine risk factors for DGF following living‐donor kidney transplantation and DGF's effect on living‐donor kidney graft survival. We analyzed living‐donor kidney transplants performed between 2000 and 2014 in the UNOS dataset. A total of 64 024 living‐donor kidney transplant recipients were identified, 3.6% developed DGF. Cold ischemic time, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, donor age, panel reactive antibody, recipient diabetes, donor and recipient body mass index, recipient race and gender, right nephrectomy, open nephrectomy, dialysis status, ABO incompatibility, and previous transplants were independent predictors of DGF in living‐donor kidney transplants. Five‐year graft survival among living‐donor kidney transplant recipients with DGF was significantly lower compared with graft survival in those without DGF (65% and 85%, respectively, P < 0.001). DGF more than doubled the risk of subsequent graft failure (hazard ratio = 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.1–2.6; P < 0.001). DGF after living‐donor kidney transplantation is associated with inferior allograft outcomes. Minimizing modifiable risk factors may improve outcomes in living‐donor kidney transplantation.     

Outcomes of renal transplantation for recipients with lupus nephritis: analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database

Prior analyses of transplant outcomes in lupus transplant recipients have not consisted of multivariate analyses in the modern immunosuppressive era. Here, we compared patient and graft outcomes in lupus and non-lupus recipients transplanted between 1996 to 2000 using the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. We evaluated the impact of recipient and donor demographic factors, time on dialysis and the initial immunosuppression regimen on rejection rates and transplant outcomes. Univariate analysis showed similar graft but better patient survival rates for primary lupus and non-lupus transplant recipients (5-year patient survival rates for lupus cohort 85.2% for deceased donor transplants and 92.1% for living donor transplants as opposed to 82.1% and 89.8% respectively for the non-lupus cohort; P=0.05 and 0.03) but similar patient survival rates for deceased donor retransplant patients. After controlling for confounding factors, no differences in patient or graft survival were seen between the two groups. No difference in acute rejection rates were observed in deceased donor transplants, but there was a small but significant increase in the risk of acute rejection in living donor lupus transplant recipients (hazard ratio=1.19, P=0.05). Risk of graft failure was lower for deceased donor recipients receiving MMF (five-year graft loss rate=29.6% for MMF vs. 40.2% for those not receiving MMF, P<0.0001), but no differences were seen among living donor recipients. Outcomes were similar regardless of type of calcineurin inhibitor, induction therapy, and time on dialysis. We conclude that lupus transplant recipients have outcomes generally equivalent to non-lupus transplant recipients.     

Current status of organ transplantation in Japan and worldwide

Recent advances in immunosuppressant therapy have dramatically reduced the frequency of acute rejection of organ transplants. Subsequently, the short-term graft survival rate has been improved, and ABO blood type-incompatible and existing anti-HLA antibody-positive kidney transplantation has been enabled, which has increased the availability of living kidney donors. Japan has a unique history and strategies of liver transplantation (LT) for various liver diseases. The outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in Japan is comparable to that of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in Western countries despite the relatively short history of LT. The main disadvantage of LT in Japan is donor shortage mainly due to the small number of available deceased donors. There are some disadvantages with LDLT in autoimmune liver diseases because of the dependence on blood relative donors. The first brain-dead pancreas transplantation (PTx) was performed in 2000. Since that time, 42 brain-dead PTx, 2 non-heart beating PTx, and 14 living donor PTx had been performed by the end of 2007. One of the 44 recipients of deceased donor PTx died of unknown causes 11 months after transplantation. Although most of the deceased donors in Japan were marginal and their condition was not favorable, the results of these cases were comparable to those of Western countries. Fourteen intestinal transplantations (ITx) had been performed by the end of 2007 in four transplant centers. There were 3 deceased donor and 11 live donor transplants. The original diseases included short bowel syndrome (n = 6), intestinal function disorder (n = 6), and retransplantation (n = 2). The graft and patient survival rate are 60% and 69%, respectively. Eight recipients survived and stopped parenteral nutrition with full-functioning grafts. Amendment of the Japanese law for the utilization of deceased donors should increase the number available donors in the future.     

Comparative Analysis of Outcomes in Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Introduction  Primary sclerosing cholangitits (PSC) is a progressive fibrosing cholangiopathy eventually leading to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). While literature for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for PSC abounds, only a few reports describe live donor liver transplant (LDLT) in the setting of PSC. We present a single-center experience on survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Aim  The aim of this study was to analyze survival outcomes and disease recurrence for LDLT and DDLT for ESLD secondary to PSC. Patients and Methods  A retrospective review of 58 primary liver transplants for PSC-associated ESLD, performed between May 1995 and January 2007, was done. Patients were divided into two groups based on donor status. Group 1 (n = 14) patients received grafts from living donors, while group 2 (n = 44) patients received grafts from deceased donors. An analysis of survival outcomes and disease recurrence was performed. Recurrence was confirmed based on radiological and histological criteria. Results  Recurrence of PSC was observed in four patients in LDLT group and seven in DDLT group. Retransplantation was required in one patient in LDLT group and nine patients in DDLT group. One patient (7%) among LDLT and six patients (14%) among DDLT died. The difference in patient and graft survival was not statistically significant between the two groups (patient survival, p = 0.60; graft survival, p = 0.24). Conclusion  This study demonstrates equivalent survival outcomes between LDLT and DDLT for PSC; however, the rate of recurrence may be higher in patients undergoing LDLT.     

Clinical outcomes after ABO-incompatible liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundABO-incompatible liver transplantation (ABOi-LT) is increasingly used to overcome donor shortage. Evidence about disadvantage and advantage in comparison with ABO-compatible liver transplantation (ABOc-LT) needs to be performed in the early and late periods. Herein, We compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between ABOi-LT and ABOc-LT cohorts.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis based on the observation studies which included outcomes at ≥1 year after ABOi-LT and ABOc-LT procedures, based on the MEDLINE (via Pubmed), the Cochrance Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE (via Ovid) systems. Two researchers independently screened each study according to the pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria to assess the quality of each study and extracted data from published studies. The primary outcome indicators were all-cause mortality and graft survival at 1, 3 and 5 years after transplantation. In the meta-analysis, we based on the value of heterogeneity using a fixed-effect and a random-effect. A fixed-effect model was used if the value of I2 was less than or equal 50%; and a random-effect model was used if the value of I2 was greater than 50%.FindingsOut of 335 identified records, 29 records with 10,783 patients with liver transplants; 2137 of them were ABOi-LTs and the remaining 8646 were ABOc-LTs. There was no significant difference at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year in all-cause mortality, death-censored graft survival and complication incidence rate between ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation (ABOi-LDLT) group and ABO-compatible living donor liver transplantation (ABOc-LDLT) group. Compared with ABO-compatible deceased donor liver transplantation (ABOc-DDLT), ABO-incompatible deceased donor liver transplantation (ABOi-DDLT) had a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, and the value of totally pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.89 (1.28,2.80). However, there was no significant difference at 3-year and 5-year all-cause mortality between ABOi-DDLT and ABOc-DDLT groups. ABOi-DDLT group had a lower 1-year and 5-year death-censored graft survival than ABOc-DDLT, as the value of totally pooled OR was 1.91 (1.41,2.60) and 1.52 (1.12,2.05), respectively. No significant difference was detected at 3-year death-censored graft survival between ABOi-DDLT and ABOc-DDLT groups. ABOi-DDLT group had a higher complication incidence rate than ABOc-DDLT, and the value of totally pooled OR was 2.26 (1.53,3.33). We found no obvious bias except for the complication of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT; P = 0.038).In conclusionThe short-term and long-term outcomes were worse after ABOi-DDLT than ABOc-DDLT in the all-cause mortality, death-censored graft survival, and complication incidence rate. However, the same outcomes were essentially comparable between ABOi-LDLT vs. ABOc-LDLT cohorts. Considering the current shortage of liver donors, we believe that ABOi-LT from living donor and deceased donors can save lives under emergency situations.     

500 Consecutive Liver Transplants: The Outcomes of a New Transplantation Program in the Middle West of Brazil

IntroductionLiver transplantation is the standard treatment for end-stage liver disease. Brazil holds the third highest number of liver transplants performed per year, but center maldistribution results in high discrepancies in accessing this treatment. In 2012, an interstate partnership successfully implemented a new liver transplantation program in the middle west of Brazil. Here, we report the results of the first 500 liver transplants performed in this new program and discuss the impacts of a new transplant center in regional transplantation dynamics.MethodsWe reviewed data from the first 500 consecutive deceased donor liver transplants performed in the new program during an 8-year period. We analyzed data on patients’ clinical and demographic profiles, postoperative outcomes, and graft and recipient survival rates. Univariate survival analysis was conducted using log-rank tests to compare the groups.ResultsAlmost half (48%) of the procured organs and 40% of the recipients transplanted in our center were from outside our state. Recipient 30-day mortality was 9%. Overall recipient survival at 1 year and 5 years was 85% and 80%, respectively. Mortality was significantly associated with higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (P < .001) but not with the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (P = .795).DiscussionThe new transplantation program treated patients from different regions of Brazil and became the reference center in liver transplantation for the middle west region. Despite the recent implementation, our outcomes are comparable to experienced centers around the world. This model can inspire the creation of new transplantation programs aiming to democratize access to liver transplantation nationwide.     

Whole liver versus split liver versus living donor in the adult recipient: an analysis of outcomes by graft type

BACKGROUND: We studied patient and graft survival rates in adult liver transplant recipients, analyzing outcomes based on donor source (deceased donor [DD] vs. living donor [LD]) and graft type (whole liver vs. partial liver). METHODS: A retrospective database analysis of all adult liver transpants performed at our center over a 7-year period of time. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2005, 384 liver transplants were performed in adult recipients, either as a whole liver from a deceased donor (DD-WL, n=284), split liver from a DD (DD-SL, n=31), or a partial transplant from a living donor (LD, n=69). DD-SL transplants were performed with a full right or left lobe graft, while LD transplants used the right lobe. Demographic differences in the three groups were most noticeable for lower model for end-stage liver disease scores in LD recipients (P<0.001) and younger donor age in DD-SL recipients (P<0.001). Superior graft survival results were seen in LD recipients versus either DD-WL recipients or DD-SL recipients (P=0.02 and P=0.05, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed hepatitis C (HR=1.53, P=0.05) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.74, P=0.03) to be significant risk factors for patient survival. Hepatitis C (HR=1.61, P=0.03) and donor age more than 50 (HR=1.64, P=0.04) were significant risk factors for graft survival. However, neither graft type nor donor source were significant independent risk factors for patient or graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that the status of the recipient is probably a more important determinant of outcome than graft type or donor source.     

Postoperative Donor Liver Damage Can Predict Recipient Short-Term Survival in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BackgroundIn living donor liver transplantation, surgical damage is a risk for graft dysfunction. We hypothesized that postoperative donor laboratory data reflect both donor liver damage and graft damage. Therefore, we evaluated how donor surgical factors affected recipient graft function and prognosis.Patients and MethodsFrom March 2002 to December 2020, 130 consecutive recipients and donors who underwent adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation were analyzed. Donor perioperative surgical factors were evaluated to assess risk factors for recipient 90-day mortality by univariate analysis.ResultsDonor postoperative maximum levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST; P = .016), alanine transaminase (P = .048), and prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (P = .034) were risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified 214 U/L as the most appropriate cutoff value of donor postoperative AST.After excluding 22 pairs of patients without donor data, the 108 pairs were divided into 2 groups based on donor maximum AST (D-mAST) level: the low D-mAST group (D-mAST < 241 U/L, n = 39) and the high D-mAST group (D-mAST ≥ 241 U/L, n = 69). Donor age was significantly higher in recipients in the high D-mAST group than in the low D-mAST group (P = .033). Postoperative recipient maximum AST and alanine transaminase levels and 90-day mortality were significantly higher in the high D-mAST group than in the low D-mAST group (P = .001, P = .006, and P = .009, respectively). There were no significant differences in long-term survival, although 5-year survival was slightly lower in the high D-mAST group.ConclusionsSurgical liver damage to grafts, as assessed by postoperative donor AST levels, affected recipient short-term survival.     

Prognostic Factors Evaluation for Liver Transplant Mismatching: A New Way of Selecting and Allocating Organs

BackgroundLiver transplant (LT) is the standard therapy for end-stage liver disease. Advances in surgical techniques and immunosuppression protocols improved the results of LT by increasing long-term survival. Nevertheless, an adequate match between the donor and recipient is paramount for avoiding futile liver transplants. We aimed to identify the prognostic factors in donor-recipient LT matching.MethodsRetrospective analysis of adult LT was conducted from January 2006 to December 2018, which included the following transplant modalities: deceased donor LT (DDLT), living donor LT (LDLT), combined liver-kidney transplant (CLKT), and domino LT (DLT).ResultsAmong 1101 patients who underwent LT, 958 patients underwent DDLT, 92 patients underwent LDLT, 45 patients underwent CLKT, and 6 patients underwent DLT. The overall survival (OS) in 1, 5, and 10 years were 89%, 83%, and 82%, respectively. For DDLT, OS in 1, 5, and 10 years were 91%, 84%, and 82%, respectively. For LDLT, OS in 1, 5, and 10 years were 89%, 72%, and 69%, respectively. For CKLT, OS in 1, 5, and 10 years were 90%, 71%, and 71%, respectively. None of the DLT patients died. For DDLT, the factors that affected OS were the presence of fulminant liver failure (odds ratio [OR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.18-4.18; P = .001), hemodialysis before LT (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.27-3.5; P = .004), retransplant (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.75-8.17; P = .000), and recipient age >60 years (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.27-2.73; P = .001). For hospitalization before LT (due to an acute-on-chronic liver failure), the OR was 2.10 (95% CI, 1.29-3.42; P = .003). Donor intensive care unit time >7 days (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06; P = .02) was also associated with overall mortality.ConclusionsWe identified prognostic factors in donor-recipient LT matching. Furthermore, we demonstrated that an adequate organ allocation with donor-recipient selection might increase graft survival and reduce waiting list mortality.     

What happens after graft loss? A large,long-term,single-center observation

The number of patients returning to dialysis after graft failure increases. Surprisingly, little is known about the clinical and immunological outcomes of this cohort. We retrospectively analyzed 254 patients after kidney allograft loss between 1997 and 2017 and report clinical outcomes such as mortality, relisting, retransplantations, transplant nephrectomies, and immunization status. Of the 254 patients, 49% had died 5 years after graft loss, while 27% were relisted, 14% were on dialysis and not relisted, and only 11% were retransplanted 5 years after graft loss. In the complete observational period, 111/254 (43.7%) patients were relisted. Of these, 72.1% of patients were under 55 years of age at time of graft loss and only 13.5% of patients were ≥65 years. Age at graft loss was associated with relisting in a logistic regression analysis. In the complete observational period, 42 patients (16.5%) were retransplanted. Only 4 of those (9.5%) were ≥65 years at time of graft loss. Nephrectomy had no impact on survival, relisting, or development of dnDSA. Patients after allograft loss have a high overall mortality. Immunization contributes to long waiting times. Only a very limited number of patients are retransplanted especially when ≥65 years at time of graft loss.     

De novo donor-specific HLA antibodies reduce graft survival rates and increase the risk of kidney transplant rejection: A single-center retrospective study

BackgroundWe investigated the impact of de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies (dnDSAs) on long-term death-censored graft survival and renal allograft rejection in kidney transplant recipients.MethodsThe sample for this retrospective cohort study comprised 121 recipients of kidney transplants with negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatches to their deceased donors. Recipients were divided into two groups: dnDSAs+ (n = 31) and dnDSAs- (n = 90). We evaluated rejection and long-term graft survival rates in the recipients along with pathologic changes in the transplanted kidneys.ResultsDnDSAs were identified in 31/121 patients (25.6%). The graft survival rate in the dnDSAs+ group was 87.1% (27/31) and that of the dnDSAs- group was 97.8% (88/90). The dnDSAs+ group had lower graft survival rates than patients without dnDSAs (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the graft survival rates between patients with high DSA mean fluorescence intensity (≥4000) and those with low intensity (<4000) (p = 0.669). There was also no difference in the graft survival rates of patients with HLA class I, II, and I + II dnDSAs (p = 0.571). The presence of dnDSA in serum was associated with a higher incidence of antibody- and T-cell–mediated rejection (p < 0.0001). Banff scores for arterial fibrointimal and arteriolar hyalin, thickening as well as C4d deposition differed for the dnDSAs+ and dnDSAs- groups (p < 0.05).ConclusionDnDSAs were found to be associated with decreased long-term graft survival rates and increased rejection rates, often accompanied by C4d deposition.     

Risk factors for and outcomes of delayed graft function in live donor kidney transplantation – a retrospective study

Delayed graft function (DGF) in deceased donor kidney transplantation is associated with worse outcomes. DGF has been less well studied in live donor transplantation. We aimed to examine the risk factors for DGF, and associations between DGF and short‐ and long‐term outcomes in live donor kidney transplant recipients. Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, we included live donor kidney transplants performed in Australia and New Zealand over 2004–2015 and excluded pediatric recipients (n = 440), pathological donors (n = 97), grafts that failed in the first week (as a proxy for primary non function; n = 38), and grafts with missing DGF data (n = 46). We used multivariable logistic regression to identify the risk factors for DGF and the association between DGF and rejection at 6 months; Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between DGF and patient and graft survival; and linear regression to examine the association between DGF and eGFR at 1 year. DGF occurred in 77 (2.3%) of 3358 transplants. Risk factors for DGF included right‐sided kidney [odds ratio (OR) 2.00 (95% CI 1.18, 3.40)], donor BMI [OR 1.06 per kg/m² (95% CI 1.01, 1.12)]; increasing time on dialysis and total ischemic time [OR 1.09 per hour (1.00, 1.17)]. DGF was associated with increased risk of rejection at 6 months [OR 2.37 (95% CI 1.41, 3.97)], worse patient survival [HR 2.14 (95% CI 1.21, 3.80)] and graft survival [HR 1.98 (95% CI 1.27, 3.10)], and worse renal function at 1 year [Coefficient ‐9.57 (95% CI ?13.5, ?5.64)]. DGF is uncommon after live donor kidney transplantation, but associated with significantly worse outcomes. The only modifiable risk factors identified were kidney side and total ischemic time.     

Clinical Outcome of Kidney Transplant Patients on the Allograft Function,Loss, Effects of HLA-DQB1-DSA+, and Graft Survival

IntroductionMatching for HLA-DQB1 molecules and anti-DQ donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) has been less studied to allocate transplants from deceased donors in developed countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of 519 kidney transplant recipients on the allograft function, loss, and survival and with emphasis on effects of HLA-DQB1-DSA⁺ at minimum of 10 years’ follow-up.MethodsFive hundred nineteen kidney transplant patients were allocated into 3 groups (G) by immunologic profiles, namely, G1 (SPI-SAB HLA-DQ negative [DQ⁻]), G2 (SPI-SAB HLA-DQ positive DSA negative [DQ⁺/DSA⁻]), and G3 (SPI-SAB HLA-DQ DSA positive [DQ⁺ DSA⁺]), and the outcomes were reported until 10 years after transplantation.ResultsThe proportion of rejection episodes was higher in G3 (25.0% and 26.32%, respectively) than in G1 (8.63% and 6.82%, respectively) and G2 (10.0% and 0%, respectively; P = .047 and P = .014, respectively). In G3, 3 patients lost their grafts by antibody-mediated rejection. Patients who received kidneys from deceased donors (G3) showed worse graft survival rates than those from G1 donors (P = .001). Patients from G3 had a 2.18-fold higher risk of graft loss than patients from G1 (P = .028).ConclusionAllograft function was worse in G3 than in G2 or G1, and graft losses were more frequent by T-cell-mediated rejection in G1, and graft losses by antibody-mediated rejection were similar in G1 and G3 due to HLA class I (A1, 11 and B 8, 52) and HLA class II by DR7 and DQ 2, 5, 9 DSA, respectively. Allograft survival decreased in patients with HLA-DQB1 DSA. The risk of graft loss was 1.75-fold that in patients who received transplants from living donors.     

Evaluation of the relationship and postoperative glomerular filtration rate between the living donor and the recipients in kidney transplantation

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the relationship and postoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between the living donors and the recipients in kidney transplantation. A 5-year review of living donor renal transplants in a single transplant center was performed.Materials and methodsFrom January 2010 to February 2015, a total of 49 living donor kidney transplantations were performed at the China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. The relationship between donor and recipient and graft survival and changes in GFR during a 5-year period in a single center were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThese 49 living donor kidney transplants represent 68% of all transplants (49/72) that were performed during this 5-year review. The recipients' kidneys were donated from offspring donors (22.4%; mean age, 54.27 years), parent donors (32.7%; mean age, 27.56 years), sibling donors (24.5%; mean age, 37.18 years), and spouse donors (20.4%; mean age, 49.09 years). The GFRs of the recipients were significantly different between these four groups at the last follow-up. The mean last follow-up postoperative GFR of the recipients was 77.71 mL/min for offspring donors, 57.81 mL/min for parents donors, 61.17 mL/min for sibling donors, and 46.30 mL/min for the spouse donors (p = 0.004). Two graft losses were noted in the spouse living donor population due to infection (cytomegalovirus and urinary tract infection).ConclusionThis study shows that the relationship of the donor to their recipient resulted in significant differences in the postoperative GFR and graft loss of the recipients. Recipients' kidneys donated from the spouse had the worst GFR compared to other groups.