Duration of delayed graft function and outcomes after kidney transplantation from controlled donation after circulatory death donors: a retrospective study

The impact of the duration of delayed graft function (DGF) on graft survival is poorly characterized in controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor kidney transplantation. A retrospective analysis was performed on 225 DCD donor kidney transplants between 2011 and 2016. When patients with primary nonfunction were excluded (n = 9), 141 recipients (65%) had DGF, with median (IQR) duration of dialysis dependency of 6 (2–11.75) days. Longer duration of dialysis dependency was associated with lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year, and a higher rate of acute rejection. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, the presence of DGF was associated with lower graft survival (log‐rank test P = 0.034), though duration of DGF was not (P = 0.723). However, multivariable Cox regression analysis found that only acute rejection was independently associated with lower graft survival [HR (95% CI) 4.302 (1.617–11.450); P = 0.003], whereas the presence of DGF and DGF duration were not. In controlled DCD kidney transplantation, DGF duration itself may not be independently associated with graft survival; rather, it may be that acute rejection associated with prolonged DGF is the poor prognostic factor.     

Outcomes after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors: A UK registry analysis

There are concerns that simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplants from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors have a higher risk of graft failure than those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. A UK registry analysis of SPK transplants between 2005 and 2018 was performed. Pancreas survivals of those receiving organs from DCD or DBD donors were compared. Multivariable analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups and to identify factors associated with pancreas graft loss. A total of 2228 SPK transplants were implanted; 403 (18.1%) were from DCD donors. DCD donors were generally younger, slimmer, less likely to have stroke as a cause of death, with lower terminal creatinines and shorter pancreas cold ischemic times than DBD donors. Median (IQR) follow-up was 4.2 (1.6–8.1) years. On univariable analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in 5-year death-censored pancreas graft survival between the two donor types (79.5% versus 80.4%; p = .86). Multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in 5-year pancreas graft loss between transplants from DCD (n = 343) and DBD (n = 1492) donors (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% CI 0.76–1.23; p = .12). The findings from this study support the increased use of SPK transplants from DCD donors.     

The duration of asystolic ischemia determines the risk of graft failure after circulatory‐dead donor kidney transplantation: A Eurotransplant cohort study

Circulatory death donor (DCD) kidney transplantations are steadily increasing. Consensus reports recommend limiting donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) in DCD donation, although an independent effect on graft outcome has not been demonstrated. We investigated death‐censored graft survival in 18 065 recipients of deceased‐donor kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region: 1059 DCD and 17 006 brain‐dead donor (DBD) kidney recipients. DWIT was defined as time from circulatory arrest until cold flush. DCD donation was an independent risk factor for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.10‐1.46), due to an increased risk of primary nonfunction (62/1059 vs 560/17 006; P < .0001). With DWIT in the model, DCD donation was no longer a risk factor, demonstrating that DWIT explains the inferior graft survival of DCD kidneys. Indeed, DCD transplants with short DWIT have graft survival comparable to that of standard‐criteria DBD transplants (P = .59). DWIT also associated with graft failure in DCDs (adjusted HR 1.20 per 10‐minute increase, 95% CI 1.03‐1.42). At 5 years after transplantation, graft failure occurred in 14 of 133 recipients (10.5%) with DWIT <10 minutes, 139 of 555 recipients (25.0%) with DWIT between 10 and 19 minutes, and 117 of 371 recipients (31.5%) with DWIT ≥20 minutes. These findings support the expert opinion–based guidelines to limit DWIT.     

Effect of delayed graft function on longer-term outcomes after kidney transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors in the United Kingdom: A national cohort study

Kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are utilized variably worldwide, in part due to high rates of delayed graft function (DGF) and putative associations with adverse longer-term outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the presence of DGF and its duration were associated with poor longer-term outcomes after kidney transplantation from DCD donors. Using the UK transplant registry, we identified 4714 kidney-only transplants from controlled DCD donors to adult recipients between 2006 and 2016; 2832 recipients (60·1%) had immediate graft function and 1882 (39·9%) had DGF. Of the 1847 recipients with DGF duration recorded, 926 (50·1%) had DGF < 7 days, 576 (31·2%) had DGF 7–14 days, and 345 (18·7%) had DGF >14 days. After risk adjustment, the presence of DGF was not associated with inferior long-term graft or patient survivals. However, DGF duration of >14 days was associated with an increased risk of death-censored graft failure (hazard ratio 1·7, p = ·001) and recipient death (hazard ratio 1·8, p < ·001) compared to grafts with immediate function. This study suggests that shorter periods of DGF have no adverse influence on graft or patient survival after DCD donor kidney transplantation and that DGF >14 days is a novel early biomarker for significantly worse longer-term outcomes.     

An analysis of the survival outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation compared to live donor kidney transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes: a UK Transplant Registry study

Transplant options for patients with type 1 diabetes and end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) include deceased donor kidney, live donor kidney (LDK) and simultaneous pancreas‐kidney (SPK) transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between LDK and SPK for patients with type 1 diabetes and ESRD in the UK. Data on all SPK (n = 1739) and LDK (n = 385) transplants performed between January 2001 and December 2014 were obtained from the UK Transplant Registry. Unadjusted patient and kidney graft survival were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariate analysis of kidney graft and patient survival was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no significant difference in patient (P = 0.435) or kidney graft survival (P = 0.204) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis there was no association between LDK/SPK and patient survival [HR 0.71 (0.47–1.06), P = 0.095]. However, LDK was associated with an overall lower risk for kidney graft failure [HR 0.60 (0.38–0.94), P = 0.025]. SPK recipients with a functioning pancreas graft had significantly better kidney graft and patient survival than LDK recipients or those with a failed pancreas graft. SPK transplantation does not confer an overall survival advantage compared to LDK. However, those SPK recipients with a functioning pancreas have significantly better outcomes.     

Early technical pancreas failure in Simultaneous Pancreas–Kidney Recipients does not impact renal allograft outcomes

Early pancreas loss in simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplants has been associated with longer perioperative recovery and reduced kidney allograft function. We assessed the impact of early pancreas allograft failure on transplant outcomes in a contemporary cohort of SPK patients (n = 218). Early pancreas allograft loss occurred in 12.8% (n = 28) of recipients. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common (21.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.03) in the early pancreas loss group, but there were no differences in hospital length of stay (median 6.5 vs. 7.0, p = 0.22), surgical wound complications (p = 0.12), or rejection episodes occurring in the first year (p = 0.87). Despite differences in DGF, both groups had excellent renal function at 1 year post‐transplant (eGFR 64.1 ± 20.8 vs. 65.8 ± 22.9, p = 0.75). There were no differences in patient (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.18–1.87, p = 0.26) or kidney allograft survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.23–3.06, p = 0.77). One‐ and 2‐year protocol kidney biopsies were comparable between the groups and showed minimal chronic changes; the early pancreas loss group showed more cv changes at 2 years (p = 0.04). Current data demonstrate good outcomes and excellent kidney allograft function following early pancreas loss.     

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.     

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post–kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2‐3 and DBD AKIN stage 2‐3. In comparing these groups, there were no short‐ or long‐term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54‐1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64‐2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.     

Impact of the kidney allocation system on young pediatric recipients

The kidney allocation system (KAS) altered pediatric candidate prioritization. We determined KAS's impact on pediatric kidney recipients by examining delayed graft function (DGF) rates from 2010 to 2016. A propensity score‐matched pediatric recipients pre‐ and post‐KAS. A semiparametric decomposition analysis estimated the contributions of KAS‐related changes in donor characteristics and dialysis time on DGF rate. The unadjusted odds of DGF were 69% higher post‐KAS for young (<10 years at listing) recipients (N = 1153, P = .02) but were not significantly increased for older pediatric (10‐17 years at listing) recipients (N = 2624, P = .48). Post‐KAS, young recipients received significantly fewer pediatric (<18 years) donor kidneys (21% vs 32%, P < .01) and had longer median pretransplant dialysis time (603 vs 435 days, P < .01). After propensity score matching, post‐KAS status increased the odds of DGF in young recipients 71% (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01‐2.46). In decomposition analysis, 24% of the higher DGF rate post‐KAS was attributable to donor characteristics and 19% to increased recipient dialysis time. In a confirmatory survival analysis, DGF was associated with a 2.2 times higher risk of graft failure (aHR2.28, 95% CI 1.46‐3.54). In conclusion, KAS may lead to worse graft survival outcomes in children. Allocation changes should be considered.     

Impact of donor age on long‐term outcomes after delayed graft function: 10‐year follow‐up

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative impact on graft survival in donation after brain death (DBD) but not for donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. However, older donor age is associated with graft loss in DCD transplants. We sought to examine the interaction between donor age and DGF in DBD kidneys. This is a single‐center, retrospective review of 657 consecutive DBD recipients transplanted between 1990 and 2005. We stratified the cohort by decades of donor age and studied the association between DGF and graft failure using Cox models. The risk of graft loss associated with DGF was not significantly increased for donor age below 60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12, 1.51, and 0.90, respectively, for age <40, 41–50 and 51–60 years) but significantly increased after 60 years (aHR 2.67; P = 0.019). Analysis of death‐censored graft failure yielded similar results for donor age below 60 years and showed a substantially increased risk with donors above 60 years (aHR 6.98, P = 0.002). This analysis reveals an unexpectedly high impact of older donor age on the association between DGF and renal transplant outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best use of kidneys from donors above 60 years old, where DGF is expected.     

DCD donor hemodynamics as predictor of outcome after kidney transplantation

Insufficient hemodynamics during agonal phase—ie, the period between withdrawal of life‐sustaining treatment and circulatory arrest—in Maastricht category III circulatory‐death donors (DCD) potentially exacerbate ischemia/reperfusion injury. We included 409 Dutch adult recipients of DCD donor kidneys transplanted between 2006 and 2014. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2‐with pulse oximetry at the fingertip) and systolic blood pressure (SBP‐with arterial catheter) were measured during agonal phase, and were dichotomized into minutes of SpO2 > 60% or SpO2 < 60%, and minutes of SBP > 80 mmHg or SBP < 80 mmHg. Outcome measures were and primary non‐function (PNF), delayed graft function (DGF), and three‐year graft survival. Primary non‐function (PNF) rate was 6.6%, delayed graft function (DGF) rate was 67%, and graft survival at three years was 76%. Longer periods of agonal phase (median 16 min [IQR 11‐23]) contributed significantly to an increased risk of DGF (P = .012), but not to PNF (P = .071) and graft failure (P = .528). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that an increase from 7 to 20 minutes in period of SBP < 80 mmHg was associated with 2.19 times the odds (95% CI 1.08‐4.46, P = .030) for DGF. In conclusion, duration of agonal phase is associated with early transplant outcome. SBP < 80 mmHg during agonal phase shows a better discrimination for transplant outcome than SpO2 < 60% does.     

Three‐month pancreas graft function significantly influences survival following simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation in type 2 diabetes patients

Successful simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation (SPK) improves quality‐of‐life and prolongs kidney allograft and patient survival in type‐1 diabetic (T1DM) patients. However, the use of SPK in type‐2 diabetic (T2DM) patients remains limited. We examined a national transplant registry for 35 849 T2DM kidney disease patients who received transplant between 2000 and 2016 and survived the first 3 months with a functioning kidney, and categorized as: deceased‐donor kidney transplant alone (DD‐KA, 68%), living‐donor kidney transplant alone (LD‐KA, 30%), or SPK (2%). Among SPK recipients, 6% had pancreas allograft failure within 3 months (SPK,P‐) and 94% had a functional pancreas (SPK,P+). Associations of transplant type with kidney allograft failure and death (multivariable‐adjusted hazard ratio, _95%LCLaHR_95%UCL), over follow‐up through December 2018, were quantified by multivariable inverse probability of treatment weighted survival analyses. SPK recipients had better kidney graft and patient survival than LD‐KA or DD‐KA recipients. Compared to SPK,P+, DD‐KA, or LD‐KA recipients had significantly higher risk of kidney allograft failure (DD‐KA: aHR _1.532.20_3.17; LD‐KA: aHR _1.291.87_2.71) and death (DD‐KA: aHR _2.123.25_5.00; LD‐KA: aHR _1.542.35_3.59). SPK,P‐ recipients had significantly higher risk of death (aHR _1.683.30_6.50). Similar to T1DM, T2DM patients with SPK have a survival benefit compared to those with kidney transplant alone, but this benefit depends upon successful early pancreas function.     

Impact of warm ischemia time on outcomes for kidneys donated after cardiac death Post-KAS

Prolonged warm (WIT) and cold (CIT) ischemia times are often important considerations in the discard of DCD kidneys, but their impact on post-transplant outcomes in the post-KAS era is unclear. We examined the association of ischemia time on delayed graft function (DGF) and death-censored graft failure for DCD kidneys. The 2018 SRTR SAF was utilized to identify post-KAS DCD kidney transplants occurring from 2015 to 2018. Relative risk and Cox regression were used to calculate risk of delayed graft function and hazard of death-censored graft failure, respectively. We identified 4,680 kidneys from DCD donors transplanted from 2015 to 2018 with recorded WIT and CIT times. Median WIT was 21.0 minutes (IQR 14.0-28.0), and CIT was 18.5 hours (IQR 13.9-23.5). The overall incidence of DGF was 42.7%. In a univariable relative risk regression model, extended CIT (24-30 hours:RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.77; >30 hours:RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22-1.77) and WIT (20-40 minutes:RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.17) were associated with increased risk of DGF. When included in a multivariable model, neither prolonged CIT nor WIT were significantly associated with death-censored graft failure. Prolonged WIT and CIT are associated with increased DGF but not death-censored graft failure in recipients of DCD kidney transplants in the post-KAS era. Extended ischemia alone should not be used as a basis for discard or non-utilization of these organs.     

Outcomes after simultaneous kidney‐pancreas versus pancreas after kidney transplantation in the current era

Simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) and pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplant are both potential options for diabetic ESRD patients. Historically, PAK pancreas graft outcomes were felt to be inferior to SPK pancreas graft outcomes. Little is known about outcomes in the modern era of transplantation. We analyzed our SPK and PAK recipients transplanted between 01/2000 and 12/2016. There were a total of 635 pancreas and kidney transplant recipients during the study period, 611 SPK and 24 PAK. Twelve of the PAK patients received a living donor kidney. There were no significant differences between the two groups in kidney or pancreas graft rejection at 1 year. Similarly, 1‐year graft survival for both organs was not different. At last follow‐up, uncensored and death‐censored graft survival was not statistically different for kidney or pancreas grafts. In addition, in Cox regression analysis SPK and PAK were associated with similar graft survival. Although the majority of pancreas transplants are in the form of SPK, PAK is an acceptable alternative. Simultaneous pancreas and kidney avoids donor risks associated with live donation, so may be preferable in regions with short wait times, but PAK with a living donor kidney may be the best alternative in regions with long SPK wait times.     

Outcomes of Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplant Recipients Stratified by Histologic Biopsy Findings

Delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantation is associated with an increased risk of graft failure. We studied the histologic findings among adult kidney transplant recipients transplanted between January 2000 and June 2015 who had DGF and had a kidney biopsy within 14 days of transplant. Death censored graft failure (DCGF) and death at 1 and 3 years after transplant were examined. A total of 269 transplant recipients fulfilled our selection criteria, of which 152 (56.51%) had acute tubular necrosis (ATN), 44 (16.4%) had acute rejection (AR), mainly T-cell mediated rejection (n = 31), 35 (13%) had ATN with AR (mainly T-cell mediated rejection, n = 26), and 38 (14.1%) had other pathology. Compared with those with ATN alone, kidney transplant recipients with AR alone had a significantly higher risk of DCGF at 1 year post transplant (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.70; 95% confidence interval 1.5-9.5; P = .006). Those with AR alone had an increased risk of DCGF at 3 years post transplant (hazard ratio = 3.10; 95% confidence interval 1.3-8.5; P = .01) in crude analyses. There was no association between DGF etiology and mortality. Early renal biopsy can be used to distinguish AR, which has protocolized treatments, from other etiologies. This could potentially alter allograft survival within 1 year of transplant complicated by DGF.     

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.     

Financial impact of delayed graft function in kidney transplantation

Increased utilization of suboptimal organs in response to organ shortage has resulted in increased incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) after transplantation. Although presumed increased costs associated with DGF are a deterrent to the utilization of these organs, the financial burden of DGF has not been established. We used the Premier Healthcare Database to conduct a retrospective analysis of healthcare resource utilization and costs in kidney transplant patients (n = 12 097) between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2018. We compared cost and hospital resource utilization for transplants in high-volume (n = 8715) vs low-volume hospitals (n = 3382), DGF (n = 3087) vs non-DGF (n = 9010), and recipients receiving 1 dialysis (n = 1485) vs multiple dialysis (n = 1602). High-volume hospitals costs were lower than low-volume hospitals ($103 946 vs $123 571, P < .0001). DGF was associated with approximately $18 000 (10%) increase in mean costs ($130 492 vs $112 598, P < .0001), 6 additional days of hospitalization (14.7 vs 8.7, P < .0001), and 2 additional ICU days (4.3 vs 2.1, P < .0001). Multiple dialysis sessions were associated with an additional $10 000 compared to those with only 1. In conclusion, DGF is associated with increased costs and length of stay for index kidney transplant hospitalizations and payment schemes taking this into account may reduce clinicians’ reluctance to utilize less-than-ideal kidneys.     

Influence of the procurement surgeon on transplanted abdominal organ outcomes: An SRTR analysis to evaluate regional organ procurement collaboration

Single‐center studies have demonstrated regional organ procurement collaboration to reduce travel redundancy and improve procurement efficiency. We studied deceased donor kidney, liver, and pancreas transplants performed in the United States between 2002 and 2014 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We compared graft failure (GF), death‐censored graft failure (DCGF), and patient death (PD) between organs procured by surgeons from the recipient's center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus surgeons from a different center (NTPT). Primary nonfunction (PNF) was assessed for liver and kidney and delayed graft function (DGF) for kidney using mixed‐effects logistic modeling. There were 64 906 liver (61.6% TPT), 118 152 kidney (26.1% TPT), 10 832 simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK; 56.6% TPT), and 4378 solitary pancreas (SP; 34.0% TPT) transplants. When compared to NTPT, DCGF for organs procured by TPT was significantly less for liver (adjusted HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88‐0.98) and marginally significant for kidney (0.97; 0.93‐1.00) and SPK (0.90; 0.82‐1.00), and not significant for SP (0.98; 0.86 ‐1.11). DGF for TPT kidney was significantly lower (adjusted OR 0.91; 0.87‐0.95). Albeit modest, our findings demonstrate a difference between locally procured organs and those procured by the implanting team. Elucidating the etiology of these differences will enhance regional organ procurement collaboration.     

Challenges of calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal following combined pancreas and kidney transplantation: Results of a prospective,randomized clinical trial

In a phase 2 multicenter open‐label randomized trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, simultaneous pancreas‐kidney (SPK) recipients were randomized to a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)–based immunosuppressive regimen (tacrolimus) (n = 21), or an investigational arm using low‐dose CNI plus costimulation blockade (belatacept) with intended CNI withdrawal (n = 22). Both arms included induction therapy with rabbit ATG, mycophenolate sodium, or mycophenolate mofetil and rapid withdrawal of steroids. Enrollment and CNI withdrawal were stopped after 43/60 planned subjects had been enrolled. At that time, the rate of biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR) of the pancreas was low in both groups until CNI was withdrawn, with four of the five pancreas rejections occurring during or after CNI withdrawal. The rate of BPAR of kidney allografts was low in both control (9.5%) and investigational (9.1%) arms. Pancreas graft survival at 52 weeks, defined by insulin independence, was 21 (100%) in the control group and 19 (86%) in the investigational arm. One subject in the investigational arm died with functioning pancreas and kidney grafts. Renal function at week 52 was similar in both arms. Costimulation blockade with belatacept did not provide sufficient immunosuppression to reliably prevent pancreas rejection in SPK transplants undergoing CNI withdrawal.     

Impact of graft implantation order on graft survival in simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation

The optimal order of revascularization for pancreas and kidney grafts in simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation has not been established. In this study, we investigate the influence of graft implantation order on graft survival in SPK. 12 700 transplantations from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were analyzed retrospectively. Graft implantation order was determined based on the reported ischemia times of pancreas and kidney grafts. Pancreas and kidney graft survivals were analyzed depending on graft implantation order at 3 months and 5 years using Kaplan–Meier plots. Significance was tested with log‐rank test and Cox regression model. In 8454 transplantations, the pancreas was implanted first (PBK), and in 4246 transplantations, the kidney was implanted first (KBP). The proportion of lost pancreas grafts at 3 months was significantly lower in PBK (9.4% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.011). Increasing time lag (>2 h) between kidney and pancreas graft implantation in KBP accentuated the detrimental impact on pancreas graft survival (12.5% graft loss at 3 months, P = 0.001). Technical failure rates were reduced in PBK (5.6 vs. 6.9%, P = 0.005). Graft implantation order had no impact on kidney graft survival. In summary, although observed differences are small, pancreas graft implantation first increases short‐term pancreas graft survival and reduces rates of technical failure.